GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The fault lies not with me but with Tracy's utter inability to give a substantive answer or to admit a mistake and engage in the necessary introspection.

The troll by his nature cannot offer anything of substance. The troll by his nature is only capable of putting people down.

Are you putting me down? In every post that you write referring to me, aren't you putting me down? You exemplify Karl Marx's quote "Accuse others for what you do". Who on here have I put down?

GRH asked a reasonable question and I gave my answers. Then come the obligatory responses from smc (and again by default you). You follow him around like a little puppy dog yapping at his heels. Get a room.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

people like Tracy run the US and every other country on the planet.

HA! I wish lol. You don't know me. You have a picture in your mind of what you think I am which you refer to instead of what I actually write here.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

further empower the ruling class by cutting their taxes

Translation: Tax all people an equal percentage. OMG what a radical thought.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Let me clarify what I mean by substance:

The post cannot a) depend upon derailing conversation.

smc and Enoch do this all the time by nitpicking posts of anyone they disagree with, with the goal of starting an argument that has nothing to do with the original conversation. When attempts to get back to the conversation are made they cry foul that their new conversation is not continued. Certain members of TLB staff make a consistent practice of this that is as predictable as the sunrise in the morning.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And more importantly b) it cannot depend upon impoverishing, bankrupting, or killing people.

And to think, you said nothing when the topic of killing unborn fetuses arose. Who are you accusing me of wanting dead exactly?

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, you did "respond" ... in the same way that if I were to quote your most recent post and then write ANYTHING I could claim to have responded.

You are such a cowardly debater, Tracy Coxx.

I have zero interest in debating you smc. My interest in these threads are the political issues. Your only interest in debating me is in derailing conversation away from these political issues with me or anyone you disagree with. This is evident when anyone of your lackeys say things you accuse me of and you say nothing of it.

If you did have something of substance to add to the political debate I still have no interest in debating you because of your argumentative and hostile tactics. Not to mention your frequent use of administrative methods to end debates.

So tell me, in light of all this, why would I have any interest in a "debate" with you?


Enough of this BS. Back to the topic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... I have zero interest in debating you smc. My interest in these threads are the political issues. Your only interest in debating me is in derailing conversation away from these political issues with me or anyone you disagree with. This is evident when anyone of your lackeys say things you accuse me of and you say nothing of it.

If you did have something of substance to add to the political debate I still have no interest in debating you because of your argumentative and hostile tactics. Not to mention your frequent use of administrative methods to end debates.

So tell me, in light of all this, why would I have any interest in a "debate" with you?

Enough of this BS. Back to the topic.

This is bullshit. You post outrageous provocations and get called on them. You ignore being asked to prove it. I have posted dozens of lengthy, thoughtful opinion pieces in your political threads. I engage anyone who wants to have an honest discourse. The record is clear for anyone to see.

People should be held responsible for what they say and write. I accept 100% responsibility for everything I post on this site. When I've been wrong, I have posted so. These posts can be found and read. When you're called out, you change the subject. Period.

Now, prove you're not a debating coward. Back up your post that provoked this exchange -- the "reality" to which you ascribe your anti-gays-in-the-military statements. ila called you out on it, and you haven't answered. You don't need to debate me. You can debate the issue with him. Answer his post. Go on, don't be afraid.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Are you putting me down? In every post that you write referring to me, aren't you putting me down? You exemplify Karl Marx's quote "Accuse others for what you do". Who on here have I put down?

GRH asked a reasonable question and I gave my answers. Then come the obligatory responses from smc (and again by default you). You follow him around like a little puppy dog yapping at his heels. Get a room.

smc and Enoch do this all the time by nitpicking posts of anyone they disagree with, with the goal of starting an argument that has nothing to do with the original conversation. When attempts to get back to the conversation are made they cry foul that their new conversation is not continued. Certain members of TLB staff make a consistent practice of this that is as predictable as the sunrise in the morning.

And to think, you said nothing when the topic of killing unborn fetuses arose. Who are you accusing me of wanting dead exactly?

Were you to say the sky is blue or that I am Puerto Rican, it would seem to me no less a statement of fact than when I characterize your posts as those of a troll.

This issue about ?unborn fetuses? is a further distraction. Saying nothing against the claim does not mean I approve.

If someone asks for clarification, for an answer, and the person being questioned makes a show of not providing one that is an odd thing. It is cause for skepticism and for at least one more attempt at asking for an answer. This is what I mean by derailing. Conversations by their nature generate many different avenues to take and some avenues interest some people more than others and it is by no means a bad thing for someone to ask a question. Appropriate responses include: I?ll have to think more on this or I have the information elsewhere give me (an hour, a day, a week, etc) to read it over, compile it and post it here or simply admit ignorance, for ignorance?so long as it is not deliberate?is no sin.

