# Dave says:
August 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am

Our lefty troll friend should also realize this is not a serious site, this is a humor site. There are lots of places of on the internet where serious conservatives propose real, conservative solutions to America’s real problems. This is not one of them.

Here, we just make fun of lefties and advocate nuking the moon.

Thanks for clearing that up Dave. Too bad I can’t acknowledge it as Basil has, in an act of severe cowardliness, blacklisted me from his site. Please if anyone from IMAO reads this, inform Basil that I have indeed posted this here. He should know. I can’t tell him because with a pingback, no email is required, and as I’ve said, I’m blacklisted.

Here’s a transcript of what transpired on his site. I’d note that he did not actually reply to my posts but instead inserted his own comments so that no one could simply read my posts at face value without getting his opinions mixed in.

Here was my first post on Basil’s site. Note that in this case, the italics are me quoting Basil. This comment actually went over fairly well on his site, giving me some encouragement that I might get a real debate there.

Now, I certainly appreciate the appearance that they really care about what I think. But, I did a little checking on the Interwebz, and find they’ve been doing silly stuff like this for a bit. And, the thing is, they’ve been sending these out for years. And to many, many left-wing idiots.

Call me an idiot if you like, but I’m not the one sticking with a party that left my ideals long ago. I don’t like either the Repugnicans or the Democraps. But, the repugs have left their core constituency a long long time ago. The borrow and bomb repukes are actually now less fiscally conservative than the tax and spend liberals, though there are few true liberals out there today just as their are few true conservatives out there today.

The neocons have taken over the repugnican party and the democraps have become quite far right of center themselves. In fact, the whole nation has moved so far right that most people can’t even see the center anymore. Take a look at this graph of where the 2008 presidential candidates fall on the political compass, an interesting test that I recommend everyone take to find out where they really stand. You may be surprised.

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

For my part, I happen to be both farther left and more socially liberal than Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama. So calling me an extremist doesn’t bother me. Calling Obama left of center when he isn’t does bother me though.

This next comment did not go over as well. Perhaps I was a tad extreme in this comment. However, note that I acknowledged in my first post there that my views are extreme. Note that in this second post, Basil replies (in italics) within my own post with a bunch of name calling and no significant or serious debate.

So, since I’m on a conservative site, for a very big change for me, what does everyone here think of the fact that the Bushes have run this country into the ground with debt* aided by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush in deregulating everything hand over fist while both parties stuck with Reagan’s failed gush-up-economic policy long past the time anyone should have known that it was, exactly as Papa Bush said, voodoo economics?

* Papa Bush doubled the debt in just four years. W took a bit longer and didn’t quite manage to double it, but came close.

BTW, no matter who is in office for the foreseeable future, W has already raised your taxes. You’re just not paying for his folly just yet. But, you will. The bills must be paid … unless the U.S. declares bankruptcy. This is where the democraps have been more fiscally conservative. At least in recent years, they’ve mostly recognized that bills must be paid. Though that is not necessarily fiscally conservative, it is more so than the borrow and bomb philosophy of the repugnicans.

Too bad the democraps killed the party I actually liked, the Liberal party. Now I have to support (by default) those who killed my party since they’re at least less bad (or more accurately, less good at being bad) than the others.

[Since you are a batsh*t crazy liberal, we have already decided your entire premise is wrong. I did provide a link to your blog in my post, so that if anyone wants to know anything you have to say, they'll click on it and read your nonsense.

If I was Frank (who pays for this Website), I'd tell you to quit leeching off this Website to spout your nonsense. But then, being a liberal, that's all you know how to do. But I'm not Frank, so I won't. Oh, I did post this at my own Website (which I do pay for), so don't run over there to spout your nonsense. It'd be a bad business decision, since I have nowhere near the traffic Frank gets. But, if you knew anything about business, you wouldn't be a liberal. - B]

BTW, does anyone really care whether he or anyone else pays for the site? If one puts one’s opinions out on the web, one must expect commentary on them, and not all from people who agree. One should really develop a thick skin before blogging.

I probably should have stopped when the owner of the thread resorted to name-calling without disputing a single point of mine. However, I tried again, don’t ask why. Again, the italics are his reply, such as it is, within my own post.

