I strongly encourage you to visit this discussion thread on SDA. Scroll down a bit (or search) and find the entries by a Radical Leftist who goes by the moniker of 'philboy'. You'll then get a quick education on what it is like to try to debate folks of his ilk these days. Might remind you of Susan Roesgen! Shown below is the comment I left.
Lessons learned from 'philboy' today:
1. Anyone who has a view different from him is a "rightwing nut".
2. Anyone who dares disagreeing with putting a nation deeply into debt is a mindless twit, controlled by the likes of Fox News.
3. Anyone who dares ask him any serious question doesn't deserve any semblance of a serious response.
What a way to run one's life!
His hate-filled views remind me of what happened last December when I went down to Library Square in Vancouver to protest against the Coalition. The event was organized on Facebook by two young fellows in Ontario. Conservative Party members were there to be sure, but there were a lot more of us who didn't belong to any political party. Many of the signs were homemade ones, not a mass of pre-printed ones as were predominately seen on the pro-Coalition / Union rallies.
Yet, a few people like 'philboy' were also there at Library Square and refused to accept that any of us could possibly independently hold the views that we did. Instead, it was (and remains) simpler to just dismiss us as Harper (and now Fox News) mindless minions. Technically this is not preventing our right to free speech but by dismissing one's opponents in such a manner, it's effectively & precisely the same thing.
'philboy' is just the latest in a long line of intellectual thugs on the Left who claim they're "open minded" . . . but only if you happen to agree with their views. Beyond pathetic.
Comment from a female professor in Ontario:
philboy - before you come to a conclusion, be sure your facts are accurate.
First, the Tea Parties were not started by FOX; they were totally and completely grassroots. You can't ignore the power of the Internet in our modern world for its communicative networking. FOX then picked up on these local initiatives and certainly promoted and publicized them. They were, after all, newsworthy.
Nor were they bound to any political party; they weren't Republican. In fact, quite a number of Republicans were strongly criticized by these Tea Parties for being part of that growing expansion of government programs, the growing intrusion of government into private business, the increasing taxes to fund these 'social welfare programs.
Nor were these Tea Parties about 'entitlements to special interests'.
I don't think you paid much attention to the speeches, the signs, the comments made by people engaged in those Tea Parties. They were about the massive increase in government socialist programs, the concomitant increase in taxes to fund these programs, the trillion dollar deficit spending, the increased govt intrusion into business affairs, the notion that taxpayers should pay for the homes and services of people who don't work, the lack of accountability of Congress (didn't you read the signs that said: "READ the bill before you Sign it".
So - you still haven't told me why you consider the Tea Parties worthy of derision. How about it, philboy? Try again.
Nor have you explained how my views are 'crackpot'.
It's untrue that one can apply a 'trite crackpot analysis' to anyone and come up with a narcissist conclusion. Again - how is my analysis 'crackpot'..as well as trite?
philboy, it's easy to fling derogatory terms around. How about some actual data and reasoned analysis to substantiate your opinions?
Posted by: ET at April 19, 2009 4:03 PM