"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
A silly argument on both sides.

Not at all.

On one side, we have use of words with some degree of accuracy, on the
other side we have enflamed illogic & buzz-words.

Is a term a "buzz-word" only if you find it to your disliking as it is used?
You tend to define the term "fascist," my young pedant.


The underlying dispute is not over the meaning of words.

Agreed.
However, when one participant displays such ignorance & prejudice that
there's really no way he's going to be able to participate, then why not
just provide a little motivation for him to do some further study before
jumping into the ring?

When one participant has no defense for his argument, he launches into a
dispute over definitions. A familiar tactic of the intellectually bereft.

.... It's over whether
specific laws such as those providing for welfare, social security,
Medicaid
and other entitlement programs are wise policy.

Not quite on target, since there is literally no way (short of a violent
coup) the U.S. gov't is going to shed those programs. That leaves
intelligent & reasonable discussion to the amount & specifics of these
programs.

Or the expansion of similar programs, and the love-affair the left has with
such giveaways. It's the primary vote-getter for them, afterall. Without
the ignorant and impoverished welfare-style entitlement recipients
(generall those at the bottom of the voter food chain) the democrats would
be hard pressed to garner 25% of the popular vote.

Now go ahead and accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks. It'll make you
feel better.

No point. I've simply learned to return fire with ad hominems. It's far
easier that way, since you are so stupidly blind to your own faux pas, or at
least in a continual state of denial.

Max