I should have known better than to ask a serious question on a right-wing site. I actually was not trying to be obnoxious at all. I was trying to have a conversation. I guess you wouldn’t know about that. If I’m batsh*t and crazy, why not explain your position instead of calling me names. Oh well. I guess I won’t get any insight into the right wing mind set here.

[For those following along: What passes for a "serious question" by a liberal is something that fits their small mindset. Liberals have opinions that they state as fact, and if you reject their premise, you don't want a serious discussion.

Why are liberals that way? It's not just liberals; it's batsh*t crazy people, of which liberals are a subset. - B]

This last was my final attempt to have a real debate with Basil. It was deleted on his site rather than answered. I guess right-wing extremists can’t take reading substantiated data that challenge their world views. Wait, scratch that. Most people can’t take reading substantiated data that challenge their world views. I wonder if he read it at all or simply blacklisted me based on the prior response.

Basil,

I notice that you prefer to not even leave my own post untouched and then simply reply to it. Would you mind actually disputing the facts as I have given them then?

Would you dispute that George H.W. Bush doubled the national debt from $2T to $4T in just four years?
Would you dispute that George W. Bush raised the national debt from $5.7T to $9.9T during his term?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Do you dispute that Phil Grahm pushed for and Clinton signed the law that overturned Glass-Steagle?
Do you dispute that the banking crisis had a lot to do with the fact that when investments went bad, we were stuck bailing out banks that were now also investment firms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

Do you think that FDIC insured banks would have gone under if they were not also brokerage firms? I do not state this as fact, but it is my strong belief that banks not invested in risky investments would not have failed.

Do you dispute that George H.W. Bush while campaigning against Reagan in 1980 called supply-side economics “voodoo economics”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_economics#Theoretical_justification

Do you dispute that the economic policies in effect since Ronald Reagan have dramatically increase the income disparity in the United States (hence my term gush-up economics, in case that wasn’t clear)?

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957

Which of the things I stated as facts in my post do you dispute? I would be genuinely curious to know.

Thus far, all you’ve done is call me names. Do you really believe this will convince anyone of your points?

I have now backed up my claims with fairly impartial links. I did not go to the Huffington Post for my information, but mostly stuck with wikipedia, which has repeatedly been ranked as the equal of Encyclopedia Britannica, despite occasional inaccuracies in both.

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Yes, I made the mistake of actually backing up my statements. This is against the rules, apparently. Or, at least it must be if one is to believe the twisted set of misinformation that is doled out by Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Annthrax, and the like. Oops. Now I’ve resorted to name calling. However, if someone wants to cite a point made by Annthrax (Coulter, in case that wasn’t obvious), I’ll gladly dispute the point. Or, if it actually has any merit, I will acknowledge it.

Those who’ve read my blog for any length of time do know that I am willing to admit when I’m wrong. I just need the proof before I acknowledge it.

So, Basil, if you have the guts, and the data, feel free to join in a real debate. Otherwise, you really should engage in a little introspection to determine just why it is you blog.

Do you approve of the job Bush is doing?

-NO.
-HELL NO.
-GET HIM THE HELL OUTTA HERE!
-ALL OF THE ABOVE

Great idea. More power to you.

Another, wholly different question would be: “Do you think there should be any changes to the way health care is delivered in America?”–that seems too vague to me to provide any important/relevant information. Its too open ended.

If you don’t believe it’s a loaded question to make the statement that the government will take control of your health care choices then we will have to simply agree to disagree. I find that highly loaded.

Regarding Hillary, regardless of whether she is a rallying point for dems or a red flag for reps, she is entirely irrelevant to the question, no?

Re Hilary–if she was a red flag for Repugs, she was a rallying point for Dems? So–is that bias?==or just a good “identifier?” ((My feelings are moderately COLD–I think she’s a scummy politicians who lies for political advantage and money. a tad bit more than all the rest. Yes, its a saving grace she panders to the common man. But she’s still a puke and would turn even more conservative to get a higher office.))

As you say, every plan has “control.” In a gov plan your access to “any” doctor would be limited by his availability==but here we are arguing about the pro’s and con’s of what we both assume the plan would like like RATHER THAN analyzing the bias of the question.