AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

I'm glad you don't have a problem with spamming the thread with frequent disruptive multiple long, wordy copy and pastes from highly biased sources that are as often as not unsourced and unlinked per se....

What have I spammed the thread with that was unsourced or unlinked? Please be specific. I have occasionally posted a piece that I intentionally did not source or link requesting comments on the thesis before I revealed the source which I specifically said I would provide. And when I have offered a subject in that way, not one......repeat NOT ONE....of the leftwingers and certainly none of the numbnuts dared offer an opinion. I would conclude that as evidence of a complete lack of conviction, wouldn't you?

So many liberals are all bluster and fury and blame and accusations and lets see who we can jump on today, but so very very few can articulate a reasoned argument for a point of view about any issue. Because you can't you attack or try to discredit people or, using a number of predictable techniques, attempt to discredit the conservative point of view.

Why is that do you think?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Why is it a bullshit figure? The article shows where they got it. Where do you get your numbers that dispute it?

But again please answer the question. What kind of revenues can I expect for my $1700 (or whatever the amount is) 'investment' in Cap and Trade?

Foxfyre is the self-appointed discussion leader. She has declared that she is under no obligation to defend or support articles she posts----she will never discuss the articles she posts----but she demands that you answer her questions. She responds to whatever you post with more questions. Follow the leader and comply . . . . or demand that she put her own chips on the table!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

We aren't talking about falling below 50% Cyclop. Read the entire Gallup analysis and you'll find more than one way to evaluate the analysis than the Daily Kos way.

As for the rest of your screed, when you represent what I say and what I demand even close to accurately, then we can discuss it.

I did represent what you said accurately. You just have no meaningful response to it, and this is your typical tactic for avoiding responding to meaningful critiques of your intellectual laziness.

The truth is that both you and the author are simply incorrect; Obama has not fallen faster than any other President before him. I have produced evidence showing that he did not, and you have no counter-evidence whatsoever.

If you can't produce it, I'm going to have to stick with my original proposition: that you are incorrect, intellectually lazy, and are now engaging in intellectual cowardice rather than discussing a point I brought up - a point which was in direct response to the piece you quoted, something you continually accuse others of not doing.

Perhaps you will come to understand, that when people DO respond to you and DO challenge the pieces directly, you refuse to engage them in meaningful conversation about them - and this leads people to ignore your desires to directly address pieces. There's no benefit for us in doing so if you are going to act this way.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Rave on Cyclop. When you can answer a direct question or can actually defend your opinion with something other than Daily Kos or Media Matters talking points, we can have a discussion.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

.repeat NOT ONE....of the leftwingers and certainly none of the numbnuts dared offer an opinion.

I wonder how Foxfyre knows none of the "numbnuts" offered an opinion since she has them on ignore.

Quote:

I would conclude that as evidence of a complete lack of conviction, wouldn't you?

I guess if you don't see it because you are ignoring the answers that allows you to reach the conclusion but it doesn't make your conclusion valid.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

What have I spammed the thread with that was unsourced or unlinked?

I'll assume that this is a simple disagreement over whether "From my morning email" counts as adequately sourced.

Foxfyre wrote:

Please be specific.

Sure:

Foxfyre wrote:

From my morning email.

No way to verify this though I check in with a 'fact check' group who evaluates emails like this and will probably be able to verify it as authentic or not soon. It does have a ring of truth to it however and I'm going to go ahead and post it as there is no way the White House Press Corp will put out anything of this nature no matter how true.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Rave on Cyclop. When you can answer a direct question or can actually defend your opinion with something other than Daily Kos or Media Matters talking points, we can have a discussion.

**** that. My quite valid criticisms of the article you quoted is not a 'Daily Kos' talking point, and I wouldn't know what a 'Media Matters' talking point was if you hit me in the face with it. This is basically your way of attempting an Ad Hominem argument instead of really responding. It isn't convincing to anyone, however, when you engage in intellectual cowardice like this.

I defended my opinion with data gathered from reputable sources; you have defended yours with nothing but assertion. Weak.

