AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Fox, Joe asked this:

Quote:

Now, to be sure, there are plenty of people on the left whom I find embarrassing. Fortunately, I think many of the left-wing anti-Semites and 9/11 "truthers" didn't make the transition to the new A2K, but there are others with whom I'd still prefer not to be associated. Is that the same with you "MACs," or is "modern American conservatism" such a big tent ideology that you'll take any harebrained crank that comes along, spouting the latest in an endless series of increasingly implausible theories [..], so long as they're sufficiently conservative?

You responded with a lengthy explanation of how you deal with impoliteness. That's not what he asked about.

A self-respecting liberal should avoid mixing with 9/11 truthers and challenge their conspiracy theories whenever one tries to sell them to him. For me that's a kind of litmus test about whether to take someone seriously. What's your boundaries on the right? At what point do you explicitly distance yourself from a fellow rightwinger if he is just too nutty? I suppose that you would instantly and openly reject any David Duke-like supremacist type - is that the only thing that's off-limits?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I am opposed to the federal government exercising powers not granted it by the Constitution. In particular I am opposed to the federal government taking property (e.g., dollars, businesses, land) from those that lawfully earned it and giving it to those who did not lawfully earn it.

Yes, and, as you've mentioned elsewhere, you believe that any federal expenditure which, in effect, moves tax dollars from one person to another is an unconstitutional federal taking. Which means that everybody should get back (in the form of federal services) exactly what they put in (in the form of taxes) -- no more and no less.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

ican wrote:

Quote:

I am opposed to the federal government exercising powers not granted it by the Constitution.

To begin with, ican's description of how taxation works in this country is wrong. Secondly, he has not shown what part of the Constitution prohibits the federal government from doing what they do.

What has the federal government done concerning taxation "not granted it by the Constitution?"

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Did CJ atttack another member on A2K? No he did not. Did he say anything that he can't support with an argument? No he did not.

Wait, what - you think there's an argument to be made for calling Obama's supporters traitors and enemies of the United States?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, I did.

Um, no you didn't.

Foxfyre wrote:
He didn't ask me who I had on ignore and that is information I prefer to keep to myself. I quite clearly explained my response to that I consider unacceptable behavior from our more immature members, however, I was explicit that their ideological leanings did not affect that in any way, and I think anybody who isn't ideologically or mentally challenged can figure it out without any additional help from me.

I really don't care who you have on ignore and who you don't. I asked if "modern American conservatism" is such a big tent ideology that you'll take any monomaniacal crackpot so long as they're sufficiently conservative.

Let me put it this way: there are plenty of people who hold ostensibly leftist political beliefs with whom, for one reason or another, I wouldn't want to associate -- folks like Zippo or S&C, the rabid anti-Semites and conspiracy kooks, those kinds of nutcases. Despite the fact that they might inhabit the same general area of the political spectrum as me, I would hold no truck with them. Indeed, I wish they could be successfully recruited by the other side. Now, is there anyone like that for "modern American conservatives," or are all conservatives -- even the nuttiest -- welcome under the big MAC tent?

Yes. I don't denigrate or put people on ignore purely for speaking nonsense or for promoting a concept with which I disagree. I don't expect anybody else to agree with me and I don't expect to have to agree wtih somebody else in order for that person to be acceptable. That's true for people on both sides of the spectrum.

I especially appreciate those, however, who have the intellect and maturity and intellectual honesty to be able to articulate and defend their point of view when I disagree with them and do so without making it personal. Both Ican and Okie can do that and have done that, also GeorgeOb1, McG, Tico, etc. because there are areas in which I disagree with each as well as other conservatives on A2K. Alas, so very few liberals seem to be able to do that without making it personal, without arguing ad hominem, or without being insulting. I just attribute that to the water most liberals drink.

The only way people get seriously crossways with me here on A2K or anywhere else is when they are intentionally hateful, cruel, or unkind to others.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Now, is there anyone like that for "modern American conservatives," or are all conservatives -- even the nuttiest -- welcome under the big MAC tent?

Yes.

Well, I guess that pretty much sums it all up.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Did CJ atttack another member on A2K? No he did not. Did he say anything that he can't support with an argument? No he did not.

Wait, what - you think there's an argument to be made for calling Obama's supporters traitors and enemies of the United States?

