The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Relic on September 19, 2014, 02:18:44 pm
-
Editor-In-Chief of NewsReal Blog, David Horowitz gave a lecture at UC San Diego to combat the ‘Muslim Students Association’s Israeli Apartheid Week’, what some are referring to ‘Hitler Youth Week’. During the question & answer portion of the talk, David had an interesting and bone-chilling encounter with a member of the MSA. He then went ahead to reveal the real intention of her visit to the meeting.
What happens in this video is so chilling, it feels almost like its scripted and that it could be in a movie. Wait for her last 2 words. They are stunningly racist and extremely hateful.
As stated by David Swindle over at NewsReal Blog, whats shocking is not the fact that she holds the views but rather she is so willing to admit it.
Watch the chilling confrontation below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE
http://qpolitical.com/muslim-student-challenges-jewish-professor-shuts-spot/
-
As stated by David Swindle over at NewsReal Blog, whats shocking is not the fact that she holds the views but rather she is so willing to admit it.
This is what several centuries worth of 'marrying your cousin' will do...
-
This is just the same old crap that we saw in the 70s, with all the students at universities supporting the Soviet Union and communism.
Anything to get a rise out of the adults.
This chick's problem is she could very well be put on a DHS watch list and her movements tracked.
-
This is just the same old crap that we saw in the 70s, with all the students at universities supporting the Soviet Union and communism.
Anything to get a rise out of the adults.
This chick's problem is she could very well be put on a DHS watch list and her movements tracked.
And that's a bad thing, why?
-
This is just the same old crap that we saw in the 70s, with all the students at universities supporting the Soviet Union and communism.
Anything to get a rise out of the adults.
This chick's problem is she could very well be put on a DHS watch list and her movements tracked.
Why? She's not in the tea party.
-
Why? She's not in the tea party.
They did the same thing to occupiers. Your political views are irrelevant. If they feel you support opinions and ideas from either side that might threaten their control in any way they will keep tabs on you. I really wouldn't be surprised if I and others here are on some list.
-
They did the same thing to occupiers. Your political views are irrelevant. If they feel you support opinions and ideas from either side that might threaten their control in any way they will keep tabs on you. I really wouldn't be surprised if I and others here are on some list.
I guarantee I am.
Over 50, white male, USN veteran, own a gun. - An exact fit for Eric Holder's profile of a domestic terrorist. Did I say "profile"? Well, I guess profiling is ok if it's a profile of white males.
-
They did the same thing to occupiers. Your political views are irrelevant. If they feel you support opinions and ideas from either side that might threaten their control in any way they will keep tabs on you. I really wouldn't be surprised if I and others here are on some list.
I would say that supporting a declared terrorist group like Hamas is deserving of being placed on a watch list.
-
Horowitz exposed her brilliantly. This is dated 2010 - I wonder where she is now?
-
Horowitz exposed her brilliantly. This is dated 2010 - I wonder where she is now?
Probly had to buy a bigger coat by now...
-
If we say that terrorists like ISIS an others are Muslim extremists or Islamofascists, we are accused of engaging in Islamophobia (which that's not totally untrue since I think we can all agree to possessing a deeply-seeded fear of being decapitated alive, and most -- if not all -- executions via beheading these days are being carried out by Muslims) and of painting Muslims (and by extension Islam) in a negative light, which is an insult to Islam. Muslims get pissed off at us and want to kill us because we associate Muslims, Islam and Muḥammad to terrorists and we shouldn't do that.
YET... ISIS and other terrorist organizations are constantly butchering people and blowing up buildings all in the name of Allah, Muḥammad and Islam, but those very same Muslims that are insulted by our associating Muslims, Islam, Allah and Muḥammad to the acts of terror committed by terrorists, do not seem to be very pissed off at the people who are actually stating that Islam, Allah and Muḥammad are the reason and justification for the acts of barbarism they are committing, which one would think would be the greater insult to Islam, Allah and Muḥammad.
There are only two possible reasons for that odd lack of logical reaction by them:
- They support the actions of terrorists.
- They fear retaliation by terrorists.
As Horowitz said, if you don't publicly condemn terrorists, you support terrorism.
-
:amen:
Amen Luis!
-
They did the same thing to occupiers. Your political views are irrelevant. If they feel you support opinions and ideas from either side that might threaten their control in any way they will keep tabs on you. I really wouldn't be surprised if I and others here are on some list.
If you were part of the Occupy movement, you're not on any list.
You're an ally to the government.
Those of us who are conservatives and Republicans are the ones who are the enemy.
Not you.
-
If you were part of the Occupy movement, you're not on any list.
You're an ally to the government.
Those of us who are conservatives and Republicans are the ones who are the enemy.
Not you.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with anything they said, if you think occupiers were not seen by the government as a nuisance/threat you are simply misinformed. A lot of people (yourself included apparently) still believe that the party opposite of what they vote are evil masterminds bent on the destruction of the free world, and that their party alone is fighting for the good of the people and the betterment of all. Democrats and Republicans alike think like that, and it's complete nonsense from both ends. Neither party is fighting for you because neither party represents you anymore. They are all working for the same evil masterminds that are destroying everything good in the world. Any affront to government is going to be met with hostility and negative media attention from the opposite side.
-
Regardless of whether or not you agree with anything they said, if you think occupiers were not seen by the government as a nuisance/threat you are simply misinformed. A lot of people (yourself included apparently) still believe that the party opposite of what they vote are evil masterminds bent on the destruction of the free world, and that their party alone is fighting for the good of the people and the betterment of all. Democrats and Republicans alike think like that, and it's complete nonsense from both ends. Neither party is fighting for you because neither party represents you anymore. They are all working for the same evil masterminds that are destroying everything good in the world. Any affront to government is going to be met with hostility and negative media attention from the opposite side.
You are mistaken on many, many levels.
Here is a quote from Nancy Pelosi on your Occupy movement....
"God bless them," Pelosi said, "for their spontaneity. It's independent ... it's young, it's spontaneous, and it's focused. And it's going to be effective."
And here is what Obama said in reference to Occupiers, mistakenly protesting him...
“I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I'll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?”
A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.”
This administration was on the Occupy side, and supported you fully.
Not so very much with the Tea Party. (Or didn't you realize that we, who are conservatives, are the only real enemy of this government?).
Now whether or not you believe that there's some evil conspiracy in both parties "destroying everything good in this world" is your own business. But you mistakenly believe that, when I connect you and the Occupy movement with this administration, that I am blindly supporting the Republican party.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
But if you ask me, are there good, honest, patriotic people in the Republican party, I will say, most certainly yes. And if you ask me if there are good, honest patriotic people in the Democrats now running the country, I will say a definitive no.
It requires some nuance to understand the difference between what many conservatives, like me, believe, and what you mistakenly posted in your attempt to express what you think I believe, but it can be done.
Try it.
-
I find it sad that with all the current 'atrocities' going on against God-fearing Americans and Jews that we have to dredge up something from freaking 2010. **nononono*
-
I find it sad that with all the current 'atrocities' going on against God-fearing Americans and Jews that we have to dredge up something from freaking 2010. **nononono*
The guy's moniker IS Relic.
You have to cut him some slack.
-
I find it sad that with all the current 'atrocities' going on against God-fearing Americans and Jews that we have to dredge up something from freaking 2010. **nononono*
Well, I got it in an email from my son, so I didn't worry about the date.
Is it somehow less relevant now than in 2010? Have muslim attitudes changed? What is it that you find so offensive?
Or do you just have some sand in your .....?
-
It still seems pertinent to this old guy...
-
Well, I got it in an email from my son, so I didn't worry about the date.
Is it somehow less relevant now than in 2010? Have muslim attitudes changed? What is it that you find so offensive?