I answered your direct question: the $1700 (bullshit number, because it's just an average based on energy use - your amount will likely be far less and those with large families somewhat more) will go into the general coffers of the gov't, which lowers your tax burden to pay for their operations in a heavy-deficit environment.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Rave on Cyclop. When you can answer a direct question or can actually defend your opinion with something other than Daily Kos or Media Matters talking points, we can have a discussion.

Discussion or interrogation? Foxy, a numbnut by her own definition, is incapable of understanding the simple concept of a discussion. She truly thinks that a discussion means that she gets to interrogate, demand answers, and ridicule people while she herself is under no obligation to actually discuss the topic.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
What have I spammed the thread with that was unsourced or unlinked?

I'll assume that this is a simple disagreement over whether "From my morning email" counts as adequately sourced.

Foxfyre wrote:
Please be specific.

Sure:

Foxfyre wrote:
From my morning email.

No way to verify this though I check in with a 'fact check' group who evaluates emails like this and will probably be able to verify it as authentic or not soon. It does have a ring of truth to it however and I'm going to go ahead and post it as there is no way the White House Press Corp will put out anything of this nature no matter how true.

Okay I forgot about that one. Good catch. I posted that one since it was virtually impossible to find any media coverage of that event other than what was included the staff issued press releases or talking points. But based on that, even though I qualified the posting with acknowledgement that it was unverified and unsourced, I essentially did misspeak when I said I always sourced or linked postings from email.

So, I'll amend and revise my remarks to say that I do source or link almost all postings from email or, if I do not, I will alert readers that the content is unsourced and unverified. Such unlinked or unsourced postings will be rare.

I suppose you aren't interested in discussing what conservatives are angry about per the Human Events piece or the one that McG posted. Any thoughts about that?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

SIGNED SEPTEMBER 17, 1787

RATIFIED AND ADOPTED MARCH 4, 1789

Foxfyre, thanks for the reminder.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

"Yes, but what you said made no sense. What I answered does make sense. I responded giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to make sense and would surely have rewritten what you said if you had thought about it a little bit." - Foxfyre

In honor of Foxfyre.. let me rewrite what she wrote since she would surely have rewritten it if she thought about it a little bit.

Quote:

Okay I forgot about that one. Good catch.

Should have really read...

Oh, you found one. I will now pretend that is the only one and then quickly change the subject.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I suppose you aren't interested in discussing what conservatives are angry about per the Human Events piece or the one that McG posted. Any thoughts about that?

What are your thoughts on those pieces?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I have already said that I think the Human Events piece is right on, that Frank Luntz PhD has pretty well supported their thesis with his recent research, and that the thesis McG posted is provocative and provides some interesting points to think about.

So what are your thoughts on those pieces?

2 Replies

While Joe is collecting his thoughts, this is hot off the press. Emailed press, but authentic press just the same:

Quote:

House Votes to Defund ACORN
Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:10 PM

WASHINGTON -- The House has voted to deny all federal funding for ACORN, the community organizing group that has been caught up in several scandals.

The House action came several days after the Senate took a similar vote to block the Housing and Urban Development Department from giving grants to ACORN.

Republicans, long critics of the liberal-leaning group that advocates for the poor, led the effort to cut off all federal funds.

California Republican Darrell Issa, who sponsored the measure in the House, says the "scandal surrounding the criminal activities of ACORN have called into question their role in all aspects of government."

The vote, on a provision attached to a student aid bill, was 345-75. All 75 no votes were Democrats.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_congress_acorn/2009/09/17/261491.html?s=al&promo_code=893B-1

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

While Joe is collecting his thoughts, this is hot off the press. Emailed press, but authentic press just the same:

Quote:
House Votes to Defund ACORN
Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:10 PM

WASHINGTON -- The House has voted to deny all federal funding for ACORN, the community organizing group that has been caught up in several scandals.

The House action came several days after the Senate took a similar vote to block the Housing and Urban Development Department from giving grants to ACORN.

