Fox, here's your proof. I expect a full mea culpa.

[foxpaws]

Foss, you are right - Shag does seem to be in denial.

Shag - OK, post #41, 22 posts after I first came up 'guilt by association is wrong' you finally figure out that you need to move the goalposts - come on.

And at post #35, 16 posts after mine you start into the whole 'strawman' argument. I am actually extremely tired of this whole thing that you do where it is 'play by my rules because I insist on it' and then you can't even play by your own rules.

So, if you noticed, I said, "OK, so be it - I don't have to cry 'goalposts moving' I can argue just as successfully on the point of 'reflection of character' as well..

Feel free...they are all lies and hyperbole, and you know it.

Criticizing my comparisons before I even state them - wow - how 'head in the sand' is that Shag?

I'll just quickly start with the fact you need to read a little better shag...

I NEVER said that Palin was a secessionist - read my post shag - I just said she SLEPT with one...

Just because Sarah sleeps with a Secessionist doesn't mean that she is on the same 'political alliance page', nor is it a reflection of her character.

Draw your own conclusions there shag.

I used McCain/Liddy as an example of exactly the same Obama/Ayers situation, so therefore the exactly same conclusion should be reached regarding McCain/Liddy as you and Kurtz made regarding Obama/Ayers. The situations are the same. How can you say they aren't? Well, I guess they aren't exactly the same - as recently as May of this year McCain was on Liddy's radio show, and McCain continued to get political contributions this year from Liddy.

And guess what, shag, as you said Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping, unlike Ayers, who was never convicted. During the same period that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Liddy was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention. It sure sounds like terrorist activities to me Shag. What would you call it?

So, I can make the same laundry list Shag... And back it... And they are comparable to the Obama/Ayers ties... Paint one, you have to paint them both shag...

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,6238795.column
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman/2008/10/mccain-has-his.html

• Liddy throws a fundraiser for McCain in his Scottsdale home, where the contributors can get their photo taken the two of them. Liddy was also scheduled to speak at a McCain rally in 2000, but had to cancel because of bad weather.
  
  
• McCain shows up multiple times on Liddy's radio show and in November of 2007 praises Liddy for adhering to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great (at 8:45 in brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1301122686&channel=164931293)
  
  
• McCain continues to take Liddy's money, including contributions for his most current presidential bid, McCain campaigned for Liddy's son and Liddy calls McCain an 'old friend'.

Oh, but I know that my list isn't comparable to your list - for some bizarre, shag declared imperial reason. Right now I just can't imagine what it will be - so enlighten me dear shag, why is your list better?

But, I actually believe that McCain is enough of his own man, that even with his CURRENT relationship with Liddy that he doesn't support Liddy's wacked out philosophies.

Or even though Sarah sleeps with a secessionist, I certainly don't think that she believes in their ideals.

So, why do you hold on to the faulty grail of the rather sketchy, very much 'past history' association of Ayers and Obama, even when Ayers has come out saying that they never discussed political thought? And where McCain has never repudiated Liddy's activities, Obama has condemned Ayers'. If you are making the connection - do it across party lines.

As Mr Nut and Mr hrmwrm both said, let it go, it didn't mean a thing when it came to the American people. It only meant something to the hard core, blinders on, ultra right wing of a dying political party. If that group had actually focused on things that matter to the American voter - they may have had a chance. But, by clinging onto tired rhetoric, crying 'wolf' over and over again, and never really understanding that 'its the economy stupid' they were destined to lose. If the 'ultra right' continues to hold on to this 'guilt by association' fallacy (which believe me shag - that is how most of america saw this issue, and that is one of the reasons why it played so poorly outside the ultra right) then the ultra right are going to find themselves further and further dis-associated with the American voter.

 

[shagdrum]

"In the video shown above Palin says she is "delighted" to be addressing the group, that the party "plays an important role," and wishes them "good luck on a successful and inspiring convention."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/palin-partys-founder-ive_b_123193.html

i wouldn't say she exactly denounces them either.

