PubliusInfinitum said:
Ahh... Indeed. And What Progressive does?
Ya see how that works friends? And this has been a longstanding trend... Progressives don't NEED AN ARGUMENT. They don't NEED SOUND REASONING resting on a valid logical construct. No no... All the Progressive needs is the self assurance that validity and truth rest somewhere in the middle-way... They're in the middle, so... it's axiomatic.
And therein lies the amazing convenience of hysterical populism. No thinkin' necessary... just latch onto the compromise between right and wrong and PRESTO!
Have you educated yourself on Libertarians yet?
So, you're projecting that my education is difficient, without bearing the burden of proving that such is the case... How positively CONVENIENT! I imagine that this is quite a time saver. Sadly, for your argument, to assert that my eduation is deficient, at least where the argument rests in a valid construct, you'll need to produce evidence which on SOME LEVEL discredits my argument; rest assured that ad populum rants which merely imply such to be the case, isn't going to get it done.
If you have, I insist you give your reasoning to me as how they are 'progressives' 'liberals' 'socialists' 'leftists', whatever Beck might be calling them these days.
Well I see that you'd also prefer to simply trot out a straw argument wherein you establish the pretense that I've failed to correlate your argument to that common to the Progressive.
Allow me to simply re-state that which you cited above and chose to ignore:
Publius Infinitum said:
Ya see how that works friends? And this has been a longstanding trend... Progressives don't NEED AN ARGUMENT. They don't NEED SOUND REASONING resting on a valid logical construct. No no... All the Progressive needs is the self assurance that validity and truth rest somewhere in the middle-way... They're in the middle, so... it's axiomatic. And therein lies the amazing convenience of hysterical populism. No thinkin' necessary... just latch onto the compromise between right and wrong and PRESTO!
Also maybe you can give your reasoning on how moderates, centrists, etc. are also 'progressives' 'liberals' 'socialists' 'leftists'.
Hmm... Seriously? "Birds of a feather..." "Guilt by association.."
Wrong is wrong...and remains so, despite being combined with an equal measure of right. Progressivism is defined by it's historical pursuit of the
Middle or
Third Way... Theft remains theft, whether one blows through the bank doors, guns blazing... or if one merely picks up a deposit errantly left behind on the counter, by one's neighbor.
If you give me good reasoning perhaps i can debate further the difference.
Perhaps... but the evidence thus far, suggests it being
unlikely, at best.
Publius Infinitum said:
Indeed... that would be the comfort of one's delusion, intrinsic in owning the inferior position. Such usually begins by projecting that the superior position is simply not reasonable. Which of course is IRRESISTABLE where the rules axiomatically reject any need for logically valid, intellectually sound reasoning.
I'm delusional because i believe you aren't reasonable?
My position merely points to the cloister which your delusional position serves... the reason that you may BE delusional is unknown to me, and I expect is fairly irreelvant to this discussion.
I've yet to see any reasonable points from you linking 'progressives' 'liberals' 'socialists' 'leftists' 'moderates' 'centrists' 'libertarians', other then the typing of said words progressive and populist etc. in caps lock.
So you disagree with the argument and as a result need to declare the argument sub-reasonable; and this presumably to avoid the responsibility which otherwise requires you show that Progressivism is historically distinct from populism; which ironically, rests in this belly of this course in the construct of raw ad populum.
ROFL... As obscurance goes... it's BRILLIANT! It's too bad that you're not trying to prove yourself a Progressive. As this would be a monumental demonstration of a solid effort toward that end.
PubliusInfinitum said:
ROFL... My claims are irrational? Which claims are those Sis? The claim which challenges your self-assigned title as "Libertarian"? Huh... I thought it fairly spot on, given you're a self-professed "Moderate" in your account shingle.... Moderates are the embodiment of the Progressive, Scout. That you feel you need to lean on the right side of that yellow line is a good sign; you at least seem to have some discernible sign of conscience. But at the end of the day, knowing you're wrong only adds to the severity of one's punishment, where one continues to walk down the leftist path and it manifest itself into Anti-American action.
What you think is spot on may be rational to you, but refusing to give reasoning behind it doesn't make it rational to others. Again give me reason behind your claim. Infact, you would be better off actually making some sort of logical, coherent point.
