“i didn’t ban all of his posts. i banned those which lacked any scintilla of a free expression of points of view. if i was intent on banning hard core, mindless, right wing ideology i’d have banned ajfranke years ago. at least art thinks (badly, but he thinks) and while he certainly parrots insipid propaganda he reads on drudge he at least recasts it in his own words most of the time.”
Really bush league comment Dan, offered, as usual, with exactly zero substantiation. As usual, you will now likely proceed to either ignore or obfuscate rather than respond substantively.
Are you saying that you don’t recast things in you own words? That he didn’t leave a bunch of SMU’s posts? Or that you don’t read your propaganda from Drudge?
I don’t waste my time responding to people who think so badly and parrot propaganda. Just kidding.
I can’t remember the last time I saw an original post on Drudge. Other than an occasional interesting link, he is yesterdays news. Of course, if either of you actually read the site, you would know that. You don’t, but that doesn’t stop you from opining anyway.
If Dan doesn’t want me on his site, he doesn’t have to ban me. All he needs to do is ask.
There’s a fine line between “Free Expression” and “Spam”. Startmeup is a spammer without doubt in my opinion. To me he may as well be trying to sell me on a way to enlarge my breasts.
Ignoring him is very easy for me, but it kinda peeves me off that he insists on posting so damn much that I have to go to the second and third page to “catch up”. Strong views are welcome, but at some point you’ve expressed yourself. Make your point and move on.
The only thing I think I have ever used Drudge’s site for is links to all the columnists. I can’t remember ever actually reading his stuff.
But I think you misinterpreted what Dan was saying. SMU was no fun because there was never any real discussion beyond “you are but what am I”. Arguing on the internet may be pointless but it can be amusing if people actally engage in the debate, which you do. So I think he is saying that you are the good kind of right-wing nutjob.
I don’t argue with the characterization of SMU. He was annoying. I tried to avoid his posts, but confess to responding on rare occasions.
I don’t think spouting propaganda and thinking badly translate to engaging in the debate. If Dan wants to explain or qualify, he will, but I am not holding my breath. He has never engaged on this forum, which, is, of course, his right. He owns it after all.
when a person reads through a dozen of your posts something thing becomes clear: you determine what you believe on just about every subject based on your personal bias. you then cast about for factoids in support of your views. you do this rather than to let the evidence speak for itself.
no, i’m not going to show specific examples, because you’ll employ your usual tactic: spiral the conversation down into meaningless elements of minutiae to hide the overall truism of my statement.
should one wish to challenge or question my assertion, the forum grants the reader a utility through allowing the calling up only your own archived posts, at which point one can commence reading.
typically it is the hard core right wing demogogue that employs this strategy, but i’ve certainly seen the left be just as guilty. as for me, i’m neither all right or all left. i’m with bush on about 25% of what he believes/stands for, and am fairly violently opposed to the other 75%. i grant him credit for what he does well and/or what he tries to do that’s level-headed (dubai ports, immigration, freezing the evidence from the tainted FBI raid on a Congressional office).
art, it would be nice if you were transparent, open-minded, and non-aligned and unbeholden. but i haven’t found any evidence of that so far. maybe other readers have, in which case i am open to chastening.
Dan, you never give examples. I am still waiting two years now for a single example of a lie told by the Swift Boat Vets. I am still laughing at your characterization of the NSA surveillance as being both a violation of the Fourth Amendment and able to be authorized by an appropriate law of Congress.
News flash, Congress can’t modify the Fourth Amendment. The guy who ran the program just got promoted by the Senate 78-15.
When you accuse people of lying, when you accuse people of spouting mindless propaganda, and when you accuse those protecting us of flagrently breaking the law, you ought to expect to be called on it. If you chose not to reply, as is your right, expect your nonresponse to be taken as your reply. Process Matters.
This would be a good time to apologize to the Swift Boat Veterans, those in our Intelligence Services and to me.
there it is. you told the truth. you were clear-headed. that’s a good start. i’m gaining confidence in a positive outcome.
swift boat vets: you’re right, it’s been two years. kerry still has the same number of purple hearts (3) awarded audie murphy in WWII. one assumes by now the swifties would’ve gained traction with their truthful arguments and gotten the pentagon to take another look at medals wrongfully awarded.
statutes amplify and quantify what the constitution – a remarkably concise document – spells out in short, broad strokes. what congress cannot do is enact laws that abridge, curtail, modify the basic rights and restrictions outlined in the constitution. otherwise, the legislative job of the congress would be restricted to attempts to pass constitutional amendments.
Consider yourself chastened. Every last person in here determines what they believe on just about every subject based on their personal bias. Including you. Art has opinions and a belief system. He usually explicates and defends it quite adequately. And contrary to most of us, Art will admit when he’s wrong, and is not usually shy about criticizing “his team” when they don’t live up to his ideals.
Of all the people in here who might or might not be guilty of “mindless” posting in support of their ideology, you sure picked a funny example with Art. If you meant to complain about how consistent his beliefs are, that’s one thing. But they aren’t mindless. Art almost always provides a decent argument in support of his beliefs. Maybe you should go pick on someone who doesn’t- it’s a target rich environment in here.
Wow, I had to go back and skim some of the back and forth between Art and yourself on the NSA domestic spying program, Valerie Plame, Iraq, and Iran just to make sure I haven’t been hallucinatng for the last couple of years.
I didn’t say I agreed with his arguments, or personally found them compelling. But they are decent arguments, and almost every post from Art in any one of those fights merits, at the very least, a response. They are serious enough to deserve a rebuttal. Sometimes rebutting them is pretty tough.
if i was intent on banning hard core, mindless, right wing ideology i’d have banned ajfranke years ago. at least art thinks (badly, but he thinks) and while he certainly parrots insipid propaganda he reads on drudge he at least recasts it in his own words most of the time."
I didn’t say I agreed with his arguments, or personally found them compelling. But they are decent arguments, and almost every post from Art in any one of those fights merits, at the very least, a response. They are serious enough to deserve a rebuttal. Sometimes rebutting them is pretty tough.
Can you say the same thing for ?
It merits a response, but it’s still mindless, hard core, right wing progaganda