And she should have denounced them? They were a (and are) a strong political party in Alaska. an AIP member, Walter Hickel, was elected governor in Alaska in 1990. with a 38.8% plurality of the vote.

There was nothing inappropriate about Palin, as (a Republican) Governor, sending a message to the AIP at their convention and wishing them well. She never once said anything at all about their platform, so you cannot claim she was supporting them.

And, the fact is that there platform has been distorted in the media.

The AIP platform states that the purpose of the party is to "seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution ... To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature ... To support the privatization of government services ...”

What they want is a vote; that does not mean secession. They simply don't view the original vote a legal, for whatever reason, and want a legal vote. The outcome is unimportant to them except in as much as it would be more legit.

And, considering their support of privatization and doing away with excessive regulation, it is a political move for Palin, as Governor, to make nice with them, especially considering her own status among the elitsts in Alaska's Republican party? Can you say "coalition building"?

Would you critique a democrat trying to make nice with the green party (if it actually got a decent percent of the vote)?

This argument is pretty much guilt by association. There is no evidence that she ever supported a platform of seccesion or even the actual platform of the party of a new vote on statehood. And, unlike the Obama/Ayers issue, there is evidence to the countrary (lifelong registration as a Republican). It has been proven that she was never a part of the AIP, as has been claimed.

and obama was never a part of ayers anti american groups.

No one ever claimed that he was. You are mischaracterizing the debate here.

and a little bit about liddy

"The Chicago Tribune has reported that McCain held a fundraiser at the home of G. Gordon Liddy in 1998. Last November, McCain appeared on Liddy’s radio program. Liddy referred to McCain as “an old friend.” Liddy has contributed four times to McCain’s campaigns, including this one.

Liddy is a planner of the Watergate break-in that cost Richard Nixon his Presidency. He was a member of the White House Plumbers who operated for Nixon to find the sources of damaging information leaks to the press (McCain sure likes plumbers, doesn’t he?). Liddy tried to explain the Watergate break-in as a cover-up to hide a call girl ring that he claimed the Democratic National Committee headquarters was running.

As a youth, Liddy listened to Hitler’s speeches and recounted that they “made me feel a strength inside I had never known before.” Liddy did eventually condemn Hitler as “evil.”

Liddy became one of the primary dirty tricks henchmen of Nixon’s Committee to Re-election the President, also known by its aptly named acronym (CREEP).

His never completed plans included the firebombing of the Brookings institute, kidnapping anti-war activists and transporting them to Mexico and arranging call girls to catch Democrats in compromising situations.
With a quarter of a million dollar budget from the Nixon campaign, Liddy did orchestrate numerous dirty tricks. These included spreading salacious sex and drug gossip about George McGovern. He doctored political literature about the Democratic Presidential candidates of 1992, making it appear that each of them accused the other of fathering illegitimate children or being homosexuals. One of his documents accused Vice-President Hubert Humphrey of being caught drunk in a car with a prostitute in 1967."

if he was a democrat, i'm sure you'd call him a terrorist.

Considering your habit of distortion and mischaracterization, a link sould be provided to confirm you claims, specifically the claim about, "His never completed plans included the firebombing of the Brookings institute, kidnapping anti-war activists and transporting them to Mexico...". Which would be the only thing that might approach "terrorism", depending on a number of factors.

Actually, I just found it. Wikipedia is hardly a credible source for these kind of claims. Here is the source cited for the claim (see the middle of the second whole paragraph). Here is what it says:

The Plumbers continued to push other plans for attacking Nixon's enemy, including drugging [psychiatrist Daniel] Ellsberg with LSD and firebombing the Brookings Institution, until Liddy moved to the Campaign to re-elect the President (CRP) in December of 1971.​

So, considering the leftist historical revisionism with regards to Nixon and those surrounding him, I decided to look look more into this...

It turns out, both the drugging of Ellsberg and firebombing of the Brookings Institute were though up by Chuck Colson, but Liddy did help with the initial planning. You can read about it here, here and here.

There are a few very relevant differences that should be noted, that make the claim that Liddy is a terrorist a gross exaguration...

