What an inelegant argument

In addition my tolerance of the comments that add little or nothing to debate (and that’s rather a lot of those that seek to oppose my views, I suggest) will be even lower than usual.

It\’s an interesting version of \”debate\” isn\’t it?

Developing the agenda this country needs does not require debate here with the right wing

Somewhat restrictive even if interesting.

8 thoughts on “What an inelegant argument”

  1. Given that the occasion on which he banned me from commenting was one of the rare occasions on which I came close to agreeing with him, nothing surprises me about his approach.

  2. And exactly why would I consent to be ruled by this crypto-fascist?

    Please someone tell me that he has been kicked out of any positions of influence now that the ConDems are – loosely – in power.

  3. Is he running a blog or a cult?

    I notice a subsequent response of Mr. Murphy’s:

    ‘I’m not interested in debate with the close minded – only the open minded’

    Needs no further comment.

  4. Ritchie is right: Developing the agenda this country needs does not require debate here with the right wing because the “right wing” [sic] are the ones actually running the country, and Murphy is pissing into a stong headwind.

    You’re out of power, your arguments discredited, your “agenda” exists only on paper. It is we who do not need to debate with you.

  5. RM never had any position of influence or power, aside from “moderately senior partner in a provincial SME tax accounting firm”. I’m delighted and surprised to agree with the entire commentariat here on anything, but “thank fuck for that” is definitely one of them. Although I’d probably be more delighted than most of the people commenting here if he ceased to exist tomorrow, in the same way that most Republicans would prefer Glen Beck to vanish and leave the debate to the grown-ups…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *