Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

Well, that's a good thing.

Lola:-

What's the technique called when you make your opponent look so ridiculous that they slink off sulking.

That's called "the Lola".

FreeDuck wrote:


Very funny, you two.

By way of my best attempt at an answer to that question is this: It depends on the situation. In the case that you want (it serves your purpose) to make your opponent look foolish, slinky and prone to sulking, it's called success. Not only that but you've managed to make them shut up, at least for a while. And shutting up is an admission of guilt. So you've made them look guilty to the onlookers, who are your real audience anyway if you're trying to win an election. Of course, if you've got the upper hand and they keep coming back for more, you've provided a way for them to look foolish. So they can't win.

But it's a good idea to remember that once the battle is won (in this case, the election) it's not a good idea to humiliate them further. That only lays the ground work for a furious counterattack. And you're own medicine is always nasty. So in that case, you reach out to them and hope they will be able to work with you. You try to appeal to thier self interest and offer them a workable deal.

I always hope for a better tomorrow, where we learn from our mistakes rather than blindly repeating them. But some people have said I was naive in this. And I believe I might be.

Naive little Lola. Sad story.

Election proves democracy is a sham
If we've learned anything from the Nov 2 disaster, it's that democracy doesn't work.

"It depends on the situation."

"It depends on the context."

Suppose your opponent is ridiculous.Such as when he thinks he can beat you without him having done any serious homework or engaged in energy sapping activities.And his conservative argument technique consisting of pooh-poohing erudition and disciplined study in the service of conserving his dignity.I've seen that done a few times on here.

If shutting up is an admission of guilt what has blatham done?

While we are on supposing what if the onlookers don't vote.I don't vote and there's millions like me in that respect.In fact the non voters at the last elections in both our countries beat the rest easily.
If things continue as they have been voting could soon start looking like deviant behaviour.

Isn't Lola sweet?Fancy not wishing to humiliate your opponents.If you could make your opponents look so ridiculous that they slink off sulky-like you could win the next election without spending any money and the savings could be diverted into good causes such as reducing the price of beer instead of being squandered on new frocks and jewels for the wives of the highly paid practitioners of the persuasion professions who wouldn't be needed.One might have thought that a good liberal would be in favour of that even if it does employ the "kill shot".

Certainly if we want to follow the conservative technique then let this be the example when your opponent is on the ropes.

And now that I have Spendius down, in light of my previous post on taking the baseball bat to an opponent. (or maybe I should use a cricket bat)

yeah.. well.. uh.. . um.. uh............. I bet you like mushy peas too....

But it works to pooh-pooh when you have a million screaming fans. Fans that have done less study and whose only use of energy is to figure out where the "on" button is on the remote. Fans willing to believe everything you say is "God's truth" and anyone that doesn't agree with you is an "overeducated liberal." Why be king when you can be O'Reilly or Hannity?

It's so easy to belong to that group. When they wander outside of it to try to create their own little fiefdoms they often find without the power of the mob they don't have many defenses so they scurry back to it and tell their tales of how they stood up to the "liberal elite" and won. In their mind they never look ridiculous.

The fault lies with democracy...a hopeless system.

So you'd prefer Communism , I guess

That depends. I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. :wink:

They are to those who don't know what either is.

Yep.I'm one.

LOLA WROTE


You might have thought I missed that.

Not that I understand mind you.

I would prefer that you can tell the truth by telling a lie.

That's fiction and it's all fiction.Architecture is fiction.That tells a lie for us and it also tells the truth about us.It gives us hope.

Would you not like to be a STAR?
You could have your own chat show if you were a STAR.At your age Diana Vreeland was only just getting into her stride.
You could have one of those chat shows where you get to show your lovely legs off and ask probing questions of the leading personalities who are making the news.You could interview Mr Rove and show him up in front of the nation for the..(you fill this in)that he is.Man to man so to speak.The clash of the Titans.You could look him right in the eye and ask him straight out about whatever you think is his biggest mistake or his greatest failing.With no hiding place.
When you invent a word as good and as bad as PAVROVIAN,(it is yours isn't it?),using a man's name, which might end up in the OED he will have made a note of you.I would if I was in his shoes which I'm very glad I'm not becuse it must be a tough place to be.
I hope you haven't posted anything indiscreet on these threads which Mr Rove's staff could use in the Lola/Rove aftermath to call your judgement or your character into question.You couldn't be a STAR then.And once you're a STAR you'll be on easy street.

It's a good word you know.Great even.You should be able to get one of the New York columnists to use it.Just ring one up.It could catch on and the columnists won't be able to claim the credit because it's on here before it was used.The OED would have to credit you.
It's in the same league as the "used car salesman" thing but much more classy and biting.
It suggests that Mr Rove is into doggy training with the voters as the doggies.It also suggests that he's good at it.Pavlov was an expert.If it caught on,which it deserves to, it could affect the next election.It catches the lot on that side.Then you would be a really BIG STAR and you could have two chat shows and you'd really be on easy street.
Pavlov showed that you could train dogs to do a range of tricks by giving them little thrills.What constitutes a thrill depends on the context.The grumpier the context the easier it is.
The voters wouldn't like that now would they Lola?

I see there's been naughtiness on this thread since I've been absent for the last day or so.

I'm not happy with people who show up simply to disrupt my thread.

Mr. dttt........I suggest you change your name and get back on topic.

parados:-

Me?
Down?

In what way?

I am rather partial to mushy peas.You have something right.

Here is one for all my liberal friends on A2K...

Supreme Court to Overturn Magna Carta

WASHINGTON, DC?-In a bold and unexpected move, the Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court voted Thursday to overturn the Magna Carta, finally paving the way for George W. Bush to be crowned King and Ruler of the United States later this summer.

Though the 6-3 decision marks a resounding defeat of constitutional democracy, conservative members of the Court were quick to point out the many benefits of getting rid of such an old, outdated document.

"I just wish everyone would calm down. It's not nearly as bad as it sounds," Justice Clarence Thomas said. "You'll like it better then that old system, I promise."

The Magna Carta, a 786-year-old document consisting of a preamble and 63 clauses, was the cornerstone of democratic development in England and informed both the spirit and language of the U.S. Constitution.

"Now it's toilet paper," laughed Justice Scalia. "And there's nothing you liberal mamby- pambies can do about it!"

Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority decision, ordered the Constitution and Bill of Rights be immediately redrawn according to the "Articles of the Barons," which predates the Magna Carta and more closely mimics the feudal hierarchy of 13th century England.

Scalia wrote,"the creation of democracy and protection of liberties for the common man was not the Founding Barons' intent and thus the weaker Magna Carta cannot stand as a barrier to the rights and prerogatives of the Barons and our soon-to-be-King George."

In an angry dissent, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg included travel literature for neighboring Canada, where she plans to move by the end of the summer.

Chief Justice Rehnquist decreed that a coronation ceremony for President Bush would be held on July 4th. "It is imperative," said Rehnquist, "that we seize the symbol of Independence Day and return it over to the monarchy and nobles, where it rightfully belongs."

A few clauses of the Magna Carta will be left intact, including numbers 1, 27 and 63, which assert the power and freedom of "The Church" to the exclusion of all minority religions, and establish the legality of President Bush's ability to "do crazy ****" without much legal recourse.

The beheadings will commence Tuesday in front of the Capital Building

Very funny McG, I love a good laugh.



The scarey part is fear often makes people laugh