Ebola Vs...

[Drummond]

You know something? I've been pondering this one a bit and I feel I owe you a better answer.

Steady on ... you'll strain something. Credibility comes to mind ....

Sure I could rattle off some names

- BUT YOU HAVEN'T. You continue, still, to dodge my question.

Of course.

.. and have in the past, of some leftie posters that I've debated with in the past but I can't distinctly remember that they have been so mind numbingly stupid as you and some of your knucklehead friends. I mean, of course they've not made the best life choices in the past which have no doubt led to their liberal beliefs but they tend to no longer argue their points when they see that they can't get anywhere with the truth and fact that I present to them. They are free to present their views and I'll do my best to present an argument as to why they are wrong but they generally will no longer follow up when they are unable to present some facts or argument that will win the day against a truly conservative position.

Interesting so far as it goes, but we only have your word for all of this. My attempt to get you to answer a simple question continues to be avoided .. now, with this diversionary account of 'happenings' which I take to be totally unconnected with this forum.

Actually - I think that you're describing my past debates with you, to an extent, anyway. You'll debate reasonably when you think you've a chance of winning. Since you're invariably proved wrong on that, so you instead go to abuse, diversion, ANYTHING other than admit you're wrong. Which, of course, is bog-standard Leftie fayre.

These days, you launch into troll stuff almost immediately -- because you're used to understanding that you're unlikely to 'win' otherwise against me (you delude yourself into thinking it serves your interests to try it, since you're trapped by your Leftie psychology into thinking that surface impressions can substitute for fact and reputability).

You, on the other hand, when unable to present facts or arguments that can win the day against a truly conservative position

I've no idea at all what you're talking about. Present some examples !!!

... will double down with imaginative musings, whining like a leftie, and stooping to only arguing against the individual and not the position. Case in point the many times you've charged "leftie," been requested to prove your charge, and have been unable to do so.

You argue like a Leftie. The troll stuff itself is clear evidence of that, so you 'prove my charge' on a very regular basis, just from that alone. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out .. much though you'd like me not to.

Now if you had the capacity to argue intelligently then there wouldn't be any reason to subject you to "abuse" but when you constantly go to the well of prattling on about imagined lefties then I feel I must inform you of what I think of your mental abilities. I consider it tough love.

Nope. You do it out of a mixture of the Leftie idea of 'fun' against an opponent, and sheer desperation, since you cannot win out otherwise. Its troll behaviour, which your psychology tells you is 'fine' to indulge in at the drop of a hat.

FWIW I typically argue the point straight up until your imagination gets the best of you, then it's gloves off of course.

Nope .. see above. Dream on ...

I think I know the real problem though. It's that I've presented a side of Lady Thatcher that you can't square with your beliefs and it drives you to complete and utter madness, for that I am sorry. Now, in the spirit of letting bygones be bygones I will remove my references to the former Prime Minister from my title and signature once you announce that because of no evidence to your charge; that I am, in fact, not a leftie. I would do that for you. Agreed?

Cease to argue as a Leftie. Cease to behave as one, courtesy, not least, of all the troll rot you dish out by the ton. In other words .. if you want to be considered a Conservative, START TO PROVE YOU'RE ONE.

As for this 'side of Lady Thatcher I can't square with my beliefs' .... I don't know what you're talking about. However I do recall telling you about her 'Section 28' legislation, which YOU could not square with YOUR beliefs. Indeed ... you might characterise it as a 'Big Government' position ... ??

Check it out --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

[Gunny]

Steady on ... you'll strain something. Credibility comes to mind ....



- BUT YOU HAVEN'T. You continue, still, to dodge my question.

Of course.


Interesting so far as it goes, but we only have your word for all of this. My attempt to get you to answer a simple question continues to be avoided .. now, with this diversionary account of 'happenings' which I take to be totally unconnected with this forum.

Actually - I think that you're describing my past debates with you, to an extent, anyway. You'll debate reasonably when you think you've a chance of winning. Since you're invariably proved wrong on that, so you instead go to abuse, diversion, ANYTHING other than admit you're wrong. Which, of course, is bog-standard Leftie fayre.

These days, you launch into troll stuff almost immediately -- because you're used to understanding that you're unlikely to 'win' otherwise against me (you delude yourself into thinking it serves your interests to try it, since you're trapped by your Leftie psychology into thinking that surface impressions can substitute for fact and reputability).



I've no idea at all what you're talking about. Present some examples !!!



You argue like a Leftie. The troll stuff itself is clear evidence of that, so you 'prove my charge' on a very regular basis, just from that alone. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out .. much though you'd like me not to.



Nope. You do it out of a mixture of the Leftie idea of 'fun' against an opponent, and sheer desperation, since you cannot win out otherwise. Its troll behaviour, which your psychology tells you is 'fine' to indulge in at the drop of a hat.



