Now we know what f*****s does in her spare time

[foxpaws]

So you really don't have an answer?
And that's understandable because it's a political tool used to simply dismiss opposition voices that challenge the dominance and media monopoly that has traditionally held by the political left in this country.

Though, despite your lack of a specific definition or application, you keep using the term quite authoritatively.

So Cal, do you not understand 'conservative reactionaries'?

I did define right wing media - if you don't understand the definition, perhaps you should ask what it means, rather than say I don't have an answer, which I clearly did.

 

[shagdrum]

Nazi's are actually left, if you go by a rather text book definition of political left and right wing poles.

Depends on the textbook...

So do you go by what they say - or by the textbook standard of the political scale?

How about going by the ideas and assumptions the actual ideological points of view are based on?

You are creating a false dichotomy that purposely injects unnecessary confusion into this...

 

[foxpaws]

Depends on the textbook...



How about going by the ideas and assumptions the actual ideological points of view are based on?

You are creating a false dichotomy that purposely injects unnecessary confusion into this...

Shag - ask most libertarians what they are - right or left - and they will say neither.

Abortion issues - they are way left... correct? Other issues - pretty right.

It is somewhat hard to pigeon hole many people, libertarians seem to be one of the hardest groups to 'define'.

 

[fossten]

So Cal, do you not understand 'conservative reactionaries'?

I did define right wing media - if you don't understand the definition, perhaps you should ask what it means, rather than say I don't have an answer, which I clearly did.

No, you didn't. You simply gave a few examples. That's not defining it. And saying 'reactionary conservative' is a logical flaw called begging the question - you now need to define that phrase.

You cannot substitute one phrase for another and call that a definition.

You're dodging, fox.

You have no good answer. You're simply trying to tie the Tea Parties in with Limbaugh and Beck so it fits with Bill Clinton's FALSE MEME that the Tea Parties are or will be violent. Why not admit it, and then we can move on.

And for crying out loud, fox, stay on topic. You're jumping all over the place trying to avoid our questions.

Coward.

 

[Calabrio]

So Cal, do you not understand 'conservative reactionaries'?

I understand what the words mean, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with how you're using it.

I did define right wing media - if you don't understand the definition, perhaps you should ask what it means, rather than say I don't have an answer, which I clearly did.

No, you had a response, not an answer.

 

[fossten]

I would place 'right wing media' as reactionary conservatives.

So Cal, do you not understand 'conservative reactionaries'?

Oh, so now you're flipping the definition around?

Either you're lazy or you're just being annoying on purpose.

Either way, it's not worth talking to you anymore.

You FAILED at your smear job today. So sorry.

 

[foxpaws]

So, how do you want me to define right wing media -

First Foss, you asked for examples...

Oh, and fox - why don't you spell out exactly who you mean when you say 'right wing media.' Don't pussyfoot around, coward.

So I spelled out a few examples... Obviously not what you really had in mind - correct?

Now, since reactionary conservatives doesn't seem to work, got any guidelines? How about simple words of no more than 2 syllables....since I have tried 4 and 5 syllable words...

And since I have to answer everyone all the time, you need to give me a little slack on my typing foss.... I switch words occasionally... sorry, oh perfect one...

 

[fossten]

So, how do you want me to define right wing media -

First Foss, you asked for examples...


So I spelled out a few examples... Obviously not what you really had in mind - correct?

Now, since reactionary conservatives doesn't seem to work, got any guidelines? How about simple words of no more than 2 syllables....since I have tried 4 and 5 syllable words...

And since I have to answer everyone all the time, you need to give me a little slack on my typing foss.... I switch words occasionally... sorry, oh perfect one...

Uh, you're the one who stomps around with the "Creative Writing 101" remarks. I thought for sure someone of your professed 'stature' would be able to live up to her own standards. Guess I was wrong.

I asked you for examples but Cal asked you for a definition. Your definition requires another definition as it is nothing but a substitution.

You're just dodging now.

You're really a waste of time, hypocrite.

 

[fossten]

Shag - ask most libertarians what they are - right or left - and they will say neither.

Abortion issues - they are way left... correct? Other issues - pretty right.

It is somewhat hard to pigeon hole many people, libertarians seem to be one of the hardest groups to 'define'.

Wrong. Libertarians believe in States' Rights when it comes to abortion. That's not 'left.' Ignorance is bliss...

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - ask most libertarians what they are - right or left - and they will say neither.

Abortion issues - they are way left... correct? Other issues - pretty right.

It is somewhat hard to pigeon hole many people, libertarians seem to be one of the hardest groups to 'define'.

You did not confront a single point I raised in responding to me.

