AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Please answer this question Diest TKO:
(1) do you now allege that the sun does influence the earth's weather?
(2) do you now allege the sun does not influence the earth's weather?
(3) do you now allege neither?

Diest TKO ,which one do you now allege:
(1)?
(2)?
(3)?

0 Replies

Apparently ebrown and dyslexia now give hints they sympathize with, or may want to join Diest on his dead end road?

Another phenomena that is interesting here, other liberals will support a fellow liberal, no matter how screwed up the fellow liberal may be. Allegiance is to fellow travelers, not to principles. This explains lots of things that have been observed in politics over the last 20 years.

0 Replies

It's maybe too ironic to be funny, but it would seem that this thread illustrates rather splendidly what American conservatism in 2008 is all about...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

It's maybe too ironic to be funny, but it would seem that this thread illustrates rather splendidly what American conservatism in 2008 is all about...

Please elaborate OE. How does it do that? Please be specific.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Apparently ebrown and dyslexia now give hints they sympathize with, or may want to join Diest on his dead end road?

Really? I haven't given a hint as to my views re Diest one way or another. Another one of your grab something out of your ass and post it as if it were true. Okie, your integrity is even lower than your honesty which is already in negative numbers.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Apparently ebrown and dyslexia now give hints they sympathize with, or may want to join Diest on his dead end road?

Another phenomena that is interesting here, other liberals will support a fellow liberal, no matter how screwed up the fellow liberal may be. Allegiance is to fellow travelers, not to principles. This explains lots of things that have been observed in politics over the last 20 years.

At the very least, many liberals seem to be unified in thinking that hit and run ad hominem posts intended to belittle or denigrate a member that they dislike constitutes valid debate. And, the herd mentality often seems to set in when one of their own has dug himself a huge hole. I think they send out PMs to summon a posse because the phenomenon occurs far too frequently to be purely coincidental. Or possibly they are just cowards waiting for somebody to take a shot so they feel safety in numbers piling on.

Those liberals that I hold in high esteem are far less likely to do that, however.

I used to care but have come to realize that it happens only when the attacked member has an irrefutable argument. So I just take it as evidence that the conservative won. Smile

0 Replies

Yes, and Diest at least deserves credit for arguing his point, with evidence that he thinks applies even if we don't agree, which is infinitely better than many on the left here in these parts.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Yes, and Diest at least deserves credit for arguing his point, with evidence that he thinks applies even if we don't agree, which is infinitely better than many on the left here in these parts.

Not to mention yourself, who casually drops points and turns to emotional rhetoric and thinly-veiled questions (attacks) on the motives of those who disagree with you, at the first sign of being shown that you are incorrect on an issue.

Attend the beam in thine own eye, Okie

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
Apparently ebrown and dyslexia now give hints they sympathize with, or may want to join Diest on his dead end road?
Really? I haven't given a hint as to my views re Diest one way or another. Another one of your grab something out of your ass and post it as if it were true. Okie, your integrity is even lower than your honesty which is already in negative numbers.

I never said anything for sure, I only stated an opinion based upon sparse information that you purposely posted. But of course you twist what I said, and if you want to straighten the situation out, you have all the ample opportunity to do so, you can tell us all whether Diest was correct or he wasn't instead of making a snide remark about his opposition. When you do that, the logical conclusion, or at least a hint, is that you are probably supporting his claim. But I don't know until you post an honest opinion or clarify your view, do I? I asked you a question whether you were going to join Diest, so maybe you can tell us now?

I doubt you will clarify anything, as I find the vast majority of your posts totally empty of any substantive evidence or arguments.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Yes, and Diest at least deserves credit for arguing his point, with evidence that he thinks applies even if we don't agree, which is infinitely better than many on the left here in these parts.

Not to mention yourself, who casually drops points and turns to emotional rhetoric and thinly-veiled questions (attacks) on the motives of those who disagree with you, at the first sign of being shown that you are incorrect on an issue.

Attend the beam in thine own eye, Okie

Cycloptichorn

Examples, cyclops?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

It's maybe too ironic to be funny, but it would seem that this thread illustrates rather splendidly what American conservatism in 2008 is all about...

It rather well demonstrates the mindset of liberalism as well, oe.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Yes, and Diest at least deserves credit for arguing his point, with evidence that he thinks applies even if we don't agree, which is infinitely better than many on the left here in these parts.

Yup. I have no problem with anybody who at least makes an effort to discuss a topic with a reasoned argument. And if we didn't have different points of view to discuss, I would be bored out of my gourd.

Personally I think the key is intellectual honesty to make a good effort to hear and understand what the other person is saying whether or not we agree with it.

--When Okie says he ate some watermelon he didn't say he ate a watermelon.

--When we say most terrorists these days are Muslim, we aren't saying that Muslims are terrorists.

--When we say that fundamentalists were involved in the evolution of the Constitution and American freedoms, we aren't saying that ONLY fundamentalists were involved in the evolution of the Constitution and American freedoms nor are we saying that all Christians are fundamentalists.