Here is the definition of terrorism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion​

And the definition of terrorist:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.​

The goal of these plans Liddy was involved in was never coercion. And the plans were never carried out, so he never engaged in any of the acts in question.

However, Ayers has a history of supporting tecniques used for the goal of intimidation and coercion. The bombing of the the statue in Chicago was part of the "Days of Rage" which Ayers has said:

"...was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theatre of 'here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here's the little path they're going to march down, and here's where they can make their little statement.' We wanted to say, 'No, what we're going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam.'"​

Ayers agenda was specifically coercion.

Liddy was involved in planning an act to smear and discredit someone and and an act to steal something; neither of which was carried out.

Ayers carried out violent acts aimed at coercion.

There is no question that Ayers was a terrorist, but, Liddy, by definition, is not a terrorist because he never carried out any act, and the plans he was attached to were not aimed at coercion.

So, my statement still stands that Liddy is in no way a terrorist.

Besides, niether the AIP example with Palin, or the Liddy example with McCain, in any way justify the Obama/Ayers connection. it is a red herring and a flawed argument. even if both examples were valid to this debate, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - OK, post #41, 22 posts after I first came up 'guilt by association is wrong' you finally figure out that you need to move the goalposts - come on.

Yep, that's it. I finally "figured out" that "I" needed to move the goalposts. There is no other possible explanation. It couldn't be that I just finally got around to responding, or that it finally came up in the conversation, or that I finally realized that you were moving the goalposts, no.. couldn't be any other explanation.

And at post #35, 16 posts after mine you start into the whole 'strawman' argument. I am actually extremely tired of this whole thing that you do where it is 'play by my rules because I insist on it' and then you can't even play by your own rules.

These are not "my rules", they are basic rules of reason and logic. I insist on a reasonable and logical argument, if you can't do that, then it is obvious that you either don't know how to debate logically and honestly, or have such a weak argument that you cannot debate it logically and are too dishonest to admit that (either to us or yourself), in which case you show your lack of integrity.

How about this; stop making fallacious argument and make reasonable ones instead.

Is it really so absurd to expect a reasonable and honest argument?

Criticizing my comparisons before I even state them - wow - how 'head in the sand' is that Shag?

Actually, you had stated them, you just hadn't expanded on them. But, as with most of your arguments, they are basic talking points that I had heard before and could easily discredit.

I NEVER said that Palin was a secessionist - read my post shag - I just said she SLEPT with one...

Which is still a gross exaguration. The party platform does not say "secession", it is about having a "legitimate" vote. Some in the party want secession, others want an afirmation of statehood, and others what a more commonwealth type recognition. Unless you can show evidence that suggests that Palin's husband specifically supported secession, you are making a huge logical leap (that has been perpetrated by the MSM).

Besides, the nature of the personal relationship of Palin to her husband is much different then of Obama to Ayers, unless Obama and Ayers are actually married and Ayers is the father of Obama's children. Or, maybe if Michelle was part of the Weather Underground and helped with the bombing in Chicago.

It is an obvious false analogy; a flawed and fallacious arguement.

I used McCain/Liddy as an example of exactly the same Obama/Ayers situation, so therefore the exactly same conclusion should be reached regarding McCain/Liddy as you and Kurtz made regarding Obama/Ayers. The situations are the same. How can you say they aren't? Well, I guess they aren't exactly the same - as recently as May of this year McCain was on Liddy's radio show, and McCain continued to get political contributions this year from Liddy.

Actually, they are far from the same, and I showed why here in post #27. Ayers is a terrorist, Liddy is not. it is that simple.

And guess what, shag, as you said Liddy was convicted of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping, unlike Ayers, who was never convicted. During the same period that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Liddy was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention. It sure sounds like terrorist activities to me Shag. What would you call it?

It may sound like terrorism, but it isn't, as I showed in post#27.

For it to be terrorism, two things have to be in place:

• The act has to be aimed at coercion, and
• The act has to actually have taken place

None of those things was true for Liddy and both were true for Ayers.