Republicans, long critics of the liberal-leaning group that advocates for the poor, led the effort to cut off all federal funds.

California Republican Darrell Issa, who sponsored the measure in the House, says the "scandal surrounding the criminal activities of ACORN have called into question their role in all aspects of government."

The vote, on a provision attached to a student aid bill, was 345-75. All 75 no votes were Democrats.

© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_congress_acorn/2009/09/17/261491.html?s=al&promo_code=893B-1

Why did you post this article hot of the press? Do you wish to discuss it? If so, please state what you desire to discuss. Please elaborate in detail and defend and support your opinion with reliable sources. We will evaluate your sources for reliability and submit questions to you.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

It could just as easily read,

Quote:

California Republican Darrell Issa, who sponsored the measure in the House, says the "scandal surrounding the criminal activities of the House, Senate and the past presidency have called into question their role in all aspects of government."

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I have already said that I think the Human Events piece is right on, that Frank Luntz PhD has pretty well supported their thesis with his recent research, and that the thesis McG posted is provocative and provides some interesting points to think about.

So what are your thoughts on those pieces?

Please discuss why you agree with the piece. Provide elaboration. What "research" did this Luntz use to "support" the thesis? Is that research reliable? Why is the thesis McG posted provocative? Provide elaboration. What points are interesting in your opinion. Please give the reasons why you believe the points you selected are interesting to think about. If you will not answer these simple questions, it will demonstrate your unwillingness to engage in critical thinking.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

It is interesting that all the "no" votes came from the dems.

Why is that?
Dont they see how corrupt ACORN has become?
Sure, these were two incidents, but it is difficult to believe that these were isolated incidents.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

It is interesting that all the "no" votes came from the dems.

Why is that?
Dont they see how corrupt ACORN has become?
Sure, these were two incidents, but it is difficult to believe that these were isolated incidents.

Far more than just two incidents actually as has been discussed at some length in this thread over a number of months now. Finally some reporters are actually doing some serious investigative journalism and actually reporting real events and actions. They had to go to the "underground media", i.e. the internet, to publish the videos, Fox News took it up, and finally the rest of the media is having to follow suit if they are to maintain any credibility of any kind.

If the idea of actually reporting the news catches on, no telling what the media will actually start reporting and what else we might be able to remedy. At the very least we might get a free press back instead of having mostly one giant P.R. agency doing the bidding of the Administration and Democrats in Congress.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

It is interesting that all the "no" votes came from the dems.

Why is that?
Dont they see how corrupt ACORN has become?
Sure, these were two incidents, but it is difficult to believe that these were isolated incidents.

From the article: California Republican Darrell Issa, who sponsored the measure in the House, says the "scandal surrounding the criminal activities of ACORN have called into question their role in all aspects of government."

There has been a LOT of SCANDAL surrounding the criminal activities of BLACKWATER. Did Issa sponsor a similar measure to deny all federal funding to BLACKWATER? If so, I think it would be interesting to see who votes for or against such a measure. I predict all the "no" votes will come from republicans. It's tit for tat.

The far more interesting point is the differential treatment of similarly situated organizations that are the recipient of federal funds. If misconduct on the part of an employee is sufficient to condemn the entire organization, then why target a NON-profit organization that exists to promote the interests of poor people, but not target an for-profit organization that exists to make money from death and war?

Here's SCANDAL: Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder

and here's another SCANDAL:

Another Mysterious Electrocution Death in Iraq

Quote:

Hermanson's family suspects that Adam may have died as a result of faulty electrical wiring. And they have good reason to think that--at least sixteen US soldiers and two contractors have died from electrocution. The Pentagon's largest contractor in Iraq, KBR (a former Halliburton subsidiary), has for months been at the center of a Congressional investigation into the electrocution deaths because the company has the massive LOGCAP contract and is responsible for almost all of the electrical wiring in US-run facilities in Iraq. The eighteen soldiers and contractors died as a result of KBR's "shoddy work," according to Senator Frank Lautenberg.

In the scandal surrounding ACORN, how many death and murder scenarios are we talking about?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know