|
21538. Wombat - 4/10/2007 2:13:25 AM Ok, so it is safe to say that when it comes to Christianizing the Middle East Concerned is less of a out-of-her !@#$%^&* mind loon than Ann Coulter. That still leaves plenty of room before we reach anyhting resembling the political center. It must also be noted that Concerned enjoys being "provocative" in our lowly universe much in the same way that Coulter does in the wider world. 21539. Wombat - 4/10/2007 2:14:06 AM Concerned:
Do you know what "didactic" means? 21540. Wombat - 4/10/2007 2:15:21 AM And still irony-impaired, as well. 21541. Wombat - 4/10/2007 2:24:20 AM Concerned calling himself a centrist because he feels that Ann Coulter goes too far--at times, would be like calling Ramsey Clark a centrist because he has an occasional disagreement with Noam Chomsky (or vice versa, I suppose). 21542. concerned - 4/10/2007 2:45:25 AM Re. 21539 -
Do you feel my use of the term demeans your belief system too much? 21543. concerned - 4/10/2007 2:52:26 AM FWIW, I might have chosen a better word than that if I wanted to spend more time creating the post. 21544. Wombat - 4/10/2007 2:53:39 AM No, I'd like to know what you were trying to express by using the term "didactic political line." 21545. concerned - 4/10/2007 2:56:23 AM Has Sharpton apologized for the Tawana Brawley fraud? 21546. concerned - 4/10/2007 3:09:29 AM Re. 21544 -
LW moral prescription which is flaky and inconsistent at best, but usually also hypocritical and self contradictory and almost ubiquitous.
Satisfied?
Re. 21545 -
For the irony-impaired, that is a rhetorical question. IAC, Sharpton is guilty of far worse than Imus (or Spike Lee) are. 21547. jexster - 4/10/2007 3:12:14 AM IMUS BE FREE!!!
and now
A Good Friday Message of Hope, Inspiration Love and Charity from Cardinal Egan
21548. Wombat - 4/10/2007 3:22:37 AM Oh, like I was somehow instructed at "Liberal Central" on what my political line should be?
I think Concerned is a greater believer in Marxism than I ever was.
Look, Concerned:
Your politics are narcissistic, because you like to talk about how wonderful and different they are from everyone else's. I will grant you a degree of civil libertarianism, but on the basis of your postings you trend to the opposite of what constitutes liberal thought, which puts you on the right side of the politcal spectrum; and further away from the center than you claim, your mild disagreement with Ann Coulter notwithstanding. Finally, as an apparent auto-didact (look it up), your knowledge of what constitutes a politcal ideology is at best patchy, and your criticisms of others based on what you believe to be their ideologies are inane and uninformed. 21549. concerned - 4/10/2007 3:36:02 AM Wombat -
Several errors on your part:
You have conflated originality with narcissism. You have also greatly overreached yourself and made wrongly negative statements attempting to describe anything related to my understanding of political ideology or the use of the English language. My disagreement with Coulter in this instance is more than 'mild'. I also should say that I am not afraid to be forthcoming about my beliefs and their origins, (and do so expecting only swipes such as yours) unlike most others here, presuming that they have even conceptualized most of them. 21550. concerned - 4/10/2007 3:42:29 AM Regarding what I believe to be others' ideologies, how many posting here nowadays besides myself and perhaps iiibbb even can realistically describe themselves as not being LW? 21551. Wombat - 4/10/2007 3:50:33 AM Concerned:
You wouldn't know original political thought if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. At best you are a contrarian or a controversialist, and a particularly ill-informed one at that. Much of what you write can be traced back to a collection of profoundly right-wing blogs and web-sites. You cherry-pick your sources--sometimes within your sources--the sure sign of someone bereft of original thought. Your defense of Bush administration policies in Iraq is so slavish as to be even more loyal than much of the Republican party.
Your stated difference with Ann Coulter seems to be along the lines of: "well we know Islam is based on the writings of a child-abuser, etc., but we should let them wallow in their own filth, rather than convert them to Christianity."
You have invented a world of strawmen against which you can claim originality. Since you are far from alone in this (take Fox news, for instance), what you post here is utterly unoriginal. The problem is that not only are you too obtuse to realize this, but you insist on proclaiming your independence, and analysing how great it is to be so independent. If that isn't narcissism... 21552. Wombat - 4/10/2007 3:58:40 AM Well duh, Concerned.
Most people who post here fall pretty squarely in the liberal camp, although there are certainly areas where there is profound disagreement. The difference between you and iiibbb is that he is a thoughtful and critical social and for the most part political libertarian. Most of what you post shows you to be the opposite of liberal, and neither thoughtful nor critical. Newsflash for you..the oppposite of a political liberal is not a centrist. 21553. arkymalarky - 4/10/2007 4:11:05 AM The main problem I see with Imus is that he (and MSNBC) try to have it both ways. He needs to do the Howard Stern thing or tone it down some to suit MSNBC's audience.
And I'm loving the Con'd/Wombat exchange here.
21527. concerned - 4/10/2007 1:43:18 AM
I was thinking about my MOR political attitude and what makes it unique. I think it is a melding of the most overall conservative attitude that allows most liberal approaches license consistent with human rights, freedom of speech and equality.
It's probably fair to call it a sort of radical centrism since a spectrum of political approaches inhere to it and it therefore usually cannot subscribe wholeheartedly to either end of the political spectrum:)
I love that first one, all the way down to the little emoticon, especially "radical centrism." 21554. concerned - 4/10/2007 4:11:11 AM Problem with your hypothesis is that it is wrong. I have originated none of my beliefs from what you term "a collection of profoundly right-wing blogs and web sites", most of which I have probably never seen and none of which I follow.
I rather accuse those who advocate cutting and running from Iraq of wanting to "let them wallow in their own filth, rather than convert them to Christianity." Btw, I'm an Agnostic, not a Christian. I am also free from having a LW hard-on for Christians, thankfully.
I am a more original thinker, than for instance, you are, based on every evidence in the Mote. You perhaps recall our arguments about SDI, where I ultimately was proven by developments to be correct, and you were proven wrong. The evidence of your posting here shows that you are capable of little more than attacking others or regurgitating certain historical items, the latter of which anybody can do, given internet access. These conclusions tend to be substantiated by your persistent, unsolicited personal attacks. 21555. arkymalarky - 4/10/2007 4:13:03 AM AND HEY BETTY!
It has been a Monday all day long. A post-spring-break Monday, which is the worst kind. A Monday with a Monday night class, which means home late and no unwind time. A Monday with lots of work issues, which I hate messing with. A Monday that makes me look forward to Friday already, even if it is the 13th. 21556. arkymalarky - 4/10/2007 4:15:16 AM You perhaps recall our arguments about SDI, where I ultimately was proven by developments to be correct, and you were proven wrong.
Hahaha! Keep 'em coming. This beats a stiff drink for an antidote to the effects of a bad Monday. 21557. concerned - 4/10/2007 4:18:14 AM I know that, since I don't worship at the altar of LW propaganda, I'm liable to be unfairly attacked by Wombat's ilk, who must demonize those of truly independent thought.
|