Nope .. see above. Dream on ...



Cease to argue as a Leftie. Cease to behave as one, courtesy, not least, of all the troll rot you dish out by the ton. In other words .. if you want to be considered a Conservative, START TO PROVE YOU'RE ONE.

As for this 'side of Lady Thatcher I can't square with my beliefs' .... I don't know what you're talking about. However I do recall telling you about her 'Section 28' legislation, which YOU could not square with YOUR beliefs. Indeed ... you might characterise it as a 'Big Government' position ... ??

Check it out --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but he's more conservative than a LOT of people on this board. "Conservative" does NOT = "Republicant." The Republicans here would have you believe they are conservative when they aren't anything close.

Why do think the party is splintered like it is?

[Drummond]

I hate to be the one to point this out, but he's more conservative than a LOT of people on this board. "Conservative" does NOT = "Republicant." The Republicans here would have you believe they are conservative when they aren't anything close.

Why do think the party is splintered like it is?

On your last point .. I think you overstate the case. Note - I said 'OVERSTATE', not 'YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG'.

I accept that the GOP needs to do a lot of work to become viewable as fully and properly Conservative.

But here's the problem. For all its faults, the GOP is your only realistic chance of countering Obama and replacing him. The more that's done to compromise the GOP's chance of winning, the greater the chance of the Dems winning instead.

I can therefore conceive of an individual claiming Conservative bona fides, in order to convince others to stop voting GOP ... in order to help a LEFTIE cause, instead.

But back to your first point .... which I don't accept for a second. 'He' hasn't even had the wit to try out the strategy I've just described. No, not a bit of it. Yes, he says he's a Conservative -- but does so in a way that doesn't stack up. The 'Thatcherite' claim is a nonsense, for a number of reasons, not least his lack of full understanding of her politics, of her wish and unhesitating choice to take on draconian, State powers when necessary, to tackle social evils .. this which he'd reject as a 'Big Government' position, despite still SAYING he was 'Thatcherite', yet proving otherwise.

Why claim you're 'Thatcherite' when you're NOT, unless the intention was / is to oversell a con ?

I can point to other things. All the troll rubbish, quite a giveaway all on its own. That he attacks CONSERVATIVES rather than LEFTIES on this board, reserving his strongest attacks for the most staunch Conservative amongst them (... for me, because I see right through him ...).

That, on the supposed basis of 'rationality', he'll oppose criticisms of Obama he sees (I recall an impeachment debate where a defence of Obama was advanced).

Then, there's his defence of terrorists ... with a mindset about their 'human rights' indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter's !!!

And this, from a CONSERVATIVE ?? REALLY .. ????

So, no. True Conservatism is not in evidence. Just the unconvincing pretence of it, at absolute best.

I could go on - but I've no need to. The case is made.

[fj1200]

But here's the problem. For all its faults, the GOP is your only realistic chance of countering Obama and replacing him. The more that's done to compromise the GOP's chance of winning, the greater the chance of the Dems winning instead.

I can therefore conceive of an individual claiming Conservative bona fides, in order to convince others to stop voting GOP ... in order to help a LEFTIE cause, instead.

Then, there's his defence of terrorists ... with a mindset about their 'human rights' indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter's !!!

I could go on - but I've no need to. The case is made.

A. I can make the case that your knuckleheads are a net vote loser for the GOP.
B. I have to laugh when you're arguing your loser of a case to other posters.
C. Jimmy AND Mags.
D. You're a hack on the order of Hannity.

[Drummond]

A. I can make the case that your knuckleheads are a net vote loser for the GOP.

Well, I'm in no doubt that you'd thoroughly enjoy the attempt.

B. I have to laugh when you're arguing your loser of a case to other posters.

Proof of your delusional mindset ?

C. Jimmy AND Mags.

Your understanding of Margaret is seriously flawed, at absolute best.

Would you argue that free speech was a human right ? I think you would ...

... in which case, explain THIS, in YOUR terms ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm

On 19 October 1988 Tory Home Secretary Douglas Hurd announced that organisations in Northern Ireland believed to support terrorism would be banned from directly broadcasting on the airwaves.

The ban affected 11 loyalist and republican organisations but Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, was the main target.

It meant that instead of hearing Gerry Adams, viewers and listeners would hear an actor's voice reading a transcript of the Sinn Fein leader's words.

Former BBC director general Lord Birt said the order came "right out of the blue".

Margaret Thatcher had no tolerance to show to the terrorist likes of the IRA. And she directed her Minister accordingly. She took something you'd think of as a 'Big Government' decision to ban their freedom to speak on British broadcasting stations.

Here's a fundamental fact you fail to grasp about Lady Thatcher .. for the sake of doing what she thought was right, she'd assume, and apply, whatever draconian powers it took to achieve her objectives. You say you hate 'Big Government' decisions, and powers ? Well ... in that case, there would've been times when you would've very sharply disagreed with what she was prepared to do.