Or do you just have some sand in your .....?
I said it was "sad", not inappropriate or ridiculous.
But my point was that the threads are chock full of articles whose only purpose is to get us more angry and more frustrated and full of despair.
-
But my point was that the threads are chock full of articles whose only purpose is to get us more angry and more frustrated and full of despair.
It's almost as if a mindset is being created in order to accomplish a goal. :pondering:
-
You are mistaken on many, many levels.
Here is a quote from Nancy Pelosi on your Occupy movement....
"God bless them," Pelosi said, "for their spontaneity. It's independent ... it's young, it's spontaneous, and it's focused. And it's going to be effective."
And here is what Obama said in reference to Occupiers, mistakenly protesting him...
“I appreciate you guys making your point; let me go ahead and make mine,” Obama said before continuing his speech. “I'll listen to you, you listen to me, OK?”
A few minutes later, Obama acknowledged the Occupy protest movement again, saying: “You are the reason I ran for office.”
This administration was on the Occupy side, and supported you fully.
Not so very much with the Tea Party. (Or didn't you realize that we, who are conservatives, are the only real enemy of this government?).
Now whether or not you believe that there's some evil conspiracy in both parties "destroying everything good in this world" is your own business. But you mistakenly believe that, when I connect you and the Occupy movement with this administration, that I am blindly supporting the Republican party.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
But if you ask me, are there good, honest, patriotic people in the Republican party, I will say, most certainly yes. And if you ask me if there are good, honest patriotic people in the Democrats now running the country, I will say a definitive no.
It requires some nuance to understand the difference between what many conservatives, like me, believe, and what you mistakenly posted in your attempt to express what you think I believe, but it can be done.
Try it.
Are you really surprised that Obama and other Democrats would say that? Of course he is going to come out in support of the Occupy movement. If he had condemned it his entire base would have fallen apart. Much of what Occupy was demanding is exactly what the Democrats claim to support. Speaking out against it would have seemed incredibly hypocritical. He needed to appear to support it because it was critical for the Democrat's image. Don't tell me that now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe what Obama is saying and not assume it is baloney to cover up his real motives. If a conservative had been in office they would have condemned Occupy while praising the Tea Party, but I don't think a conservative administration would truly support what the Tea Party is trying to do either. The government has one goal, and that is maintaining and expanding their power wherever possible, and they will manipulate and lie to the masses to any extent necessary to achieve their goal.
-
I said it was "sad", not inappropriate or ridiculous.
But my point was that the threads are chock full of articles whose only purpose is to get us more angry and more frustrated and full of despair.
Well, this is the kind of thing people need to see.
If someone sees this for the first time, then it's worth posting.
-
Are you really surprised that Obama and other Democrats would say that? Of course he is going to come out in support of the Occupy movement. If he had condemned it his entire base would have fallen apart. Much of what Occupy was demanding is exactly what the Democrats claim to support. Speaking out against it would have seemed incredibly hypocritical. He needed to appear to support it because it was critical for the Democrat's image. Don't tell me that now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe what Obama is saying and not assume it is baloney to cover up his real motives. If a conservative had been in office they would have condemned Occupy while praising the Tea Party, but I don't think a conservative administration would truly support what the Tea Party is trying to do either. The government has one goal, and that is maintaining and expanding their power wherever possible, and they will manipulate and lie to the masses to any extent necessary to achieve their goal.
You're almost good at twisting what's been said to make your point, Dex.
Not good enough, but not bad.....
If I twist my brain enough, sort of like a pretzel, I can almost see your point.
btw, there are actual conservatives who believe what you claim to believe about everyone in both parties' being evil, but they're more convincing than you are.
You just use the tactic to defend Obama and the left (as in 'they're all bad, so Obama isn't all that bad' .......like you just did here).
Where did you do your demonstrations with OWS? Any violence or disease where you were protesting?
-
You're almost good at twisting what's been said to make your point, Dex.
Not good enough, but not bad.....
If I twist my brain enough, sort of like a pretzel, I can almost see your point.
btw, there are actual conservatives who believe what you claim to believe about everyone in both parties' being evil, but they're more convincing than you are.
You just use the tactic to defend Obama and the left (as in 'they're all bad, so Obama isn't all that bad' .......like you just did here).
Where did you do your demonstrations with OWS? Any violence or disease where you were protesting?
I've never tried to save face for Obama or the Democrats in any way. In no way do I think Obama "Isn't that bad." He's a phony and he's taking advantage of the optimism and good intentions of millions of people.
Oh, and no matter how you have to twist and turn your brain to make sense of my point I will consider it progress. :tongue2:
-
Dex wrote above:
[[ A lot of people (yourself included apparently) still believe that the party opposite of what they vote are evil masterminds bent on the destruction of the free world, and that their party alone is fighting for the good of the people and the betterment of all. Democrats and Republicans alike think like that, and it's complete nonsense from both ends. ]]
Nope.
The problem is that today's democrats REALLY ARE intent on the "destruction of the free world" -- or more correctly stated, the absolute destruction of the Euro/Christian/American nation, mores, and principles that were created by our forefathers over the last several hundred years.
The problem with Republicans is that they aren't doing enough (anything?) to stop them.
-
I've never tried to save face for Obama or the Democrats in any way. In no way do I think Obama "Isn't that bad." He's a phony and he's taking advantage of the optimism and good intentions of millions of people.
Oh, and no matter how you have to twist and turn your brain to make sense of my point I will consider it progress. :tongue2:
Nice try, son.
But you keep saying that Obama is like everyone else (that's defending him). It's a leftist argument, and there can be no "progress" in making it when discussing issues with thinking conservatives.
That's why you've never gotten anywhere on this board, and never will.
btw, unless you tell me about your experiences as an Occupier, I'm not interested in your defense of the movement, or the Dems who supported it so wholeheartedly. :seeya:
-
Dex wrote above:
[[ A lot of people (yourself included apparently) still believe that the party opposite of what they vote are evil masterminds bent on the destruction of the free world, and that their party alone is fighting for the good of the people and the betterment of all. Democrats and Republicans alike think like that, and it's complete nonsense from both ends. ]]
Nope.
The problem is that today's democrats REALLY ARE intent on the "destruction of the free world" -- or more correctly stated, the absolute destruction of the Euro/Christian/American nation, mores, and principles that were created by our forefathers over the last several hundred years.
The problem with Republicans is that they aren't doing enough (anything?) to stop them.
Nailed it.
Thanks, Fishrrman!
-
btw, unless you tell me about your experiences as an Occupier, I'm not interested in your defense of the movement, or the Dems who supported it so wholeheartedly. :seeya:
I wasn't an Occupier, but I tend to not have too much of a problem with giant swathes of people that are fed up with our government and tell it to go bleep itself.
-
I wasn't an Occupier, but I tend to not have too much of a problem with giant swathes of people that are fed up with our government and tell it to go bleep itself.
Hmmmmm............ that was your implication here, Dex.....
They did the same thing to occupiers. Your political views are irrelevant. If they feel you support opinions and ideas from either side that might threaten their control in any way they will keep tabs on you. I really wouldn't be surprised if I and others here are on some list.
I'm absolutely certain you aren't a Tea Partier, so forgive my inference that you belonged to the other group you mentioned specifically that might get YOU on a government "list."
At any rate, I wouldn't worry, if I were you. As I said earlier, I imagine that many of us here are on an Obama watch list. (I'm absolutely certain that I am, as I have attended many Tea Party protests, which you most likely have not).
But there's no reason to believe that with your repeated inclusion of Obama as only one bad guy of many (i.e defending him), that he and his minions would leave you alone.
You don't recognize the far left for what it really is, so I think you're pretty safe....
-
Hmmmmm............ that was your implication here, Dex.....
