AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The thing I don't get is this desire to have supporters knock their own guy. What's that all about? Why would I want to post anything bad about the candidate I support? Especially on an internet forum where 90% of the posters are already posting every possible bad story they can find by any dimwit with an internet connection?

It's a fun game, I suppose that's why I play.

0 Replies

Its desire to be honest and accurate, I think, McGentrix. I am not here to try to get McCain elected or anyone else, I am here to post honest and good opinions, with evidence. Principles trump candidates, even on this forum.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The thing I don't get is this desire to have supporters knock their own guy. What's that all about? Why would I want to post anything bad about the candidate I support? Especially on an internet forum where 90% of the posters are already posting every possible bad story they can find by any dimwit with an internet connection?

It's a fun game, I suppose that's why I play.

It's a question of whether or not someone is being honest with their concern.

Example -

Poster 1- Obama is a flip-flopper, and that's horrible! Vote McCain!

Poster 2- Uh, McCain is a far worse flip-flopper then Obama could dream of being.

Poster 1 - So what, I'm not interested in talking about McCain, but attacking Obama, b/c I support McCain and not Obama!

---

I understand that supporters don't want to talk bad about their own guy; but if one isn't willing to take an objective view of both candidates, then their criticisms fall flat and aren't persuasive in the slightest. Because it's revealing; it isn't the issues that one cares about, it's the partisan politics.

You can attack Obama (or I can attack McCain) all day long on the basis of the fact that he is a Liberal; but that will never convince anyone of anything and is nothing new. So we often see people resort to issue-based argumentation, and if there isn't objectivity in that, it's a waste of time.

Cyclolptichorn

0 Replies

I hope you don't hope for the same from the other side...

For example; Cyc has berated Foxfyre for "Intellectual dishonesty" because she does not pepper every other post with some sort of slam on McCain for every post she makes against Obama, yet I have yet to see a single post of his berating BBB's continuous stream of ridiculous anti-McCain copy and pastes. Not one.

Now, for someone that wants to appear to take the high road of morality by preaching to others about their "intellectual dishonesty", they really should examine themselves first. Cycloptichorn displays the very vices he tries so desperately to accuse others of.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I hope you don't hope for the same from the other side...

For example; Cyc has berated Foxfyre for "Intellectual dishonesty" because she does not pepper every other post with some sort of slam on McCain for every post she makes against Obama, yet I have yet to see a single post of his berating BBB's continuous stream of ridiculous anti-McCain copy and pastes. Not one.

Now, for someone that wants to appear to take the high road of morality by preaching to others about their "intellectual dishonesty", they really should examine themselves first. Cycloptichorn displays the very vices he tries so desperately to accuse others of.

You are Appealing to Extremes. I never requested Fox spend every other post slamming McCain. And BBB has had plenty of criticism of Obama; your counter-argument doesn't even make sense at all. If you don't like BBB's cut and pastes, don't read them; your declaration that they are 'ridiculous' is not indicative of much of anything really and has nothing to do with the current issue.

Your attempt to turn the tables back on to me fails, epically, because you are not really a very competent debater. It was both you AND Fox I accused of intellectual dishonesty; you specifically, who has never been more concerned with accuracy or facts then you are with vitriol or attack.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The thing I don't get is this desire to have supporters knock their own guy. What's that all about? Why would I want to post anything bad about the candidate I support? Especially on an internet forum where 90% of the posters are already posting every possible bad story they can find by any dimwit with an internet connection?

It's a fun game, I suppose that's why I play.

Good point. During the primary when I opposed McCain I certainly was not shy to state why I opposed him while I looked for every positive aspect in the candidates I preferred. McCain, however, is the GOP's choice and, after comparing what we are most likely to get from him as opposed to what we are most likely to get from Obama (or don't know about Obama and are having a tough time finding out), I will now support McCain as the better choice to be POTUS.

The hypocrisy comes in when we are accused of some kind of sin because we do not agree 100% with our candidate, when we acknowledge that he is imperfect, yet we defend him as our candidate when he is attacked. The Obamamaniacs on the other hand are having a very difficult time coming up with anything substantive with which to defend their own candidate, therefore they spend most of their time condemning us for using substantive things to criticize him.

The ONLY criticism I have seen of McCain from his supporters is in those areas in which he has clearly departed from Conservative principles. It was on that basis that most of us initially opposed him. Liberals criticize him mostly on the age factor plus the coined "McSame" slogan when almost none of them can provide any substantive argument for why the slogan is accurate.

The most substantive criticism I have seen of Obama is in his stated views promoting liberal principles of which we are opposed on principle, not personality or ideology. These are substantive. More subjective questions remain as to his character, judgment, and qualifications and it is on those issues that his supporters go the most ballistic on if they are brought up.