D. You're a hack on the order of Hannity.

I don't accept Hannity to be a 'hack'. Still ... any comparison you make between myself and Mr Hannity cannot help but be complimentary to me.

For which .. I thank you.

[fj1200]

Your supposed 'offer' didn't even particularly make sense.

It was a good offer but I've no doubt that you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Especially considering that there is nothing dishonest about my Thatcherism.

Well, I'm in no doubt that you'd thoroughly enjoy the attempt.

I take no joy in idiots like you and your knuckleheads showing conservatism in a bad light and costing votes.

Proof of your delusional mindset ?

Proof that you can't even prove your case to others. Except for knuckleheads who are delusional in their own right. It's a sad affliction that you spread.

Your understanding of Margaret is seriously flawed, at absolute best.

Would you argue that free speech was a human right ? I think you would ...

... in which case, explain THIS, in YOUR terms ....

Liberty is a Natural Right, Free Speech is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of neither.

Margaret Thatcher had no tolerance to show to the terrorist likes of the IRA. And she directed her Minister accordingly. She took something you'd think of as a 'Big Government' decision to ban their freedom to speak on British broadcasting stations.

Here's a fundamental fact you fail to grasp about Lady Thatcher .. for the sake of doing what she thought was right, she'd assume, and apply, whatever draconian powers it took to achieve her objectives. You say you hate 'Big Government' decisions, and powers ? Well ... in that case, there would've been times when you would've very sharply disagreed with what she was prepared to do.

My understanding of Mags is based on her words. FWIW there should be no tolerance for terrorist acts and those who commit crimes of terror/war/etc. I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture. Either that or your view of the Iron Lady is that she was malleable.

I don't accept Hannity to be a 'hack'.

Of course you don't, you also don't accept that you hold idiotic views but factually you do.

[Drummond]

It was a good offer but I've no doubt that you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Especially considering that there is nothing dishonest about my Thatcherism.


I take no joy in idiots like you and your knuckleheads showing conservatism in a bad light and costing votes.


Proof that you can't even prove your case to others. Except for knuckleheads who are delusional in their own right. It's a sad affliction that you spread.


Liberty is a Natural Right, Free Speech is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of neither.


My understanding of Mags is based on her words. FWIW there should be no tolerance for terrorist acts and those who commit crimes of terror/war/etc. I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture. Either that or your view of the Iron Lady is that she was malleable.


Of course you don't, you also don't accept that you hold idiotic views but factually you do.

We've now got to that 'meltdown' point where almost everything you post is abusive in some shape or form. I've seen it before, and since you refuse to learn, I'm sure I'll see it again.

When you get to such a stage, I've learned that it's because you lack useful substance in your posting - which reduces its worth to zero. This is something you'll never admit to, regardless of how obvious it is. Which is itself a weakness of yours.

Up to 'Liberty is a Natural Right' (a diversion from my 'free speech' point ?) ... almost pure abuse. I've no need to reply.

And IS your understanding of 'Mags', as you call her, JUST limited to her words ?? Do you know anything much about her actions ? Was my proof of the curbing of IRA freedom to directly speak in the British media unknown to you ?

Perhaps you're unaware that one of her greatest domestic successes came from her anti-Trade Union legislation ? The passing of laws restricting their freedoms to act ? The limitation placed on the permitted size of a picket line, for example ?

If you understand nothing else about the politician you CLAIM to support, know that she was as autocratic as she chose to be in fixing issues. She may have had Conservative instincts, but, she created and assumed whatever powers she had to, to get things done. And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

Have you heard about the Poll Tax riots ?

I think you presume to know of Lady Thatcher, when in reality you have only a passing acquaintance with her nature of politics and leadership. Truth be told, she was a great pragmatist. Sure, she had strong principles. But practicality always predominated with her.

Go away and do some much-needed research.

[fj1200]

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

It was a good offer, you should have taken it rather than rehashing your typical prattle. Now I will just have to keep on making you my debate toy.

[Drummond]

It was a good offer, you should have taken it rather than rehashing your typical prattle. Now I will just have to keep on making you my debate toy.

Your supposed 'offer' didn't even particularly make sense. You wanted me to renege on my belief that you weren't a Leftie, and in return, you'd remove references to Lady Thatcher from your avatar and signature ??

How would circumstantial evidence hinting that you WERE more Leftie than you'd admitted to being, show consistency with any claim of mine that you WEREN'T one ??

If I declare you not to be a Leftie, then, will your response be to finally prove that you ARE one ??

Besides: I'll do no deals in order to encourage you to find some honesty. If you truly were a Conservative, that wouldn't even be an issue - you'd just BE honest, and that would be an end of it.
Yet again, you've managed to shoot yourself in the foot ..