Conservative Judge Speaks Out

[Binger]

I hope to goodness that we are not going to have another endless argument about "what is the definition of X?".

Agreed. As well -

The argument hinges on a reclassification of refusal, accept, Democrat, political victory, mainstream and political right.

… defining the meaning of, “refusal to accept any Democratic political victory”, seems pretty straightforward, given the many examples provided by prominent folks like our previous President, over the last two years.

Actually, the opposite of what you are saying is true and the facts are contrary to your claim. Support of the claim requires redefining words, which is your recurring strategy and not my interest.

[canpakes]

… defining the meaning of, “refusal to accept any Democratic political victory”, seems pretty straightforward, given the many examples provided by prominent folks like our previous President, over the last two years.

Actually, the opposite of what you are saying is true and the facts are contrary to your claim. Support of the claim requires redefining words, which is your recurring strategy and not my interest.

Argue that theory with the folks who refuse to accept any Democratic political victory. There are lots of them, including their political idol. Per his words:

”Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

Pretty straightforward. ; )

[Binger]

Actually, the opposite of what you are saying is true and the facts are contrary to your claim. Support of the claim requires redefining words, which is your recurring strategy and not my interest.

Argue that theory with the folks who refuse to accept any Democratic political victory. There are lots of them, including their political idol. Per his words:

”Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

Pretty straightforward. ; )

Oh sweet. So every means one and mainstream is one guy or folks that worship an idol. And the evidence to support your theory that these people refuse to accept any Democratic political victory is from the guy that lost the political contest to a Democrat, a defeat that was not only accepted but led to an inauguration of the winner.

Okay. Great. So we can redefine anything to mean anything else and that is great.

Now do liberalism and illiberalism so we know what the hell we are even talking about.

[canpakes]

Oh sweet. So every means one and mainstream is one guy or folks that worship an idol. And the evidence to support your theory that these people refuse to accept any Democratic political victory is from the guy that lost the political contest to a Democrat, a defeat that was not only accepted but led to an inauguration of the winner.

Okay. Great. So we can redefine anything to mean anything else and that is great.

Now do liberalism and illiberalism so we know what the hell we are even talking about.

No need. The other folks in the conversation seem to be capable of figuring out the premise of the OP and the discussion that follows, or can determine the scope and meaning of, “refuse to accept any Democratic political victory”, and can recognize any of the plentiful examples.

The door is open for when you’re ready to re-join that conversation.

[Binger]

Oh sweet. So every means one and mainstream is one guy or folks that worship an idol. And the evidence to support your theory that these people refuse to accept any Democratic political victory is from the guy that lost the political contest to a Democrat, a defeat that was not only accepted but led to an inauguration of the winner.

Okay. Great. So we can redefine anything to mean anything else and that is great.

Now do liberalism and illiberalism so we know what the hell we are even talking about.

No need. The other folks in the conversation seem to be capable of figuring out the premise of the OP and the discussion that follows, or can determine the scope and meaning of, “refuse to accept any Democratic political victory”, and can recognize any of the plentiful examples.

The door is open for when you’re ready to re-join that conversation.

I joined. I rejected a premise since, as you point out, it is not fact-based. I welcome a conversation that includes an agreed definition of liberalism and illiberalism, and I am avoiding and destructing your farcical imaginary construct and conspiracy. You are welcome to join the conversation by contributing your views of illiberalism from the left and right. But, we all know, original thoughts and research are not your interests when needling, inane questions and censorship can give you a rise.

[Vēritās]

Socialism = Biblical Christianity.

289285262_1481147335638999_987990619296143675_n.jpg (44.22 KiB) Viewed 289 times

[canpakes]

No need. The other folks in the conversation seem to be capable of figuring out the premise of the OP and the discussion that follows, or can determine the scope and meaning of, “refuse to accept any Democratic political victory”, and can recognize any of the plentiful examples.

The door is open for when you’re ready to re-join that conversation.

I joined. I rejected a premise since, as you point out, it is not fact-based. I welcome a conversation that includes an agreed definition of liberalism and illiberalism, and I am avoiding and destructing your farcical imaginary construct and conspiracy. You are welcome to join the conversation by contributing your views of illiberalism from the left and right. But, we all know, original thoughts and research are not your interests when needling, inane questions and censorship can give you a rise.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that there are no folks who “refuse to accept any Democratic political victory”.

They’re having a discussion in D.C. right now about some folks who crashed the Capitol building while, in your view, not refusing to accept any Democratic political victory. Other folks have a different conclusion about the attitudes of the protestors, including most of the protesters.

[Binger]

I joined. I rejected a premise since, as you point out, it is not fact-based. I welcome a conversation that includes an agreed definition of liberalism and illiberalism, and I am avoiding and destructing your farcical imaginary construct and conspiracy. You are welcome to join the conversation by contributing your views of illiberalism from the left and right. But, we all know, original thoughts and research are not your interests when needling, inane questions and censorship can give you a rise.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that there are no folks who “refuse to accept any Democratic political victory”.

They’re having a discussion in D.C. right now about some folks who crashed the Capitol building while, in your view, not refusing to accept any Democratic political victory. Other folks have a different conclusion about the attitudes of the protestors, including most of the protesters.

That was not my claim and your twist of what I said is not cute or clever. Your moving and fluid definitions and interpretations do not phase me, panny. I do not think the events that you claim to be "mainstream" are actually mainstream. Your interpretation of my views are wrong as usual. You would do well to stick to presenting and representing your own interpretations and not turning every discussion into your hallucinations about what I think.

[canpakes]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that there are no folks who “refuse to accept any Democratic political victory”.

They’re having a discussion in D.C. right now about some folks who crashed the Capitol building while, in your view, not refusing to accept any Democratic political victory. Other folks have a different conclusion about the attitudes of the protestors, including most of the protesters.

That was not my claim and your twist of what I said is not cute or clever. Your moving and fluid definitions and interpretations do not phase me, panny. I do not think the events that you claim to be "mainstream" are actually mainstream. Your interpretation of my views are wrong as usual. You would do well to stick to presenting and representing your own interpretations and not turning every discussion into your hallucinations about what I think.

To the first line of your response: that is precisely what you engaged me on.

viewtopic.php?p=2788713#p2788713

The rest of your response finds you inventing things that didn’t happen, arguably to try to pave yourself an out.

[Binger]

That was not my claim and your twist of what I said is not cute or clever. Your moving and fluid definitions and interpretations do not phase me, panny. I do not think the events that you claim to be "mainstream" are actually mainstream. Your interpretation of my views are wrong as usual. You would do well to stick to presenting and representing your own interpretations and not turning every discussion into your hallucinations about what I think.

To the first line of your response: that is precisely what you engaged me on.

viewtopic.php?p=2788713#p2788713

The rest of your response finds you inventing things that didn’t happen, arguably to try to pave yourself an out.

Your reference does not show me inventing anything and your hallucination that I am paving an out is your personal experience only.

Again, panny, you are making this about your hallucinations about me without a substantive argument.