>Well that wasn't what the thread was about. There was nothing in there
>about denouncing the left.
the thread was initially about rightwing media -- UPI and newsmax--and about deliberately changing UPI feed to reflect rightwing bias. someone said, "so what, the left does it all the time" (paraphrase) to suggest tit for tat." it quickly b/c a thread about the supposed liberal bias in the media. YOU called it leftwing bias.
> The thread was about the left in the media.
>All I did was point out that it was there. Galt was going on about how
>we have an illegitimate president who lost the popular vote and that the
>right controlled media isn't covering this. So I pointed out that his
>charges were horseshit,
nice assertion, do you have an argument to go along with it?
>particularly the notion that losing the pop vote
>and winning the EC results in an illegitimate president is not a fact, but
>a leftist view. I never said anything about whether popular votes are
>good or bad.
none of which is "leftwing" bias. the idea that people think there should be a popular vote for a president IS NOT A LEFTWING IDEA. political theories and practices of direct, popular elections are ancient.
it is not PROPAGANDA
research debunking the myth of liberal media is not horseshit. to call the media "leftwing" is a complete laugh since you rarely see radical left ideas in the media. do you see positive coverage of unions in the media? is gun control something the the radical left wants? (in fucking fact, the leninist marxists on this list came out against gun control, didn't they [charles, yoshie, carrol])
>It wasn't redbaiting until it came under the knife of your ability to edit
>posts, remove context, and change meaning. *THAT* is disengenuous in
>itself. It is even worse that to prove I'm hostile to the left on LBO,
>you had to creatively edit something of mine from a *DIFFERENT LIST*.
if you use the word leftwing when the actual discussion was about liberals v. conservatives, then you are redbaiting.
you were, as i said, inserting conservative-libertarian ideas on the list with "but the Right also thinks of itself as the party of Freedom and Equality"
>Don't you see the problem with the fact that the only "proof" you have of
>my hostility to the left on LBO is a post I made to dc-stuff, and even
>then you had to take it out of context and edit it in such a fashion as to
>change the meaning?
i'm sorry matt, but your entire discourse is a discourse which reveals your hostility to the left. read my reply to your post to gordon. the very language you use reveals it. you don't have to say it, it's obvious by the way you constructed those sentences.
when you posted about your views on libertarianism, you revealed your conservative bent and you revealed your hostility to left ideas.
> > and by the way, i did flame you at dc-stuff when i responded to that
> > thread. you never replied-- i assumed you were busy. but that's NOT
> why i
> > bring it up here.
>
>I never saw a reply from you to any of my posts in that thread (there were
>only 3 or 4, then I dropped it with Galt because he was arguing in
>circles).
fine. i don't expect that people read let alone answer every post because we all have jobs and lives.
> > again, there's no need to feel as if i've somehow ratted you out. you
> > revealed your sympathies to libertarian and conservative ideas and
> > antipathy to lefty/liberal/dem ideas the first day you joined the
> > list. identifying as a conservative and libertarian pretty much makes you
> > hostile to left analyses of social problems. --here i'm not really
> talking
> > about politics, but about how we go about analyzing social problems.
>
>I certainly didn't identify as a conservative. Libertarian (small l) yes.
ok. but the kind of libertarianism you described is known as conservative libertarianism for the most part.
>The issue is one of etiquette. If you want to flame Reese and use me as
>an example, fine, but you better be prepared to justify it with a
>citation, because the second you bring me into it I'm gonna call your
>bluff. I called it this time and all I get is "oh I didn't mean this
>thread" (silly me for thinking that if you mention in me in a thread I've
>posted to it will have something to do with what I wrote in that thread),
well, actually, i had to go to the archives b/c i'd trashed that post. but yes, now that i refresh my memory, i did intend to flame you.
>I meant this other thread". When I ask "what other thread?", you say
>"this stuff from dc-stuff" (which you creatively edit to show I'm a
>"redbaiter"). That's poor etiquette no matter how you slice it.
*sigh* the other thread is the Freedom and Equality thread that Gordon reinvoked with his comment, "yes, but the Left is the Part y of Freedom and Equality". i believe it happened before you were around. It was a snide comment at yoshie.
you jumped in and made a comment that was from the position of a conservative, "yes, but the right thinks that it is also". you made a comment that was a big fat yawn. that's why i called it "scintillating conversation" and did so sarcastically.
you didn't ask what other thread. and i didn't reply that it was the dc stuff thread.
i pointed out that i find your comments a snooze and ridiculous in so far as you think you're telling leftists something new.
i point out that your comment is inserting a conservative-libertarian discourse onto a left list. that's offensive, particularly in its presumption that the left is disingenuous about it's claims to being the party of Freedom and Equality. by trying to make an equivalence with the left, you were making an offensive claim.
i point out that your defense doesn't fly with me because you redbait elsewhere. you do it here, as well, you just can't see how. you chose to object ON LIST. i replied ON LISt. deal.
kelley