55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
Read 'em over again, Foxfyre.

There is more than enough specificity there for anyone willing to see it.

If this doesn't get the job done for you...chances are, the job can't get done.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:44 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Do you have any idea how large the national debt is? Do you have the slightest conception about how fast it's growing?


And do you have any idea how much larger the national debt is going to get under this new "stimulus" plan?
And how fast its going to grow?
And how long it will take to pay down?

You, who complain about how the GOP screwed up the economy, seem to be willing all of a sudden to pass that debt on to our kids, grandkids, and their grandkids.

Do you have any idea how hypocritical that is?
0 Replies
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Its disgusting appeal to racists.


The conservative agenda is based on the merits of the person and does not consider their color…so by ignoring color, the agenda is racist? I’ll have to reread what MLKs dream was again.

Quote:
Its disgusting appeal to misogynists.


I wasn’t aware that being conservative was Men Only. I guess it’s a good thing that I’m a man then.

Quote:
Its disgusting appeal to homophobes.


It has a disgusting appeal to pedophobes too. Lets not leave out a healthy aversion to bestiality and other sexual deviancies.

Quote:
Its disgusting tendency to blame others for everything.


Given the Blame-Bush-for-Everything attitude out there, then I guess you’re pretty disgusted with libs too huh?

Quote:
Its disgusting tendency to consider government to be something bad.


You got me there…I consider government to be something bad..a monster that won’t stay on its leash.

Quote:
Its disgusting lack of empathy for the poor.


Conservatives notoriously give more to charities for the poor than libs. They also believe in the “Teach a man to fish” philosophy as oppose to the “Here's the government’s teet, suck on this” philosophy.

Quote:
Its disgusting tendency to favor the rich.


Once again, its not "favoring the rich". It is favoring the right of all people to become rich.

Quote:
Its disgusting tendency to drap itself in the flag when so many of its adherents wouldn't recognize real patriotism if they tripped over it.


Hmm, loving your country is a bad thing? You’ll find no apologies here for loving this great nation.

Quote:
Its disgusting tendency to lead us closer and closer to being a theocracy.


A theocracy vs no moral guidelines whatsoever…I’ll take theocracy.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:56 pm
@BigTexN,
Quote:

You got me there…I consider government to be something bad..a monster that won’t stay on its leash.


Haha, the second it was gone, you'd be whining and puling about it's absence. What a silly thing to say - the institution our forefathers fought and died to create and protect, you consider to be something bad.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 04:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Read 'em over again, Foxfyre.

There is more than enough specificity there for anyone willing to see it.

If this doesn't get the job done for you...chances are, the job can't get done.


Okay, if I was going to debate the way you debate, then the following should be adequate to make my point and I shouldn't need anything further in the way of explanation:

I loath liberalism for the following reasons:

Its disgusting appeal to racists.

Its disgusting appeal to misogynists.

Its disgusting appeal to wierdos, terrorists, anti-Americanists, vandals, psychopaths, and murderers.

Its disgusting tendency to blame others for everything.

Its disgusting tendency to consider government to be the vehicle through which liberals gain ultimate and unquestionable power to force the world to bend to its will.

Its disgusting lack of concern for the poor.

Its disgusting tendency to erode personal responsibility, accountability, and initiative in favor of increasing dependence on liberals in power.

Its reprehensible immorality in confiscating the lawful property of one citizen and give it to another for no better reason than to merit a vote.

Its frightening willingness to silence dissent, set the political correctness police on any who dare tell it like it is, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves, or to limit choice in what is best for oneself and one's family.

Its turning schools into little indoctrination institutions instead of places of learning and complete education.

Its disgusting tendency to create increasing dependency on false promises to the extent that family structures are destroyed, vital neighborhoods are dismantled, and whole generations are subjected to impervious poverty while the children suffer, crime is rampant, and blight overtakes the land.

Its disgusting tendency to trash the flag and the values for which it stands that have made this country great even as liberals spit on those who still believe in those values.

Its disgusting tendency to lead us closer and closer to being a godless society at the mercy of a godless government that inevitably moves to ruthless totalitarianism or dictatorship as all godless societies have done.

Its disgusting....

...yeah, it is disgusting.

That is why I loathe it, Frank...because it is loathsome.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Liberalism appeals to Misogynists?

In what way? Specifically with historical examples plz.

I'm sure you could pick out any one point from Frank's list, and ask him for more explanation on it. I know I could give you examples for pretty much anything on his list. Can you for yours, when challenged to do so?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Few women appointed to high office were savaged to the extent that Condi Rice was savaged. And no woman who has presume to vie for high office has been savaged to the extent that Sarah Palin was savaged. Any woman who presumes to criticize or accuse a Democrat of any misconduct will be trashed in the most unkind manner. (Carvilles comment about dragging a dollar through the trailer park for instance was one of the milder efforts to trash somebody....)