I still don't think they do their candidate any favors with that tactic. It looks to me anyway that they protest way too much suggesting that we have wandered into dangerous territory for them and they know it.

0 Replies

I have acknowledged McCain's pandering to different groups, call them flip flops to an extent, and that is why I did not support him in the primaries, but he has not flip flopped on many key issues. When Romney changed his mind over a period of years, on abortion, he was accused of flip flops, no, he changed his mind I think. In contrast, Obama changes daily, depending on who he is talking to, yet cyclops, you don't seem to have the honesty to talk about all the contradictions with your man, your saviour, but instead basicly use the Clinton argument, "Everybody does it, so it doesn't matter."

0 Replies

Quote:

The ONLY criticism I have seen of McCain from his supporters is in those areas in which he has clearly departed from Conservative principles. It was on that basis that most of us initially opposed him. Liberals criticize him mostly on the age factor plus the coined "McSame" slogan when almost none of them can provide any substantive argument for why the slogan is accurate.

What?

Bush and McCain agree on nearly everything. There are maybe a few issues where they do not, but the core issues - Iraq, taxation, torture, foreign policy, energy policy - they are exactly the same. Thus, 'McSame.' He would continue 95% of Bush's policies. But, don't take my word for it -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-iTyN7c0A

What about his mental errors, his flip-flops, his terrible ethics, his questionable lobbyist associations, his temper, his lack of oratorical ability? None of those things register with you at all, all you see are attacks on his 'age?'

Please, you guys are getting a little ridiculous with the 'Conservatives are great, liberals suck!' rhetoric.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Wow! What a revelation!!!

2 Republican's have similar core values! Hold the presses, I think Cyc may be onto something here!

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

One prime example to look at, Bush and McCain have never wavered on the war, although I was peaved at McCain for undermining Bush, but you cannot at least claim he was blindly defensive of his own party, quite the opposite. In contrast, Obama has claimed many things now in regard to the war, a timetable, how dangerous Iran is or isn't, whether we should talk to Iran, Venezuela, blah blah blah, the man does not have a clue it appears, because I don't really know what he plans to do. If anyone does, let me know. I know what McCain will do, he will not abandon the troops in Iraq, I do know that.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Wow! What a revelation!!!

2 Republican's have similar core values! Hold the presses, I think Cyc may be onto something here!

You do realize that it was Fox who argued that the 'McSame' moniker was not appropriate - not I? I completely agree with you, and you are bolstering my case with your post!

Jesus christ, it's like you are two steps behind, all the time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Its desire to be honest and accurate, I think, McGentrix. I am not here to try to get McCain elected or anyone else, I am here to post honest and good opinions, with evidence. Principles trump candidates, even on this forum.

Yes, I think you and I are in agreement on what honesty and accuracy is. I long ago understood that we would probably not see eye to eye on aggressive support, or perhaps any support, for McCain and I was okay with that.

I think McCain could very well lose mostly because there are many conservatives who simply won't be able to hold their nose long enough to vote for him. I personally am not that opposed to him because as much as any politician can be, I do believe he is essentially an honest man despite several wrong headed points of view. I also think he is man enough to admit he is wrong when it has been shown that he is. At least it is pretty rare that he does an 'Obama' dance around what he actually said or meant.

I trust him more on the economy and on national defense and on national security and on the kinds of judges he is likely to appoint as I trust Obama not at all on any of those issues. After that is pretty much becomes a wash with McCain with many unknowns and some stated positions that I can't support at all, but I trust his strength of character to keep him from pushing for policies likely to cause lasting damage on the country.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Wow! What a revelation!!!

2 Republican's have similar core values! Hold the presses, I think Cyc may be onto something here!

You do realize that it was Fox who argued that the 'McSame' moniker was not appropriate - not I? I completely agree with you, and you are bolstering my case with your post!

Jesus christ, it's like you are two steps behind, all the time.

Cycloptichorn

Please show where I said the 'McSame' slogan was not appropriate. I think I said something quite different from that.

If you can't read and see what is there instead of what you want to see, how do you expect your opinion about us or anybody to be taken seriously?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What about his mental errors, his flip-flops, his terrible ethics, his questionable lobbyist associations, his temper, his lack of oratorical ability? None of those things register with you at all, all you see are attacks on his 'age?'

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I acknowledge all of those, for both Obama and McCain, but have you heard of voting for the lesser of two evils, cyclops?

