Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Questions For John Smithson Of The Midknight Review

Conservative activist, John Smithson, of The Midknight Review, had recently attacked this blog, as well as myself, as being "Marxist obstructionists," and insisted that I debate him on some issues.  Initially, I had denied to answer Smithson's questions, but had eventually changed my mind because of the countless smears Smithson wrote regarding myself and my website.  Some of those smears included calling myself an Atheist, plagiarist, Marxist, and baby killer. It was my intention to put such lies to rest and prevent the damage from Smithson's libelous accusations. Smithson, although desiring intellectual debate, was combative, trying to frame my responses before I had even had a chance to enter, and then when I had, Smithson claimed himself the "victor" on his own website. To make matters worse, when I had attempted to leave a comment to straighten things out and clear my name, it appeared as if I was banned from leaving comments. Some kind of debate Smithson wanted.

I had initially asked two questions of Smithson, but apparently, Smithson decided it was not necessary to back up his claims and respond to the questions of my own, which in my opinion, only provides further evidence that Smithson is nothing more then a partisan hack who attempts to smear honest people to advance his warped agenda. Despite Smithson being void of any bit of intelligence, I would still like to hear his answers to the questions I have, especially considering Smithson still continuing to smear my good name, most recently calling me a "Marxist elitist."

Here are the questions I have for Smithson:

  • Do you deny being a racist, and accept those of African descent to be your equals?
  • Do you believe Islam to be an "evil" religion?
  • Being that you openly define socialism as a "curse," are you prepared to rescind your support of Sarah Palin, who helped redistribute wealth from the private sector to the citizens of Alaska?
  • Based on your arguments against health care reform, will you come out against The Patriot Act, which was hurried together, and has resulted in tremendous damage to American liberties and the growth of the size of government?
  • As a constitutionalist, do you agree with the sentiments made by Sarah Palin during the vice presidential debates, regarding the role of the vice president, in that there is "much flexibility there in the office of the vice president?"
  • Do you believe all government regulation to be bad?
These are only a handful of questions that I am interested in asking at the moment, and I am sure I could think up plenty more, but I find these to be the ones that interest me the most.  

20 comments:

  1. * Do you deny being a racist, and accept those of African descent to be your equals?

    Of course.

    * Do you believe Islam to be an "evil" religion?

    Of course.

    * Being that you openly define socialism as a "curse," are you prepared to rescind your support of Sarah Palin, who helped redistribute wealth from the private sector to the citizens of Alaska?

    You implicit definition of "socialism" is uninformed

    * Based on your arguments against health care reform, will you come out against The Patriot Act, which was hurried together, and has resulted in tremendous damage to American liberties and the growth of the size of government?

    Seriously, nothing in your argument, here, is even close to being comparatively true. My answer is "no."

    * As a constitutionalist, do you agree with the sentiments made by Sarah Palin during the vice presidential debates, regarding the role of the vice president, in that there is "much flexibility there in the office of the vice president?"

    I would need to know what she had in mind when she made that statement. Maybe you already know this but I do not.

    * Do you believe all government regulation to be bad?

    I believe most Federal regulations to be in violation of the 10th Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apparently you did not understand the question regarding Sarah Palin and socialism. You yourself had referred to socialism as a "curse," not me, and so it is not my definition, but yours. I simply asked whether or not you agreed with your definition of socialism and were prepared to rescind support for Sarah Palin, who had acted to advance socialist policies.

    As for Palin's VP comments, think Dick Cheney's role in the government...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Apparently you did not understand the question regarding Sarah Palin and socialism. You yourself had referred to socialism as a "curse," not me, and so it is not my definition, but yours. I simply asked whether or not you agreed with your definition of socialism and were prepared to rescind support for Sarah Palin, who had acted to advance socialist policies.

    jds :Kev - "Curse" is not my definition of socialism. In fact, I don't understand why you think it a "definition" at all. It is my assessment of its over all effect on - especially -- this country. Socialism (here comes a "definition" Kevin) is state ownership of industry and/or capital. I am not only opposed to this, I hate the very notion. It is a curse to individual liberties, by definition and is, therefore, a . . . . . . . . . . . curse.

    As for Palin's VP comments, think Dick Cheney's role in the government...

    jds: again, I do not know what Palin had in mind. Cheney you say. O.K. Is that what Palin had in mind? Cheney is fine by me but -- well, so what . . . . seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kevin - just so you know, my kids told me to "knock it off" with you. I am better at harsh rhetorical counters - you are a kid and I am a 64 year old . . . . . . . kid, with a lot more experience at being angry.