• Liddy throws a fundraiser for McCain in his Scottsdale home, where the contributors can get their photo taken the two of them. Liddy was also scheduled to speak at a McCain rally in 2000, but had to cancel because of bad weather.
• McCain shows up multiple times on Liddy's radio show and in November of 2007 praises Liddy for adhering to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great
• McCain continues to take Liddy's money, including contributions for his most current presidential bid, McCain campaigned for Liddy's son and Liddy calls McCain an 'old friend'.

I have never disputed any of these facts. But none of the prove that McCain has close ties to a terrorist. All it shows is that McCain has close ties to a convicted felon, which is different then a terrorist.

Besides, none of these issues at all disproves Obama's ties to Ayers.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that your claims are right in the most damning light for McCain and Palin. Let's assume the following:

• Palin was a member of the AIP party and it has (and had) a secessionist platform
• Liddy was a terrorist and McCain has close ties to that terrorist

That doesn't discredit or disprove anything with regards to Obama and Ayers. It is simply an attempt to show the conservatives making that claim, and specifically, me, as having a double standard.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that all those making the claim against Obama with regards to Ayers, and I have a double standard here...

Again, that doesn't say anything about the credibility of my claim about Obama, or about the credibility of the claim by other conservatives against Obama.

It is a rather obvious attempt to change the focus of the debate from Obama's ties to Ayers to the people making the claim. It is an ad hominem personal attack, nothing more that only serves to distract from the issue at hand. I will not simply "let that go".

That dishonest smear attempt here also shows that you have a weak enough argument that you have to resort to fallacious misdirection to defend your postition.

 

[ford nut]

LOL its funny shag... anyone that disagrees with you has a fallacious arguement.
But you are never wrong.

Let's see if I remember how this works...foxpaws owns you.... you boo hoo and then the thread gets closed.

 

[foxpaws]

And the plans were never carried out, so he never engaged in any of the acts in question.

So, Shag - by your definition of terrorist - why is the american government wiretapping my phone calls, waiting to hear about terrorist plans? They aren't defined as terrorist until the plan turns into action, just planning terrorist activities is totally an innocent act?

Wow - I would have never thought this of you...

Oh, just in case you needed to know, this is how the DOD defines terrorist...
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological, also antiterrorism; counterterrorism (FM 1‑02)

I believe liddy certainly threatened to use unlawful violence, which was intended to intimidate society in the pursuit of goals that were generally political. The DOD would have defined him as a terrorist.

And, so, since you are claiming 'red herring', and 'two wrongs don't make a right', then we should conclude by these statements that McCain should indeed be painted with the same brush, and the Liddy association should be a 'reflection of McCain's character'.

Are you willing to go there Shag? Really? I have already shown a very strong argument that Obama and Ayers had a more tenuous, and very much 'in the past' connection than McCain/Liddy have had in the past and currently have. I realize that McCain has lost - and you don't really need to defend him Shag - but McCain is a good man, and I certainly won't ever claim that since he is close to Liddy that McCain embraces Liddy's wacko political thought.

But, that is OK by your argument - wow - you are really desperate to say "I won" here aren't you?

I won't go down that road Shag - McCain is an American hero, and his current personal/public ties to Liddy are in no way a reflection on his strength character (as I have stated in my posts above) nor should it be a reflection on McCain's ability to lead this country. How can you continue to blast Obama on a past connection that is certainly nebulous at best without dragging McCain through the same slime? McCain's connections to a domestic terrorist are perhaps stronger and certainly current.

You win Shag - because I won't smear a good man. I was willing to attack Kurtz on his weak journalism, and biased op ed all day - but I will not attack McCain's character. My position isn't weak at all - but my unwillingness to go down this road of character assignation is probably a sign of weakness on my part.

I will simply "let it go".

You have me - full mea culpa Foss...

Thanks mr Nut...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Fox, to paraphrase......

Give it up, Fox. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with someone in sheer denial. Even when their political party wrecks the country, they'll still vote for their party's reelection.

 

[Calabrio]

Fox, to paraphrase......

Be specific, what political policy advanced by the conservative wing of the Republican party against the opposition of the Democrat party, was enacted that is ruining the country.