If all you can do is keep asserting your narrative without defending it against valid criticism, you have no point and are simply propagandizing...

FYI; The simplistic ideological spectrum you are framing is rooted in ignorance and misrepresentation. Instead of reflecting reality, it is simply a contrivance that is convenient to your argument.

 

[foxpaws]

You did not confront a single point I raised in responding to me.

If all you can do is keep asserting your narrative without defending it against valid criticism, you have no point and are simply propagandizing...

FYI; The simplistic ideological spectrum you are framing is rooted in ignorance and misrepresentation. Instead of reflecting reality, it is simply a contrivance that is convenient to your argument.

So - what do you want to know Shag - couch it in simple terms... OK...

What point didn't I touch upon? As you can see - I am rather in demand, maybe if we look at simple questions, I can actually respond, in kind...

 

[foxpaws]

Wrong. Libertarians believe in States' Rights when it comes to abortion. That's not 'left.' Ignorance is bliss...

Are you going by the Libertarian Party Foss? You might want to make this a bit more clear if you aren't going party line....

I realize there are many different types of Libertarians - however, that does sort of muddy the discussion. So, chose a type, if you aren't going with the Party's response....

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

 

[fossten]

Are you going by the Libertarian Party Foss? You might want to make this a bit more clear if you aren't going party line....

I realize there are many different types of Libertarians - however, that does sort of muddy the discussion. So, chose a type, if you aren't going with the Party's response....

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

While you're so busy correcting people on points of order, you FAILED to a) speak to the topic even once and b) respond to at least half a dozen other points made by others. Even when you do respond, you state it poorly.

Strain at a gnat, swallow a camel.

 

[foxpaws]

While you're so busy correcting people on points of order, you FAILED to a) speak to the topic even once and b) respond to at least half a dozen other points made by others. Even when you do respond, you state it poorly.

Strain at a gnat, swallow a camel.

The subject I believe is what I do in my spare time - sci fi cons, car shows, motorcycle riding lessons, golf, skeet shooting...

So, Foss - want to explain the little item regarding Libertarians and abortion... I am curious - where did you get the idea that Libertarians wanted abortion dealt with on a state law level?

 

[Calabrio]

The subject I believe is what I do in my spare time - sci fi cons, car shows, motorcycle riding lessons, golf, skeet shooting...

Are you riding the 250 Nighthawk or Rebel? That's what they usually use.

So, Foss - want to explain the little item regarding Libertarians and abortion... I am curious - where did you get the idea that Libertarians wanted abortion dealt with on a state law level?

The entire debate in this country is fundamentally messed up because we've seemingly forgotten that we have a federalist system.

Libertarians and right minded people recognize that there is no constitutional RIGHT to have access to abortions. Either the fetus is protected or the issue becomes a political one, to be dealt with at the state level of government.

Unfortunately, the issue was seized by judicial activists and frozen. A political compromise or resolve was never achieved. We've never even been allowed to really have an open and honest political dialog regarding the issue. The court decision succeed in making it a polarizing wedge issue with no room for resolve. And because of this judicial activism, this issue has dominated politics and divided the population along hyper-charged lines.

Going back to the point I made a moment ago, because the political structure of the country has been so radically distorted this century, we've seen progressives work to move this country from a federalist system, with state rights, to a nationalist one. There's no better single example of this bastardization than the passage of the 17th amendment in 1913, the election of U.S. senators by popular vote.

The federal government has limited power. And, as stated in the 10th amendment, the powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

The problem is that NEITHER political party have been consistently true to the constitution. They have both effectively worked to expand the power of the federal government over the states. The Democrat party has completely abandoned any notions of federalism, limited government, or states rights and indoing so, disregard the constitution.

The Republican party has historically been split, more often than not, they've been big government types that support free enterprise and lower taxes. From TR to Hoover to Nixon and to some extent the Bush family.

And this is why the left/right chart is essentially flawed and totally worthless.

Because it should be a dual course chart covering a spectrum of more government to less government. In theory, you could have big government Republicans and small FEDERAL government Democrats. In practice, those Democrats no longer exist... and we need to get those Republicans out of office.

You can be a "Democrat" and support socialized medicine, but recognize that it is NOT a federal issue and should be resolved or experimented upon by the state.

Just as you can be a Republican who recognizes that there is ambiguity and confusion regarding the legality of abortion and that's an issue best left to be debated and resolved through honest debate at the state level.

There's also the issue of how power corrupts and that it's a huge mistake to centralize so much power in one place... in this case, Washington, D.C.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you riding the 250 Nighthawk or Rebel? That's what they usually use.

Honda Rebel to start - and then bigger later...