It would depend on what he was accusing them of wouldn't it? Did anybody give him an opportunity to explain? No. He was just assumed to be scum or whatever the adjective of the day is. I take our First Amendment very seriously and allow people to express whatever opinion they hold about our government and those in it so long as they are not inciting to riot and are not engaged in intentional personal destruction.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Now, is there anyone like that for "modern American conservatives," or are all conservatives -- even the nuttiest -- welcome under the big MAC tent?

Yes.

Well, I guess that pretty much sums it all up.

No it doesn't. It says that it is not people's beliefs or point of view that makes them acceptable or non acceptable--I'm not into the thought police game like so many liberals seem to be. It is what people do that makes them acceptable or non acceptable. A person can believe that people of another race are inferior. I would seriously disagree with him/her but would not consider him/her unacceptable for his belief. It is how he treats people of the other race that matters, and if he treats them as equals, then his belief shouldn't matter to anybody.

2 Replies

Oh by the way, again just for the record, I think Obama is a gangster!

I think Obama is a gangster because he advocates taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those who have lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

I think Obama is a gangster because he takes property (e.g., money, businesses) from those who have lawfully earned it, and gives it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

I think that those people who support what Obama does take from what people have lawfully earned, and does give to those who have not lawfully earned it, are also gangsters.

Any questions?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Did CJ atttack another member on A2K? No he did not. Did he say anything that he can't support with an argument? No he did not.

Wait, what - you think there's an argument to be made for calling Obama's supporters traitors and enemies of the United States?

It would depend on what he was accusing them of wouldn't it? Did anybody give him an opportunity to explain? No.

Uh; isn't he pretty clearly accusing them of being traitors and enemies of the US? Does that need more explanation?

And he's had plenty of opportunity to explain himself, hell, he's been spouting this same stuff for years.

Quote:

He was just assumed to be scum or whatever the adjective of the day is. I take our First Amendment very seriously and allow people to express whatever opinion they hold about our government and those in it so long as they are not inciting to riot and are not engaged in intentional personal destruction.

I also do not put anyone on ignore, I don't see the point of it.

Fox, would you be willing to accept the proposition that ALL of us find conversations between people we agree with on most issues, and disagree on some, to be more cordial and pleasant than with those who we strongly disagree with? Some of those Conservatives you list off are pretty hateful towards Liberals, but not each other; and some of the Liberals who tangle with you guys (myself included) act in the same fashion. Perhaps it is not as partisan an issue as you think?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Oh by the way, again just for the record, I think Obama is a gangster!

I think Obama is a gangster because he advocates taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those who have lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

I think Obama is a gangster because he takes property (e.g., money, businesses) from those who have lawfully earned it, and gives it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

I think that those people who support what Obama does take from what people have lawfully earned, and does give to those who have not lawfully earned it, are also gangsters.

Any questions?

How did you become so confused as to what 'gangster' means?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

"...I'm not into the thought police game like so many liberals seem to be."

Please show us some examples of this?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

It would depend on what he was accusing them of wouldn't it?

He accused them of "treason, pure and simple".

I dont know, that's where the line would be drawn for me, period. Some lefty calling McCain supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of their country - I dunno, that would be where I'd stop taking that poster seriously there and then. It's just nutty. You responded by heartily inviting the guy over to your thread. That's kind of telling about how far you guys are sliding down.

2 Replies

@nimh,

Would you? I don't recall you ever correcting members for calling George Bush a war criminal, liar, and worse. You have never once defended me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that the accusations might be false when it is somebody you dislike.

I don't see Obama as a traitor guilty of treason at this time, but I don't know what CJ had in mind when he said that either. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves before I judge them. That, by the way, is a traditional American value which most MACs support and most MACs think the thought police to be far more sinister bottom feeders than the occasional excitable patriot.

If CJ (or anybody else) was asked for and provided the rationale supporting their comment, and I disagreed with it, I would say so. But I believe anybody should be given the opportunity to revise and extend their remarks and not be judged by assumption.

1 Reply

@nimh,

They've already sled to the bottom, and hit the mud.

0 Replies

Dick Cheney comes out of the closet: he supports gay marriage. MACs are crumbling in all directions.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090601/US.Cheney/

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Many MACs support gay marriage. MACs are not defined by their stance on gay marriage.