Ultimately it is impossible to have a discussion with you. Save, of course, if you are allowed to ignore anything that you don?t like or contradicts you, whether a direct challenge from smc or ila?s softer suggestion to get your facts straight or my even tamer reminder not to use me as an excuse to ignore other challenges.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You exemplify Karl Marx's quote "Accuse others for what you do". ...

Provide the source for this quote from Karl Marx, other than a conservative site in the blogosphere. It shows up nowhere in any of the complete online libraries of the works of Karl Marx, but it is used again and again by conservative bloggers. I am perfectly willing to accept that it is real if you can cite the source. Otherwise, you must retract it in the interest of intellectual honesty.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Provide the source for this quote from Karl Marx, other than a conservative site in the blogosphere. It shows up nowhere in any of the complete online libraries of the works of Karl Marx, but it is used again and again by conservative bloggers. I am perfectly willing to accept that it is real if you can cite the source. Otherwise, you must retract it in the interest of intellectual honesty.

I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule. Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that. Again you contribute nothing to this thread, and instead post extraneous off topic (yes off topic since you're glossing over the point of what was said in order to whine about a secondary issue) message with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response and disrupting on-topic discussion. Kindly find another thread to troll.

[GRH]

What are people's thoughts on Rick Perry entering the GOP fray? I'd be a little concerned to elect anyone who has talked about seceding from the Union-- haven't we been down that path before?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

What are people's thoughts on Rick Perry entering the GOP fray? I'd be a little concerned to elect anyone who has talked about seceding from the Union-- haven't we been down that path before?

[QUOTE=Perry]Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that.[/QUOTE ]


He never said Texas should suceeed. He said the above to a reporter in response to the angry mob at one of the Tea-parties who were shouting 'suceeed!'. Add a liberal media bias and now it's a common myth that Perry wants to succeed. On the same day, Perry was also protesting the federal government trying to interfere in state affairs. The 10th amendment protects against this.

[smc]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;188859]

Originally Posted by Perry

Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people who knows what may come of that.[/QUOTE ]


He never said Texas should suceeed. He said the above to a reporter in response to the angry mob at one of the Tea-parties who were shouting 'suceeed!'. Add a liberal media bias and now it's a common myth that Perry wants to succeed. On the same day, Perry was also protesting the federal government trying to interfere in state affairs. The 10th amendment protects against this.

Perry did what politicians do all the time, on the right and left: he pandered. It's disingenuous to state that he is actually for secession, since he knows that it's not really possible or actually desirable on the part of his constituents. But it's equally disingenuous to pretend that his remarks were less pandering than they actually were. Even when a politician panders, he or she should be held accountable for what he says, not given a pass. This goes for Obama no less than Perry.

By the way, it's "secede," not "succeed." Although, in a strange twist, it would appear that many candidates for the presidency are banking (pun intended) on things not succeeding with this country in advance of the 2012 election.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule. Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that. Again you contribute nothing to this thread, and instead post extraneous off topic (yes off topic since you're glossing over the point of what was said in order to whine about a secondary issue) message with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response and disrupting on-topic discussion. Kindly find another thread to troll.

This is the greatest sophism you have yet posted, Tracy Coxx. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you essentially reserve for yourself the right to make up any quote, attribute it to anyone, and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty. You must be very proud of yourself for that.

I won't even waste the forum's time with the discussion of the "proving a negative" strategy that is intellectually bankrupt -- but that you employ nonetheless.

Notably, by calling me a troll, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you accuse Enoch Root of doing? The answer is clearly yes.

As for not contributing to this thread, that's not really for you to decide. You only have the right to start your political threads, not determine who gets to post in them. You've been told this before by the site owner. Why don't you post that PM, Tracy?

I seek to contribute by confronting positions you take and challenging you to back them up. That is a basic part of political discourse, but you don't like that part, so you pretend that it isn't. Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so. I have contributed thoughtful and analytic posts throughout the political threads on this site, as you well know and as anyone who cares to search can find out. I don't start troll threads like you do, because being troll is an act of political cowardice. Again, just because you say you're not a troll, and call me one, doesn't make it true. What makes it true is a reasoned look at the posts, at the entirety of posts, and at the entirety of participation in the political threads here. I have every confidence that -- REGARDLESS of the political positions you adopt or I adopt -- that who is really the troll is clear to anyone who takes an honest look.

Some people aren't bothered by trolling. I know this for a fact in the case of someone on this very site. That doesn't mean that member doesn't recognize you as a troll.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

This is the greatest sophism you have yet posted, Tracy Coxx. Taken to it's logical conclusion, you essentially reserve for yourself the right to make up any quote, attribute it to anyone, and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty. You must be very proud of yourself for that.

