Quote:
Originally Posted by randolph
I presume this thread is an informal political discussion. Ideas, statements, opinions are readily accepted for discussion. Positions are bounced back and forth without much expectation of converting conservatives into liberals or vice versa. The arguments can get heated, however, the management frowns on name calling. Posters, at their option, can respond to challenges or not, at their discretion. Accusing someone of "political cowardice" may not be considered name calling but it's getting pretty close.
|
Name-calling would be calling Tracy Coxx a "political coward," but referring to the posture one adopts in which one is unwilling to defend one's position, but rather hides behind the anonymity of the Internet, and even now continues to do so rather than answer the reasonable, legitimate guestion that has been raised, is a "position ... of political cowardice." That is NOT name-calling.
But the most important point here is the smokescreen. My question is not about "converting conservative into a liberal or vice versa," but rather to reveal the hypocrisy of the position Tracy Coxx posits with the continual asking of the question about budget deficits and national emergencies. It's a fine position to take in the abstract, but Tracy Coxx refuses, over and over again, to take it in the concrete, i.e., to state what is and is not covered by a "national emergency" and to state what Tracy Coxx would cut from the budget.