McCain rates better or at least as good as Obama on mental errors. After all, he had 55 states in this country and 10,000 people dying in Greensburg, Kansas, not even McCain has done that bad. McCain is more consistent, not flipflopping nearly as bad as Obama, temper we don't know but I have seen some pretty ugly expressions out of Obama so I think he harbors some anger that is more systemic, and lobbyists, they are legal, and oratorical skills, give me a break, Obama flunks without a teleprompter into a pattern of ah, uh, oom, uh, etc. Not impressive.

0 Replies

Quote:

The ONLY criticism I have seen of McCain from his supporters is in those areas in which he has clearly departed from Conservative principles. It was on that basis that most of us initially opposed him. Liberals criticize him mostly on the age factor plus the coined "McSame" slogan when almost none of them can provide any substantive argument for why the slogan is accurate.

Substantive argument has been provided for why the slogan is accurate. McG agrees with this substantive argument and said as much in his last post. And this is hardly the first time that such an argument has been put forward; on the contrary, a ton of discussion has been had on this very subject, none of which was acknowledged by you at all.

While you did not use the words 'not appropriate,' it was a valid interpretation of your comment; you did not feel that the moniker was a fair one or one which had an explanation behind it. Now that you are obviously shown to be wrong on this issue, will you retract said line?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What about his mental errors, his flip-flops, his terrible ethics, his questionable lobbyist associations, his temper, his lack of oratorical ability? None of those things register with you at all, all you see are attacks on his 'age?'

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I acknowledge all of those, for both Obama and McCain, but have you heard of voting for the lesser of two evils, cyclops?

McCain rates better or at least as good as Obama on mental errors. After all, he had 55 states in this country and 10,000 people dying in Greensburg, Kansas, not even McCain has done that bad. McCain is more consistent, not flipflopping nearly as bad as Obama, temper we don't know but I have seen some pretty ugly expressions out of Obama so I think he harbors some anger that is more systemic, and lobbyists, they are legal, and oratorical skills, give me a break, Obama flunks without a teleprompter into a pattern of ah, uh, oom, uh, etc. Not impressive.

First, as to flip-flops, you are 100% incorrect. McCain has flipped on MANY more issues then Obama. How many? See for yourself.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3300256#3300256

As for the lobbyists, the point isn't that they are illegal, it's that McCain made his reputation as a 'maverick' by decrying these very people and their influence on Washington. For years he treated the word 'lobbyist' as a bad word, during his anti-earmark crusades and campaign finance reform. But, when his time to run for Prez came around, who did he hire? A whole team of lobbyists. Practically nobody who works at his higher levels isn't a lobbyist. Another flip by McCain and another example of his lies and poor choices.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

On various forums on A2K various liberals have characterized Thomas Sowell as 'not supporting his thesis', 'being a hanky head', being an 'Uncle Tom', 'writing poorly', 'being a partisan hack', and in various other uncomplimentary ways. I might have missed somebody, but I'm reasonably certain that no professed left leaner or liberal on A2K has EVER complimented Thomas Sowell on any point made. I have seen a professed conservative here and there argue a point of view with Sowell, but all in all conservatives seem to appreciate his take on things.

So, I am fairly sure the conservatives will agree with Sowell's opinion here, even though he is obviously taking on somebody opposed to Obama. I wonder if the liberals will?

July 10, 2008
An Internet fraud LINK

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...

So, I am fairly sure the conservatives will agree with Sowell's opinion here, even though he is obviously taking on somebody opposed to Obama. I wonder if the liberals will?

July 10, 2008
An Internet fraud
By Thomas Sowell

Making something up is a confession of both intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

LINK

Sowell must have talking about the neocons and the move to invade Iraq. Notably, the term "moral bankrupts" include those who supported these clowns and especially the scum that continues to provide support for a debacle that has caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis.

0 Replies

Invite CI over to inspect your post, JTT. He has been wanting an example of non sequitur.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

On various forums on A2K various liberals have characterized Thomas Sowell as 'not supporting his thesis', 'being a hanky head', being an 'Uncle Tom', 'writing poorly', 'being a partisan hack', and in various other uncomplimentary ways. I might have missed somebody, but I'm reasonably certain that no professed left leaner or liberal on A2K has EVER complimented Thomas Sowell on any point made. I have seen a professed conservative here and there argue a point of view with Sowell, but all in all conservatives seem to appreciate his take on things.

So, I am fairly sure the conservatives will agree with Sowell's opinion here, even though he is obviously taking on somebody opposed to Obama. I wonder if the liberals will?

July 10, 2008
An Internet fraud LINK

Um, I think everyone could agree that making up false stories, with others' names on them, isn't an honorable act.

I suppose I'm a little confused as to actually what was going on here, and how it applies to this thread?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know