I can't think of a single smaller government, lower spending, greater personal liberty and independence, bill or policy that the Bush administration or Congress passed that has hurt the country in anyway.

I can think of plenty of bipartisan ones written that expanded government, spending, and the role of government, that have been hurtful. Everytime Bush or the Republicans "reached across party lines" to draft some bipartisan legislation, the results have been less than ideal.

The problems with the Republicans in D.C. was that they started legislating like Democrats.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I can't think of a single smaller government, lower spending, greater personal liberty and independence, bill or policy that the Bush administration or Congress passed that has hurt the country in anyway.

Therein lies your answer.......

 

[Calabrio]

No, that didn't answer my question.
Try again.

 

[shagdrum]

LOL its funny shag... anyone that disagrees with you has a fallacious arguement.
But you are never wrong.

Gotta love that oversimplification and mischaracterization.

I cannot believe that some people on this forum are so dishonest that they do not care if they make an unreasonable argument, and think that pointing out that their argument is unreasonable is somehow weak, petty and deserving of ridicule. That expecting a logical argument is somehow unreasonable...

No, not everyone who disagrees with me has a fallacious argument, but most of the leftist talking points are based on fallacious reasoning, and people on this forum with no intellectual integrity have no problem with that. Even if the argument is deceitful and dishonest, it should still be considered valid, according to the likes of you.

Marcus actually tends to raise good, logical points a lot of the time. And while I don't agree with his argument or his politics, I actually have to work to disprove it, as it is a logical argument.

People like you tend to make irrational arguments that are rather easy to logically discredit, and I do so. I don't simply arbitrarily claim some argument is illogical (as you imply), I make specific accusations and more often then not, show why an argument is fallacious, as well as link to the fallacy in question so that people can check it out and confirm it for themselves.

On the other hand, you (and others on this forum unconcerned with making a reasonable argument) make broad claims that my arguments are fallacious, but those claims are easily proven to be inaccurate.

You cannot prove my arguments are fallacious and you cannot prove that when I claim one of your arguments is fallacious, I am wrong. Unless you can do that, you are showing yourself to simply be petty.

Let's see if I remember how this works...foxpaws owns you.... you boo hoo and then the thread gets closed.

Your memory seems to be very selective and distorted...

Let's see if I remember this correctly...
you constantly demonstrate that you are habitually dishonest, vindictive, petty and deceitful in your arguments and people are supposed to take you seriously and respect you on this forum?!

It is rather interesting that, on this message board, when one side of a debate is shown to be consistently making fallacious arguments, they turn to personal attacks and smears in an attempt to discredit the person making the argument they want to counter and drag the debate down so it cannot be reasonable. Then they claim victory?! Sounds like a kindergardener...

How about this; stop debating like a 5 year old calling someone they disagree with "stupid", and start making reasonable arguments like an adult.

 

[fossten]

Gotta love that oversimplification and mischaracterization.

I cannot believe that some people on this forum are so dishonest that they do not care if they make an unreasonable argument, and think that pointing out that their argument is unreasonable is somehow weak, petty and deserving of ridicule. That expecting a logical argument is somehow unreasonable...

No, not everyone who disagrees with me has a fallacious argument, but most of the leftist talking points are based on fallacious reasoning, and people on this forum with no intellectual integrity have no problem with that. Even if the argument is deceitful and dishonest, it should still be considered valid, according to the likes of you.

Marcus actually tends to raise good, logical points a lot of the time. And while I don't agree with his argument or his politics, I actually have to work to disprove it, as it is a logical argument.

People like you tend to make irrational arguments that are rather easy to logically discredit, and I do so. I don't simply arbitrarily claim some argument is illogical (as you imply), I make specific accusations and more often then not, show why an argument is fallacious, as well as link to the fallacy in question so that people can check it out and confirm it for themselves.

On the other hand, you (and others on this forum unconcerned with making a reasonable argument) make broad claims that my arguments are fallacious, but those claims are easily proven to be inaccurate.

