tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3273177060431017102.post7869552516929113164..comments2022-11-27T19:21:24.353-05:00Comments on RiskingHemlock: Rebutting an Angle ApologistMatthew Rozsahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15367038702735883624noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3273177060431017102.post-66494884145121146012010-11-04T18:57:52.617-04:002010-11-04T18:57:52.617-04:00Lmao, loved it Matt. Sometimes I think that people...Lmao, loved it Matt. Sometimes I think that people dont realize that they are just stubbornly repeating themselves, apparently thinking that we cant read or that somehow the meaning is different now. I also enjoy his whole "Google it" as if Google is a valid reference. You want to make a point, cite it your damn self, with a reputable citation I might add. Dont expect others to do the leg work for your wild claims. That being said, you still refutted him on every single unsupported (by his own fault) claim. Well Done.Christinanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3273177060431017102.post-33639407720515719582010-11-04T18:39:31.263-04:002010-11-04T18:39:31.263-04:00PPS: Here is what I wrote in reply to Daniel "...PPS: Here is what I wrote in reply to Daniel "Sharron Angle" Golden:<br /><br />"I had begun to write a reply to your last post, but as soon as I saw that it wasn't just breathtakingly stupid, but brazen in its determination to merely repeat every point you'd made before without addressing anything I had said (while, ev...en more boldly, accusing me of the exact same thing that you were in the process of doing), I decided that enough was enough. I have a real job and a real life. My thoughts on your fatuous faux intellectual masturbation can be found in the comments section of my blog. If you want to debate by actually bringing up something new, fine, but if you're just going to keep repeating yourself, you can't reasonably expect me to waste my time with you."<br /><br />For the record, normally I don't like to refrain from posting what other people write in response to my comments. That said, I've gotten many complaints about these blog articles being too long, and while I'm willing to tell the complainers to get over it if each paragraph contains a new and valid idea, I have to concede that they're right if one party simply keeps saying the same old thing without adding anything new. If Daniel wants to continue to debate me, he is welcome to do so here - but ONLY if he doesn't continue to use repetitiousness as his debating strategy.Matthew Rozsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367038702735883624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3273177060431017102.post-70452851449421610522010-11-04T18:29:48.848-04:002010-11-04T18:29:48.848-04:00PS: Daniel "Sharron Angle" Golden DID re...PS: Daniel "Sharron Angle" Golden DID reply to my last post, presumably after he had grown tired of being taunted. Unfortunately, virtually everything he said was a repetition of comments he had made earlier, so I'm not going to indulge him by reposting his parrotings here. That said, one remark of his - the ONLY one that was original or new in his voluminous diatribe - was especially telling:<br /><br />"You are compromised by your democratic support. I'm a libertarian leaning independent. I'm objective."<br /><br />That says all that needs to be known about the two major problems with Sharron Angle supporters and other members of the Tea Party movement.<br /><br />1) When confronted with facts that contradict their point-of-view, they simply ignore what the other party has said while repeating their old argument ad infinitum (even as, naturally, they accuse their opponents of engaging in precisely that tactic).<br /><br />2) They believe, as Daniel "Sharron Angle" Golden makes clear, that they and they alone can possibly have valid opinions because of their ideological perspective. Tea Partiers, despite their obvious right-wing views, like to classify themselves as "libertarian", and then in turn claim that that vaunted vantage point grants them a certain degree of critical immunity. Whatever faults liberal Democrats, conservative Republicans, and all other manner of ideological groups may possess, they usually are willing to concede at least the POTENTIAL validity of other perspectives. Tea Partiers, like my Sharron Angle-loving acquaintance here, do not make that concession. In their eyes, the mere fact that they associate with a given ideological perspective makes them "objective" and thus naturally correct, while naturally everyone who identifies with a different point-of-view is "subjective" and thus naturally wrong. That belief is obnoxious in its own right, although it becomes even more so when one debates (as I just did) an individual whose attitude writes checks that his brainpower can't cash.Matthew Rozsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15367038702735883624noreply@blogger.com