I shouldn’t but I’m gonna’. Here is the latest in the little FB imbroglio I have gotten myself involved in. This a response to a response elicited by my previous gibbering. Some of it is actually funnier if you don’t have the full thread to view. I’m officially part of the problem…:
Nice! Yeah-I can yap, and yip, and yuck it up alright. I’m a regular Abbie Hoffman! Glad that comes across…And, by all means, stand wherever you choose-But, stand corrected. I don’t claim to be an expert on ornithology, but I do know something about semantics. And I can tell you that you are incorrect, sir, with your insistence that everybody on the left end of the political spectrum is a “liberal.” In fact, some on the left end of the spectrum (commies, wobblies, anarcho syndicalists) are much much “worse” than the contemporary American liberals you take issue with. And some, well, they have no ideology at all. They have no identity; no purpose even. They just, as Michael Caine said in “The Dark Knight,” want to watch the world burn. And yes, some are the very liberals you disagree with. And some are jerks, and some are sexy, and some weep at the end of ‘Old Yeller.’ But no amount of pies or pancakes or political taxonomy is, apparently, going to convince you of this. Fair enough. I acknowledge and even oddly admire your contrarianism. I’ll add that I was intrigued to see you make a number of assumptions about me in your last response. I might point out that at no time in anything that I have written did I espouse a single political statement (baring my calling commies, etc. “worse” than liberals). Nor did I advocate or condemn any political ideology. For all you know I could be a Monarchist from what I have divulged about my personal beliefs. I have simply taken issue with you misusing the term liberal, specifically in the case of Sirhan Sirhan and Ole’ Lee Harvey. I have also taken issue with your use of two non-liberal assassins as examples of when good liberals go bad. My criticisms have had everything to do with your argument and nothing to do with your politics. So, when you make a statement such as, “They have convinced people like you…” I am curious to know who is people like me? People like Bill Ayers and Lee Harvey Oswald? Based on what do you presume to know anything about me other than the things I have written here and above? You asserted that I have an “aversion to recognizing that your chosen political ideology includes people like them.” People like who? People like liberals? What’s my chosen political ideology? I assume that you assume I am liberal. If that is the case then the statement that you made and from which I quoted would mean that I have an aversion to recognizing that my liberal ideology includes liberals. That would be pretty silly, [name removed]. Even for a liberal. So, once again, I will tell you that none of my assertions and positions in the context of this little discussion we have been enjoying make any kind of political appeal or critique. I have simply been critical of your assertions and argument technique. Which kinda’ puts me more in the realm of debate coach than plotting pink boy. And, I must say; the initial Booth reference was intended as satire. I believe Rush Limbaugh would say I was demonstrating absurdity by being absurd(Limbaugh, Rush: ‘The Way Things Ought to Be’ pg. 295) I’m sorry for the confusion there. Alright, so, I do hope you come to the show someday. Let [name removed] know and we can put you on the guest list. I’ll buy you a beer! 🙂