--When we say that illegal immigration is bad and most illegal immigrants are Mexican, that doesn't extrapolate to Mexicans being illegal immigrants or bad or that immigration is bad.

and,

--When we point out that a marble is red, somebody pointing out that marbles have not always been red or will not always be red or that all marbles are not the same shade of red or commendably red or that other marbles have been engaged in other activities does not in any way change the point made that the marble is red.

Example:
--Comment: Modern Conservatism stands for more, not less freedom as much as is reasonably possible.
--Non Sequitur Response: Tell that to somebody who was dragged over here in chains on a slave ship. . .

0 Replies

The anti-Bushites are going to hate this, but it was so refreshing to see a European piece that had something nice to say about our President, I couldn't resist posting it.

Holy Cows: George W Bush - buffoon or great leader?
By Sameh El-Shahat
July 9, 2008

Whatever happened to leadership and honesty as presidential traits? I happen to believe that the only leader in the West to have these two admirable qualities in droves is the leader of the free world: George W Bush.

Yes, we've all heard the Bushisms and laughed at them but do you really think somebody supposedly that thick can make it to the top of the most sophisticated political system the world has ever seen?

No, and that is because Mr Bush is far cleverer than most of his predecessors. He may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, but he has the ability to reach out to his people and read them.

Take the Iraq war for example. OK, so he got us into Iraq in the first place. But for Pete's sake, he's the leader of the world's only superpower. He needs to take decisions, even if sometimes they have nasty consequences - which is far better than we do in Europe, where we enjoy dithering not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.

Something had to be done about Iraq and our government was all for attacking it too. So let's not blame G.W. for the war.

And when things did go wrong in Iraq, and there were calls to pull out, Mr Bush just followed his own counsel and doubled his bet with the Surge.

And he was right because Iraq is in a relatively better shape today than it ever was and Al Qa'eda is a shadow of its former self in that country.

This is a man who has the courage of his convictions.

Let's not forget how Europe does wars.

Usually we wait and wait until the enemy starts attacking, then we let them win a bit, then we fight until we are tired, then we just call the US to come over to clean our mess.

That is what happened in WWI, WWII, and the Balkans.

Bush is just showing us what a bunch of dangerous ditherers we are and we hate him for it. Naturally.

And the Olympics. Bush said right from the beginning that he's going to the opening ceremony because he saw the whole boycott thing as silly and counterproductive.

Compare that with Sarkozy who has changed his mind twice so far and to Gordon Brown who, well... err.

Not much leadership from Europe here, as usual, just doublespeak. Once again, it is to Bush that we look for leadership.

Bush may not have the slickness of his predecessor, but he is a man you can trust and who prefers to tell it like it is.

This is refreshing, and very scary for us who are used to our politicians always talking grandly about principles and hiding behind political mumbo-speak.

The fact is you guys hate Mr Bush because he is not a hypocrite and you are used to hypocrites as your leaders. We hate what we don't understand.

Yes, yes, all you bleeding heart liberals are cringing out there. I can just hear you. But the fact is, Mr Bush has had to take some very tough decisions and the world needs people who can not only talk but also act tough and admit mistakes.

Of course you think Mr Obama is going to make a difference, but as I write this, he's already giving all the signs of somebody who will say anything to get into power only to act in exactly the same way as the Washington clique he aims to replace!

Hating George W. Bush is not only dull and unoriginal, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live in.

You want liberty but you don't want to defend it... right.

And for those of you who still don't buy into what I'm saying, look at the Middle East. Bush single-handedly managed to unite the Arabs in their hate for him.

Given how difficult uniting the Arabs is, it takes a special man with special skills to achieve this. He is just the kind of man to bring about peace in that region!
TELEGRAPH UK LINK

0 Replies

Pat Buchanan has his own notions about the constituencies of today's conservatism...

Quote:

Pat Buchanan Advertises His Book On Neo-Nazi Radio Show

You read that right. On June 29th, MSNBC personality and three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan appeared on a neo-Nazi radio program to promote his new revisionist history of the Second World War, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. James Edwards is the host of the program "Political Cesspool," the stated mission of which is to "represent a philosophy that is pro-White." Edwards and his colleauges seek "to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races" and believe that "Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful in 1865."

According to the researchers at the Anti-Defamation League, who listened to the show, Buchanan defended Charles Lindbergh, saying, "his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he gave and a couple of paragraphs in it where he said that the Jewish community is beating the drums for war but frankly, no one has said what he said was palpably untrue."

Buchanan is in good company. Perusing the guest list of Political Cesspool, one sees Willis Carto, (perhaps the most prominent anti-Semite in America), Mark Weber (Director of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial outfit) and Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, a eugenicist publication. A political cesspool indeed. Calling Buchanan a "brownshirt" a few weeks ago may have seemed a little impertinent at the time, but it's entirely accurate.

As someone with an interest in the far-right and who has been following Buchanan's career for quite some time now, none of this is particularly surprising to me. What is surprising is that this man continues to fill airtime on MSNBC.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
It's maybe too ironic to be funny, but it would seem that this thread illustrates rather splendidly what American conservatism in 2008 is all about...

It rather well demonstrates the mindset of liberalism as well, oe.

