Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahTex";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpotter";p="
The minute you start to feel like your thoughts and statements might be interpretted as "leftist" or "liberal", people like you always have to make a point to say that you are not one, even though you are saying what you are saying. That's about as pointless as a guy saying he agrees that gays should have the right to get married, and then follow it up by saying...by the way...I"m not gay in case you thought I was. That is not relavent to the issue, just as you two making a point to say you are not leftist is irrelavent to this issue.
|
Tell me MPotter, just what kind of people are "People like me"??? Are you Categorizing people into distinct defined groups in order to chastise me for " categorizing"??? Strange discussion ploy!!
Stekim knew exactly what I was referring to. He knows that I am not one of the radical left fringe who goes around demanding that the government "Take from those who earn and give to the Indolent"! And because I AM Conservative in many of my viewpoints, it should be recognized that I have probably given this subject plenty of "Conservative" thought before stating my conclusions. Conclusions that tend to be more on the left of center than far right.
I'll give you an example of what I mean.
Throughout the 50's and 60's, Richard Nixon was a RABID Anti-Communist. But it was Nixon's secret initiatives to Red China that brought them out of their isolation. Now if that had been attempted by a President with a more LIBERAL reputation toward Communism, it would have been shouted down by the Right wing. But coming from Nixon, the Right assumed his credibility in the matter and accepted it with triumph. Someone like Hubert Humphrey would have been ridden out of town on a rail if he had tried this. But Nixon had credibility with the Majority of our population in his dealings with Communism.
|
OK. Let's get this harangue back to basics. Above are the two posts that led us to this insult laden impasse. You interjected a personal criticism of me into my discussion with
STEKIM. I have highlighted the criticism in red for easy scrutiny. Following that is my response to your criticism. Highlighted in blue is the obvious question that your criticism evoked. You will notice that nowhere in my response did I
INSULT you.
Instead, I offered a respectful explanation of why I had phrased my comments to
STEKIM in the manner which you were criticizing.
Your immediate response to my explanation was a direct INSULT. And I quote;
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpotter";p="
Tex, you need to get over yourself. All I was saying was based on other threads I've read of conservatives that happen to have one or two so-called "leftist" viewpoints, I've noticed that in most cases these people...people like yourself...make a point to also say that they are "no leftist", "no socialist", "no liberal". Why can't you just make your point and discuss. Why does everything have to get so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed personal. We happen to agree on this issue. Can't that be enough? If Stekim really knew what your political stance was, then why did you have to make a point to say you are no leftist...what difference does it make? That is all I was trying to say.
p.s. I do know who Hubert Humphrey is and he is irrelevent to this issue.
|
I see NOTHING in your reply, in the spirit of "offering your point and discussing it", pertaining to the "Explanation" I gave. Nothing but Ad Hominem.
And then the discourse took the most natural path. That of least resistance, Insult vs. Insult. Neither party bothering to return to substantive discussion.
So if there is any desire to reestablish a productive dialogue, eliminate the insults and respond with a respectful explanation of your distasteful Ad Hominem....
"I noticed what you wrote, and it is complete nonsense. But what else can you expect from a bitter old man such as yourself. Again I beg you, get over yourself old man."
Or don't respond at all.