OK...last response.
You find it confusing that I asked for examples of your claims of election skullduggery to which you responded with "there are more facts and evidence for cheating out there right now than you can shake a stick at." My challenge is pretty clear and has been since yesterday. Claiming cheating and supporting it with evidence are 2 different things. You say you welcome being challenged but clearly that's not true.
Had to put these two passages together because they are incompatible. Look at your belief about "modern day leftists" then your description of yourself. Does that demonstrate "thoughtful, caring and reasonable" to you? Don't trust me...go home and ask your neighbor.
That's the point. You've made outlandish claims based on what you admit is your own bias yet with no supporting evidence. I'm holding you accountable which you claim is acceptable...but it isn't?
Admittedly, I loathe broad unsupported claims lobbed at the opposing side, whether they are left or right. As you can imagine, there are much more of that occurring here by right-leaning folks simply due to the fact that there is a ~10:1 ratio of conservative leaning individuals here. As you can tell, if you throw out an unsupported claim, particularly a controversial point, it's not my job to counter it it but your role to support your original claim. Lot's of folks on this board don't like that because it forces them to find evidence to backup their opinions. In many cases, that's difficult because it doesn't exist. I'm not immune to that but then again I don't have any issues with saying "I was wrong" when evidence is showing me as much. That too is not typical on this board as much now as it used to be on the West Mall. Now we are so buried in our media bubbles that information that proves the bubble was incorrect is discounted and tossed aside.
It was a hope that you were interested in dialogue, supporting your positions, not simply looking to reinforce your own bias.
For the final time, my loan goal is to simply support claims. If we can't support our opinions with "facts and evidence" then there is a VERY good chance our opinions are thin and should be reevaluated.
You continue to assume/conclude things about me and my approach to the dialogue that are not, in my view, supported by what I've actually stated and how I've stated it. It is simply your way of processing and, frankly, again, I do not understand nor agree.
It's OK...
You and I have a problem that goes beyond our likely differences on views of the cultural, political, philosiphocal, or sociological variety. We have a communicative issue, for lack of a better term, that is apparent and further complicating things. Responding to your posts individually would only further complicate and extend. We seem to process, reason, and communicate quite differently.
I value dialogue, especially with those whom I have disagreements with. The other kind of dialogue is generally pretty boring and not as productive typically. I do wish we could have a better dialogue in a different setting that required much less time and energy than typing on this little device. I do not know what all you do in your life, but I've spent about all the time I can on this. I appreciate your passion and believe you are not disingenuous. It would be great to have the time and wherewithal to verbally (in person) discuss these matters in great detail and gain greater understanding of one another's viewpoints.
It is tempting to respond to your posts and continue the debate/discussion of specifics. I do care. I also care for my fellow man...and my country.
I will resist the urge to respond specifically and respond to your recent posts only by saying that you and I see many things differently...not just in the world...but even within the dialogue itself.
I hope and pray you genuinely are a pursuer of truth as you say. The future will bear the truth out, and I desire for you and I both to be on the right side of it. History will reveal what time present will not...and, in those times, some will say they fought against what has come to pass...and some will have aided and abetted....and I'm not referring solely to any electoral thievery.
George Orwell is credited with this observation:
While dining, Orwell had wasp land on his plate. He proceeded to take a knife and cut the insect in two, at which time the wasp continued to eat at the jam on his plate. Orwell observed, and documented, that "only when the wasp decided to try and fly would he realize he had been cut in two."
I do not know to whom this may apply, but I hope for all our sakes, it doesn't ever.
