On 11/10/2011 9:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 11/10/2011 1:42 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 11/9/2011 5:18 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

If you meant "right wingers", not the "the right", then why did
you write "the ones on the right"?

Because for most people those terms are synonymous and I thought you
of all people would understand that without me having to tell you. It
wasn't that difficult to decipher.

"Most people"? You mean most of the people who agree with you. So "the
ones on the right" are "the right", but right wingers aren't. Somehow.

You'll never get it but most people means all the other people except
those on the right. They think different from the rest of the
population. Their views are not moderate or mainstream, they are right
wing. Most people excluding them is who I'm talking about. That includes
Democrats, Independents, nonpolitical, or other splinter parties. What
do they think? The majority of them disagree with right wing views. So
that's who. It's not what I think although I agree with the majority of
them.



You say that; but let's hear your positions on some of the issues
that are important. I know it's just a wild guess but I bet your
positions are going to be pretty damn close or the same as the
two major parties.

What kind of bet is that? If I have any positions similar to any of
the Reps or Dems, you somehow win? Nope, you'll always be a loser.

First off, it's not a real bet. I was using a figure of speech and
meant that your views were probably pretty much like most other
people's. Yours would be just like either a republican or a
Democrat.

Or some of each, and a lot of something else. You lose again.

Tell me this wise guy. If all your views come down as being either
agreeing with republican or Democratic positions then how are you
different like you claim being a left libertarian. A mixture of
republican and Democratic positions doesn't make someone a left libertarian.


I don't kiss anyone's ass, Reps or Dems. If anything, I'm quite
a bit to the left of you, but you're too busy admiring your
diploma to realize that.


So you say. But how about telling where you stand on the big
issues. Then I can tell you if you're really different from the
other party's positions. I think you have a lot of conservative
views. So let's hear where you stand on abortion, women's
reproductive rights, the wars, Bush's tax cuts, the government
bailouts, etc. I can hardly wait to hear your positions that are
"a bit to the left of mine".



I choose not to have an abortion. I have no right to decide that
for others, although I don't think abortion is appropriate for
birth control. But, as I said, not for me to decide.

So you leave it to others to decide whether to have an abortion or
not. That's called pro life and is the Democratic position.

Like Perry said, oops. My bad. I mean that position is pro choice. That
was a typographical error. Your position is pro choice, meaning you
agree with the Democrats.




Gee, I thought pro choice was mostly Dems and pro life was mostly Reps.
I'm glad you cleared that up.

Now it's cleared up. But do you get it?

At the same time, I
applaud the recent efforts to free those wrongly convicted and on
death row because I hope it will lead to capital punishment only
for those who have truly earned it, like Gacy and Dahmer.

Anti capital punishment except in rare cases. That's pretty much the
Democrat's position too.

I've never talked to a Dem who thought there was ever a just cause for
capital punishment, and I've talked to quite a few. Most of them smarter
than you.

What a surprise! Most Democrats don't believe in capital punishment. You
just figured that out? Democrats are usually anti death penalty under
any circumstances so that is what they tell you if you ask them. As for
being smarter than me, you don't know how smart I am, so you sure don't
know if Democrats you have talked to are smarter than me. But if you
were talking to Democrats the odds are they were definitely smarter than
you.



Iraq. Necessary to finish what we didn't with Desert Storm. Too bad
our earlier allies were taking so much cash from Saddam that they
decided not to help enforce the sanctions. As for WMDs, Saddam did
everything he could to convince the leaders of the west that he had
them and he was successful. Because of the arrogance of the
Pentagon, we screwed up maintaining civil order and most of what
has since happened derives from that. After we pull out, Iran will
probably take over.

Condoning a war of aggression with Iraq and finding excuses to
justify it, that's a republican view on the war.

Seems to me there were a lot of Dems supporting Desert Storm and,
initially, its sequel in 2003.

No weaseling out with the you too bull****. Your view is the republican
view. Period! Nobody cares what others think. Your view is the same as
the republicans.



Afghanistan. "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to
repeat it." Sadly, those who do learn from history are also doomed
to repeat it. Not much different from when Lysander tromped
through, same primitive ethics, better weapons over the millennia.

Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan. Now that's mainly how the
Democrats see it and a lot of republicans too. So that's a mainstream
point of view. At least 2/3s of Americans want us out of there now.
So you're view is moderate.

That in itself is a bit of a surprise.


"Isolationism in regards to Afghanistan." That's an interesting thought,
no one goes in, no one comes out, anyone who tries gets taken out by a
Predator. You inadvertently made a contribution.

The idea that you think so automatically makes it suspect.



Tax cuts for the rich aren't a Rep/Dem thing, its the oligarchy at
work, as are the bailouts. Those banksters really thought it was OK
to use bailout money for their bonuses, rewarding themselves for
failure must have been good for their self esteem.

You didn't take a position on tax cuts. For them, against them, good
for the country, bad, you don't say anything about it. So you
weaseled out.

Again with the failed reading comprehension. Do you just not read what
you don't understand?

Bullcrap! I specifically asked your position on tax cuts and you came up
with nothing. Instead of addressing it you ran away and hid. Bankers,
the oligarchs, bonuses, and bailouts are not a tax issue. So you dodged
that issue. Cowardice is noted.


I don't really care about whether this is to the left of you or
not. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you picked such
superficial issues.

I didn't pick the issues.

Sure you did.

Bullcrap again! I asked you to give your position on the big issues. I
listed a few that I thought were big. But I asked for you to tell me
where YOU stood on the big issues. Instead you answered a few of mine
and avoided the rest. Evasion noted.

I made a few suggestions that came to mind but I was asking you where
you stood on the important issues, which is what I said. I assumed
that you would have a different opinion of what those would be. The
point is you didn't answer many questions but of the ones you did
your views were not any different from what most republicans or
Democrats think. Which is what I expected.

You expected me to have some Dem and some Rep views on the issues you
selected. So what? I told you in the first place that I agreed with some
things on both sides. The issues you picked are bread and circuses.

I didn't pick them and you know it. I asked for your position on the big
issues. You didn't come up with any and instead just criticized mine as
being no good. All you had to do is what I asked you to, which was come
up with you own. But you didn't and just went negative. No surprise
there because that's exactly what a punk would do.

Hawke