Add that to the liberal notion that women are inferior to men and therefore must be propped up and advantaged by liberal government programs, must be protected from sexist language or being made uncomfortable in the work place just because her male coworkers are behaving like guys.

Is that enough?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:12 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Okay, if I was going to debate the way you debate, then the following should be adequate to make my point and I shouldn't need anything further in the way of explanation:

I loath liberalism for the following reasons:

Its disgusting appeal to racists.

Its disgusting appeal to misogynists.

Its disgusting appeal to wierdos, terrorists, anti-Americanists, vandals, psychopaths, and murderers.

Its disgusting tendency to blame others for everything.

Its disgusting tendency to consider government to be the vehicle through which liberals gain ultimate and unquestionable power to force the world to bend to its will.

Its disgusting lack of concern for the poor.

Its disgusting tendency to erode personal responsibility, accountability, and initiative in favor of increasing dependence on liberals in power.

Its reprehensible immorality in confiscating the lawful property of one citizen and give it to another for no better reason than to merit a vote.

Its frightening willingness to silence dissent, set the political correctness police on any who dare tell it like it is, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves, or to limit choice in what is best for oneself and one's family.

Its turning schools into little indoctrination institutions instead of places of learning and complete education.

Its disgusting tendency to create increasing dependency on false promises to the extent that family structures are destroyed, vital neighborhoods are dismantled, and whole generations are subjected to impervious poverty while the children suffer, crime is rampant, and blight overtakes the land.

Its disgusting tendency to trash the flag and the values for which it stands that have made this country great even as liberals spit on those who still believe in those values.

Its disgusting tendency to lead us closer and closer to being a godless society at the mercy of a godless government that inevitably moves to ruthless totalitarianism or dictatorship as all godless societies have done.

Its disgusting....

...yeah, it is disgusting.

That is why I loathe it, Frank...because it is loathsome.


Okay...now I know why you loathe liberalism...and you know why I loathe conservatism.

And if you can sell some of those items...more power to you.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The thing is Frank, I can sell or at least support every single one of them with specific examples. That's all I asked for you to do. I don't think you can. I didn't want to get into a food fight over this stuff, however, as I don't think that is helpful. I would rather argue out different issues. But since you insist on blind prejudice, I just though it only fair to demonstrate what that would look like from the other side.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:14 pm
@Foxfyre,
Oh, oh, here we go again! LOL
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:15 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Few women appointed to high office were savaged to the extent that Condi Rice was savaged.


That's not misogyny; she's as open to criticism as any other gov't official, male or female. It's only misogyny if she's hated on for being a woman or somehow implied that she wasn't up to the job due to it. I never saw any criticism of that type.

Quote:
And no woman who has presume to vie for high office has been savaged to the extent that Sarah Palin was savaged. Any woman who presumes to criticize or accuse a Democrat of any misconduct will be trashed in the most unkind manner. (Carvilles comment about dragging a dollar through the trailer park for instance. . . .)


Uh, that's because Palin is a ******* moron with a crazy personal life. None of that has anything to do with her gender.

Quote:
Add that to the liberal notion that women are inferior to men and therefore must be propped up and advantaged by liberal government programs, must be protected from sexist language or being made uncomfortable in the work place just because her male coworkers are behaving like guys.

Is that enough?


That's horseshit. Laws to protect women do not imply that they are inferior in any way. We have laws to protect lots of things, that doesn't imply a judgment of those things.

Like I thought, nothing substantial to your answers, just freshmen-level stuff. Try again! B/c I assure you I can do the reverse.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Few women appointed to high office were savaged to the extent that Condi Rice was savaged.


That's not misogyny; she's as open to criticism as any other gov't official, male or female. It's only misogyny if she's hated on for being a woman or somehow implied that she wasn't up to the job due to it. I never saw any criticism of that type.


Bull ****. These women were hated for being strong women. And they were criticized for their appearance, their femininity, their clothes, etc. etc. etc. that would never be applied to a guy.

Quote:
Quote:
And no woman who has presume to vie for high office has been savaged to the extent that Sarah Palin was savaged. Any woman who presumes to criticize or accuse a Democrat of any misconduct will be trashed in the most unkind manner. (Carvilles comment about dragging a dollar through the trailer park for instance. . . .)


Uh, that's because Palin is a ******* moron with a crazy personal life. None of that has anything to do with her gender.


I refer you to my previous comment.

Quote:
Quote:
Add that to the liberal notion that women are inferior to men and therefore must be propped up and advantaged by liberal government programs, must be protected from sexist language or being made uncomfortable in the work place just because her male coworkers are behaving like guys.

Is that enough?


That's horseshit. Laws to protect women do not imply that they are inferior in any way. We have laws to protect lots of things, that doesn't imply a judgment of those things.


