Why would anybody want to argue with Bithead?

I like to argue about politics. Apparently, so does he. If you had read my comments, you could have taken a few interesting tidbits away about FDR, and discovered 2 seminal works in the field of semantics, so there was a learning opportunity, you just did not take it.

I have my own way of carrying on a discussion. It may not be your cup of tea, but that's you. My definition of "respectful" includes not trying to tell others how to act. Since bit continues to engage in conversation with me, it seems apparent that he is getting something out of it, and does not have a problem with my tone that would cause him to tell me to buzz off.

As far as the thread being "poisoned", this thread is nearing the century mark for posts, which does not suggest a premature death.

I really cannot believe I am having this conversation. I am not interested in your attempt to be the hall monitor. In the future, I will disregard you comments. I suggest you do the same with mine.

Well Michael, why don't you start your own blog? There you can be as controlling as you wish...

I'm not asking for control, I'm asking for respect. You can say whatever you want, I'm just asking that you try remain civil when you say it.

I have no intention of tailoring my postings to suit you. Geeze, are you jealous because I argue with bit more than you do?

Why would anybody want to argue with Bithead? Argument for argument sake is stupid. If you're not learning, and you're not teaching, then what's the point? However, when I do end up arguing with Bit, I do try to keep my comments respectful, and he and I both come out of it better informed than when we went in.

I have no intention of tailoring my postings to suit you. Geeze, are you jealous because I argue with bit more than you do?

If you do not appreciate my comments, please feel free to ignore them.

Your comments don't exist in isolation, the effectively take over and poison the entire thread. I am forced to ignore many a thread around here because you and Bithead regularly get off on ad hominem tangents instead of posting objectively.

You might want to keep in mind that this blog belongs to James, and he, to this point, has continued to allow me to post. If you wish to be the post police, perhaps you should start you own blog and block comments as you see fit...

Just because nobody is actively censoring you for it, doesn't mean you have an obligation to be a jerk. I think all of us, including you, would benefit from a little more restraint in your replies.

Why did you think it was necessary to post that?

If you do not appreciate my comments, please feel free to ignore them. You might want to keep in mind that this blog belongs to James, and he, to this point, has continued to allow me to post. If you wish to be the post police, perhaps you should start you own blog and block comments as you see fit...

How does one say "All men are created equal" without laying question at the foundaton of monarchies?

The same way they could say that without abolishing slavery, I suppose.

Had't you noticed the number of times the validity of the monarchy itself was question by Jefferson, for example?

It was Paine more than anybody making that case. Also most of the founding fathers staunch supporters of the crown during the French & Indian war. Many of them wrote about how wonderful it was to be British because of the freedoms ensured to them. It wasn't until the Parliament and King George started trying to take away those freedoms that they rebelled. The Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the sitting king, not the idea of Monarchy itself.

How does one say "All men are created equal" without laying question at the foundaton of monarchies?

Then you are suggesting that our founding fathers were rebelling against the origin of British government, not just it's incarnation in the 1760s?

Of course!
Had't you noticed the number of times the validity of the monarchy itself was question by Jefferson, for example?

Bithead: I couldn't figure out what you meant by those search words - care to share more? I'm genuinely curious now

.

Back in the early 70's WSAY was a station in the Rochester NY area, owned by Gordon Brown. Brown had a real commitment to Public service, going well beyond his conteporaries in thtat area... a fact which cost im listeners bigtime. Despite running more black oriented programming than any other station in the area, particualrly in the area of public service programming, and despite having moe minorities on staff than any other station in the city, WSAY was sued by a group fronted by Florence, on the ground that their views were not being heard. There were two results of this;

1: They broke Brown, financially to he point where he had to sell other long-held broadcast interests in Buffalo, just to keep the Rochester operation going... and he was in the process of selling the Rochester operation off, too, to Lew Dickey, whose son eventually went on to found Cumulus Radio... one of the more powerful radio groups in the country. Brown died a broken man, despite his commitment to minority programming.

2: A drop-in FM... an unusual happening at the time, was arranged by the commission, for a black run commerical operation... not suprisingly, part owned by many of the people Florence was fronting for.... WDKX. That station continues to exist today, having made millions off of breaking Gordon Brown.

Such is the product ot the "fairness" doctrine.

Interesting comment, considering the fact that you Bushies seem to regard the constitution as something you might use to line a bird cage...

Why did you think it was necessary to post that?

Thereby a liberal within THAT setting would want to move away from those founding principles, and toward

Interesting comment, considering the fact that you Bushies seem to regard the constitution as something you might use to line a bird cage...

they are relative to the state of the culture and the culture's tool, the government, at the time of the inception of each.

Not the CURRENT government.

Then you are suggesting that our founding fathers were rebelling against the origin of British government, not just it's incarnation in the 1760s?

You seem to have not reconciled this portion of your thought with you previous one:

Understand; "conservative' and "liberal", are relative terms.

To the contrary... of COURSE I have, and I thought that well outlined in the statement; Where you're getting screwed up is what the terms are relative to... they are relative to the state of the culture and the culture's tool, the government, at the time of the inception of each.

Not the CURRENT government.

I think we can also agree that these United States were founded on the ideas and ideals of freedom for it's people. Thereby a liberal within THAT setting would want to move away from those founding principles, and toward....(Ahem)

You seem to have not reconciled this portion of your thought with you previous one:

Understand; "conservative' and "liberal", are relative terms.

Liberals in America would want to move away from the current principles of government, not the original ones. Unless you believe that our current principles are the same as the original principles, which I think it only true for a very narrow set of principles, of which liberals and conservatives mostly agree anyway.