"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.


(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Well, let's see:

About this time last year you were frantically calling everybody names
whom you thought might not vote for Bush/Cheney.

False.

At the time, I pointed out that when considering the facts, they had not
done a very good job running the country. For that, you called me even
more names.

Again false. If I attacked you personally, it was because you dropped the
first glove. I have *almost* always discussed politics without resorting to
ad hominems unless they were directed at me first.

Now you agree with me.

Clearly you are very consistent in your principles.





Maxprop wrote:
.... I tend to believe you are among the most liberal of posters
herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of course, are in
constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for themselves:

Yep- I am in favor of a strong military,

So is Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and other liberals.
At least they claim to be.

a fiscally responsible gov't,

I don't recall any of the liberals in Congress calling for a fiscally
irresponsible government. Only our current administration seems to be
smitten with that idea.

enforcement of the Constitution, and own several guns.

Many liberals are closet gun owners. Recall Carl Rowan, who shot a kid for
swimming in his pool? He was clearly one of the more liberal columnists in
the media of his day. I recall being frustrated with the frequent harrangue
against gun ownership that he preached in his columns.

Hmm, I don't see any bumper stickers for a liberal like me!

I've got one for ya: "Hillary in '08"

.... you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to run
for president

1- Who is "the most liberal"? Kucinick? I didn't support him.

Kerry. He was probably quite a bit right of Kucinich or Dean, but he
certainly is no moderate. Even Gore looks like a moderate next to him.

2- So did 49.9% of the rest of the country. Do the math

.... and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I see on the
far left websites.

Like what?

Without digging up specifics, I do recall some points you made in
discussions with Dave or me in which the same lines, nearly verbatim, were
on moveon.org or one of the other highly liberal sites earlier in the
week. I read those websites regularly, so when a particular tag line, not
just a concept, shows up here, it seems obvious from where it came.


... You've branded any of the current conservative players in the
political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and without morality.

Like what?

Karl Rove, who was absolved of wrongdoing in the Valerie Plame exposure case
yesterday. Of course Rove has pulled out the stops in order to put his man
in the White House, but so has George Soros, and I've not heard one word
against him from you. Both have really dirty fingers, but you've chosen to
lambaste Rove only.

... You call them all "neocons,"

No, I call neo-cons neo-cons. Usually that's what they call themselves.

I certainly don't reall anyone of importance referring to himself as a
neocon. IIRC it's a media term that has been adopted by the left as a
derogatory appellation.

... as if this is an abberation of your brand of "conservatism."

No, it's an aberration of conservatism. Neo-cons themselves say so.

See above.

... None of the conservatives I know personally have any of these
viewpoints.



So far you haven't mentioned a single one of my viewpoints, nor have you
addressed any actual facts.

Actions speak louder than words. I'm personally not aware of any
conservatives who supported Gore or Kerry in the past presidential
elections. You are obviously a democrat, and right or wrong the democrat
party is now closely associated with liberalism. The power base of the
democrat party is strongly liberal. I'll grant that you hold some
apparently conservative viewpoints, but when one hangs with dogs one tends
to have fleas. It's difficult to be a conservative (Blue Dog) democrat
these days.

So far, it looks like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you shouldn't be
so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit like him.

Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.

Jon: is this evidence enough for you?

Max