The entire debate in this country is fundamentally messed up because we've seemingly forgotten that we have a federalist system.

Libertarians and right minded people recognize that there is no constitutional RIGHT to have access to abortions. Either the fetus is protected or the issue becomes a political one, to be dealt with at the state level of government.

So, Cal - how do you explain the Libertarian Party's stand on Abortion? Is it different than what 'libertarians and right minded people' recognize?

Unfortunately, the issue was seized by judicial activists and frozen. A political compromise or resolve was never achieved. We've never even been allowed to really have an open and honest political dialog regarding the issue. The court decision succeed in making it a polarizing wedge issue with no room for resolve. And because of this judicial activism, this issue has dominated politics and divided the population along hyper-charged lines.

I think from what I have read of the libertarian platform and what i know of libertarians, they are OK with the current state of affairs... What do you have that is different Cal?

Because it should be a dual course chart covering a spectrum of more government to less government. In theory, you could have big government Republicans and small FEDERAL government Democrats. In practice, those Democrats no longer exist... and we need to get those Republicans out of office.

You can be a "Democrat" and support socialized medicine, but recognize that it is NOT a federal issue and should be resolved or experimented upon by the state.

Just as you can be a Republican who recognizes that there is ambiguity and confusion regarding the legality of abortion and that's an issue best left to be debated and resolved through honest debate at the state level.

There's also the issue of how power corrupts and that it's a huge mistake to centralize so much power in one place... in this case, Washington, D.C.

How do you deal with a basically state empowered (federalist) government in a world dictated economic system Cal? Doesn't that weaken our ability to effectively compete in the world marketplace? We have seen it with healthcare. Our healthcare costs are killing us against the rest of the world where governments subsidize healthcare costs.

 

[Calabrio]

The abortion debate is a very contentious issue within the Libertarian Party.
But the platform statement is vague.

It doesn't elaborate on how the issue should be resolved politically. It can be presumed that this would be at the state level. A Libertarian may then vote in support of such access, but it's still resolved at the state level.

And they are quite clear that they oppose any funding of abortions with public money.

How do you deal with a basically state empowered (federalist) government in a world dictated economic system Cal? Doesn't that weaken our ability to effectively compete in the world marketplace? We have seen it with healthcare. Our healthcare costs are killing us against the rest of the world where governments subsidize healthcare costs.

No it does not.
And the sooner we return to the federalist, limited government system, the stronger we'll be in the future.

 

[fossten]

The subject I believe is what I do in my spare time - sci fi cons, car shows, motorcycle riding lessons, golf, skeet shooting...

So, Foss - want to explain the little item regarding Libertarians and abortion... I am curious - where did you get the idea that Libertarians wanted abortion dealt with on a state law level?

Since you cannot stay on topic or respond to any of a dozen other points, I have no desire to continue this discussion with you.

Hell, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the mountain of evidence that DISPROVED your claim that Obamacare would cause insurance rates to go down. You bailed out on those topics like a good little chickensh**, and you show up out of the blue pretending that they never happened and try to twist topics into arguments over whose definition of this or that is better.

In short, you're really a waste of time. It's simply not productive to discuss topics with you because you don't discuss them in good faith, and when somebody nails you on something, you run like the wind.

You're a coward and a demagogue.

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

...amended #5 -

5. Foxpaws runs like the wind for 2 or 3 days, then returns and starts over in another thread as though nothing happened.

 

[foxpaws]

Since you cannot stay on topic or respond to any of a dozen other points, I have no desire to continue this discussion with you.

Hell, I'm still waiting for you to respond to the mountain of evidence that DISPROVED your claim that Obamacare would cause insurance rates to go down. You bailed out on those topics like a good little chickensh**, and you show up out of the blue pretending that they never happened and try to twist topics into arguments over whose definition of this or that is better.

So bump it up Foss - I can't remember what is going on here after I am gone for a week. Life interferes... and I really don't remember after being on the road for a few days working a car show, or a warehouse show, or press checks, what is happening on the little LVC site...

My responses obviously mean a lot more to you than perhaps they should.

And guess what - I can't answer all these anyway. The right puts so much garbage out here it is impossible to rebut all of them in a cohesive manner. Have 'thread of the week' or something if a topic really interests you and you really want to discuss it in depth. Otherwise, all you can really expect is a surface review on most subjects.

Sorry - my fingers only type so fast, I have to at least cursorily check spelling and grammar, and my time is limited.

Maybe you can have the 'foxpaws you need to answer this for all the evil liberals out there' subset. And I'll see what I can do.

Perhaps you can actually get someone else from the left to answer one or two of your cut and pastes... although from what I have seen, they have all departed long ago in disgust.

