TB, it’s fun to argue with you, and there has to be common ground in order to do so.  These examples are from CE

What Bowser said was:  ”For the average high school graduate to be able to learn a trade, buy a house, send his kids to college, have health insurance and a pension.”

What TB hears Bowser say:  “You think there is an ideal universe where all high school graduates can be union workers at high wages with massive benefits, months of vacation, and defined pensions*.”

It’s over on Current Events.  Are those two quotes in context?  Yes, one is the response to the other.  Is it any wonder there is no reasonable discussion with people whose universe takes what Bowser said and interprets it to mean what TB says it does?

Let’s assume he’s being honest, and that’s how TB reads Bowser.  May excuse it by saying something like, “That’s what liberals think and you’re trying to wiggle out of it.”  Could that person be trusted to report accurately on any political topic?  Of course not.  If that person’s reality is that he hears one thing and believes he hears something wildly different, can his view of reality be trusted?  Of course not.

Let’s then assume he’s not being honest, that he is exaggerating for effect.  Can that person be trusted to want to debate fairly?  Of course not, he’s not interested in anything but “winning”, even if it’s a phony debate.  The ends justify the means, which is what some of us believe to be Conservative doctrine.   Power no matter how it’s acquired.

Either way, it certainly does not appear to be intellectually honest.  Could a person be likable, friendly, bright, funny and charming still be intellectually dishonest?  Of course, we’ve just seen it.

Arf