I'm now a temporary conservative.

Edgar, I used to live in La Porte.

I agree with Edgar. The type of "conservatives" in Houston and Dallas and probably La Porte as well, were not misquoted by Edgar. There are conservatives and there are conservatives and Edgar was speaking exactly like many a conservative I've known in Texas.

I worked in LaPorte in the 80s.

Edgar

This goes some distance to explaining why representatives of the administration have, over the last little while, come up here and suggested that Canada is too concerned with privacy and civil rights, mistakenly putting dollars towards social programs rather than the defence industry, and that we risk economic repercussions if we decriminalized marijuana possession for personal use.

I just touched the tip of the iceburg.

I know. On another thread, I suggested you folks get together and become a Canadian province. It would do wonders for your image in the world (a pilot was telling me just several days ago how many Americans travelling abroad wear conspicuous maple leaf insignia). We'll call you...uh...Nova Texarcana.

(Am violating my previous promise to myself not to post until I am back on broadband because this thread has been so stimulating. It's really no bother, Craven.)

Craven's had much fun with this and I applaud (and envy) his intellectual rigor.

I for one took the bait from both he and edgar hook, line, and sinker.

(I'm once again on an infernal dialup so there won't be any quoting for attribution. Conservative Craven can't be bothered to click on a link, anyway.)

If you'll page back a bit and look at CC's response to my last word on the topic, you'll note what I have found to be a classic rebuttal technique from the Right: discredit the source.

In all my years of debate training and coaching the most convincing evidence that could be presented was from a published, knowledgeable source advocating your POV (or the POV you were assigned to argue).

"published" and "knowledgeable", especially online, are themselves debatable terms, however. I gave up justifying my sources but won't quit citing them; I just do my best to screen them myself for bias.

CC also takes his argument personal when it no longer stands on its own intellectually.

Boy, I have never seen that happen before.

(aside to Craven: I believe the part about not bothering if I couldn't do any better at making my point was the part that made me realize how far down my throat was the fishing pole. It's amazing how quickly and effectively the gag reflex works sometimes.)

And there is no actual refutation of the points I made, despite CC's coming to the opposite conclusion. Invective, yes, but no factual rebuttal ("You make this sound worse than it is", blahblahblah).

My first response is always to grit my teeth and begin muttering. What that should tell me is that this is actually not a conservative's problem but a liberal's; we have all said to ourselves, "Why can't they--(cons)-- see/understand/get this?" which typically leads to "they are ignorant/stupid/uncaring" etc. Perhaps we can agree that calling one another dumb does not advance the discourse, but as Craven has learned--and taught--it helps to see the other person's POV once you have felt a bit of their pain. (Real conservatives are not capable of this much empathy, but I digress. :wink: )

My hat is off to you, Craven. I'm glad we agree on so much because I wopuld hate to oppose you on a regular basis. You would make me work too hard--something REAL conservatives rarely do.

Mega-dittoes, PDiddie.

About the Tomball, Magnolia syndrome, and since I don't live too too far away from all that (but rather in the general area of liberal Austin, newly redistricted by Tom the bugman to keep Dem representation outta there), I'd have to say once again that the most disturbing aspect is conservative rage+resentment+absolute certainty. It's considered wimpy to say, Let's discuss this, or Let's compromise -- suggestions met with scorn and anger. Consensus is dumb; forced agreement is what it's all about. The problem with the other side is that it doesn't think there should be differences of opinion -- it's tired of all that "find common ground" stuff. They suck all the air out of the room.

An accurate observation, Tart. Neoconservatives did this very thing to Trent Lott because they thought he had compromised with the Dems too many times.

That bears repeating: Conservatives "Brutused" Trent Lott because they concluded he was no longer conservative enough.

And because Rick Santorum is a true warrior in the crusade, he is spared the sword. When Tom DeLay says he's proud of him, that should tell you all you need to hear.

Compromise isn't really part of the equation any more. It seems that conservatives would like to do to everyone with whom they disagree the same thing they did to the Taliban and the Iraqi civilians. Of course, when they cannot be killed they can be marginalized (the United Nations) or ridiculed incessantly (France, the Dixie Chicks).

Is this governing?

(BTW, I live about 20 minutes away from La Porte. We're of course light-years apart in terms of our thinking.)

Rather enlightening.. I could take the last 5 or so posts and replace "conservative" with "liberal" and and the comments wouldn't be any more right or wrong. It's amusing how some proclaim to "get it" then continue on in their next sentence with the same old rhetoric.

Too easy, Fishin'. And when I posted the above, I was pretty sure someone would make that comeback. But it's not true. You can say a lot of things about liberals, but you can't say they are not consensus seekers. And many feel an intense dismay yes, but on the liberal side the visceral rage is just not there. The liberals have more "verquenza" -- they tend to look for the fault in themselves before even turning their eyes to their opponents. That, indeed, is considered wimpy...

LOL Ok Tartarin, You can continue to believe that if you'd like but you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. There are plenty of liberals that refuse to give any ground on issues from abortion to environmental issues (Koyoto ring a bell?) to a host of other things.

I've been attacked by quite a few liberals on Abuzz that harbor plenty of rage. Take the blinders off. It's there. For one reason or another you've just shut it out or refuse to see it for what it is.

This concept of "My side is always right, your side is always wrong" that tends to permeate discussion groups is complete nonsense. You show me a fool on the right and I'll show you one on the left - both sides have plenty of them.

You will find nothing of the sort, you will find me asking you to substantiate your opinions with more effort than cut and paste. I said finding someone else's writings does not make you have a point. I did not discredit any source, I commented on the lack of intellectual curiosity that makes some think debate consists of cut and paste.



Sounds very boring, finding quotes and sources isn't as fun as having an opinion and defending it yourself.



This isn't about which sources, it's about my complete disinterest in reading someone else's writing when you try to validate your opinions, I can read and do so quite frequently. Nothing is more tedious than links to old op-ed pieces when the owner of he POV is too lazy to come up with his/her own thoughts.



Ironically, when I accuse your POV of intellectual bankruptcy you say I made it personal yet have no qualm in doing exactly the same. You have odd criteria.



Please read what I said again, I said you had no point. And no, cutting and pasting an article does not give you a point, it just demonstrates the ability to cut and paste.



Many gratuitous insults to conservatives therein, I will not bother, it's a waste of time.

tartarin,

This is NORMAL Craven speaking:

I think your comments here are ridiculous. You and anyone else trying to make the case that liberals are more open-minded and whatnot are doing liberals agreat disservice by being so blindly biased.

There are idiots on both sides, that you only see idiots on one side is relevant only to the intellectual level you debate from.

Bah, we are all idiots, otherwise we would be gods....it's all a matter of finding out what kind of idiot you are, and asking 'why?'

Could it be that I know nicer liberals, and less nice conservatives? Not trying to win any points here (and find the high wall between liberals and conservatives a convenient figment of the imagination of those who think in terms of win and lose). Just speaking from observation -- here on A2k and in my community. So, while I wouldn't be surprised if there are some enraged liberals out there (and I wouldn't blame them!), I'm talking about a political style of rage. You're not a real conservative if you aren't enraged...

And you are not tartarin unless you are blindly biased. You don't have to be a conservative to appreciate the ignorance you demonstrate here.

Poor Craven! ("Craven" is right!)

Now you are stooping to taking issue with screen names? And you can still, with a straight face, say that liberals are nice and conservatives aren't?

Tartarin, please demonstrate some rational thought.

Whoa, buddy! Pick on someone with the same sized illusion of self-importance! Oh nevermind, there aren't any...