0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 10:18 am
That's true. Always good to start the day with a little measure of influence.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 10:23 am
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?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 10:29 am
georgeob1 wrote:
That's true. Always good to start the day with a little measure of influence.


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.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 10:31 am
Hey george, here's a thought. Maybe I'm Rove, turned liberal. Very few thoughts are scarier than that.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 10:50 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 11:17 am
Quote:
(is it Carl or Karl?).



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?

Quote:
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


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.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 11:22 am
Lola wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Well, Glamor Gams, there you go again Twisted Evil


Observe the technique, my fellow liberals.

1. Never address the argument of your opponent.

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

Quote:
]2. Never engage in true debate. Instead poke fun of your opponent. Make condescending jokes. Be a little Socrates. Jab at their defenses and watch them squirm.

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

Quote:
3. Be above the criticism. Take on the persona of the beloved old fart whose patience has worn thin. Or alternatively smirk like a monkey. If too many people seem to be recognizing that you are doing the very thing of which you accuse your opponent, make an official statement that you've done nothing wrong. That everyone does it this way.

Observe how our beak faced friend enjoys rubbing it in. Proof positive of the lack of compassion in the new "compassionate conservative."

A clear-and-certain irony there, IMO


Quote:
4. Use their own words against them. Ignore them when they do theh same

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

Quote:
5. Never admit weakness.

This phantom compassion if emphasized by the presence of cruelty. As evidenced by Bush's little smirking face. It is clearly a characteristic he is unable to hide. Gloating is so very unattractive.

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"

Quote:
5. Be willing to be unattractive to anyone who thinks past the party line.

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.

Quote:
6. Think not at all about your own inconsistency.

7. Accuse your opponent of inconsistency whether it's there or not. It it's not there, never worry, provide a backwards definition of your opponent's intentions, accuse them of your own failings and........

8. Ridicule the inconsistency of your opponent.

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.

Quote:
You know, if I keep working on this, I should be able to come up with a new 10 commandments.

Edited for incorrect punctuation.

9. Lie

There you go again Laughing Twisted Evil Laughing


georgeob1 wrote:
... Always good to start the day with a little measure of influence.


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:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 02:04 pm
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
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 03:41 pm
Quote:
What argument? All I see is whinln', complainin', denial, avoidance, label-mongerin', obstructionism, mischaracterization, and all-around negativity.


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.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 03:48 pm
Quote:
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.


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?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 03:54 pm
Oh thank you Lola. You didn't let me down by not providing the 100% predictable liberal response. Smile

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.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 03:59 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:01 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:03 pm
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. Smile
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:04 pm
McGentrix wrote:
If I am not mistaken, Lola in using the word "pavrovian" is speaking in terms of the famous physchologist Pavlov and his experiments.


The famous "physchologist" Pavlov?

Talk about casting stones...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
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. Smile


You are quite correct. It is only "new" to us backward neo-commie-fascist-libbo-hookers. It's always nice to learn something new...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:17 pm
You left out Jacobin Smile
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:22 pm
Just for historical accuracy, Pavlov was the Ruskie dude that some dogs trained to ring a bell and feed them whenever they salivated.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 05:35 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
If I am not mistaken, Lola in using the word "pavrovian" is speaking in terms of the famous physchologist Pavlov and his experiments.


The famous "physchologist" Pavlov?

Talk about casting stones...


Well, he was a physiologist who dabbled in psychology. What would you call him?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 05:49 pm
Fair enough, McG....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.88 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 06:52:39