I said that because I have been openly talking about the government being corrupt and full of shit on the internet for quite a few years now. If the government really is as corrupt as I think it is then I imagine that they would at least make a note of people ranting about things like that.
-
I said that because I have been openly talking about the government being corrupt and full of shit on the internet for quite a few years now. If the government really is as corrupt as I think it is then I imagine that they would at least make a note of people ranting about things like that.
I've only seen your posting here, Dex. And here you make sure that our criticisms of Dems and Obama are mitigated/countered by your saying "they all do it." (Which is, of course, not true). Nothing you've said indicates that you're any threat or bother to the Obama administration. Just a backhanded defender.
At least that's what you do here....
Have a lovely evening.
-
This video is very salient and it needs to get as much traction as possible - even if it is 4 years old. I agree with our good friend DCP more often than not but here I am going in a different direction. The media and the left would have us believe that the mainstream Muslim doesn't think in the way this woman does. And, this brand of evil certainly isn't... here. But yet, she reveals her hatred for all to see in one of our higher learning institutions. Anyone capable of clear thought must know that she is not alone in her thinking. She engaged a Jewish speaker and exposed vile hatred. Here. Not... there. And our systems and sympathies enable her and her brethren to foment that hatred.
The video needs to be seen.
-
I've only seen your posting here, Dex. And here you make sure that our criticisms of Dems and Obama are mitigated/countered by your saying "they all do it." (Which is, of course, not true). Nothing you've said indicates that you're any threat or bother to the Obama administration. Just a backhanded defender.
At least that's what you do here....
Have a lovely evening.
Saying they all do it is not defending the Democrats. The implications of both parties being corrupt are even worse, because it means that they really are in complete control. If only one of the parties was influenced by the corruption it wouldn't be nearly as dire of a situation.
-
musiclady... I admire your style.
-
I said that because I have been openly talking about the government being corrupt and full of shit on the internet for quite a few years now.
Wait... someone's challenging that?
-
Saying they all do it is not defending the Democrats. The implications of both parties being corrupt are even worse, because it means that they really are in complete control. If only one of the parties was influenced by the corruption it wouldn't be nearly as dire of a situation.
I think I know where you're making your mistake.
ONE Party, not two.
Everything else is just Kabuki.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ownvVnxRaUY
-
musiclady... I admire your style.
:patriot:
-
Saying they all do it is not defending the Democrats. The implications of both parties being corrupt are even worse, because it means that they really are in complete control. If only one of the parties was influenced by the corruption it wouldn't be nearly as dire of a situation.
If you ever give an unqualified statement that Obama is deliberately destroying the country, I'd begin to take you seriously.
As it stands......again, from what I've seen here (I don't read most of your posts because I value my time too much, ergo, I may have missed something some time), you are a liberal who happens to think both parties are corrupt, but identifies with the left.
The most extreme anti-government anarchists IMO, are on the far left, not the far right.......though some on the right are skirting with it. You could well be an extreme leftist and say most of what I've seen you say. You could also be disguising yourself to appear to be what you're not. (Most of us have been around long enough to see plenty of phonies on forums such as this).
No one is arguing that there is not corruption in the Republican party, but unlike the Democrat party, it is not entirely corrupt. There are a number of strong, principled conservative Republicans in Congress, and there is not a single principled person in the Democrat party. The Republican party also does not have the long history of total corruption like the Democrat party has.
There has also never been a President as corrupt, viscerally anti-American, or downright evil as Barack Obama. Not even Nixon or Clinton come close to the corruption of this administration. And by your constant minimizing of the danger of THIS administration, you are, admit it or not, giving a backhanded defense of Obama and company.
-
Wait... someone's challenging that?
Nope.
-
If you ever give an unqualified statement that Obama is deliberately destroying the country, I'd begin to take you seriously.
As it stands......again, from what I've seen here (I don't read most of your posts because I value my time too much, ergo, I may have missed something some time), you are a liberal who happens to think both parties are corrupt, but identifies with the left.
The most extreme anti-government anarchists IMO, are on the far left, not the far right.......though some on the right are skirting with it. You could well be an extreme leftist and say most of what I've seen you say. You could also be disguising yourself to appear to be what you're not. (Most of us have been around long enough to see plenty of phonies on forums such as this).
No one is arguing that there is not corruption in the Republican party, but unlike the Democrat party, it is not entirely corrupt. There are a number of strong, principled conservative Republicans in Congress, and there is not a single principled person in the Democrat party. The Republican party also does not have the long history of total corruption like the Democrat party has.
There has also never been a President as corrupt, viscerally anti-American, or downright evil as Barack Obama. Not even Nixon or Clinton come close to the corruption of this administration. And by your constant minimizing of the danger of THIS administration, you are, admit it or not, giving a backhanded defense of Obama and company.
Brilliantly and correctly stated. Well done.
-
Brilliantly and correctly stated. Well done.
Thank you, sir!
From someone I respect as much as I respect you, that is a high compliment, and I am humbled.
-
Thank you, sir!
From someone I respect as much as I respect you, that is a high compliment, and I am humbled.
Darn it if you didn't get me to blush!
-
Darn it if you didn't get me to blush!
That's OK. With those sunglasses you always wear, no one will notice. ^-^
-
And by your constant minimizing of the danger of THIS administration, you are, admit it or not, giving a backhanded defense of Obama and company.
How is saying that the problem is even worse than most people realize minimizing the danger of this administration? This administration is dangerous; I have always recognized that. I think most people are viewing the same problem from different vantage points, whereas I am seeing the entirety of the problem all at once. I think the reason that pill is so hard for you to swallow is you don't like the idea of Republicans being involved with the bad guys too. You seem to believe that the vast majority of the corruption is coming from one side, which is basically just you proving my point that most people refuse to see the whole picture and just point fingers at who they've been taught the bad guy is. I believe they're for the most part all the same people, and I think the very idea that maybe you too are being played for a fool is a little offensive to you.
-
How is saying that the problem is even worse than most people realize minimizing the danger of this administration? This administration is dangerous; I have always recognized that. I think most people are viewing the same problem from different vantage points, whereas I am seeing the entirety of the problem all at once. I think the reason that pill is so hard for you to swallow is you don't like the idea of Republicans being involved with the bad guys too. You seem to believe that the vast majority of the corruption is coming from one side, which is basically just you proving my point that most people refuse to see the whole picture and just point fingers at who they've been taught the bad guy is. I believe they're for the most part all the same people, and I think the very idea that maybe you too are being played for a fool is a little offensive to you.
:beer:
-
How is saying that the problem is even worse than most people realize minimizing the danger of this administration? This administration is dangerous; I have always recognized that. I think most people are viewing the same problem from different vantage points, whereas I am seeing the entirety of the problem all at once. I think the reason that pill is so hard for you to swallow is you don't like the idea of Republicans being involved with the bad guys too. You seem to believe that the vast majority of the corruption is coming from one side, which is basically just you proving my point that most people refuse to see the whole picture and just point fingers at who they've been taught the bad guy is. I believe they're for the most part all the same people, and I think the very idea that maybe you too are being played for a fool is a little offensive to you.
To your point.
Congressional approval ratings are in the teens, yet incumbents continue to get re-elected.
Why?
Because the majority of the people "believe" that THEIR guy is a "good guy" and that there's no way that they picked the "wrong" guy, because picking the wrong guy means that they are themselves fools for picking him.
-
To your point.
Congressional approval ratings are in the teens, yet incumbents continue to get re-elected.
Why?
Because the majority of the people "believe" that THEIR guy is a "good guy" and that there's no way that they picked the "wrong" guy, because picking the wrong guy means that they are themselves fools for picking him.
