AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

ok, you're done

Accurate descriptions of the republican party; rudderless.

Haven't you been following posts by the MACs stating pretty much the same thing here but without the emotionally charged inaccuracies. I think it was just yesterday that I posted a Rasmussen report that most Republicans think the Congressional GOP is out of touch with with what the people think and want and that most Americans overall would like to dump the entire bunch out of Congress and start over. In fact a plurality thought we would do better picking a new Congress at random out of the phone book.

The only redeeming quality of most of the current GOP leadership is that they haven't been quite as bad as the Democrats.

Well okay. You tell me why you consider Factcheck.org to be virtuous, above reproach, 100% honest, and absolutely accurate in everything they post on the internet? Tell me how they are completely unaffected or swayed by ideology or personal points of view. Are they the only site on the internet that is so high on the trust meter or would you consider the Heritage Foundation or Cato or some other factchecking type groups to be equally trustworthy even though they at times disagree with Factcheck.org? Why or why not?

Take your time. I don't mind waiting while you put together what will certainly be a commendable defense of Factcheck.org.

Before you start you might want to spend some time here:
http://www.cprights.org/2009/05/who-fact-checks-factcheckorg.php

while we wait foxy, whom do you advocate, and why.

detail would be good...

Foxie, Until such time you are able to provide proof/evidence that FactCheck is not reliable, I will continue to trust them. As a matter of fact, I trust FactCheck over anything you opine.

Foxie, Do you know of any resource inside or outside of the internet or credible media, that's 100% reliable? Please share the name of that resource for us, because I'm very interested in such a resource.

beth, you should have used gopcheck.org.

they are the only source of reliable fact checking.


p.s., tah for the info

Are they 100% reliable>? ROFL

Whom do I advocate for what?

Is there such a place? If so then yes, it should be consulted along with Democratcheck.org if there is such a place.

Unlike those on the Left, I don't automatically assume that any site, no matter how partisan, is automatically wrong or right. I like to take what they say and check it out among many other sources.

I have spent too much of my life intereviewing people who were absolutely convinced that they had it exactly right--they were honestly convicted that they were seeing something correctly--but the final truth turned out to be somewhat different. Sometimes it was dramatically different.

I think smart and educated people are willing to look at both sides of a debate before arriving at a conclusion. Don't you?

as a more reliable fact check sight, dear.

Honestly I haven't found a single one who got every issue exactly right every single time. I suppose of the large sites, Snopes is probably the least obviously biased and the one with maybe a somewhat higher accuracy than most, but even they tilt a tad left. But I don't think Snopes intentionally skews the facts any more than I think Factcheck.org intentionally skews the facts. I think both, just like any other people or organizations, may arrive at conclusions that are tainted by their personal ideology.

That's why I think it wise to check several different sources from both sides of the ideological perspective before accepting an opinion as informed.

and you do this regularly?

before you post stuff, I mean...

no, you automatically assume based on who they have as patrons.

know what babe, it doesn't bother me that you are dyed in the wool. so was me sainted mother.

but you keep trying say you aren't.

add.. mom would have you up on charges for that. heh, heh...

first you bring me the post where I've said ^^^ that

I don't mind waiting.

Oh sure. Like you aren't too.

I have strength of my convictions yes. If I can't defend my convictions--if I can't articulate a reasoned defense for my convictions--I try not to have them. I believe anything worth believing in can be analyzed, scrutinized, taken part, dissected, and examined thoroughly from all perspectives. If it can stand up against that, then I will choose to believe it until I have a reason not to.

You don't see the MACs attacking the messenger when they are asked a hard question re something they believe do you? They answer the question.

When you ask some non-MACs a hard question, they attack the messenger, or the ideology, or the political party, or bring up something totally non sequitor. They can't answer the question with anything they can support with history, evidence, reason, or fact--they can't support their statements with anything more than emotion or feelings--and they become angry even being questioned about it and furious when challenged.

If you are intellectually honest, you know what I am saying is true. You accuse me of ideological fanaticism. Rockhead calls me names. Ehbeth writes me off because I dare to even mildly challenge her opinion about Factcheck.org. Walter becomes sarcastic. I can imagine what the numbnuts I have on ignore are saying.

It isn't that you are less 'dyed-in-the-wool' or that you aren't just as convicted of the rightness of your position as I am. But I do encourage you to look for evidence--something more than just opinion--to support your point of view. I think you'll find--perhaps can even show--that we MACs have it wrong or are over-confident about this or that. But I think you'll find that we can defend our position very well re most of it.

Okay my bad. Perhaps that isn't what you were saying when you wrote me off earlier. Maybe if you clarified.

disingenuous is not a name.

It ad hominem and close enough, especially when you can't articulate why I am disingenuous without calling me names.

won't.

there is a difference.

words and how they are chosen matter, as if you did not already play that game...

( I will say that your truthiness is beyond reproach, how's that)