Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i was kind of hoping that you would bypass the expression of willingness and simply lay out the premises and arguments that you base on them that might help make sense of your positions outlined earlier. but i suppose that these expressions are nice. so there we are. how about the actual arguments now?
as for the idea that conservatives are backed by history and tradition, i see nothing explanatory in either noun, and nothing compelling about the claim. how about you suspend reliance on it and simply spell out where you are coming from in your earlier posts please?
|
That might have been a bit confusing. I wasn't referring to history as a whole but western history and western judeo-christian traditions. Yep, I said it
I would love to answer your question, but in all honesty I would like a more specific path or question from which to follow. As you can guess most of my beleifs are related to eachother to form a whole opinion and personality but I decline to lay all of them out before you simply as a deference to time and space on this forum. I can over some method of private mail - with the understanding that I am not online every day and there might be some delay over weekend periods - give you an essay or two on what I beleive on various topics, but then again I would need some direction.
I will assume, for the moment, that we can focus on my claim that political actions only affect the economy in part, and that those effects can and often do encounter an immeasurable delay.
I can also assume that the part you object to most is my opinion that most of the prosperity in Clintons time was due to the policies of Regan. ( I would like to include in that statment the policies of Regan republicans of his time and the actions of the republican congress under the Bush senior/Clinton years in office.)
Correct?