Most people can't bring themselves to consider the possibility that maybe they are wrong, but reviewing and criticizing even your own beliefs is critical to the evolution of thought. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-
How is saying that the problem is even worse than most people realize minimizing the danger of this administration? This administration is dangerous; I have always recognized that. I think most people are viewing the same problem from different vantage points, whereas I am seeing the entirety of the problem all at once. I think the reason that pill is so hard for you to swallow is you don't like the idea of Republicans being involved with the bad guys too. You seem to believe that the vast majority of the corruption is coming from one side, which is basically just you proving my point that most people refuse to see the whole picture and just point fingers at who they've been taught the bad guy is. I believe they're for the most part all the same people, and I think the very idea that maybe you too are being played for a fool is a little offensive to you.
Wow. That's an incredible distortion of reality. More evidence that you are a liberal, trained in twisting things to fit your agenda.
But my point remains.......
Until you stop defending Obama on this forum as "not any worse than anyone else," the vast majority of us who are thinking conservatives will understand that you (a liberal) are being disingenuous.
The fact that one or two on this forum hate Republicans as much as they hate Democrats, and cheer you on, regardless of the truth about who the vicious anti-American nature of today's Democrat party, is irrelevant.
The Republican party is not actively seeking to destroy the very fabric of this nation as the Democrats are. And no hatred, nor hyperbolic rhetoric on your part will make it so. There are two factions of the Republican party......one of which is addicted to power and corrupt, and one of which is genuinely seeking to fix what's wrong in the country. As angry and frustrated as I have been and still am about some in the Republican party, I'm not stupid enough to say the parties are exactly the same.
You are naïve if you think there's no difference. And you are wrong.
-
Most people can't bring themselves to consider the possibility that maybe they are wrong, but reviewing and criticizing even your own beliefs is critical to the evolution of thought. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Funny.
You're the one who's wrong and won't admit it, and I'm the one who recognizes the bigger picture, but won't buckle to leftist rhetoric, such as yours.
Funny.
-
Wow. That's an incredible distortion of reality. More evidence that you are a liberal, trained in twisting things to fit your agenda.
But my point remains.......
Until you stop defending Obama on this forum as "not any worse than anyone else," the vast majority of us who are thinking conservatives will understand that you (a liberal) are being disingenuous.
The fact that one or two on this forum hate Republicans as much as they hate Democrats, and cheer you on, regardless of the truth about who the vicious anti-American nature of today's Democrat party, is irrelevant.
The Republican party is not actively seeking to destroy the very fabric of this nation as the Democrats are. And no hatred, nor hyperbolic rhetoric on your part will make it so. There are two factions of the Republican party......one of which is addicted to power and corrupt, and one of which is genuinely seeking to fix what's wrong in the country. As angry and frustrated as I have been and still am about some in the Republican party, I'm not stupid enough to say the parties are exactly the same.
You are naïve if you think there's no difference. And you are wrong.
There certainly IS a difference. I see the problem (regarding the OT) as since we don't control the MSM and 'our' message' is distorted to such a degree, that they feel putting all their chips on the bet that people are getting as fed up as we've been with the Democrats and will naturally vote them out.
-
I'm not stupid enough to say the parties are exactly the same.
You are naïve if you think there's no difference. And you are wrong.
I don't think they are exactly the same, but I do believe they are very similar and that they are using different forms of manipulation to work towards a similar goal.
-
I don't think they are exactly the same, but I do believe they are very similar and that they are using different forms of manipulation to work towards a similar goal.
You're still wrong.
But thanks for enlightening me with your thoughts.
I'd be so dumb and narrow minded if I didn't have these discussions with 'evolved' people like you, wouldn't I?
Thanks for bringing me out of my cave......
(Sorry, but encountering liberal arrogance heightens my naturally sarcastic nature).
-
You're still wrong.
But thanks for enlightening me with your thoughts.
I'd be so dumb and narrow minded if I didn't have these discussions with 'evolved' people like you, wouldn't I?
Thanks for bringing me out of my cave......
(Sorry, but encountering liberal arrogance heightens my naturally sarcastic nature).
It was never my intention to offend you. If I thought you were a narrow minded ignoramus I would not waste my time trying to illustrate my point of view to you. I believe you're wrong, but that doesn't mean that I think you're unintelligent. I've rather enjoyed disagreeing with you during my time here, and I'm sorry that it needs to become offensive instead of just being a disagreement between two intelligent people.
-
When one's political policies have demonstrably failed the last argument remaining is to claim equivalency with the opposing view. It is the final, futile defense.
The truth of the matter is that very few of us here like the GOP, and most of us were very wary of George W. Bush. We disagreed with most of what he did. What kept us going was the certainty that things would have been a heck of a lot worse had the Democrats been in charge. Only a Kool-Aid drinking, disillusioned idiot would fail to see that the past six years have borne that out.
Most Americans today are afraid of capitalism and free markets because they have never lived in a time when the game wasn't rigged. Those of us who are a bit older can remember economic expansion, upward mobility, people fully engaged, and an America coming together under the idea of limitless possibilities.
We are in desperate need of a leader who can articulate that vision again, and a people who will embrace it.
-
When one's political policies have demonstrably failed the last argument remaining is to claim equivalency with the opposing view. It is the final, futile defense.
The truth of the matter is that very few of us here like the GOP, and most of us were very wary of George W. Bush. We disagreed with most of what he did. What kept us going was the certainty that things would have been a heck of a lot worse had the Democrats been in charge. Only a Kool-Aid drinking, disillusioned idiot would fail to see that the past six years have borne that out.
Most Americans today are afraid of capitalism and free markets because they have never lived in a time when the game wasn't rigged. Those of us who are a bit older can remember economic expansion, upward mobility, people fully engaged, and an America coming together under the idea of limitless possibilities.
We are in desperate need of a leader who can articulate that vision again, and a people who will embrace it.
Amen!
-
When one's political policies have demonstrably failed the last argument remaining is to claim equivalency with the opposing view. It is the final, futile defense.
The truth of the matter is that very few of us here like the GOP, and most of us were very wary of George W. Bush. We disagreed with most of what he did. What kept us going was the certainty that things would have been a heck of a lot worse had the Democrats been in charge. Only a Kool-Aid drinking, disillusioned idiot would fail to see that the past six years have borne that out.
Most Americans today are afraid of capitalism and free markets because they have never lived in a time when the game wasn't rigged. Those of us who are a bit older can remember economic expansion, upward mobility, people fully engaged, and an America coming together under the idea of limitless possibilities.
We are in desperate need of a leader who can articulate that vision again, and a people who will embrace it.
:amen: Brother! :amen:
-
It was never my intention to offend you. If I thought you were a narrow minded ignoramus I would not waste my time trying to illustrate my point of view to you. I believe you're wrong, but that doesn't mean that I think you're unintelligent. I've rather enjoyed disagreeing with you during my time here, and I'm sorry that it needs to become offensive instead of just being a disagreement between two intelligent people.
I was being sarcastic in response to your liberal rhetoric.
To the point of this thread.... The current administration is supportive of the mindset of the young Muslim woman in the video.
The current administration believes that people like me......Tea Party conservatives, who are also still Republicans....... are a worse enemy than those who would like to kill us all and wipe out Israel.
Until you lose the naivte that says both parties are the same, you will have your eyes closed to the dangers we are now facing.
Since you are roughly half my age, consider it a word to the wise from an elder who wants young Americans like you, left or right, to wake up to the very real threats we now face thanks to a virulently anti-American Democrat party, and a very weak and divided Republican party.
-
The truth of the matter is that very few of us here like the GOP, and most of us were very wary of George W. Bush. We disagreed with most of what he did. What kept us going was the certainty that things would have been a heck of a lot worse had the Democrats been in charge. Only a Kool-Aid drinking, disillusioned idiot would fail to see that the past six years have borne that out.
