Tuesday, January 19, 2010

How to Field Dress a Moby

Finally, I have a written account of a true slaying. Upon initially receiving the first few tweets, the alarm went off in my head. The tweeter tried to portray themselves as someone who voted for Reagan. Then she engaged me in a debate, which I am always willing to engage in.

My strategy of course, as we fence, is to always keep the discourse intellectual and with respect as I lie in wait for the "victim" to give me the opening for the kill.

Never one to initiate a fight, I am one to quickly engage once the opponent proves their true intention. Rather than personally attack the individual because they disagree with me out of the box, I wait for them to make the first move and slammo. He or she who personally attacks first loses.

The liberal strategy of course, is to personally attack as soon as they are losing the argument.

And so it went this way (most relevant recent post first - additional posts to me from the Moby after I stopped responding to her can be seen here):

@schwanderer Once again I prove that when a liberal is losing their argument they always go personal. Appreciate the tweets. Poli Sci lesson from web in reply to schwanderer

@schwanderer I knew you were a mobie, but I always try civil discourse until the moron tips their hand. Lose big tonight liberal! from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan Sorry dude you are no Reaganite you are a Jim Demint style cliche. Back to your cave. from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan Should women/men who can't have children be able to marry? Must one pass some fertility test in your world? Talk abt Big Brother from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan You thnk that only heterosexual people of child bearing age (Women) should be able to marry? that's what u call liberty? from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan So old people shouldn't marry either? Now you are showing your wingnut attitude.You are off the Reagan bandwagon. from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Marriage involves pro-creation. What gays do is called recreation. There's a difference. Apples and oranges. from web in reply to schwanderer

@schwanderer It's not illegal to be an atheist and it's not illegal to be gay. from web in reply to schwanderer

@schwanderer Free to not have atheist liberals ram their beliefs down our throat. Free to protect human life born and unborn. from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan Free to not believe in God? Free to have or perform a legal abortion? I believe in liberty too. from web

@ReaganTMan You don't have to be a conservative to want limited govt. It's where the limits are the is the issue. Free to marry who u want? from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Limited government and individual liberty should not be too far right for anyone. If it is, we're in trouble. from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan If you are speaking for yourself, good for you. I am no lefty but GOP is no longer the party of Reagan, Ike even Nixon IMO from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Reagan would be proud of us, not the caricature that the left portrays of us. We're not homophobic racists. KO is wrong. from web in reply to schwanderer
@ReaganTMan When you've voted GOP for 40 yrs exclusively & you find there's not one you could vote for something's wrong TOO far right 4 me from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan Re gays I was pointing out how Reagan would differ from right wing ideology of today from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan Which came first teabags on the hat or the phrase teabagger and who first said it? More ignorance. Libs just poked fun at fools from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@schwanderer Who says anything about discriminating against gays. If anything, the leftist smear "tea bagger" is an offensive term for gays. from web in reply to schwanderer

@ReaganTMan And Reagan would not discriminate against gays. He would favor stem cell research as Nancy does He was respectful of others from web in reply to ReaganTMan

@ReaganTMan I cast my 1st vote for Reagan for CA GOV. He would hate the ugliness of the GOP & TeaPartyers. He didn't do personal attacks from web in reply to ReaganTMan

And in this liberal Moby tweeter's attempt to bait me, I baited her and enjoyed the unhingement as it occured live on twitter.

As we all know, a Moby presents themselves as a non-liberal, a fellow conservative or in this case a "Reaganite." Their motus operandi is to try to bait the conservative into saying something that can be used as an example to fuel their twisted liberal argument.

I smelled this one from the start. Her twitter page says she is "Left of center."

I also smelled the tactic as the conversation always turned to the issue of gay marriage despite my argument about Reagan and liberty. Of course, the tweeter didn't like the fact that I am opposed to gay marriage. Contrary to what this Moby or a moron like Keith Olbermann might put forth, being opposed to gay marriage does not make you a homophobe, a racist or a bigot. It makes you an American with an opinion.

You will also notice that I never once said anything bad about gay people. In a free society, what you do in your own bedroom is none of my business. But, in my opinioni, there is a sanctity to marriage that our culture has always recognized as being between a man and a woman. As a free American, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

This tweet gets my unhinged award: "@ReaganTMan Even Cheney supports gay marriage and adoption. Maybe one of your kids will be gay. What would you do then, kill them?"

Hmmmm, let's see, the tweeter projects incorrect views onto me (it's usual liberal tactic - it's their textbook somewhere) by asking if I would kill my kid if I was gay, if I would only let heterosexual people of child bearing age (Women) marry and if people should have to pass fertility tests. That's good, but sorry, that's not me. Marriage is simply between a man and a woman. In my understanding of God's plan, according to the bible, marriage is primarily for the sake of pro-creating and raising a family in a proper environment, but its only restriction is that it is between a man and woman and no other combination of sexes or species. So you can forget the fertility tests.

If it's any consolation to the tweeter, I don't believe the government should bestow extra taxes or tax breaks on married people (with the exception of deductions for dependents) or not allow single people to enter into contracts with each other for insurance coverages, living arrangements and the like. While I don't fully think we should call it a "civil union," I do think a "civil union" like approach can be taken so that if gay people want to share medical benefits or the right to determine medical care for each other if incapacitated, they should have the right to put that in writing.

I like this nutty one, too: "@ReaganTMan You are speaking a foreign language. Sorry I speak only English and a little French. Your views are an attack on what America is."

To which I reply, if my views are an attack on what America is, you're in the wrong America. And if your attacks on me is your view of what America is, you're still in the wrong America.

And we conservatives are the intolerant ones? Sorry, check mate. Your intolerance is way greater than mine.

No comments:

Post a Comment