So you're saying that I said I reserve for myself the right to make up any quote and attribute it to anyone since there's no forum rule against it. Hmmm, did I really say that?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'll consider adding footnotes and bibliographies to my posts as soon as that becomes a forum rule.

Nope. Quite a lot of things are said on this forum without references, believe it or not. I'll put in the extra work when I'm working on my thesis, but it's not a forum rule here so I'll omit my bibliography. I never said I had the right to make up quotes.

Originally Posted by smc

and because it's not a "forum rule" you don't have to be held accountable for dishonesty.

That doesn't sound like anything I said either. Let's review.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Until then you're free to prove that Karl Marx never said that.

Dang, that actually sounds like the opposite of what I said. Interesting.

Originally Posted by smc

I won't even waste the forum's time with the discussion of the "proving a negative" strategy that is intellectually bankrupt -- but that you employ nonetheless.

Actually you imply a negative with your skepticism. I'll give you a hint here to help you out though: You could cite who the real source of the quote is. Then I'd look pretty silly. Otherwise your accusation is coming out of left field.

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, by calling me a troll, aren't you doing exactly the same thing you accuse Enoch Root of doing? The answer is clearly yes.

Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by smc

As for not contributing to this thread, that's not really for you to decide. You only have the right to start your political threads, not determine who gets to post in them.

You twist my words again. I have never "determined" who should post here. I said "Kindly find another thread to troll". First off, that only refers to your trolling posts. In reality it would be rule 4 that would restrict your off topic posts: "Stick to the issues". Please stay. I'm sure I would have so much to learn by your example about rule 4.

Originally Posted by smc

I seek to contribute by confronting positions you take and challenging you to back them up. That is a basic part of political discourse

Not all attitudes are conducive to political discourse though. I recognize them for what they are and TRY to avoid them. I admit I haven't been too good at that lately. When I do respond I explain my side but I recognize that my position will not be agreed with. I'm not going to beat it into you. I say my piece and move on. It is a given that you wouldn't accept my reasoning. Not my problem.

Originally Posted by smc

I have every confidence that -- REGARDLESS of the political positions you adopt or I adopt -- that who is really the troll is clear to anyone who takes an honest look.

I will have to admit that 39% of your posts here have actually been more or less on the thread's topic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So you're saying that I said I reserve for myself the right to make up any quote and attribute it to anyone since there's no forum rule against it. Hmmm, did I really say that?
Nope. Quite a lot of things are said on this forum without references, believe it or not. I'll put in the extra work when I'm working on my thesis, but it's not a forum rule here so I'll omit my bibliography. I never said I had the right to make up quotes.

That doesn't sound like anything I said either. Let's review.
Dang, that actually sounds like the opposite of what I said. Interesting.

Actually you imply a negative with your skepticism. I'll give you a hint here to help you out though: You could cite who the real source of the quote is. Then I'd look pretty silly. Otherwise your accusation is coming out of left field.

Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.

You twist my words again. I have never "determined" who should post here. I said "Kindly find another thread to troll". First off, that only refers to your trolling posts. In reality it would be rule 4 that would restrict your off topic posts: "Stick to the issues". Please stay. I'm sure I would have so much to learn by your example about rule 4.

Not all attitudes are conducive to political discourse though. I recognize them for what they are and TRY to avoid them. I admit I haven't been too good at that lately. When I do respond I explain my side but I recognize that my position will not be agreed with. I'm not going to beat it into you. I say my piece and move on. It is a given that you wouldn't accept my reasoning. Not my problem.

I will have to admit that 39% of your posts here have actually been more or less on the thread's topic.

If your sophism wasn't so unfortunate it would be laughable.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, I'm doing the exact same thing I did with Enoch Root: Uncover hypocrisy.

This fellow forum members provides an interesting thought exercise: How is one to defend oneself against baseless accusations?

...
...

I think I have it: boo-fuckin'-hoo.

[yearofthesmurfs]

I think Romney is their best chance...but I wouldn't vote for GOPr anyway.

[smc]

Michele Bachmann is coming on strong in Iowa, thanks in large part to the tremendous appeal she has to those who cherish America's wonderful history of fighting for liberty:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/254416/jim...?from=fb_share

[randolph]

Vote for Joanna jet for president, then we can enjoy being screwed.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

Michele Bachmann is coming on strong in Iowa, thanks in large part to the tremendous appeal she has to those who cherish America's wonderful history of fighting for liberty:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/254416/jim...?from=fb_share

I was wondering when someone was going to finally get around to posting Michele's gaffes (damn, I'm polite). I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read her statements. I'm not from the US and even I knew she was wrong with what she said.