Foxfyre wrote:
I think a conservative principle is to value and respect a good name and reputation.
Now, it's "I think". It's hardly any wonder that you are having trouble trying to decide what constitutes "conservative principles". The phrase itself is oxymoronic.
Quote:
The New Republic
Baby on Board by Dana Goldstein
John McCain's cruel treatment at the hands of Bush surrogates during the 2000 South Carolina primary has gone down in the annals of dirty tricks campaigning. In an echo chamber of almost unimaginable crassness and bigotry, anonymous robocalls smeared McCain as "the fag candidate" and his wife, Cindy, who had been treated for pain killer abuse, as a "drug addict." And perhaps most shockingly, one call accused McCain of having fathered an illegitimate "black baby" with a prostitute.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=bbd23d59-2190-4065-8a09-44e8b0be7ba2
Your hypocrisy is, AGAIN, stunning.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Rush knows darn well that his radio audience are free thinkers and not easily manipulated
Funny, I think he knows the exact opposite is true.
Cycloptichorn
Well, I probably should have qualified my statement that he knows that his
conservative audience is made up of free thinkers and it is quite possible he didn't have you in mind. But he does give his audience a lot of credit.
Foxfyre wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:Rush knows darn well that his radio audience are free thinkers and not easily manipulated
Funny, I think he knows the exact opposite is true.
Cycloptichorn
Well, I probably should have qualified my statement that he knows that his conservative audience are free thinkers and it is possible he might not have had you in mind. But he does give the rest of us a lot of credit.
Of course he does. There's no way any of you would listen to his smarmy lies if he didn't. But by duping you, massaging your fragile egos the way he does, which is obviously incredibly easy to do, look what the Bushites accomplished with you lot, he captures an audience of morons. Lucky for him, morons still have money.
That you acknowledge listening to him speaks volumes about your ability to think and reason.
of course they're free thinkers. That's why they're known as dittoheads.
username wrote:of course they're free thinkers. That's why they're known as dittoheads.
\
They're known as dittoheads because 'dittos from (wherever)' is the standard phrase meaning that I enjoy your program, thanks for taking my call, I appreciate what you've said, I am interested in this topic, or whatever. It is not a term that means "I agree wtih everything you say" or "we all think alike". Anybody who has listened with an open mind to that show for any reasonable length of time knows that whether or not he or she likes Rush. Everybody else just parrots what they've been told to think about the show and that puts them in a fairly uniform 'we are all mindless and unthinking together' group.
which is of course why they parrot back to him whatever he says, and parrot it here and on other online forums (except for SailFree, who used to parrot Mallard Fillmore).
username wrote:which is of course why they parrot back to him whatever he says, and parrot it here and on other online forums (except for SailFree, who used to parrot Mallard Fillmore).
Who is they? And where is your evidence for your observation? I can name at least two or three pretty hard core conservatives here on A2K who do not care for Rush at all. I listen now and then, not on purpose but because he is a regular on the radio station I usually have on during the day, and others listen pretty regularly. I don't know a single one of us who agrees with Rush on everything or any two of us who agree with each other on everything.
Rush is has been #1 on the talk radio circuit for something like 24 years now for one reason. He does good scholarship and he is one place where we can go to hear at least some of our point of view expressed. That's something we don't get from any of the alphabet network news. And no that still doesn't mean we agree with what he says all the time.
So, again, those of you who presume to be critics without having any kind of clue about what you are talking about, who is being the mindless parrot here? You're saying the same thing that most other liberals who don't listen to Rush either say.
You're not helping your case Fox.
I didn't know I had a case that needed helping.
Foxfyre wrote:username wrote:of course they're free thinkers. That's why they're known as dittoheads.
\
They're known as dittoheads because 'dittos from (wherever)' is the standard phrase meaning that I enjoy your program, thanks for taking my call, I appreciate what you've said, I am interested in this topic, or whatever. It is not a term that means "I agree wtih everything you say" or "we all think alike".
It most certainly does carry the meaning, ""I agree wtih [sic] everything you say" or "we all think alike"".
Also known as "mega dittos".
It's ironic that they found such an apt description all by themselves.
What conservatives support.
Quote:
US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'
US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.
Reports at the time said that 20 people were killed in the airstrike in Nangarhar province. The US military said they were militants.
But local people said the dead were wedding party guests.
Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.
...
Mirwais Yasini, deputy speaker for the lower house of parliament, ...
said that those who passed on intelligence to the US military ahead of the air strike should be tried, "as well as those who carried out the bombing".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7501538.stm
JTT wrote:What conservatives support.
...
Conservatives support not slandering their opponents, but occassionally do it anyway.
What do you support?
JTT wrote:What conservatives support.
Quote:
US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'
US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.
Reports at the time said that 20 people were killed in the airstrike in Nangarhar province. The US military said they were militants.
But local people said the dead were wedding party guests.
Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.
...
Mirwais Yasini, deputy speaker for the lower house of parliament, ...
said that those who passed on intelligence to the US military ahead of the air strike should be tried, "as well as those who carried out the bombing".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7501538.stm
Im a conservative, and I dont support it.
