Where did Mr. Silverback engage in name calling?
Please provide the link and specific name he called you.
Some of us are having trouble finding it in his posting history.
I was referring to post 182 where I addressed about 8 of tpanthers assertions. Silverback saw fit to disregard my counter assertions and questions and skipped straight to my last question that i intended to be rhetorical. But I can certainly see how someone would think it’s not rhetorical. I was trying to address the idea that even if someone is a complete 10th amendment, small federal government, limited authority state government, pro-national defense & borders, a stanch backer of our right to be left alone to pursue . . ., anti-federal handouts, anti-fraud, term limit advocate, and a gun bearing supporter of the rights of the individual, is it possible to be seen as part of the Conservative fabric of our Constitutional Republic? In spite of the fact that I have examined the facts and come up agreeing with the scientific process’s explanation for the nature of the universe? But still to by pass the entire post and simply derisively respond to my last question,implying that my other arguments are of a lesser concern than my not seeing the ‘divine truth’ behind a version of the junkyard-tornado-airplane canard does lend itself to name calling and character assassination. This has been an enlightening thread. I fear we’ve reached some form of the: “what about X that science hasn’t explained?” “what proof do you have for your god-based creation of the universe?” “Evolution is a religion.” “You don’t hold your assertions to the same rigors of evidence.” and so on. On an up-note I did get into an interesting start of a discussion with (not completely sure of the exact name.) She asserted that her paying for your children to get educated is the very definition of socialism. I think she mistook one of my questions in an earlier post as defending the public school system even though it is the definition of socialism. You’d have to ask her directly. Anyway, I agreed with her, and then said something about how it’s curious that these ideas, like the public school system, have been around long enough that we don’t consider that they are not part of the original Constitutional cloth. I then asked if anyone had information regarding the Constitutional authority for the founding of school systems. I would think schools started out as at least a community supported endeavor before it grew to state and federal standards. So we could perhaps redirect what appears to be a dead-end into a new direction concerning the alternatives to the public school system the way it exists today. Did it start out as a way to help ensure equal opportunity and just get hijacked by the socialist/statist along the way (I’m referring specifically to the undoing of the Constitutional Republics idea of the rights of the individual and minimal role of government in our lives) Is there a way to end the system as it exists today? What would be the alternative? Free market of choices? The schools that produce the brightest students survive. Do children have a right to a certain level of education? Would the free market idea lead those with less resources to lesser schools and a less than equal opportunity? (not that they could actually get a lesser opportunity then they do the way the system is run now-no not some bleeding heart sentiment, I’m referring to the colossal waste of our resources on systems like D.C. that fail because no one is accountable. It’s the education version of the post office.) Just sounds like a more explorable line of questions.