"Well, he sucks, but at least I agree with him more than the other guy." That's not a situation that I am content with.
-
I was being sarcastic in response to your liberal rhetoric.
I am well aware of what you were doing, but your sarcasm seemed to come from a belief that I am incredibly arrogant and that I believe you're an idiot for not seeing things my way. That's simply not true. I don't think I'm better than or more intelligent than anybody because of a difference of opinion. I don't understand why disagreements need to devolve into name calling and hostility. Like it or not there are incredibly intelligent people that exist on both sides of almost any belief system you could name. Maybe they are misguided or even ignorant, but that doesn't make any of them unintelligent. I wish the questioning of intelligence and unnecessary hostility didn't even need to be part of the conversation.
-
"Well, he sucks, but at least I agree with him more than the other guy." That's not a situation that I am content with.
The point I have been trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to make to you, is that the TRUTH is that they don't all "suck."
If you don't think there is a single political figure who has integrity and loves America, I feel very sorry for you.
We ALL agree that there are not enough. Not even close. But there are NONE in the radical leftist, amoral, deceitful, filthy Democrat party now in control. There are SOME who are Republicans.
I would suggest that, if you believe there are no politicians of any decency, that you run for office yourself and start to fix things.
-
When one's political policies have demonstrably failed the last argument remaining is to claim equivalency with the opposing view. It is the final, futile defense.
The truth of the matter is that very few of us here like the GOP, and most of us were very wary of George W. Bush. We disagreed with most of what he did. What kept us going was the certainty that things would have been a heck of a lot worse had the Democrats been in charge. Only a Kool-Aid drinking, disillusioned idiot would fail to see that the past six years have borne that out.
Most Americans today are afraid of capitalism and free markets because they have never lived in a time when the game wasn't rigged. Those of us who are a bit older can remember economic expansion, upward mobility, people fully engaged, and an America coming together under the idea of limitless possibilities.
We are in desperate need of a leader who can articulate that vision again, and a people who will embrace it.
Polled, most people would say that they don't trust A) Democrats, or B) Republicans in probably equal numbers.
But if asked a follow-up question of whether or not they trust government, I think a majority of those polled who responded to either A or B of the first question, would answer "no" to the second.
Government is made up of both "A" and "B", and even Reagan said that government was the problem.
We all keep trying to make the argument that some individual will show up and make everything "right" by being a "leader"; we're always looking for a savior.
There simply ain't one coming, and if that person ever does show up they will meet a fate very similar to the last one that came here, at the hands of the very same people... those whose power will be threatened by his existence.
There is only one solution, and Thomas Jefferson knew what that solution is (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html).
-
If you don't think there is a single political figure who has integrity and loves America, I feel very sorry for you.
I do believe that there are individual politicians with integrity and a desire to do good, but I believe they are and will remain ineffective within the confines of a corrupt two party system.
-
Polled, most people would say that they don't trust A) Democrats, or B) Republicans in probably equal numbers.
But if asked a follow-up question of whether or not they trust government, I think a majority of those polled who responded to either A or B of the first question, would answer "no" to the second.
Government is made up of both "A" and "B", and even Reagan said that government was the problem.
We all keep trying to make the argument that some individual will show up and make everything "right" by being a "leader"; we're always looking for a savior.
There simply ain't one coming, and if that person ever does show up they will meet a fate very similar to the last one that came here, at the hands of the very same people... those whose power will be threatened by his existence.
There is only one solution, and Thomas Jefferson knew what that solution is (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html).
:thumbsup:
-
I am well aware of what you were doing, but your sarcasm seemed to come from a belief that I am incredibly arrogant and that I believe you're an idiot for not seeing things my way. That's simply not true. I don't think I'm better than or more intelligent than anybody because of a difference of opinion. I don't understand why disagreements need to devolve into name calling and hostility. Like it or not there are incredibly intelligent people that exist on both sides of almost any belief system you could name. Maybe they are misguided or even ignorant, but that doesn't make any of them unintelligent. I wish the questioning of intelligence and unnecessary hostility didn't even need to be part of the conversation.
I don't for one minute think you're unintelligent (and have never even remotely implied that)......and I'm not at all offended that you think that, because I don't agree with you, I'm deliberately blind to reality (You've stated that here). I don't take liberal opinions personally, especially those voiced on the Internet.
But I won't sing Kumbaya with a liberal.......even a polite one, and I will continue to state my view that your opinions are naïve. (That's not "name-calling." It's observation based on what I believe is a greater depth of understanding of the situation we are presently living through, and a much deeper knowledge of Barack Obama, his radical background, and his complete lack of integrity).
Sorry.
-
Bumper sticker:
No matter who you vote for, the government always wins.
-
Bumper sticker:
No matter who you vote for, the government always wins.
:beer:
-
I will continue to state my view that your opinions are naïve...
Not just naive, but intellectually vacuous and predictable. Government is corrupt, so we need more government to keep it from becoming corrupt. It is absent any reasonable logic, which is why you can never really win an argument with a liberal.
-
Not just naive, but intellectually vacuous and predictable. Government is corrupt, so we need more government to keep it from becoming corrupt. It is absent any reasonable logic, which is why you can never really win an argument with a liberal.
That's not what I believe at all.
-
Most people can't bring themselves to consider the possibility that maybe they are wrong, but reviewing and criticizing even your own beliefs is critical to the evolution of thought. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Most people simply can't do that, so they adhere to the "white hat, black hat" view of politics.
-
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Most people simply can't do that, so they adhere to the "white hat, black hat" view of politics.
I continue to be ever impressed by your contributions here.
:thumbsup:
-
Not just naive, but intellectually vacuous and predictable. Government is corrupt, so we need more government to keep it from becoming corrupt. It is absent any reasonable logic, which is why you can never really win an argument with a liberal.
Right.
Which is why I'm going to stop now. :beer:
-
This is a quote from Dex4974 from another thread. This is the guy some here are accusing of being a liberal:
There are so many people that have no faith in the two party system. If there was a viable third party I believe that millions of people would come out of the woodwork. If the two party system is compromised, which I believe it is, then they've already won. We need to fight to take it back before it's too late.
"... if there was a viable third party..."
Isn't that the whole idea behind the Tea Party?
How does agreeing with the idea behind the Tea Party movement suddenly make someone a liberal in this forum?
Truth is that this argument seems to be developing into a collectivism v. individualism fight.
"If you don't agree with me and say what I want you to say, then you're obviously one of them."
-
I do believe that there are individual politicians with integrity and a desire to do good, but I believe they are and will remain ineffective within the confines of a corrupt two party system.
I don't believe for a minute that one can feed with pigs and smell of roses.
There isn't a big-time politician in the US (maybe the world) who hasn't been forced to compromise their integrity to one degree or another along the way to the level of big-time politics.
Those who are in power have already traded integrity for power, and will not allow anyone to ascend to their level who isn't willing to do the same along the way to the top.
Case in point, Obama isn't liberal enough for the progressives who helped him rise to the top.
In their eyes, he compromised his integrity.
-
Not just naive, but intellectually vacuous and predictable. Government is corrupt, so we need more government to keep it from becoming corrupt. It is absent any reasonable logic, which is why you can never really win an argument with a liberal.
Communism will work when it is finally done correctly.
-
This is a quote from Dex4974 from another thread. This is the guy some here are accusing of being a liberal:
"... if there was a viable third party..."
Isn't that the whole idea behind the Tea Party?
How does agreeing with the idea behind the Tea Party movement suddenly make someone a liberal in this forum?
Truth is that this argument seems to be developing into a collectivism v. individualism fight.
"If you don't agree with me and say what I want you to say, then you're obviously one of them."
A single post does not a worldview make.
The greater opus tells a different story.
