Bush supporters' aftermath thread

That's true. Always good to start the day with a little measure of influence.

Moonbats on Parade http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050316.shtml

Michelle Maulkin.......now that girl knows how to argue like a true fanatic. Do you suppose she was born to it too?

You're a real sweetie, disguised as a conservative, george. And it is good for everyone to have influence with which to start the day. Otherwise, the boat gets rocky.

Hey george, here's a thought. Maybe I'm Rove, turned liberal. Very few thoughts are scarier than that.

I have always noted a subtle Rove-like auora about you Lola. Actually not so subtle- here you are after all advocating the use of the same tactics you ascribe to him by the "liberals". (As if they haven't been using them expertly for many years.)

Surely you don't suggest that the loonie left menagerie of Teddy Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Barbara Boxer (living proof that short people should be shot) is any less mean-spirited and vindictive than the evil Rove (is it Carl or Karl?).

However thank you for continuing to acknowledge that we like each other, despite our often (but not always0 differing world views.

It's Karl.

Have you ever considered reading a little about the political situation so that you have the sense that you're making up your own mind?



I've never suggested this. I surely wouldn't suggest that short people be shot, I'm a whopping five foot two. Everybody's trying to get what they need. It's simply that some techniques work better than others. In this case our technique to win has to match our opponent's. But I believe we can do it without sacrificing our values. There's nothing evil in Rove's techniques that I'm suggesting (I was kidding when I suggested #9 to lie). It's not his technique that is evil, it's his essence. It's his values that suck, IMHO.

So we'll use his techniques, those that are fair, to support our values, just as he uses them to support his. In regard to his cheating tactics.......we'll have to resort to catching him better, with surprise, I suspect so he can't duck and weave so fast no one notices.......and we'll need to work on that one in one of our many liberal think tanks being developed as we write. (I know we have a few, but we need as many as the conservatives have.)

But do observe the technique, george. It's easy to deal with the situation you mention. (That I'm suggesting we use the same techniques for which I'm critisizing my opponent.) And this is the absolute beauty of it........ignore the all arguments made by your opponent. Think not at all about inconsistency. Continue to point out the opponent's weaknesses and liabilities.......no matter if they are the same as yours. The worst that can happen to you is that your opponent will do back to you what you're doing to them. And then it's a real battle fought on a level field. It's my expertise versus my opponent's.

But there is this danger. Which, between you and me, I fear. If the skill level is equal.......you'll have a stalemate.......and if neither side is willing to problem solve or negotiate, then that's where you'll be stuck for eternity or until someone dies. All out war is likely. And that's always a shame. (Except for old warriors) Which is where we are about now, I'd say. Here's hoping there are some adults out there when the time comes.

What argument? All I see is whinln', complainin', denial, avoidance, label-mongerin', obstructionism, mischaracterization, and all-around negativity.


Difficult to debate a point not made - what, apart from Bush/Neocons/Republicans/Business/Funamental Christianity = Evil is your point?


A clear-and-certain irony there, IMO



Never pass up a straightline - and gotta hand it to The Opposition - they are an endless source of wonderful straight lines.


I'd say the problem more is what which side perceives to be weakness; much of what seems to me to be The Opposition's perception of Conservative weakness simply is Opposition opposition to Conservative position. "We don't like that. Its an inherent and unacknowledged weakness; we, not sharing it, therefore clearly are superior in all ways. And we're smarter and prettier, too"


Now, it may just be me, but it seems to me there is considerably more difference of focus and divergent opinion among, and broadly, publically discussed by, the Conservative camp than may be found within the Opposition camp.


Love the ongoin' irony here. What comprises Opposition position and proposals other than "replace Bush and regain power"? Angst and discontent do not constitute a plan of action.


There you go again




I love the smell of good Irish influence in my coffee in the mornin' - just a wee drop, of course, to sweeten and smooth that all-important, day-formin' wake-up cup :wink:

Speaking of the Irish, IMO, the following is what you get with a president guided by principles instead of self interests or politics. No doubt the libs will use this as another example of the President incurring the hatred of the world, however.

March 15, 2005, 8:08PM

The latest 'Irish question' finds way to White House
By CRAGG HINES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Every now and then, geopolitics seems to leave the realm of the real and venture into the terrain of overwrought fiction or even unhinged cinematics. That will be the case Thursday as a bizarre skein of events threads itself into the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

On the surface, it may be a traditional observance of St. Patrick's Day, as one more Irish prime minister gives one more American president one more crystal bowl of shamrocks.

President Bush and Prime Minister BertieAhern may speak with lofty sadness of a startlingly altered dynamic in the decades-long debate over the division of the Irish isle. New pledges of good faith will almost certainly be made. It will be warm, probably even chummy, but ultimately clinical.

To tell the full tale, the screenplay must flash back.

First, to a world-record $50 million bank robbery in Belfast in December, which was quickly attributed to the Irish Republican Army, the terrorist-military wing of Sinn Fein, the dominant republican political party in Northern Ireland. Party leaders were at the same moment in supposedly serious peace talks.

So much for good-faith negotiations.

The scene changes to the night of Jan. 30 and Magennis's, a republican pub in the Short Strand area of Belfast.

A dispute over one man's alleged remark or gesture to a woman turns violent. The man's throat is slit. A friend who comes to his aid is stabbed and stomped. Both men lay on the street outside; the first man was unconscious; his friend, Robert McCartney, was dead.

A routine enough ruckus but one that in the intervening six weeks has transformed debate on the Irish question on both sides of the Atlantic. For the assailants were said to be easily identified operatives of the IRA who reportedly announced to the pub's patrons: "This is IRA business."