Neither do any other conservatives I know.
That disproves your statement that "conservatives" support it.
JTT - How dare you imply that we show support in the with our votes! Voting is not about getting what we want, it's about stopping the other guy from getting what he wants.
T
K
O!
Returning to an earlier discussion on dissent and patriotism, Ralph Peters article today had me saying 'right on brother' out loud. I posted it appropriately on the Election 2008 thread, but it is equally appropriate here:
DISSENT IS NOT THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM
Diest TKO wrote:RE: Sowell chain letter
This type of thing transcends left or right. I think Sowell has the right to be judged by his own work, and I'm glad to judge him by his own work. Why somebody would do this, is beyond me, and it seems to be counter productive.
On a different topic, I want to know what okie, Fox, ican, et al have to say about Rush Limbaugh's "Project mayhem or chaos (whatever it was called) where he called for conservatives to register as democrats and vote for Hillary in the primaries to keep the race going as long as possible. It did have an effect.
I think that this issue transcends left and right as well. Do the conservatives here agree that this kind of thing is repugnant? Do you condemn this?
T
K
O
I was not very enthusiastic about project chaos, I thought it was the wrong thing to do. Of course people voting for somebody in a primary because they thought they would be the weaker opponent in the general has been going on for longer than Limbaugh has been alive, but trying to make it an organized effort perhaps is something different, but I seriously doubt it had all that big of an impact. By the way, it is anyones right to register whatever party they wish and vote for whomever they wish, so nothing illegal in what Limbaugh was doing, but I would not endorse it as an organized effort. So I don't think it is repugnant, quite, just ill advised.
By the way, I have listened to Rush alot over the years, the man is pretty brilliant politically, and he is intensely interested in all the angles, and he analyzes all the stuff daily, so he is probably far ahead of and more informed than most A2Kers here. I agree I would say around 80% or so. There are many other radio talk shows that are also worth listening to, Hannity, which covers most of the same stuff Rush does, and he is another guy I agree with maybe 70 to 80%. I have heard a few others some, there is one named Lars Larsen that sounds very reasonable so far, also I think a Mike? McConnel. Of course, there is Michael Reagan, another fair one. Michael Savage is over the top, and seems to intend to use shock value and insults, although he is approximately right on many issues, not all.
There is a reason conservative talk radio is far more successful than liberal radio. I listen to liberals on the radio and end up wanting to smash the radio because they are such idiots.
Foxfyre wrote:Returning to an earlier discussion on dissent and patriotism, Ralph Peters article today had me saying 'right on brother' out loud. I posted it appropriately on the Election 2008 thread, but it is equally appropriate here:
DISSENT IS NOT THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM
Perhaps Ralph Peters needs to spend more time studying history instead of writing articles without meaning.
Ralph 'not very smart' Peters wrote: We've all heard humorless America-haters promote themselves by announcing, As Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
The first problem with that self-righteous bull is that Jefferson never said it. On the contrary, he warned of the dangers of political dissension carried to extremes.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1787.
I hardly call that warning against the dangers of dissent carried to extremes. It looks like Jefferson supports "armed rebellion" as a form of political dissent now and again.
Quote:"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Quote:"The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
Peters did his homework okay Parados. The specific quote attributed to Jefferson that he mentioned Jefferson in fact did not say. It has so often been attributed to him that the Jefferson Library includes a disclaimer that Jefferson did not say that line.
In addition to the quotes you attribute to Jefferson, however,--I didn't check the sources but I am trusting you to have represented them honestly--Jefferson also said this:
Quote:"Political dissension is doubtless a less evil than the lethargy of despotism: but it is a great evil, and it would be as worthy the efforts of the patriot as of the philosopher, to exclude it's influence if possible, from social life. The good are rare enough at best. There is no reason to subdivide them by artificial lines. But whether we shall ever be able so far to perfect the principles of society as that political opinions shall, in it's intercourse, be as inoffensive as those of philosophy, mechanics, or any other, may well be doubted." Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 29 May 1797[2]
LINK - MONTICELLO
mysteryman wrote:JTT wrote:What conservatives support.
Quote:
US 'killed 47 Afghan civilians'
US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.
Reports at the time said that 20 people were killed in the airstrike in Nangarhar province. The US military said they were militants.
But local people said the dead were wedding party guests.
Correspondents say the issue of civilian casualties is hugely sensitive in Afghanistan.
...
Mirwais Yasini, deputy speaker for the lower house of parliament, ...
said that those who passed on intelligence to the US military ahead of the air strike should be tried, "as well as those who carried out the bombing".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7501538.stm
Im a conservative, and I dont support it.
Neither do any other conservatives I know.
That disproves your statement that "conservatives" support it.
When you don't demand that these war criminals be prosecuted you provide support.
Mirwais Yasini, deputy speaker for the lower house of parliament, ...
said that those who passed on intelligence to the US military ahead of the air strike should be tried, "as well as those who carried out the bombing".