Do tune in to Greta VanSustern on Fox News tonight though. She's having the Cheneys on to discuss that very thing.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Oh by the way, again just for the record, I think Obama is a gangster!

I think Obama is a gangster because he advocates taking property (e.g., money, businesses) from those who have lawfully earned it, and giving it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

I think Obama is a gangster because he takes property (e.g., money, businesses) from those who have lawfully earned it, and gives it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

I think that those people who support what Obama does take from what people have lawfully earned, and does give to those who have not lawfully earned it, are also gangsters.

Any questions?

How did you become so confused as to what 'gangster' means?

Cycloptichorn

Didn't Bush give a lot of money to people who didn't earn it? I remember that Bush gave hundreds of billions to Cheney's company, Haliburton. I also remember that he gave hundreds of billions to bankers just before he left office. Did the Republican party abolish welfare for poor families when Bush was in office? Nope. They didn't do that. In fact, Bush gave lots of money to religious organizations under a program of "compassionate conservativism." I don't remember any conservative calling for the impeachment of Republicans or the Republican president when they were in power.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And you object to this how? I don't recall you ever correcting a member on your side when they made similar inflammatory statements, no matter how stupid or cruel, such as George Bush wrecked the country to George Bush is a war criminal or George Bush is a liar, or George Bush should be impeached etc.

I have, for one, consistently said that there would never be a war crimes trial of Bush, nor an impeachment. I have consistently said that it wouldn't happen because of the constitutional requirements for it, and because no one would be able to allege high crimes and misdemeanors against him which anyone could make stick.

I have also consistently attacked, immediately, any thread of Zippo or S & C which has been anti-semitic in character, and i have constantly, strenuously argued against the September 11th conspiracy idiocy presented by the likes of Zippy. I used to see Joe do the same. I haven't seen him in such threads in a long time, but i attribute that to a salutary resolve on his part to take no further notice of those idiots.

Quote:

Did CJ atttack another member on A2K? No he did not.

Yes, he did, he has and he continues to do so. One need only read the things he has written today. His remarks are far more scurrilous than anything the people participating in this thread have ever said about other members, with the one notable exception of the Possum.

Quote:

Did he say anything that he can't support with an argument? No he did not.

Yes, he has. One need only read the tings he has written today. In both this case, and the case of the previous remark, one doesn't even need to search back through his posts--all of your denials here are given the lie just on the basis of what he has posted today.

Quote:

I once jumped on a member for calling Walter a Nazi.

How laudable of you--and yet you remain mute as the Possum launches scurrilous, personal attacks on other members every day.

Quote:

I have requested that members arguing my side but doing so ad hominem would refrain from doing so.

It is apparent, as is the case with so many people online, that you don't know the meaning of argumentum ad hominem. If you say something and someone else denies it, citing their reasons for denying, at the least offering a logical argument, then they have not indulged argument ad hominem, no matter what sort of unpleasant things they may say about you, or someone you admire. If you say something and someone else asserts that it cannot be true because you are an idiot, and does n0t otherwise support their denail, that is argumentum ad hominem. As is the case with about 95% of the people one encounters online, it appears that you consider any which entails an unpleasant reflection upon you or what you so interpret, to be an instance of argumentum ad hominem, and that it can therefore be dismissed. This is false. Saying "ad homs" repeatedly does not falsify valid criticism of you; and what is merely an insult, especially when obscurely derived, when only alleged, does not constitute an argumentum ad hominem and a basis for rejecting, so long as the member involved has provided a reason for rejecting your argument.

Quote:

When you can show me how you have jumped on your beloveds here who have attacked Ican or Okie or me or any Republican etc. etc. etc., then you might have the moral authority to criticize me for not doing so. Until then you might possibly be guilty of hypocrisy.

The irony here is a killer. I have never seen you criticize the Possum for his daily assaults upon the personal qualities of and the character of everyone with whom he disagrees (which is the great majority of members). I don't say that you might be guilty of hypocrisy--i say that you are guilty of hypocrisy, on a daily basis.

1 Reply

Oh, fox, don't be silly. It's one of those "wedge" issues you guys have been trying to use for years to wedge yourselves back into power. It's starting to blow up in your faces.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know