“she would represent what could be called a “conservative” stance, in that she wishes to preserve the social status quo (which may not be excellent economically, but is amazingly pro-traditional family values).”

Stand by your words. You went much further than “den[ying] that she was a Marxist,” as your own words above demonstrate.

You actually try to make the case that she is a moderate, even possibly center-Right. Ridulous!

What is the name of her party gary??? The SOCIALIST PARTY! Please spare me the nuances that distinguish Marxism and Socialism…it’s like trying to tell me there’s a big difference between a German Shepard turd and a wolf turd.

Anyway, I already said the “all Leftists are/are not Marxists” argument is ancillary, and in fact, irrelevant to the argument about your obvious contradiction. Anyway, where have I said “all Leftists are Marxists?” What originally got this (admittedly petty) spat off the ground is this statment:

“Royal “no blazing Marxist?!?!?!” Only a fellow-traveler would make such a claim.”

What this statement indicates is that Royal is a Marxist and that you are a Marxist. Now, I could be wrong about you (you did make a vague statement about Royal’s social policies being “which may not be excellent economically ” — so who are you Bill or Ted?) being a Marxist, but that is hardly the same me saying everyone on the Left is a Marxist. Leftists normally are defined in their economic thinking by some color or degree of Marxist “thinking,” and I don’t think that can be seriously disputed. But again, that has little to do with you in one breath calling Royal an “extremist” and in the next comparing the Socialist Party candidate to what could pass as a description of Bill O’Reilly.

If you have not been duped by what is the mainstream of “progressive” economic theory gary, you are the exception, not the rule. How do you define yourself on economic terms gary? If you are not in fact a dupe of the time-and-again failed “progressive” totalitarian economic theory, I’ll concede my error.

1) In one sentence you say Royal is an extremist
2) In the next sentence say the exact opposite

Hate to have to kindergarten this up for you, stud, but your contradiction that has nothing to do with whether or not the ranks of the Left is stocked with a bunch of robots. That was an ancillary point.

The main point is that you completely contradicted yourself and you still can’t/won’t see it. You should really just admit you’ve been caught and you’d look a lot less silly than you are looking right about now.

The difference between us is not simply ideological. I support my arguments, you just argue.

Perfect example is your comment above. I demonstrated (using your very own words) where you have stumbled, but all you have to come back to me with is, “I’m rubber, you’re glue.” What “claims are just as valid when they’re hurled back at” me? Please gary, make supported point, please. If you point out a contradiction, I’ll admit it.

Let me quote you:

“Glib’s characterizations are a case of one extremist calling another
extremist names. Sure, Royal is a leftist, but she’s no blazing Marxist. In
fact, she would represent what could be called a “conservative” stance, in that
she wishes to preserve the social status quo (which may not be excellent economically,
but is amazingly pro-traditional family values).”

First you say she’s an extremist (”one extremist calling another extremist names”), then you say she’s not. In fact, you go so far to say that she is a “conservative” and “pro-traditional family values.” Not only have you completely contradicted yourself, your latter characterizations are so ludicrous they deserve to be dignified no more.

Let’s just let the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan speak with you about this: “You have a right to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.”

“Primary colors?” What, like ROY G BIV? Oh please gary…another typical dogmatic leftist, pretend-relativist canard. You have demonstrated that you are as doctrinaire, Black & White, as anyone you criticize for being so. Royal is certainly a Leftist Marxist extremist and Leftism is inescapably branded and defined by Marxism/Socialism, whether you like it or not gary. The Left is far more politically monochrome than the Right.

What is better for America? In terms of the French election, I answered that
question–or did that go over your head, too?

gary — can you answer a simple question about what is better for America?

Royal “no blazing Marxist?!?!?!” Only a fellow-traveler would make such a claim.

With typical muddle-headedness gary, you make this claim, but then go on to characterize her as an extremist in order to make a point about me. Which is it gary?

“pro-traditional family values”

The government controlling every aspect of every individual’s and every family’s life is “pro-traditional family values.” Maybe in your world, gary. I guess that’s why the French are marrying and reproducing at such an autobahn clip, huh? Must be the government’s commitment to “pro-traditional family values.” Yeah, that’s what the French are known for, especially the unmarried co-habiting Royal, the true symbol of French “pro-traditional family values.”

Second, Glib’s characterizations are a case of one extremist calling another
extremist names. Sure, Royal is a leftist, but she’s no blazing Marxist. In
fact, she would represent what could be called a “conservative” stance, in that
she wishes to preserve the social status quo (which may not be excellent economically,
but is amazingly pro-traditional family values).

To be honest, on the world stage, I don’t think it matters who the French
elect. France is increasingly irrelevent on the world diplomatic stage, except
inasmuch as the country lends its support to EU solidarity, and inasmuch as
France is a major international armaments dealer (but not the biggest–that
honor goes to–ta da!!–the good ol’ USofA). Once again, concerning the expected
support “allies” should give…if someone is following a destructive, boneheaded
path, you’re not doing anyone a favor by drawing your own country down that
destructive, boneheaded path. Disagreement does not automatically mean treasonous
opposition–except in a right-wing extremist’s pained imagination.

Do you think it would have been better for France to have elected Royal? If so, please explain why it is better for America to have an “ally” elect someone who hates this country rather than someone who embraces it.