[tdadams]

who dismisses a book he's never even read.

Careful, there Sparky. That's dishonest, bordering on outright lying. You don't want to be known as a liar around here do you? Show me on what basis you say conclusively I've not read the book.

I'm beginning to suspect that you've not read the book yourself. Otherwise, you'd step up to the plate and answer me. Once again, from what sources did Skousen derive his list of Communist goals? Answer that, then we can proceed.

[Bonaparte]

tdadams [post 21]: "Shoulda known someone would post that [communist goals] AGAIN. Do you think this list of 'communist goals' was some Marxist memo uncovered in the waning days of the Soviet Union? I hope you realize it's taken from a polemic. It would be the same as if the American Atheist Association was to write a list of 'Religious Right goals'. No one would ascribe one ounce of credibility to it. Don't be so naive."

Bonaparte [post 31]: "You dispute the accuracy of Skousen's facts?"
_____________________________________________________________

You called the book a "polemic" and denied it's credibility.

I asked you to back that up.

You can't. Because you haven't even read the book you presume to critique. You're a phony, get it? A poseur. And nobody's fooled by your song and dance.

How easy it would have been for you to just admit that it was your impression that Skousen's information was not reliable and that you didn't actually know.

Instead, you act like a fool who won't admit he overreached even when it's obvious to everybody else..