Dismissing something you don’t understand as raving doesn’t constitute a network of ideas either. It’s called avoidance.
You're the one who claims to be promoting a network of ideas; I make no such claim. As to effectively achieving avoidance, it would serve me better to simply ignore what you post, rather than take time out of my day to reply to it. And that would probably be a much smarter path for me to take. But, hey, it's been a while, so what the hell.
Google the phrase “right-wing talk radio talking points” and you get quite links to quite a few people who, well, sound like you. My favorite is the one from ’08 where it’s the Hillary voters who are mimicking “right-wing talk radio talking points.”
[url=see if this works]http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=mimicking+right-wing+talk+radio+talking+points&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSNA_enIQ371IQ371#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-US%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7TSNA_enIQ371IQ371&q=%22right-wing+talk+radio+talking+points%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=5968f614bc218727[/url]
"See if this works" and the link itself should be transposed. There.
What I actually find amusing about that search is that our own discussion here comes up as the fifth link.
What point you are trying to support with this Google search is beyond me, though.
Hes a riter??? On teh internet??? OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!
I know you think writing TONS of words is way cool, but just remember, word count alone does not equal coherence.
I defy you to correctly single out any post I’ve made on this board and identify what influence or lack thereof I was under when I made it.
If you can’t do that, how about dropping the ‘talk radio/Dave Sim/chemical influence’ line of attack altogether, and addressing what I actually say.
You always sound under the influence of something or other, to me, so I couldn't do it. But the fact that many of your points are mainstream right-wing talking points, and that your arguments are similar to what you'd hear on right-wing talk radio, stands. You don't have to like it. You say that's not where you get your ideas, then fine, so be it; you just happen to think a lot like popular right-wing propagandists. In any case, the point that drew the initial comparison -- your would-be deconstruction of the selective Obama quote -- has been demonstrated as misleading.
As to imitating Dave Sim, I don't view that comparison as a line of attack, I view it as an observation, one that's been all too easy to make many times over, with you.
Here’s a hint: Only God decides what God’s will says.
I guess. It's a pretty stupid
hint. Maybe instead of giving me hints, you could just say whether you agree or disagree, and why or why not?
Righties and lefties probably respond to their side’s choice side right down to their DNA, and neither side will budge an inch
I think a few things have happened in the Senate lately that contradict this. How do you feel about Obama compromising to get the tax deal passed, out of curiosity?
Quoted them accurately and demonstrated the validity of other perspectives, such as that of the enemy we’re at war with.
Well, I disagree, but why keep going over it. I don't even know what the second part is supposed to mean. Like other paranoid right-wing types, you often talk in some sort of weird, veiled code instead of just saying what you mean. It's all a jumble of rhetorical questions and miniscule, usually tangential references, smoke and mirrors. There's rarely if ever anything actually being said, as far as I can tell. Then again, I suppose you're entitled to your fun.
The President’s apologists, both on this thread and across the internet, refuse to acknowledge any other perspective than their own, much less accept any validity to any of those perspectives.
Your perspective makes no sense to me, but that doesn't mean I won't accept that there are other perspectives besides my own. I accept that you have a perspective that differs from my own, but I've no clue what it actually consists of, besides, I guess, a thirst for open war with Islam itself and a dislike of Obama.
So is accusing someone of doing something as a self-appointed something or other when I did nothing of the kind.
Why would you assume the two can be separated? Perhaps they are inseparable by nature.
Well, I don't think you can win a war against an idea/concept. But a specific, self-identifying terrorist organization, is something you can work with.
The hundreds of people (just a guess) making up Al Qaida as they were when they hit us on 9/11 could be exterminated, and that would leave hundreds of groups, each with their own hundreds of members, who think and act similarly and for the same reasons.
Yeah, but they aren't the ones who attacked us.
Then there’s the international networks of supporters and other associated groups. They aren’t BASED in a nation, they operate in many nations which have a variety of different relationships with us.
Hey now, I didn't say it was an easy task.
there’s gotta be something a free-minded artist can do with a Koran that would challenge people’s preconceptions.
Go for it. Believe me, it does not bother me personally if you defile the Koran. On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of things like "Piss Christ." Too gimmicky and one-note.
So is it wise or responsible to cut the heads off of a journalist because he’s Jewish like Daniel Pearl? How about murdering someone the streets like Geert Wilders?
No, I think that is bigoted, inflammatory, and cruel. I am firmly anti-murder, even in the case of Jews.
Dave Sim, by the way, was firmly against the Muhammed cartoons. He thought they were willfully offensive and had no business being published. So did Garry Trudeau, by the way. Strange place for First Amendment absolutists like them to suddenly find an exception, but there you have it. What does that do to your latest theory that I just copy Dave Sim?
Not much -- I tend to feel that you take your queues from Sim far more than you consciously realize -- but I do find the anecdote encouraging. Maybe I assumed too much.