-
Why is it so important to spend so much time concentrating on what my label is? If you disagree with me you should concentrate on attacking the logic I'm using to make my point instead of obsessing over what you should be calling me.
-
Why is it so important to spend so much time concentrating on what my label is? If you disagree with me you should concentrate on attacking the logic I'm using to make my point instead of obsessing over what you should be calling me.
Who's obsessing?
But it does make a difference if you come from a leftist worldview.
Most of the time I ignore your posts because there's not much there there.
But on this thread you made a parallel between the Obama gov't opposing the Tea Party in the same way they opposed Occupy, and it was flat out wrong, so I responded to it.
I will now, however, go with the above poster who said you can't ever win a debate with a liberal, and leave you alone.....
Until you post something else on another thread that is flat out untrue.
btw, thanks for not denying that you're a liberal. It's instructive......
And thanks for being a polite liberal. It's............ rare.
-
Who's obsessing?
You've been accusing me of being a liberal throughout this entire thread, not to mention other threads in which you did you same thing. Even if I was a leftist it wouldn't change or invalidate anything I've said here, so I feel it is completely beside the point and unnecessary to even bring it into the conversation.
But it does make a difference if you come from a leftist worldview.
How does my worldview change the meaning of what I've said here? It's irrelevant and doesn't change my argument either way.
Most of the time I ignore your posts because there's not much there.
But on this thread you made a parallel between the Obama gov't opposing the Tea Party in the same way they opposed Occupy, and it was flat out wrong, so I responded to it.
I thought you said that you could sort of see my point if you twist your brain into a pretzel shape. Surely that means you can't discredit my point completely?
I will now, however, go with the above poster who said you can't ever win a debate with a liberal, and leave you alone.....
The reason it is so difficult to "win" an argument is because points of view are often dictated by different guiding principles in different people. Often times there is no way to definitively prove wrong the philosophy a person lives by, because it is simply a point of view; there really is nothing to prove wrong. A liberal's brain is wired completely different than your brain is, and they see the world through a very different set of eyes.
Until you post something else on another thread that is flat out untrue.
Well I'm sure you won't have to wait long for that. :silly:
btw, thanks for not denying that you're a liberal. It's instructive......
I didn't confirm or deny anything because I don't feel that I should have to. In all honesty I'm not sure what exactly I would call myself; I guess you could say I am an independent.
And thanks for being a polite liberal. It's............ rare.
Maintaining civility is always important.
-
Why is it so important to spend so much time concentrating on what my label is? If you disagree with me you should concentrate on attacking the logic I'm using to make my point instead of obsessing over what you should be calling me.
The low road is easier to travel.
-
You've been accusing me of being a liberal throughout this entire thread, not to mention other threads in which you did you same thing. Even if I was a leftist it wouldn't change or invalidate anything I've said here, so I feel it is completely beside the point and unnecessary to even bring it into the conversation.
How does my worldview change the meaning of what I've said here? It's irrelevant and doesn't change my argument either way.
I thought you said that you could sort of see my point if you twist your brain into a pretzel shape. Surely that means you can't discredit my point completely?
The reason it is so difficult to "win" an argument is because points of view are often dictated by different guiding principles in different people. Often times there is no way to definitively prove wrong the philosophy a person lives by, because it is simply a point of view; there really is nothing to prove wrong. A liberal's brain is wired completely different than your brain is, and they see the world through a very different set of eyes.
Well I'm sure you won't have to wait long for that. :silly:
I didn't confirm or deny anything because I don't feel that I should have to. In all honesty I'm not sure what exactly I would call myself; I guess you could say I am an independent.
Maintaining civility is always important.
Your fundamental error is that you believe your worldview........how you perceive events based on your personal morals and views........ is irrelevant to the words you say here.
I am very proud of being a conservative. I believe my conservative worldview is important because I have thought about issues for many, many years, and believe that conservative principles help the most people and make the most sense. I care about the poor, so I am a conservative. I am a feminist, so I am a conservative. I believe in personal integrity, and that leads me to conservatism.
The fact that you don't correlate what you say here with your fundamental beliefs is not logical, Dex. You make comments on what you believe, not in some vacuum, or suspended in outer space. Perhaps the reason I have continued to bring up your liberalism is that the people on this forum understand that liberalism is a worldview that is inconsistent with Constitutional principles, small government, and integrity in the individuals who represent us in that government.
I would hope that some day you connect your words with your beliefs beyond what you believe are "logical" arguments. I think the fact that you don't relate your liberalism with your posts is what makes them seem so vacuous to many of us here.
Incidentally, Luis has me on ignore after calling me a "Piece of Excrement" (using the vulgarity usually associated with that phrase). On that thread where I apologized multiple times for an unfortunate and ill-used, but not meant implication that he took offense to. He never responded to any of those apologies, nor has he made any attempt to reconcile or speak politely since that time.
I would not use him as a paragon of virtue for those who take the "high road," were I you.
I believe that I always try to avoid the "low road" and that at no time here have I called you a name. (Liberal is what you are, as Conservative is what I am. It's not "name-calling" to recognize that).
I respect you for your intelligence and perseverance.
However, your worldview is getting this country into a mess that we may never recover from, and I'm not going to say that it's just another point of view to be debated.
It's destroying America.
-
The low road is easier to travel.
Not trying to renew the argument, but you, Luis Gonzalez, are the first person in 13 years on the internet to call me a piece of excrement (the worst personal insult I've ever received in all my years on political forums), even though I apologized for what I said (but didn't mean), and tried to make things right, and even though I acknowledged that I understood why you were offended.
I ALWAYS try to take the high road, and if I slip, I ALWAYS apologize.
Because it's the right thing to do. Even though it's not easy. And even when the people to whom I apologize refuse to accept it.
I meant my apology then. I still do.
It was, and is the right thing to do. If you ever want reconciliation, I will welcome it gladly.
-
However, your worldview is getting this country into a mess that we may never recover from, and I'm not going to say that it's just another point of view to be debated.
This is an important point, Alice and the reason why I almost never befriend avid liberals.
If a man were to break into my house and steal my property, I would consider him a thief and avoid him. I don't see why I should not apply the same standard to someone who votes for a politician to come to my house and steal my property. In many respects this latter individual is even more despicable than the first.
If a liberal were to abide by my philosophy he will be left alone to lead his life as he chooses. But in order for me to abide by his, I must have my life micromanaged at every level. It is simply too great a divide to abide.
-
This is an important point, Alice and the reason why I almost never befriend avid liberals.
If a man were to break into my house and steal my property, I would consider him a thief and avoid him. I don't see why I should not apply the same standard to someone who votes for a politician to come to my house and steal my property. In many respects this latter individual is even more despicable than the first.
If a liberal were to abide by my philosophy he will be left alone to lead his life as he chooses. But in order for me to abide by his, I must have my life micromanaged at every level. It is simply too great a divide to abide.
Precisely.
The liberal philosophy is oppressive, and the antithesis of liberty.
That's why it matters what a person's worldview is when discussing any issue. Disagreements among fellow conservatives are based on what is the best way to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals......fidelity to Constitutional principles and small government, among other issues........ and why disagreements between a conservative and a liberal are based on an insurmountable chasm.
It is an exercise in futility to have a 'discussion' with someone whose goals are irreconcilable with the principles we hold dear.
-
Your fundamental error is that you believe your worldview........how you perceive events based on your personal morals and views........ is irrelevant to the words you say here.
I am very proud of being a conservative. I believe my conservative worldview is important because I have thought about issues for many, many years, and believe that conservative principles help the most people and make the most sense. I care about the poor, so I am a conservative. I am a feminist, so I am a conservative. I believe in personal integrity, and that leads me to conservatism.