You cannot prove my arguments are fallacious and you cannot prove that when I claim one of your arguments is fallacious, I am wrong. Unless you can do that, you are showing yourself to simply be petty.



Your memory seems to be very selective and distorted...

Let's see if I remember this correctly...
you constantly demonstrate that you are habitually dishonest, vindictive, petty and deceitful in your arguments and people are supposed to take you seriously and respect you on this forum?!

It is rather interesting that, on this message board, when one side of a debate is shown to be consistently making fallacious arguments, they turn to personal attacks and smears in an attempt to discredit the person making the argument they want to counter and drag the debate down so it cannot be reasonable. Then they claim victory?! Sounds like a kindergardener...

How about this; stop debating like a 5 year old calling someone they disagree with "stupid", and start making reasonable arguments like an adult.

Well said.

*owned*

 

[shagdrum]

So, Shag - by your definition of terrorist - why is the american government wiretapping my phone calls, waiting to hear about terrorist plans?

The wiretapping thing is a whole other can of worms (based on some flawed assumptions) deserving of its own thread and not at all relevant to this discussion.

They aren't defined as terrorist until the plan turns into action, just planning terrorist activities is totally an innocent act?

Again...relevance? More misdirection is seems...

Oh, just in case you needed to know, this is how the DOD defines terrorist...
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological, also antiterrorism; counterterrorism (FM 1‑02)

Ok, lets run with that definition...

I believe liddy certainly threatened to use unlawful violence, which was intended to intimidate society in the pursuit of goals that were generally political. The DOD would have defined him as a terrorist.

• Liddy never "threatened". Planning does not equal threatening.
• None of Liddy's actions or planned actions as a part of "The Plumbers" was aimed at coercion or intimidation of "governments or societies" (or anyone or anything else for that matter). His actions were ment to neutralize and eliminate specific threats to Nixon's political power.

Because of those two reasons, the DOD would not define Liddy as a terrorist because he does not meet their definition.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, you won, I lost.
Liddy is a great guy.
Ayers is scum of the earth.
McCain's relationship with Liddy does not reflect on his character.
Obama's relationship with Ayes does reflect on his character.
Full mea culpa...
I have rolled over and exposed my soft underbelly...

Oh, since you acquise me of misdirection... sort of accusatory statement of the moment as far as I am concerned I guess.

They aren't defined as terrorist until the plan turns into action, just planning terrorist activities is totally an innocent act?

Again...relevance? More misdirection is seems...

I was referring to your statement that you made earlier...

The goal of these plans Liddy was involved in was never coercion. And the plans were never carried out, so he never engaged in any of the acts in question.

It certainly reads that unless the terrorist's plans are carried out, then they aren't guilty of terrorism. Usually in the current climate, even planning terrorist acts are considered a terrorist act in itself.

I sort of forget I should always do the pull quote thing - sorry.

 

[ford nut]

Your memory seems to be very selective and distorted...

Let's see if I remember this correctly...
you constantly demonstrate that you are habitually dishonest, vindictive, petty and deceitful in your arguments and people are supposed to take you seriously and respect you on this forum?!

It is rather interesting that, on this message board, when one side of a debate is shown to be consistently making fallacious arguments, they turn to personal attacks and smears in an attempt to discredit the person making the argument they want to counter and drag the debate down so it cannot be reasonable. Then they claim victory?! Sounds like a kindergardener...

How about this; stop debating like a 5 year old calling someone they disagree with "stupid", and start making reasonable arguments like an adult.

Actually I have a very good memory, I only remember one thread closed and we all know why.

The far right seems to reduce debates down to insults.
I'm not going to trade insults with you Shag.
You can keep them.

 

[shagdrum]

The far right seems to reduce debates down to insults.

Now that is laughable! :lol: :lol:

At least in the political section of this forum, it is the left (or those arguing the left side of most issues on here) who reduce a debate to irrelevant personal smears instead of making a rational argument, not the right. This thread and the one that got closed are prime examples of that.

In fact, that tends to be the case with most liberal talking points.

The lack of any decency and honesty in the debates on this forum is decidely coming from the left, I simply refuse to tolerate it.