It’s generally true someone posts an article on this forum because one is fully in agreement with its contents or because one wants to underscore the absurdities of the moonbat left. You, on the other hand, refuse to claim identification with the central ideas expressed in the article, which is rife with extremist and fringe references and beliefs, either implied or stated outright. According to you, SittinYonder, you merely posted it to ‘encourage discussion’. Do you think posting portions of Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ or Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ would encourage discussion? I’m sure they would. It would also make you an object of derision and scorn, and rightfully so. Sometimes Stormfront trolls will come over here and post vaguely worded, pseudo-scientific articles from the vile ‘New Renaissance’ site or whatever on the supposed disparities between the races, in order to insinuate their various pathologies into the forum in an attempt to ‘mainstream’ their extremist viewpoints, or DU trolls will do something similar, in hopes of exposing the conservative right as inherently racist, ignorant, and hateful. They always give themselves away.
I think you’re testing the waters, posting an article oozing with conspiratorial bile and then making above-it-all, noncommittal remarks about the validity of its central message. I’ll give you points for originality of approach, but the article speaks for itself: paranoid, extremist, reality-challenged. And you posted it. For discussion.
The Democratic Party base has been taken over by far-left, moonbat MoveOn extremists. It happened because mainstream, old-school Truman Democrats didn’t speak out, react, or respond until it was too late. The right has its own fringe, a fringe that seems intent upon copying the methods of its left-wing counterparts—witness the recent spamming of on-line internet polls, as only one example. Witness, too, blogosphere attacks on figures like Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin—attacks coordinated by Paul supporters, among others. I’m no Pat Buchanan fan, but at least he and his supporters play it straight.
In any event, the fringe of the right—which is, by the way, not representative of conservative ideals—is not going to suborn the Republican Party without me and people like me just standing by, doing nothing. So take your notions of Neo-con/Neo-liberal global conspiracy elsewhere.
For the very last time, you’ll receive no apologies from me.
You declined the opportunity to point out where Ron Paul on three issues is not conservative.
It’s generally true someone posts an article on this forum because one is fully in agreement with its contents or because one wants to underscore the absurdities of the moonbat left.
That is not "generally true." People post articles here all day long simply for the opportunity to discuss. There are parts of the article I do agree with. There are other parts I disagree with. I wanted to hear what others on this forum thought about the article, and most people who responded gave thoughtful input.
You - more intellectual than wise - chose instead to fling bile.
You're wrong in your accusations against me, and rather than acknowledge your error and apologize for your nasty remarks, you just offer more ridiculous and completely unfounded accusations.
I think your attitude and behavior are more in line with what you claim to be your "former" liberal self.
What I think is that you are a globalist, that national sovereignty means nothing to you, and to defend your globalist positions you can only reach back to that playbook your "former" colleagues on the left utilized: Call 'em racists!
To deflect from the globalist agenda you support, you attempt to smear as an anti-semite anyone who isn't in favor of erasing our national identity in favor of becoming citizens of the world.
I further suspect you spend your days writing editorials for some left-leaning newspaper somewhere - your writing style, inability to acknowledge that you are wrong, desire to shift the debate in order to deflect from your own shortcomings and to reshape those you disagree with as "loathsome and despicable" - it all adds up to that most lowly of lows: the editorial page editor. Sure, maybe you're an accountant or a janitor, but you dream of being an editorial page editor, don't you?
You can't defend the statements you've made, but you're too arrogant or foolish (likely both) to admit them. So you just compound them, ignoring anything that might threaten your ego.
You owe me an apology. You posted nasty statements about me personally that were unfounded and untrue. At least act like you have some honor.
Apologize.