I believe your fundamental error is your tendency to see everything in black or white. If every last one of my views isn't consistent with the Tea Party I am a lunatic Obama supporting liberal babbling nonsense. I have some opinions that some would see as leaning left, and I've posted about many of them here. I also have a lot of opinions that would get a bunch of liberals to light their torches and grab their pitchforks. People like that would just as readily call me a far right nut job without even considering the rest of my opinions. Like it or not it is people like me that are floating somewhere around the middle that decide the outcomes of elections. If you're interested in the long term survival of conservative principles you are going to have to make some peace with people like me.
The fact that you don't correlate what you say here with your fundamental beliefs is not logical, Dex. You make comments on what you believe, not in some vacuum, or suspended in outer space. Perhaps the reason I have continued to bring up your liberalism is that the people on this forum understand that liberalism is a worldview that is inconsistent with Constitutional principles, small government, and integrity in the individuals who represent us in that government.
I believe my fundamental beliefs are in line with the things I say here. You wanted to label me a liberal because it was an easy way to discredit what I was saying without actually addressing it.
I would hope that some day you connect your words with your beliefs beyond what you believe are "logical" arguments. I think the fact that you don't relate your liberalism with your posts is what makes them seem so vacuous to many of us here.
It all connects and makes sense in my head, just like the things you say connect and make sense in your head even though they may not make sense in mine.
Incidentally, Luis has me on ignore after calling me a "Piece of Excrement" (using the vulgarity usually associated with that phrase). On that thread where I apologized multiple times for an unfortunate and ill-used, but not meant implication that he took offense to. He never responded to any of those apologies, nor has he made any attempt to reconcile or speak politely since that time.
I have a feeling that his extreme reaction to what you said was associated with some part of it hitting home and becoming personal to him. You're passionate about what you believe and you get fired up about it. It can be easy to offend people like that. If I remember correctly I was one of your biggest advocates as far as him forgiving what you said. I hope the two of you are able to reconcile your differences.
I believe that I always try to avoid the "low road" and that at no time here have I called you a name. (Liberal is what you are, as Conservative is what I am. It's not "name-calling" to recognize that).
I'm not so sure about that, but I'm not really interested in drudging through post history to find out for sure. Either way I never took it personally. I just try to do my best to keep everything civil.
I respect you for your intelligence and perseverance.
Well thank you, and likewise.
However, your worldview is getting this country into a mess that we may never recover from, and I'm not going to say that it's just another point of view to be debated.
It's destroying America.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Obviously I see it differently or I would have a different point of view. The destruction of America is not on my to do list.
-
Precisely.
The liberal philosophy is oppressive, and the antithesis of liberty.
That's why it matters what a person's worldview is when discussing any issue. Disagreements among fellow conservatives are based on what is the best way to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals......fidelity to Constitutional principles and small government, among other issues........ and why disagreements between a conservative and a liberal are based on an insurmountable chasm.
It is an exercise in futility to have a 'discussion' with someone whose goals are irreconcilable with the principles we hold dear.
I believe in small government. The only person on this forum more distrustful of big government is MAYBE Dan, but it would be hard to trust the government less than I do. I agree with a lot of the conservative positions on immigration. It's absolutely insane to make public assistance readily available and at the same time open the flood gates for anybody that wants to call themselves an American. I also don't think firearms should be regulated in any way. That is a terrible and ineffective idea for the same reasons that prohibition and the drug war were/are terrible and ineffective. I would vote for Rand/Ron Paul if they were third party. I very much agree with a lot of what they say about our banking system, and I believe it is very important to the future of this country. Are those opinions that you would expect to hear from a liberal?
-
I believe in small government. The only person on this forum more distrustful of big government is MAYBE Dan, but it would be hard to trust the government less than I do. I agree with a lot of the conservative positions on immigration. It's absolutely insane to make public assistance readily available and at the same time open the flood gates for anybody that wants to call themselves an American. I also don't think firearms should be regulated in any way. That is a terrible and ineffective idea for the same reasons that prohibition and the drug war were/are terrible and ineffective. I would vote for Rand/Ron Paul if they were third party. I very much agree with a lot of what they say about our banking system, and I believe it is very important to the future of this country. Are those opinions that you would expect to hear from a liberal?
There's no one in government that is in favor of smaller government... well. maybe Ron Paul.
Being in government or working at becoming part of the government by arguing in favor of and supporting the idea of smaller government makes as much sense as Bill Gates saying that he supports Microsoft having a diminishing share of the world's operating system market.
He may actually say that, but you know damned well he doesn't mean it.
-
I believe your fundamental error is your tendency to see everything in black or white. If every last one of my views isn't consistent with the Tea Party I am a lunatic Obama supporting liberal babbling nonsense. I have some opinions that some would see as leaning left, and I've posted about many of them here. I also have a lot of opinions that would get a bunch of liberals to light their torches and grab their pitchforks. People like that would just as readily call me a far right nut job without even considering the rest of my opinions. Like it or not it is people like me that are floating somewhere around the middle that decide the outcomes of elections. If you're interested in the long term survival of conservative principles you are going to have to make some peace with people like me.
I believe my fundamental beliefs are in line with the things I say here. You wanted to label me a liberal because it was an easy way to discredit what I was saying without actually addressing it.
It all connects and makes sense in my head, just like the things you say connect and make sense in your head even though they may not make sense in mine.
I have a feeling that his extreme reaction to what you said was associated with some part of it hitting home and becoming personal to him. You're passionate about what you believe and you get fired up about it. It can be easy to offend people like that. If I remember correctly I was one of your biggest advocates as far as him forgiving what you said. I hope the two of you are able to reconcile your differences.
I'm not so sure about that, but I'm not really interested in drudging through post history to find out for sure. Either way I never took it personally. I just try to do my best to keep everything civil.
Well thank you, and likewise.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Obviously I see it differently or I would have a different point of view. The destruction of America is not on my to do list.
Too much here for me to respond to tonight, so I'll just touch on a few things.
1. I do not see "everything in black and white." There are many areas of gray throughout life. But it is not ALL gray. It is not ALL a matter of opinion, with each side being equal. That is where you are in fundamental error. There is good, and there is evil. To pretend that it's just another POV is not adequate. The funny thing is that you clearly have strong opinions about many things, yet you resist differing strong opinions in others. Don't live your life without moral absolutes. It's not the way life works.
2. I understand that there are those who are not strongly conservative nor strongly liberal. You might notice, if you care to, that I only react to the things you say that are liberal, and are thus, in error. (Lest I become to repetitive, your comment about OWS and the Tea Party and this government. It was just wrong. Period).
3. Yes, I'm passionate about many things, but there's not one person on this forum for which that is not the case.......including you. I'm not offended by Dan's passion about one world government. I'm not offended by Luis' passion about gay marriage. I'm not offended by your passion about being dispassionate. I'm not offended by those who see Islam as the root of all evil. I have four children, all of whom are passionate about something, and all of whom disagree with me on many issues. It doesn't affect my relationship with them whatsoever. If I've jumped to some erroneous conclusions about you, you've certainly jumped to as many or more about me.
4. Internet forum communication is faulty at best. For instance, Dan hates me because of a gross misunderstanding he has of me based on things he thought I thought about someone else on another forum. Years later, he's still got me on ignore, and yet we agree on almost everything. People misunderstand things all the time, and if people like Dan and Luis want to hold grudges for years, that's their right, and also the burden they have to live with. You can't make peace with people who want to live in conflict. I don't want to live in conflict with either of these two men, but they both want to live in conflict with me. There's no more I can do about that than I have already done. I like to argue, but I like making peace even better, and I can't do a blasted thing if people want to be mad at me forever for no reason. That ball, as they say, is in their court.