    Anyway - I really don't care about civility but I have been told to tame it down. No apologies, just a correct.

    j

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your children are probably telling you to "knock it off" because you are in the wrong for making various libelous claims regarding myself and my website and they probably don't want to see their inheritance go down the drain because their old man didn't understand his abuse of free speech and the consequences of writing false accusations (how's your cease and desist coming along?).

    As for who's definition of socialism was a "curse," you apparently have short term memory loss, because as I recall, it was you who asked the question "Do you see Marxist/Socialism as the curse it is?" You defined Marxism/socialism as a curse, but besides the point, you have still failed to answer the question of whether you are prepared to rescind support of Sarah Palin for her acts to advance a Socialist agenda...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here is what you said you asked me:" . . . .you have still failed to answer the question of whether you are prepared to rescind support of Sarah Palin for her acts to advance a Socialist agenda...

    and here is what you actually asked me" * As a constitutionalist, do you agree with the sentiments made by Sarah Palin during the vice presidential debates, regarding the role of the vice president, in that there is "much flexibility there in the office of the vice president?"

    Are you thinking these two questions are the same? But just to be clear: I am not prepared to rescind on anything I have said -- only the harshness of my approach. But back to the "question." Were you asking about Sarah's comments about VP authority or about the socialism thingy?

    One more thing, Kelley, I do not take time to read your blog. I spend probably two hours a day surfing notable liberal blogs without taking time to read yours. So, when you tell your readers that I am nowhere around or whatever, well, you are right.

    You need to give up on "curse" being a definition of anything. You have my definition of socialism. Redistribution of wealth via taxation is not socialism according to the definition I submitted. The definition is not my own. Again, socialism is state ownership of industry and/or capital (that would be "money" ). Palin is not about that at all -- Barbara Boxer, Pelosi and Obama are about these very things. The US Government (that would be Obama) owns 61% of GM. Obama shafted the primary stockholders, paid off the legacy debt of that auto union and now owns GM. Palin has committed to no such action.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Kevin

    JDS is using every semantic trick in the book to dodge questions.

    You can keep replying with more details and specifics but he will still harp on one use/alternate meaning of a "word" used in your responses and argue the true meaning of what you're asking.

    You know what? In this regards JDS reminds me of former President Bill Clinton. "Depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is".

    JDS...the Bill Clinton of the Blogosphere!

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ JDS

    Are you thinking these two questions are the same?

    Were you asking about Sarah's comments about VP authority or about the socialism thingy?


    Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to play dumb.

    Kevin asked two distinct questions, none of which you have actually answered.

    One of which asked about your endorsement of Palin due to her Socialist acts and another SEPARATE question regarding Palin's opinion on the role of the VP. Two completely unrelated questions, yet you are like doing your best to dodge an actual response.

    Why not take ownership of your opinions and state an actual response?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @JDS and Kevin

    A little education on the definitions.


    Curse: (noun)
    1. Something that is cursed or accursed
    2. Evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to imprecation or as retribution
    3. A cause of great harm or misfortune

    Accursed: (adj)
    1. abominable; hateful


    Socialism:
    1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
    2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
    3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ JDS

    Now that the definitions are stated above, and your own personal definition of Socialism does fit in with the accepted definition of Socialism.

    State owned AND distribution of wealth/property. You can't leave off the important second half.

    And Palin's actions follow this definition pretty openly. So since you have this intense hatred of Socialism, you should also be very critical of Palin who has openly supported the very acts you consider a "Curse".


    So maybe I can rephrase the questions:

    1. Do you support Palin who has openly practiced Socialist agendas? Yes or No?

    2. Do you also believe the role of the VP is clearly defined by the constitution or does the role "have much flexibility" as stated by a former VP candidate? Yes or No?

    Simple right?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello C:
    You asked two questions, the first a rather loaded question. Surely you know this. Buts let's give it a shot:


    So maybe I can rephrase the questions:

    1. Do you support Palin who has openly practiced Socialist agendas? Yes or No?


    Is it your assertion that Palin is a socialist? If so, my answer is "no." Maybe you missed my point stated earlier but I do not believe that a progressive tax is socialism. I do not agree with Palin's redistributive tax on the oil companies but such does not make her a socialist.

    2. Do you also believe the role of the VP is clearly defined by the constitution or does the role "have much flexibility" as stated by a former VP candidate? Yes or No?

    Actually, I would answer "yes" and "yes" to what you have written above.

