You keep doing this, making up some theoretical construct out of nothing but air, and thinking you will be able to employ it as the basis of some kind of logical argument. No go. Not with me.
“Another sign of the dinosaur known as “Stupidicus Pontificus” is a genetic need to ascribe a substance known as “Purity” to anything he deems evil.”
“Stupidicus Pontificus” [I’m so smart I get to tell you how to think]
I never called you evil. [topic change attempt, straw man argument]
genetic [topic change attempt]
You have this theory that the/my use of the word “purity” is some kind of unmistakable sign of something you are prepared to do battle with. It’s just a word, and I am not misusing it, nor do you misunderstand exactly, precisely the meaning of the word as I employ it and as defined in any dictionary except as you choose to deliberately misinterpret it so you can go off on your intellectual tantrum routine. Another nice lib argumentation tactic. In that battle you have demonstrated the ad hominem attack tactic, the change topic tactic, and the continued refusal to take any responsibility for the results of your actions.
The traditional Republican/conservative platform does not exist in any functional sense. But you have to be really, really smart to not see that. It’s entirely at war with itself. Whether the other side successfully turned the two factions against any possible unifying idea behind what the party is supposed to stand for, the fact is, the GOP has self-neutralized.
“So do you believe the traditional conservative/Republican platform is wrong or evil? Do you believe purity is something we should avoid and embrace wholesale corruption?”
No, I just don’t believe any cons/Repub platform exists in any practical, functional sense. I don’t believe in, to use your examples, Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Purity is a luxury that also does not exist. What happened in this election is that the folks who should have had the discernment to see the existential threat to the Republic got caught up in their own purity.
“Yup. But that’s where claiming to be conservative while fighting for the correctness of embracing liberalism puts you.”
But not you? Your candidate got elected. What are you complaining about?
You seem to have this problem making your argument without resorting to the usual collection of Alinsky tactics. You have to insult, attempt to encapsulate and denigrate the other side, resort to name-calling, trying to place yourself on some kind of superiority platform. Everybody else is stupid, you are the only one who can properly display or discern intelligence. But should anyone else point out that your position was critical, linchpin stuff in getting 0bama re-elected, well, you’re not to be assigned any kind of responsibility. You did the smart thing.
You’re so damned smart, you can’t even figure out that you got out-Alinskied.
You have expressed not one criticism of 0bama, you have expressed not the slightest concern that there is going to be anything left to be conservative about after he’s done. I have not defended Mitt Romney. I haven’t claimed to be a conservative. See if you can get a refund on those reading comprehension course, or at least get a complimentary re-take.
Get this: The failure to prevent 0bama from being re-elected is what I am talking about. The thing you take zero responsibility for. The thing your purity blinded you to.
Stop embarrassing yourself. Please. Better yet, stop embarrassing anyone on the right with your leftist ‘logic’.
Thanks.
For me; there is no responsibilty to take. By the time the primary was run in Indiana, Mitt's forces had run everyone else off by outspending them.
When the National rolled around, there was no way in HELL that I was going to vote for a known heretic, who hasn't the sense to determine the errors of MORMONism.