Never vote Republican, no matter what.

I think it's those reams of information that convinces the average Republican/conservative though Edgar, and it is the sometimes idiotic arguments of the leftwing fringe that alarms so many conservatives. I've said many times, the reason conservative talk radio is so successful is because the conservatives can articulate their reasons for their beliefs so much more clearly than can the liberals articulate their beliefs. (And this relates to the general consensus here that conservatives are more likely to be Republican and liberals are more likley to be Democrats, though neither are universally exclusive.)

"sometimes idiotic arguments of the leftwing fringe [that] alarms so many conservatives."

Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country. They do not even care which one it would be. I can guarantee you -- I don't need to go to Mr. Schmuck [pollster John] Zogby and ask him his opinion. I don't need anyone's opinion. I'll give you my opinion, because I got a better stethoscope than those fools. It's one man's opinion based upon my own analysis. The most -- I tell you right now -- the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don't even care which one. They'd like an indiscriminate use of a nuclear weapon.

In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity but I'll get here a little later, I'll move up to that. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings. ... Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don't think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. Just before -- I'm going to give you a little precursor to where I'm going. Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I'm not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans.

Well there's a big difference between fighting for civil rights, and fighting for homosexual marriage, you moron. It's a big difference for fighting for the equality of all men, despite their race, and fighting for perversion, you idiot! You think people are stupid?"

I'm going to tell you is what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today. That's how you boil this down. And it doesn't have to be Al Qaeda. What's good for terrorists is good for John Kerry. All you got to do is check the way they react. [3/15/04]

25) So the only real question is, if Al Qaeda's active and capable, what are they going to do? Because we know what they want: they want Kerry, they want the Democrats in power. They'd love that -- I mean, based simply on what they're saying and how they're reacting to what happened in Spain. I'm not guessing. [3/15/04]

26) They [Democrats] celebrate privately this attack in Spain. [3/16/04]

27) I mean, if you wonder -- if you want the terrorists running the show, then you will elect John Kerry, who is a bed brother with this guy who just won election in Spain. [3/18/04]

28) I'm telling you, we're in the midst of a huge liberal crackup. They are so motivated by the quest for power. They are so motivated by rage and hatred, that they are not in power. And they focus that on Bush. That they have aligned themselves unwittingly -- I'm going to grant them that -- with those who intend harm on this country. [3/24/04]

29) You don't hear the Democrats being critical of terrorists. In fact, you hear the Democrats saying, "We've got to find a way to get along with them." [4/5/04]

33) [Speaking about Democrats] I don't know who they are, I don't know what they believe, but I can't relate. I can't possibly understand somebody who hates this country, who was born and raised here. I don't understand how you hate this Constitution. I don't understand how you hate freedom. I don't understand how you hate free markets, but that's who elites are, because freedom and free markets challenge their power. It's the only thing I can come up with. I know it's much more insidious and hideous than that, but I still can't relate to it. [3/16/04]

The young Kerry seems to have fallen in the latter category, communist apologist. ... John Kerry deserves to make atonement to the Vietnamese people -- not for what he did as a young soldier but for what he has done ever since to justify communist tyranny in Vietnam and elsewhere.

Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches: "These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot."

I am absolutely convinced that God is far from finished with the story of the United States of America. ... First of all, [there's] the matter of the little battle that must be fought, just as it was in the 19th century." There were, and are, "two incompatible moral visions for this country. We had to settle it then. We're going to have to settle it now. I hope not with blood, not with guns, but we're going to have to settle it nonetheless. The good news is that I think our side is finally ready to settle it. Roll up its sleeves, take off its jacket, and get a little bloody. Spill a little blood. We'll settle it. And we'll win. And then there's no holding us back.

I don't really consider the Democrat party a party of the people anymore, nor do I consider the socialist Democrats (they are not "liberal", that's just a euphemism for socialist anymore) "nice people who are misguided." I consider them to be pure, raw evil, who want to destroy everything rational or beautiful in sight: success, prosperity, even the very security of the country.

"I hate all you f*ing Democrats. You f*ng deserve to be die. Hopefully we can kill the f*ing bunch of you soon..."

Fuckin Leftist traitors break the law and think they should get away with it?! **** YOU YA GODDAMN LEFTIST PUKES AND DON'T EVEN THINK OF ******* WITH FREE REPUBLIC MOTHERFUCKERS!

WE WILL BEAT YOU DOWN IN THE STREETS NEXT FALL!!!!

... If I see you or any of your comrades from Dem Underground I will kick the living **** out of you you filthy faggotcunt traitor

DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS LEFTIST OUT ON THE STREET YOU PIECE OF **** OR YOU WILL BE BEATEN UNCONSCIOUS YOU GODDAM ENEMY OF AMERICA!!!!!

"I can confirm that I've received threats at my office and my home," she told CNN on Saturday. "I did get a bomb threat to my home."

She added, "I have gotten a lot of very vile e-mails. The bomb threat was by phone."

Blatham, I think it would be useful for most of us to review various kinds of fallacies on a Fallacy Thread, and I would suggest, that at least to start, the examples should not be about hot button subjects.

... rather than offer your own argument to counter a particular thesis...

You have to be against capital punishment for any reason but support abortion on demand for any reason.