Well if they're seen as strong and capable and tough as the guys in the work place, why do they need special protection?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
The thing is Frank, I can sell or at least support every single one of them with specific examples. That's all I asked for you to do. I don't think you can. I didn't want to get into a food fight over this stuff, however, as I don't think that is helpful. I would rather argue out different issues. But since you insist on blind prejudice, I just though it only fair to demonstrate what that would look like from the other side.


Yeah, I can...and have. But you simply deny anything that doesn't fit into your conservative mindset, Foxfyre. Really...you do. So why bother?

Said another way: I'm not going to play your game of "jump through these hoops."

If you want to think I am not bright enough or clever enough to make arguments that work...well...go ahead and think it. I know what I can do.

If you want to think American conservatism is non-racist...but liberalism is racist...do it. It actually is quite entertaining...and the contortions and twisting of logic you go through to try to make that work truly ARE VERY INTERESTING TO WATCH.

Reminds me of how much I like to watch Chistians defend their religion. Often they get mired down in details that simply do not work except for the brain dead...and they honestly do some VERY INTERESTING stuff to try to make their square pegs fit into round holes.

You do a great job of that, Foxfyre. Honestly.

It is entertaining.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, I suggest you are doing no good here calling names, using gutter language, as you merely show us what kind of character you have. People are here to express opinions, not to spew your hatreds around. I don't know what in the world has made you so ugly, but you need to look inward to find the answer, rather than attacking other people with vicious and hateful language. I have seen Foxfyre's posts on this forum for a long time, and she has shown herself to be a person of class, a person of honesty, a person of reason, a decent person, merely expressing her opinion. As to why you are so ugly, the answers lies within you. What kind of a person do you desire to be, its up to you, but spewing your hatred here does not in any way destroy other people, it destroys what is left of yourself.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Whatever Frank. Those who can't defend their point of view usually change the subject or accuse the one asking of putting out hoops to jump through or it all dissolves into ugly ad hominems or some combination of that. I'm satisfied to believe that you operate from mostly blind prejudice because I don't believe you can make a case for any of your points except in very limited anecdotal incidents and because you are unwilling to discuss it in any more than in very general blanket terms.

I am also willing to listen and perhaps even change my mind if you should change your mind and decide to defend what appears to be an extremely prejudicial point of view.

I'll give you this. You haven't resorted to the immature schoolyard taunts and crudities that some employ, you aren't a little dog jumping in after the bully attacks, and you have remained civil and pleasant. I appreciate that a great deal and you have my complete respect no matter how wrong I think you are. Smile
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:29 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cyclops, I suggest you are doing no good here calling names, using gutter language, as you merely show us what kind of character you have. People are here to express opinions, not to spew your hatreds around. I don't know what in the world has made you so ugly, but you need to look inward to find the answer, rather than attacking other people with vicious and hateful language. I have seen Foxfyre's posts on this forum for a long time, and she has shown herself to be a person of class, a person of honesty, a person of reason, a decent person, merely expressing her opinion. As to why you are so ugly, the answers lies within you. What kind of a person do you desire to be, its up to you, but spewing your hatred here does not in any way destroy other people, it destroys what is left of yourself.


Save the lecture, pops. What you call 'hatred' is nothing of the sort. I've merely ran out of tolerance for the bullshit that you guys like to spout.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yeah, I'm much older than Cyclo, but I don't have the patience to listen to all that BS spewed by okie and his fellow Bushites.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:32 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Bull ****. These women were hated for being strong women. And they were criticized for their appearance, their femininity, their clothes, etc. etc. etc. that would never be applied to a guy.


You don't have any evidence of this, only your opinion. Guys get criticized for all sorts of stuff, even by women, and we don't call those who criticize them anti-male.

Quote:

I refer you to my previous comment.


Go ahead.

Quote:

Well if they're seen as strong and capable and tough as the guys in the work place, why do they need special protection?


Because they have been systematically discriminated against in the past. That doesn't imply that liberals think they are inferior.

Please provide actual evidence, and not just opinion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Whatever Frank. Those who can't defend their point of view usually change the subject or accuse the one asking of putting out hoops to jump through or something like that.


Do they???

Well...people who are dealing with other people who simply deny the obvious but constantly challenge people to "debate on the merits"...often mention that they are not going to be jumping through hoops.

The question becomes: Which case is this?

In this case, I am sure it is the latter.

Quote:
I'm satisfied to believe that you operate from mostly blind prejudice because I don't believe you can make a case for any of your points except in very limited anecdotal incidents and because you are unwilling to discuss it in any more than in very general blanket terms.


You are free to "believe" you can train a pig to sing the role of Rigoletto, if you choose. Not everything you "believe" is fact.


Quote:
I am also willing to listen if you should change your mind and decide to defend what appears to be an extremely prejudicial point of view.


Well, as you know...you will be hearing more from me. But don't expect me to be jumping through hoops.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:36 pm
I edited my post after you responded, Frank. So don't miss the last line I added. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/13/2025 at 09:19:12