Initially, the IRA and its political associates disclaimed any role in or knowledge of McCartney's killing, even as it quietly promised the usual treatment (death) for any of the 70 or so people in the bar who might have been thinking about speaking up.

It has since developed that a Sinn Fein candidate was in the pub, although she initially denied it and says she saw nothing.

When mounting evidence made its denials of involvement untenable, the IRA, reverting to form, calmly offered to murder at least some of its members who had taken part. Even after years of IRA's violent outrages, politicians in Britain and Ireland were left virtually speechless.

The reaction has properly washed across the Atlantic.

It has left Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein chief and leading nationalist figure for three decades, as a virtual persona non grata, so tainted that even Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the ultimate U.S. advocate of the republican cause, has canceled a St. Patrick's Day meeting with Adams. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a leading republican advocate in the U.S. House, has suggested it is time for the IRA to disband.

Kennedy spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner said the senator's decision was made "given the IRA's ongoing criminal activity and contempt for the rule of law." King told RTE, Ireland's state radio, that it was "hard to see what the justification is for the continued existence of the IRA."

Bush, who has played far less of a public role than President Clinton in the debate on Northern Ireland, refused to invite Adams to the White House for St. Patrick's Day, the first such snub in 10 years. Instead, Bush has invited McCartney's five sisters to the White House reception.

The McCartney sisters have been the focus of a campaign to have their brother's killers brought to justice. The women are the personification of working-class Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland who have been the backbone of the republican movement over the decades of The Troubles.

And they are a worthy symbol of the personal costs of the senseless bloodshed that has stood in the way of reaching a permanent power-sharing agreement between the Protestant majority and Roman Catholic minority in Northern Ireland.

Adams has conceded that the killing of McCartney has put Sinn Fein "on the back foot" and has even said it may be time for the IRA to disband. But he warned in New York on Monday that the IRA should be seen "leaving the stage in a dignified way."

Adams, with his own long history of association with the IRA, can harbor any fantasy he likes about how the murderous gang should depart ?- just so long as it goes quickly.

That point should be made clear to Adams in a private meeting still scheduled for today at the State Department with Mitchell B. Reiss, Bush's special envoy on Northern Ireland.

The rationale for the meeting is that lines of communication need to remain open. Fair enough. So long as Adams gets the right message to take home and acts on it once he is there.

Hines is a Houston Chronicle columnist based in Washington, D.C. ([email protected])
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3086974

You think you didn't make a point when you said, "there you go again?" Oh please. You can't be that naive. Not my Timber. Can you believe there's no emoticon for love? I must object. How is a poster to indicate true love? xoxoxoxx

Otherwise, timber you've offered us so many good examples of how to argue or should I say manage conservatives that I find I haven't the time to comment on all of them. You have to be awarded a collection of A pluses. I believe you've got it. Do keep up the good work.

Conservatives, they'll never learn to stop being so negative. Negative pavrovians, all. With this level of negativity, how do they expect to do the necessary work of government single handedly. I mean, they seem to have a problem admitting they need help. There are examples of their denial all over this board. Dangerous stuff. I think I'm getting the shivers, I'm so frightened. I better be careful, pretty soon they'll be sending me to Gitmo. I'll be exiled and oppressed. Tortured even.

I'll have to call the Monty Python crew to stand outside the gates of the concentration camp and yell, Help! Help! Lola's bein oppressed!

All they need now is little swastikas for their arm bands.

uuuuughghuuu......I'm gagging. Can you believe the poor reality testing? I fear the conservatives are on the psychotic fringe, heads buried in deep do do, so to speak. Oh man, look at that. Have you seen anything more pathetic?

Oh thank you Lola. You didn't let me down by not providing the 100% predictable liberal response.

You see, its precisely that you gag when somebody on our side, most particularly the President, does something good that just keeps whittling away at your political negatives and pushing ours up.

Edit: rewrote the above sentence two posts down.

And there we have a new argument technique by the cons. Define the position of the other side in the stupidest possible way so that if they don't respond at all, it sticks, and if they do respond other than expected it makes them look like bootlickers.

I'm very happy if the president wants to whittle away at my sides' political negatives, especially if it means pushing up your sides' political negatives. Cons can never have too many negatives.

If I am not mistaken, Lola in using the word "pavrovian" is speaking in terms of the famous physchologist Pavlov and his experiments.

If I recall, Pavlov was able to condition animals to respond to stimuli creating a "Pavlovian" response.

So, isn't Lola disparaging most of the liberals in the world when she speaks of "pavrovian" responses?

Karl Rove or G.W. Bush do something or say something and liberals start foaming at the mouth... a "Pavrovian" response to be sure, but I never thought I would see a liberal say as much.

tsk, tsk Lola. Far below your teachings that you have been crusading.

Oops, that's the way that reads doesn't it. Okay, I'll amend it to be something on the side of empty liberal rhetoric expressing disgust and ungraciously refusing to acknowledge anything good from the side right of center are bound to see their negatives increase while increasing the political fortunes of those they disdain.

And psssst FD, this is not a new argument technique. We've been using it since 1994.

The famous "physchologist" Pavlov?

Talk about casting stones...

You are quite correct. It is only "new" to us backward neo-commie-fascist-libbo-hookers. It's always nice to learn something new...

You left out Jacobin

Just for historical accuracy, Pavlov was the Ruskie dude that some dogs trained to ring a bell and feed them whenever they salivated.

Well, he was a physiologist who dabbled in psychology. What would you call him?

Fair enough, McG....