JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #121
This has been pointed out to you repeatedly in the past months by several posters.
You now attempt the "give me the evidence" ploy. The answer is "no, that has been done."
Make sure the terminology is critically objective and accounted for bias, and then possibly the creditability of argumentation may improve.
You can do this by beginning with clear, objective definitions of "liberalism", "classic liberalism", "conservatism", "radical", and "reactionary".
So you are unable to document your post with the specifics?
In the words of Claude Raines as Captain Renault, 'I'm shocked.'
Thanks, that is a great description of you, PC. Over the months all of the above objective critical comments have been documented about your mistaken conceit that you know about what you are writing. You have remained consistently immoral in your stubbornness, that in the face of clear and convincing evidence, you yet continue to misplay, misdeal, and misaddress your silly reactionary positions.
Those who are well informed, well read, and well educated will continue to correct your public miscues. This is good. From your silly scraps, we will constitute the necessary corrections.
Last edited: