Me: A popularizer is only as good as his ideas. If his ideas are bad, then he's a bad influence on the movement. What are his ideas?
Bull. You made explicit assertions:
Instead, he's a popularizer for Zombie Reaganism and mindless platitudes. Popularizers are only as good as the ideas they promote, and he promotes bad, useless ideas!
Then you tried to shift the burden of proof to me. Whether you're lying now because you forget so quickly what you claimed just last page, or because you're deliberately being deceitful, I don't much care at this point, you're clearly not arguing in good faith.
First, projection much? This entire attitude of "educate yourself" is the sort of arrogance I get enough of on the Left. I don't need it from a right-winger. And your comment on how I should "learn to understand how other people think" is a bit hypocritical coming from the guy who couldn't understand what I was saying earlier. Perhaps we should both take your advice.
Second, these are not interesting observations. These are observations that anyone who doesn't outsource their thinking to liberal journalists has picked up on.
You say these are not interesting observations. You say 'anyoe who doesn't outsource their thinking to liberal journalists has picked up on.'
This is exactly the kind of low-energy lack of thinking I expected, and why I didn't want to waste my time.
You say this
now. You say this after Limbaugh, then more talk radio, then Fox News, then Breitbart, have broken the media monopoly. You ignore the fact that I said he was the one who
popularized understanding of these things to the American Public.
You show your ignorance of what the media environment was like before Limbaugh made his entrance. You are standing on the shoulders of work that people like
him accomplished, after what he has accomplished has become wide-spread knowledge, and sneering at him for
that very accomplishment, because you, living now,
take that accomplishment for granted.
I suppose the part where the RINOs are "more interested in being part of the social elite than actually voting for principles in the legislature" is beginning to hit on something, but it comes across as sort of common populist rhetoric. No analysis of why the social elite are liberal, no analysis of where conservatives fit into the power dynamic, etc.
And here,
just as I expected from you, you are dismissive because I didn't lay out the detailed position and argument, when I
explicitly say that I'm giving quick points rather than a philosphy essay.
I am
finished with this. You are not engaging in good faith here, and I'm not wasting my time on this any longer.