You mean liberalism is reactionary?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okie said

Quote:
As I said already, Parados, this trivial matter provides a beautiful illustration to all here of how difficult it is for some people here to either grasp or acknowledge even the most obvious mistake, so how could any of us expect many people to ever grasp or if they do, then acknowledge a mistaken view in regard to politics, economics, science, whatever, on these threads. I found it interesting far beyond the issue of correcting the word usage and definition.

It might be seen as just a teeeeeeeny bit of a stretch here, but I'll have to admit that you did rather competently extrapolate a vocabulary discussion into the context of Conservatism in 2008 and beyond.

So, the conservative in 2008 and beyond is all about beating a dead horse. No new ideas, just attack a "liberal" because you think he is wrong about minutia even though there is room for debate.

I think you guys are demonstrating that rather well as you continue on for another day unable to present any ideas of your own, even small ones..

0 Replies

John Cole agrees.

Quote:

It is only going to get worse. When you consider they(conservatives) hate their candidate, who, by the way has a campaign that is in absolute chaos, they are trailing nationwide in Congressional races that are normally safe seats, they can't mount a defense of their current standard-bearer and are running from him every chance they get, on almost every issue the public sides with the Democrats, you quickly realize that all they have is a visceral anti-Democratic hatred going for them. That really is it.

That is it. There are no real new ideas being advanced by the Republican party; no new bills being introduced, nothing. Just attack and hate all day long.

I think it would be interesting to see how many posts you can find by A2K Conservatives extolling McCain or talking about how excited they are to vote for him; I suspect the number would be quite small indeed. It's much easier to just pick on the other fellow.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

OK, Diest TKO, do you now allege that the sun does influence the earth's weather, or do you now allege the sun does not influence the earth's weather?

Is that an example of conservative logic? It is false logic.

Let's examine it a bit...
2 statements that are opposites.

I allege that A exists.
I do not allege that A exists.

Neither statement can logically lead to "I allege that A does NOT exist."

In the first case it is alleged that it does exist.
In the next case there is no specific allegation one way or the other. The sentence may indicate that nothing was said or there is no opinion or they don't want to state an opinion.

You guys are certainly not giving any hope for the future of conservatism.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Please answer this question Diest TKO:
(1) do you now allege that the sun does influence the earth's weather?
(2) do you now allege the sun does not influence the earth's weather?
(3) do you now allege neither?

Diest TKO ,which one do you now allege:
(1)?
(2)?
(3)?

I've never said anything to even suggest 2 or 3, and I object to 1 because of the word "now." I haven't changed my stance on whether the sun contributes or not.

I've been very clear that I agree the sun contributes. I always have. So your inclusion of the word "now" is unnecessary because I maintain the same position as I have ever since I've posted here.

I even highlighted the post with red so you could see for yourself. Are you actively trying to ignore it? If you had read it, you wouldn't have bothered asking this question. The answer was already present and it was from months ago.

It makes you look really dumb to ask a question that was answered on the previous page let alone answered months ago.

T
K
O

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Pat Buchanan has his own notions about the constituencies of today's conservatism...

Quote:
Pat Buchanan Advertises His Book On Neo-Nazi Radio Show

You read that right. On June 29th, MSNBC personality and three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan appeared on a neo-Nazi radio program to promote his new revisionist history of the Second World War, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. James Edwards is the host of the program "Political Cesspool," the stated mission of which is to "represent a philosophy that is pro-White." Edwards and his colleauges seek "to revive the White birthrate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races" and believe that "Secession is a right of all people and individuals. It was successful in 1776 and this show honors those who tried to make it successful in 1865."

According to the researchers at the Anti-Defamation League, who listened to the show, Buchanan defended Charles Lindbergh, saying, "his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he gave and a couple of paragraphs in it where he said that the Jewish community is beating the drums for war but frankly, no one has said what he said was palpably untrue."

Buchanan is in good company. Perusing the guest list of Political Cesspool, one sees Willis Carto, (perhaps the most prominent anti-Semite in America), Mark Weber (Director of the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial outfit) and Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, a eugenicist publication. A political cesspool indeed. Calling Buchanan a "brownshirt" a few weeks ago may have seemed a little impertinent at the time, but it's entirely accurate.

As someone with an interest in the far-right and who has been following Buchanan's career for quite some time now, none of this is particularly surprising to me. What is surprising is that this man continues to fill airtime on MSNBC.

I wonder if the James Kerchick who wrote that is the same James Kerchick who has consistently promoted conservatives and conservatism? If so this could be an illustration of the best of Conservatism taking to task those who do not emulate the best of Conservatism. Assuming that the writer has his facts straight--and I am always suspicious about that in this kind of interpretive reporting--anti Semitism, neo-Nazism, etc. are not qualities that would be acceptable for most modern Conservatives.

I'm pretty sure that there are Left leaning members on A2K who have quoted Buchanan favorably when he took the President and/or the GOP Congress to task which he frequently does. If not here, I have certainly seen that on other boards.

Meanwhile there are several members here who cannot seem to separate Conservatism and the GOP and wish to treat them as synonymous. They aren't. If they were, I think we would see a much higher approval rating for our President and the GOP would be a much stronger party in both influence and numbers than it is now.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know