So you overtly avoid answering the challenge and feel comfortable merely re-stating that the opposing argument is irrational. Here's the thing Sis; what you're doing is appealing to the popularity which you sense favors your argument. I asked you SPECIFICALLY to state which of my claims you
feel are irrational... I further offered you my best guess and responded to that; pointing out that you claim in argument to be a libertarian and claim in your forum shingle to be a moderate; which by default accepts what you no doubt feel is the best half of the Leftist ideology; which conclusively demonstrates the above noted would-be pursuit of the Middle Way, which is the defining function of Progressivism... Your response is to simpy re-state your baseless vague assertion; and thus far in the absence of any stated rationale, thus rendering YOUR argument... formerly,
irrational.
Suffice it to again say, that the point is merely to note that those who oppose Glenn Beck do so because Beck's position stands at odds with their own. Becks position is that which contests the Progressive subversion of American principles and in so doing subverting America herself, entirely. You've overtly taken up the challenge to Becks position and my defense of same. As I've repeatedly noted; it's not a complex equation.
PubliusInfinitum said:
The topic is Glenn Beck and his re-educating of the American Public; a tactic which he's chosen as a means to replace the misinformation, disinformation and raw revisionism employed by the Ideological Left as a means to subvert America; as a means to dislodge from America the immutable Principles intrinsic in the cornerstone of her foundation... I'm simply pointing out that those who disagree with Beck, do so because they (you) are part and parcel of that foreign ideology... I've merely asked you to produce a valid stated basis for your disagreement with Beck; to which you've responded by denying you're a Progressive and demanding that you've no 'NEED TO HAVE A SOUND ARGUMENT'... which I pointed out was incontrovertible evidence of a progressive, demonstrating that such is precisely what ya are.
I'd say we're centered on the issue. So don't sweat it.
The topic is about his university. The topic isn't about whether Beck is right or wrong.
Oh! so you're claiming now that you're simply here to argue the University and this without ANY judgment of whether Beck himself, is right or wrong. Well that's perfectly deceitful and utterly fraudulent. It could be absolute perfection in Progressive reasoning. (Now you DO understand, that to this point at least, your position has been to DENY that you're a progressive?)
Being liberal is not an Anti-American foreign ideology. We have a 2 party system for a reason.
Well sure... Because, after all there are no immutable American principles... Anything or anyone can lay claim to being American... as long as they can claim citizenship, or happen to be standing within the geographical scope of the Americas... Right?
Now would you think ill of me to assign that species of reasoning upon you?
Or would you care to correct any misrepresentation which that mindset represents, when assigned to you?
I'm not automatically progressive because i choose not to have an argument with an incoherent, irrational dope, who has yet to give his reasoning behind why be believes all 'progressives' 'liberals' 'socialists' 'leftists' 'moderates' 'centrists' 'libertarians' are all alike and Anti-American.
Uh oh... Looks like you're down to qualification... demanding now that ALL progressives are somehow distinct from one another, thus not necessarily 'anti-American.' Presumably providing some acceptable degree of separation, to qualify, perhaps... yourself, as the glaring exception. Answer the above question and we'll see how it goes.
Once you have made a point i consider reasonable we will discuss this further.
Have you educated yourself as why a libertarian is not a liberal yet?
Well there's nothing particularly complex about it... the answer is that the would-be liberal is not a libertarian; but has either delusionally or deceptively taken to associate themselves with such, to avoid being identified as one who overtly opposes the immutable principles of nature that define America... Which is the same reason that their predecessors took on the label of "liberal"... It serves the purpose of the ruse, the fraudulent facade; it is the tool of the insurgency, the purpose of which is to sever the culture from it's foundational, principled moorings.
Now just to make sure the point is not lost in the obscurance which your response will no doubt serve, given the record; The challenge has been put to you to DEFINE "America" in such a way which would provide for Leftism in all of it's various conjurings, rationalizations and forms, could be reasonably counted in viable membership. Which simply means, Sis... That I am asking you to explain what America IS and to do so in such a way which allows for Left-think to considered "American".
Best of luck to ya.
There's no excuse for being that lazy.