 

[fossten]

So bump it up Foss - I can't remember what is going on here after I am gone for a week. Life interferes... and I really don't remember after being on the road for a few days working a car show, or a warehouse show, or press checks, what is happening on the little LVC site...

My responses obviously mean a lot more to you than perhaps they should.

And guess what - I can't answer all these anyway. The right puts so much garbage out here it is impossible to rebut all of them in a cohesive manner. Have 'thread of the week' or something if a topic really interests you and you really want to discuss it in depth. Otherwise, all you can really expect is a surface review on most subjects.

Sorry - my fingers only type so fast, I have to at least cursorily check spelling and grammar, and my time is limited.

Maybe you can have the 'foxpaws you need to answer this for all the evil liberals out there' subset. And I'll see what I can do.

Perhaps you can actually get someone else from the left to answer one or two of your cut and pastes... although from what I have seen, they have all departed long ago in disgust.

Want some cheese with that whine?

My point is that when you DEMAND responses you're being hypocritical given the fact that you ignore so many yourself. You don't deserve better respect than you give.

Face it fox, you're a liar and you have no credibility here. Probably something in your past, who knows, more importantly, who CARES. Frankly, I don't believe anything you say, about your personal life or otherwise. You make up everything.

Maybe if you would discuss things honestly and without trying to manipulate the truth, people wouldn't feel the need to respond to everything you say.

But I guess when you're pathological, that's just not possible is it?

 

[foxpaws]

Want some cheese with that whine?

My point is that when you DEMAND responses you're being hypocritical given the fact that you ignore so many yourself. You don't deserve better respect than you give.

Face it fox, you're a liar and you have no credibility here. Probably something in your past, who knows, more importantly, who CARES. Frankly, I don't believe anything you say, about your personal life or otherwise. You make up everything.

Maybe if you would discuss things honestly and without trying to manipulate the truth, people wouldn't feel the need to respond to everything you say.

But I guess when you're pathological, that's just not possible is it?

So, bump the thread - please - I really don't remember it. And it obviously is very important to you, if you go by the amount of venom in your recent little rants...

 

[fossten]

So, bump the thread - please - I really don't remember it. And it obviously is very important to you, if you go by the amount of venom in your recent little rants...

Untimely, fox. That's my point. We all know that you pick and choose when and where to respond. It's easy to refute your claims, but you're never there when we do. Hell, Cal just PWNED you today in the liberty thread and you still haven't responded. Of course, that's understandable.

You need to be aware that you will not receive the respect that you demand, when you don't give it to others.

 

[foxpaws]

Untimely, fox. That's my point. We all know that you pick and choose when and where to respond. It's easy to refute your claims, but you're never there when we do. Hell, Cal just PWNED you today in the liberty thread and you still haven't responded. Of course, that's understandable.

You need to be aware that you will not receive the respect that you demand, when you don't give it to others.

I responded to Cal... I just wrote over my personal edit from last night... I thought it better than having a blank response with a wordy one following it.

And I do pick and chose - often I don't know much about the subject at hand - I have a tendency to leave those alone. There has been a thread about a soldier who is refusing to deploy because he doesn't believe that Obama has the right 'birth' qualifications to be president. Since the thread is about military law, which I really don't know much about, I choose not to respond.

So, bump baby bump -

I still would like to see that thread that you talked about earlier - the one where I say health insurance costs would go down if health insurance reform legislation was passed.

 

[fossten]

I responded to Cal... I just wrote over my personal edit from last night... I thought it better than having a blank response with a wordy one following it.

And I do pick and chose - often I don't know much about the subject at hand - I have a tendency to leave those alone. There has been a thread about a soldier who is refusing to deploy because he doesn't believe that Obama has the right 'birth' qualifications to be president. Since the thread is about military law, which I really don't know much about, I choose not to respond.

So, bump baby bump -

I still would like to see that thread that you talked about earlier - the one where I say health insurance costs would go down if health insurance reform legislation was passed.

Look it up yourself, lazy. It's your fault if you fail to respond to posts, not mine. You will continue to correctly receive criticism when you fail to respond AND THEN DEMAND RESPONSES.

Nice red herring by the way.

 

[foxpaws]

Look it up yourself, lazy. It's your fault if you fail to respond to posts, not mine. You will continue to correctly receive criticism when you fail to respond AND THEN DEMAND RESPONSES.

Nice red herring by the way.

The only thread that might come close is the 'why didn't obama wreck the economy when he had the chance'. Yes I did search -

I never claimed in that thread that Obamacare would lower insurance costs...

So bump baby bump...