The most disheartening thing about it is the Republicans, neocons, and growing segments of society, truly believe their viewpoint(s) is correct and can spout reams of information "proving it." The Democratic party, recognizing this, generally voice only token opposition anymore, hoping to snag enough undecideds to win the presidential election, meantime losing more and more ground at the state level.

how nice, another right winger screaming of victimhood. will wonders never cease.

i certainly do not see much in your debating skills foxfyre. what i do see from your posts are half-baked observations, warmed over slogans and debunked theories on economics, civics and capitalism, all merely figleaf ornamentation masking a life philosophy based on little but self-interested greed and a total disregard for any compelling social contract.

and lies, foxfyre, blatant, incorrigible lies.

but, if debate is what you want, start a thread and pick a topic, and so as not to take advantage of poor little ole' you, the woebegotten victim that you are, i'll let you decide which side you want to take.

Craven, your argument 'proving' your assumption of what I meant and what I said in my post - two of my posts have to be considered - are so far off the mark of my thesis that it is laughable.

I was responding directly to this comment by Edgar

Quote:

The most disheartening thing about it is the Republicans, neocons, and growing segments of society, truly believe their viewpoint(s) is correct and can spout reams of information "proving it." The Democratic party, recognizing this, generally voice only token opposition anymore, hoping to snag enough undecideds to win the presidential election, meantime losing more and more ground at the state level.

Now if that isn't true, why wasn't this challenged?

And you therefore use fallacious (I hate that word but you seem to be particularly fond of it) arguments to attack me personally.

Your preferred style of debate seems to be to take one or two points, whether or not they are in context, and argue their merits.
This is effective only if your argument does not change the other's point into something else. If you change the context or change the subject in a rebuttal, you would be scored down in a real debate. In most cases it would merit a loss.

Do I feel I was singled out for criticism here. Yes. That is pretty obvious.

Whether or not you are a liberal, I think you demonstrated well my thesis of how most liberals have problems articulating a defense for their point of view.

The preferred method for many (most?) liberals seems to be to ignore the opposition's thesis, which is what Edgar said. That pretty much leaves only the opposition itself to attack.

Quote:

My Quote:
And you therefore use fallacious (I hate that word but you seem to be particularly fond of it) arguments to attack me personally.

Your Response:

Bull, you seem to just want to say this but it's not true. Identify the fallacy I used. Anyone can type the word fallacy, but you can't support your assertion.

Quote:

My Quote:
Your preferred style of debate seems to be to take one or two points, whether or not they are in context, and argue their merits.
This is effective only if your argument does not change the other's point into something else. If you change the context or change the subject in a rebuttal, you would be scored down in a real debate. In most cases it would merit a loss.

Your response:

I will admit every statement in my post is extreme and fallacious if we attempt to apply it to every liberal. But I believe it is well documented--and no I'm not going to hunt up links so don't even ask--that every argument posted has been made or at least insinuated by liberals on message boards, in speeches, in political discourse, etc. including at least many here on A2K.

This gives conservatives a huge amount of ammunition. Several of the assertions can no doubt be countered and disputed at least in part with documented facts, but liberals don't seem to be able to articulate their side as well.

Here on A2K could possibly be the exception.

It has been my observation, however, that many, if not most, liberals in this situation will 1) condemn/dismiss the messenger, and/or 2) condemn/dismiss the list, and/or 3) condemn conservatives/GOP in general and/or 4) change the subject. Very few will take any point and attempt to make the liberal case for it.

This should not be construed that I think no liberal can make a rational argument for their conviction or point of view. It's just that on so many issues, so few seem to be able to articulate a complete argument and I think this is their particular weakness going up against conservative when values/points of view are debated. I am simply giving my perception of Edgar's post.

1) When people try to assert inconsistency or hypocrisy of positions it shouldn't be done across a spectrum of people or you will probably end up referencing inconsistency between the positions of different people.

Here's one of the ones you posted:

Quote:
You have to be against capital punishment for any reason but support abortion on demand for any reason.



Now it was in the ridiculous context of trying to assert that a "good liberal" must be a cartoonish one that can easily be dismissed but we'll try to take it seriously anyway.

Some liberals support capital punishment and some do not support abortion.

To allege inconsistency across this demographic you will be alleging inconsistency between the beliefs of different people.

Can you honestly say this was in response to what I wrote?

Can you point out how the capital punishment vs abortion was anything other than an illustration in my argument?

Can you point out any place I used more than a general observation re my opinion of conservative vs liberal arguments with my opinion that conservatives usually have an advantage when arguing any particular issue?

Or maybe I'm silly to think that A2K members are capable of more than one dimensional thinking. Maybe I am simply not simple enough.

I actually would have enjoyed seeing somebody show how liberal arguments do not have to be attacks on the messenger and/or do not have to cast aspersions on the character and moral fiber or mindset of the opposition. While I know many liberals who can do that, I haven't seen much evidence of it on this thread. Again I think Craven's argument defends my thesis.

I prefer to go with the substance of the argument rather than make conclusions about the moral implications of how a question is framed or an argument is illustrated.

Thanks for making my case for me.

Foxfyre wrote:

Thanks for making my case for me.

What case? That you are unable to address the substance of an argument and that you'll turn every argument into a sob story about your victimhood?

You posted something you claim is "ammunition" against liberals. I addressed it and then you start complaining about context and victimhood again, steadfastly refusing to addesss the counter-arguments that you had asked for earlier.

You've made no case at all, just the usual victim game.