OK, lets analyze this.
Back toward the beginning of the thread, there’s the usual back and forth about the pros and cons of third parties (full disclosure: I’m with the Constitution Party). No clear winner.
Then, in post 56, you get tired of substantive arguments and hit him with the following:
“The fact that you are the Party Chairman for a competing political party, would explain your agenda on this thread”
And you will repeat this theme several times over in later posts, adding terms like “professional” and “its his job,” or some such expression, just as you did in at least two other threads I can think of, one of them being the “Palin isn’t pro-life” thread.
At some point, EV breaks down and calls you a thread nanny, a bore and a punk, because he realizes that once again, you are no longer relying on the substance of your own arguments but are trying to undercut his reputation with other readers by inferring he’s no more than a paid political hack.
No, you don’t call him that by name, but under the law, defamation, an attack on character, doesn’t have to be direct. Innuendo is actionable slander. And it may reasonably be expected to draw an angry reaction. Sort of an inverse of the golden rule: Expect from others the reaction you would have if they did to you what you are doing to them.
So what you appear to be trying to communicate to other readers is that he’s only arguing for third parties because he’s a chairman for one, not because he really believes in third parties on the basis of reflection and principle. He is calling you irritating because you are accusing him of being dishonest. I think he’s letting you off easy.
Furthermore, you never fully, successfully address his substantive arguments for the fluidity and unreliability of the conservative presence in our rigid two party monopoly. You don’t want others to think he might just really believe in third parties because he’s reasoned his way to the conclusion that the current two-party party is really over.
Now I respect that people can disagree on this subject. But why can we not keep the argument on the level of factual and logical analysis? Why would I or anyone else care what his party affiliation is if his arguments can be evaluated on their own merit? I hate the witch-hunt mentality. I really do.
To: EternalVigilance; CajunConservative; ReyTurner
The RINOs who run the Republican Party love the attitudes expressed on threads like this one. Y’all are helping pave their way back to power.
Some people here may not realize that you also run a political party, and it isn't the Republican party.
The fact that you are the Party Chairman for a competing political party, would explain your agenda on this thread.
56 posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:54:41 PM by ansel12