Getting Mighty Chilly in Hell

Never thought I'd see the day.

And a particular liberal, the one that calls me his favorite rightwing loon, has challenged me to a debate. I am sure he will read this, and of course he will misunderstand or mischaracterize my answer. I shall decline such challenge. Not because I don't think I can out debate you. Substance and Truth will always prevail over trickery by folks such as you. However, I have learned the hard way that liberals don't play fair, and in the end, such a debate can only wind up bad. Last time I debated a liberal he did as all liberals do and threw a boomerang into the argument that befuddled me because I had not really thought of such a possible attack before. He said, "You know, Billy Graham votes Democrat." Had I have been on my toes I would have thought about Billy's age and figured that perhaps at one time he had in fact been an FDR Democrat (which doesn't even come close to resembling today's Leninist Democrat) at one time, but surely he didn't vote that way anymore because I have trouble seeing a truly born again Christian supporting a party that endorses the mass genocide of the unborn, or the societal blessings for gay marriage. And, to be honest, Neurotic Tom is a sharp cookie, and probably has a dozen tricks up his sleeve and a dozen more in his pocket. Sorry, Tom, but I won't play your game, and that is what you are, a game player. If anything, I feel sorry for you. It's a real shame that someone with such potential could be hornswaggled so easily by the propaganda of the Marxist Left.

Holy crap.. a couple of days after writing "(No link to the liberal's site - he doesn't deserve the traffic, nor the attention)", he links to my site. I'm shocked. Now I guess we just have to get him to actually quote me when he feels like rebutting my points, instead of just making it all up as he goes.

However, I'm not shocked he declined any sort of debate. And you know, what I was thinking was something on the order of that old "point", "counter-point" show. I could have setup and entirely new blog. I could write a post. Doug could rebut it, and back and forth. We'd both be the blog authors with posting rights. I thought that might be fun.

Anyway, what Doug considers "trickery", some people would call being very well read, knowledgeable, articulate with a certain amount of cunning. Basically, he's nervous because I'm unpredictable and would blindside him with my "trickery". Of course, that's the nature of a debate. If you want to keep from looking like a fool, you have to be prepared. It also helps to have a solid grounding in the facts. I just don't get why he says "Substance and Truth will always prevail over trickery" and then declines to have a go at me because he's worried about my "trickery".

Still, I have to give Doug props for responding. He could have just ignored it totally.

For what's it's worth, this post is going to serve as a demarcation line for our new nutzoid commentator. I haven't deleted any of the old posts, and you will abide by the rules or I will moderate the comments and you'll never post here again.

Here are the rules;

You post one comment. You do not post multiple comments in a row.

You have a substantive argument. That means, you address the the point of my post, and if you want to rebut any of my factual assertions, you should post a link demonstrating my error.

Insults are fine, but that is the whole point of your post, you're done.

I think those are very liberal rules, and if you can't live by it - then there's something seriously wrong with you.