    How did I do, C ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. C says this:

    JDS is using every semantic trick in the book to dodge questions.

    jds - you write as if "semantic tricks" were not a part of your responses. Look at your question: "One of which asked about your endorsement of Palin due to her Socialist acts" Now, you know full well that I do not see Palin as a socialist but you stick that idea into your question. That is called a "semantic trick." My answer is this: No, I do not endorse Palin due to her socialist acts, but, yes, I do endorse Palin.

    Let's get something clear. Who said I have endorsed Palin FOR President? I missed that part.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ jds

    First, I never said she was a socialist, only that her actions were socialist in nature, which they are. Just like other politicians take part in socialist actions.

    Second, I did not even hint that you were endorsing Palin for President. I didn't use either word (endorse or president), and supporting a person/entertainer/speaker/former politician's views on politics and society in general does not have to be tied down with a specific office.

    If you support a person than you are supporting actions they take and words that they say which may influence people who listen to them or yourself.

    Like it or not, there are people who will be influenced whenever the likes of Sarah Palin or Sean Penn open their mouths. And those influenced can lead to votes one way or another to certain political parties.



    But thank you for clarifying your position that you support Palin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you support a person than you are supporting actions they take and words that they say which may influence people who listen to them or yourself. -- c

    Soooo, I support Palin but disagree with a few, very few, things she does. You saying that is not possible?


    If you voted for Obama, does that mean you support all his lies and broken promises? I voted for Bush both times but hated his spending habits.

    Could we not major in minors? At least , I am not going to continue unless we get to the issues. Let Kelly know that I will have broken links and omitted references from time to time. I don't worry about it. Take your investigative findings to the parties you all think I have injured and see what happens. "Nothing" is what will happen. Why. Because there is a diff between plagiarism and an error or an incidental omission.

    But if that doesn't satisfy, then, 'you got me, Kev"

    ReplyDelete
  15. @jds

    I guess the difference is in how the two of us approach it. I see it as you can either support/oppose specific actions a person takes, or support/oppose a person as a whole, in which case you support/oppose all their actions. And in here actions can be defined as vocalized opinion as well as legislative voting or proposals.

    You choose not to differentiate between the two, so you can avoid being aligned with something that does not work.

    "I support Palin" in your words can mean "I support this specific action" or "I support everything she has supported", depending on the context.

    It's not wrong to do it this way, just different, and in my opinion a cop-out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @JDS
    "Hello C:
    You asked two questions, the first a rather loaded question. Surely you know this. Buts let's give it a shot:"

    I can see your point, but I phrased it similar to your initial questions to Kevin. If you see that question as loaded than you have to see that some of your own questions were too.


    What other questions would you like to debate on, or would you like to dig deeper into these already postulated?

    ReplyDelete
  17. c - Maybe you all could get around to answering some of my questions, for a change.

    Still pretend to be "moderate Republicans" while supporting Boxer?

    In voting for Obama, do you support his lies and broken promises or are you going to cop out on that question, too?

    Do you understand the difference between a descriptive term (i.e. "curse") and an actual definition?

    What is the difference, specifically, between a Boxer supporting, Huffington reading, Obama voting, "moderate" and a Boxer supporting, Huffington reading, Obama voting "liberal" ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. There you go again, posting more lies, Smithson...

    While your comment is directed towards c, let me answer:

    I had never supported Barbara Boxer, and neither has c. There is zero articles on this blog referencing Barbra Boxer.

    As for your other questions, such as supporting Obama's broken promises, according to Politifact, Obama has 19 broken promises, and there are a handful that I do not support...

    You seem to be the one who does not understand the word "curse," and had used it as a definition in the past, not a descriptive. You had specifically referred to "the notion of Marxism or Socialism being 'a curse'" in your previous posts here.

    Here are some actual descriptive words, so that you may be able to compare: authentic, credible, scholarly, honorable. You use the word "curse" as a noun, not an adjective.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Socialism is a curse.

    Simple Subject-verb-noun sentence structure...

    The subject would be "socialism"

    The verb would be "is"

    The article would be "a"

    The noun would be "curse"

    Here is an example of basic S-V-N sentence structure, taken from ESLgold.net:
    The man is a doctor.

    Also, you may notice that your previous comment was deleted. This is because you wrote "'a' in which case you be a whacko."

    Insulting is not necessary and is definitely not conducive to intellectual debate.

    ReplyDelete

Please share your thoughts and experiences in relation to this post. Remember to be respectful in your posting. Comments that that are deemed inappropriate will be deleted.