5. You truly seem like a decent fellow. But you really need to understand that in the world of black and white, liberalism is black. (Don't think by that statement that I think all Republicans are conservative and not liberal. They're not). Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, are in the camp of evil. Recognizing that doesn't mean I see "everything" as black and white. But murdering babies so their mothers can go on vacation is evil, and the current Dem party has chosen to support that evil. And that's just one of many, many evils they espouse.
I don't know if any of this even makes sense to you in your world of shades of gray, but I encourage you to think about it, and think about where espousing life in that nebulous world will take you.
-
I believe your fundamental error is your tendency to see everything in black or white. If every last one of my views isn't consistent with the Tea Party I am a lunatic Obama supporting liberal babbling nonsense. I have some opinions that some would see as leaning left, and I've posted about many of them here. I also have a lot of opinions that would get a bunch of liberals to light their torches and grab their pitchforks. People like that would just as readily call me a far right nut job without even considering the rest of my opinions. Like it or not it is people like me that are floating somewhere around the middle that decide the outcomes of elections. If you're interested in the long term survival of conservative principles you are going to have to make some peace with people like me.
One of my main criticisms of contemporary "conservatism" is the tendency to name call and label others, instead of waging successful salesmanship of their views.
The simple math of winning elections seems to escape their interest. The very idea they do need to ally themselves with people they don't see eye-to-eye on everything, totally eludes them.
On granting funding to Syrian rebels, Cruz voted with Bernie Sanders, and he complimented him too.
I think somebody must have slipped the Senator from Texas, a copy of Carnegie's book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10.Appeal to the nobler motives.
11.Dramatize your ideas.
12.Throw down a challenge.
-
One of my main criticisms of contemporary "conservatism" is the tendency to name call and label others, instead of waging successful salesmanship of their views.
The simple math of winning elections seems to escape their interest. The very idea they do need to ally themselves with people they don't see eye-to-eye on everything, totally eludes them.
On granting funding to Syrian rebels, Cruz voted with Bernie Sanders, and he complimented him too.
I think somebody must have slipped the Senator from Texas, a copy of Carnegie's book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10.Appeal to the nobler motives.
11.Dramatize your ideas.
12.Throw down a challenge.
Can't argue with any of that...but which of those 12 ways can be used to win anyone here? For the most part, the best shot you get is to be put on ignore...or worse... :scared smiley:
-
Can't argue with any of that...but which of those 12 ways can be used to win anyone here? For the most part, the best shot you get is to be put on ignore...or worse... :scared smiley:
If we encounter somebody that says they vote for democrats, we can do one of two or three things:
1. Tell them they are stupid,
2. Just turn and walk away,
3. Ask them to explain why.
Oh, and often issues cut across party and ideology boundaries. Real life politics is different from internet entertainment shouting forums.
-
One of my main criticisms of contemporary "conservatism" is the tendency to name call and label others, instead of waging successful salesmanship of their views.
The simple math of winning elections seems to escape their interest. The very idea they do need to ally themselves with people they don't see eye-to-eye on everything, totally eludes them.
On granting funding to Syrian rebels, Cruz voted with Bernie Sanders, and he complimented him too.
I think somebody must have slipped the Senator from Texas, a copy of Carnegie's book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10.Appeal to the nobler motives.
11.Dramatize your ideas.
12.Throw down a challenge.
Just for the record, I'm not a "contemporary conservative." I've been this kind of conservative for decades because I believe that conservatism is being true to the Constitution, being true to the values the country was founded on, and the answer to our economic and moral woes.
That doesn't mean for a second that I don't believe it's important to work together with others to accomplish a goal. That's a very different matter, and in DC, it is often necessary to work for the good by compromising what you believe is "best."
And I spent a lot of time arguing with unreasonable people on TOS who refused to vote because the candidate wasn't good enough for them. In fact, I've spent a lot of my time working to bring people together to accomplish the greater goal. A LOT.
Nonetheless, I'm not afraid to tell someone that I believe their idea is wrong, if it is. And I'm also very willing to admit I've been wrong when I have been. (When you're outspoken, it happens quite a bit, actually).
Frankly, I don't think I'm going to convince Dex, or you, of anything. You're both very certain of yourselves and aren't likely to be convinced by someone you think is completely wrong.
So, we voice our views, and hope that someone gets a glimmer of an idea they hadn't considered before, and when people put us on "ignore" because they don't like what we say, we examine ourselves to see if there's any merit in their criticisms, and then move on. As I said above, if someone is determined to live in conflict with me, there's not much I can do about it. It's their decision. In as much as it is up to me, I will live in peace.
So.......I've decided to stick around here, because of all the places I've been over the years, there are more reasonable people here than any other forum I've been on. I agree with everyone here about something, and disagree with everyone here about something as well.
That's a healthy thing, IMO.
-
3. Ask them to explain why.
The Socratic method is one of my favorites. If you simply ask enough of the right questions people start to realize that the logic they live by doesn't actually make sense.
-
The Socratic method is one of my favorites. If you simply ask enough of the right questions people start to realize that the logic they live by doesn't actually make sense.
Interesting.
Our daughter has a PhD in Medieval Philosophy and is a professor of same, and we have many discussions with her about this exact method of instruction.
(Conservatives aren't all dolts, you know. ^-^ I'm a professor as well).
-
Just for the record, I'm not a "contemporary conservative." I've been this kind of conservative for decades because I believe that conservatism is being true to the Constitution, being true to the values the country was founded on, and the answer to our economic and moral woes.
That doesn't mean for a second that I don't believe it's important to work together with others to accomplish a goal. That's a very different matter, and in DC, it is often necessary to work for the good by compromising what you believe is "best."
And I spent a lot of time arguing with unreasonable people on TOS who refused to vote because the candidate wasn't good enough for them. In fact, I've spent a lot of my time working to bring people together to accomplish the greater goal. A LOT.
Nonetheless, I'm not afraid to tell someone that I believe their idea is wrong, if it is. And I'm also very willing to admit I've been wrong when I have been. (When you're outspoken, it happens quite a bit, actually).
Frankly, I don't think I'm going to convince Dex, or you, of anything. You're both very certain of yourselves and aren't likely to be convinced by someone you think is completely wrong.
So, we voice our views, and hope that someone gets a glimmer of an idea they hadn't considered before, and when people put us on "ignore" because they don't like what we say, we examine ourselves to see if there's any merit in their criticisms, and then move on. As I said above, if someone is determined to live in conflict with me, there's not much I can do about it. It's their decision. In as much as it is up to me, I will live in peace.
So.......I've decided to stick around here, because of all the places I've been over the years, there are more reasonable people here than any other forum I've been on. I agree with everyone here about something, and disagree with everyone here about something as well.
That's a healthy thing, IMO.
I feel similarly that I will never convince you that you are wrong. I've always felt that heated debates between two people were more for the onlookers. The silent ones that never post but come to conclusions based on how outspoken people like you and I construct and defend our arguments.
-
I feel similarly that I will never convince you that you are wrong. I've always felt that heated debates between two people were more for the onlookers. The silent ones that never post but come to conclusions based on how outspoken people like you and I construct and defend our arguments.
Exactly. Which is why I think very carefully before I type.
(And if I don't, I gladly use the edit feature!)
-
One of my main criticisms of contemporary "conservatism" is the tendency to name call and label others, instead of waging successful salesmanship of their views.
The simple math of winning elections seems to escape their interest. The very idea they do need to ally themselves with people they don't see eye-to-eye on everything, totally eludes them.
On granting funding to Syrian rebels, Cruz voted with Bernie Sanders, and he complimented him too.
I think somebody must have slipped the Senator from Texas, a copy of Carnegie's book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say "You're Wrong."
3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10.Appeal to the nobler motives.
11.Dramatize your ideas.
12.Throw down a challenge.
Good post.