AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Oh I know Okie. I just think when you run up against an intractable brick wall there comes a time to stop trying to run through it. Diest is not going to admit he was wrong and, as you point out, other liberals are not likely to take him to task for the error. So, he will continue to divert by taking offense at imaginary affronts and will continue to believe that it is conservative bullies beating up on him while not having to admit he was wrong about anything. And he feels free to commit the very crimes of which he accuses others.

Meanwhile CJ, as our intentionally maverick CJ is wont to do, makes an outrageous statement about Muslim teachers which gives the liberals license to dispute an assertion that saying a marble is red does not mean that all marbles are red.

This kind of dynamic encountered between you and Deist and this latest issue plus the trolls who drop in purely to make a snotty remark or deliver a personal insult is what makes having any kind of productive discussion so darn difficult.

I don't intend to give up trying just yet, however.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

okie wrote:

I think I demonstrated something for anyone that is intellectually honest, that a liberal will cling to any belief, no matter how wrong it can be demonstrated to be. I have a feeling it is a religious thing or something. And as cyclops demonstrated, and as others seemed to indicate, they all defend a fellow liberal, no matter how wrong and how obviously wrong they are.

Apparently Set and I aren't liberals when it comes to language

I noted your comment on the subject, but it was way too subtle for Deist to pick up on I think. And I can't be sure, but my past experience causes me to think that if Deist was a conservative, the comment would almost certainly not have been anywhere near as subtle.

Translation: even in the face of countering evidence, I still stubbornly maintain my original position.

You will note, Fox, that I said:

Quote:

Both of you are correct, the word contend can be used in several ways.

I didn't take sides.

Cycloptichorn

If you said Deist is correct in the way he used the word, you took a side.

It doesn't matter if you validate both arguments, they don't want to be right, they want me to be wrong.

Cyclo - If you in anyway validate the ambiguity of the controversy, you are apparently a pathetic liberal who will defend other liberals to the grave. It's not about my side or their side, it's about their side and not their side. If you aren't in concert with their view, then you are against them. It doesn't matter if you validate both arguments, they don't want to be right, they want me to be wrong.

This rhetorical strategy is used frequently by the conservative gang here on A2K. Like I said, better to use your brain to punch holes in their content, rather than their style.

T
K
O

Diest,

Quote:

It doesn't matter if you validate both arguments, they don't want to be right, they want me to be wrong.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

And really, the whole thing is quite revealing about the nature of Republican politics in America today: not interested in compromise or even really in logic, only interested in victory. It's reflected in their Iraq stance, their taxation stance, their abortion stance - NO compromise is ever a good one, to modern Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Diest,

Quote:

It doesn't matter if you validate both arguments, they don't want to be right, they want me to be wrong.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

And really, the whole thing is quite revealing about the nature of Republican politics in America today: not interested in compromise or even really in logic, only interested in victory. It's reflected in their Iraq stance, their taxation stance, their abortion stance - NO compromise is ever a good one, to modern Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

I am not interested in compromising what is right, ci. Contrary to political correctness, which can't even give an F to a kid that flunks anymore. And I am not interested in saying it is okay to kill my offspring, no way, over my dead body, you are correct, cycolps, no compromise, and many people have given their lives for principles, one to abolish slavery. As Rush says, learn it, love it, live it. Principles mean something, cyclops, bigger than we are.

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Diest,

Quote:

It doesn't matter if you validate both arguments, they don't want to be right, they want me to be wrong.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.

And really, the whole thing is quite revealing about the nature of Republican politics in America today: not interested in compromise or even really in logic, only interested in victory. It's reflected in their Iraq stance, their taxation stance, their abortion stance - NO compromise is ever a good one, to modern Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

I am not interested in compromising what is right, ci. Contrary to political correctness, which can't even give an F to a kid that flunks anymore. And I am not interested in saying it is okay to kill my offspring, no way, over my dead body, you are correct, cycolps, no compromise, and many people have given their lives for principles, one to abolish slavery. As Rush says, learn it, love it, live it. Principles mean something, cyclops, bigger than we are.

First, I am not ci. That's Cicerone Imposter.

Second, a lack of willingness to compromise is the sign of a weak mind. Your absolutism will get you nowhere, for the real world is one big compromise, every day.

A willingness to compromise and find common ground IS a principle, and a far better one then most others.

Cycloptichorn

Who we are is defined by the principles that we honor, not the other way around. None of us are so arrogant or so smart that we can claim to be right when the principle says otherwise.

We also see things in shades of poor, fair, better, adequate, best and try to make the best decision that is available to make rather than color everything in stark shades of black or white.

Meanwhile many liberals can't stand for any of us to say anything in support of McCain.

You sure have been heavy with the sweeping generalities lately.

McGentrix wrote:

You sure have been heavy with the sweeping generalities lately.

I'm not the only one, McG. Or perhaps you were responding to Okie and FF, both of whom seem to have defined Conservative as 'everything good and honorable' and Liberal as 'whining and wrong?'

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

We also see things in shades of poor, fair, better, adequate, best and try to make the best decision that is available to make rather than color everything in stark shades of black or white.

Oh, really? Okie would disagree with you, on many issues, it would seem. He certainly doesn't see a lot of nuance.

And let us not forget the 'you're either with us, or against us' mentality embodied in your party.

Fox, I don't think you understand either modern Republicanism or Conservatism very well, for what you write is not what is practiced in real life. This may be YOUR definition but it is not what we see in actuality.

Quote:

Meanwhile many liberals can't stand for any of us to say anything in support of McCain.

Uh, no, we just don't see any of you supporting McCain it seems every single Conservative on the 'net says that he wasn't their first choice.

What would be your best guess of the ratio of your posts criticizing McCain compared to your posts complimenting McCain? What you you estimate as the ratio of your posts criticizing Obama compared to your posts criticizing McCain? What would you estimate as the ratio of your posts criticizing Obama compared to your posts defending or advocating him?

He sure has, McGentrix. To contradict cyclops, I do agree with most of what Foxfyre says, with one exception, there are some things that are black and white, I believe. Some things should not be compromised, but of course the course of action differs in regard to whether it is personal or if we are a member of a group, such as a governed group of citizens.

To expand on what Foxfyre says, conservative principles trump politicians. No politician is perfect, thus we don't have to worship McCain, he is just a man with ideas, some we agree with, some we don't. We support him, not as a God, but as a man, fallible, but one that we believe offers the best hope to advance the best policies and principles that we believe in. A conservative's religion is not his government, contrary to how many leftists may feel about their government. Therein lies a huge difference between conservatives and many liberals, the most extreme I am talking about.