Home › Blogs › BWall's blog ›

Enough with the screaming matches

Submitted by BWall on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 09:06
in

 I'm relatively new to this website, so feel free to disagree with what I'm saying.  However, particularly in the last week, I have noticed the level of constructive dialogue in the comments threads dropping rapidly as partisan anger increases.  Several posters seem intent on using nothing but ad hominem attacks instead of calmly and intelligently addressing their legitimate policy and philosophical differences.

It is not my role to police this forum, nor would I want to do so: I am just an observer and an infrequent commentator here.  However, I am grateful to have this forum as a place to read constructive ideas about the growth and development of conservative politics, and this forum is tainted when it becomes nothing but a pissing contest between who can repeat their mindless invective the most times.  This applies equally to posters on both sides of the political aisle.  

I have no authority here, and I would not be surprised to see the comments thread on this post filled with angry comments denouncing me for saying this.  That's cool.  All I am suggesting is that we focus on issues rather than personal attacks.  Hell, we're all anonymous on here anyway, and it's not like anyone is running for office, so we should feel free to discuss issues without being burdened by trying to tear down anyone personally.

4.25
Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (4 votes)

Comments

I feel the same way.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 09:33.

I don't see that much of a deep dialog going on here. I see a classic ideological battle shaping up within the Republican Party between the grassroot Tea Party movement against the status quo, the corporate elite of the party, as exemplified by the Crist/Rubio senatorial race in Florida, but there is virtually no real discussion on this salient issue in terms of the Next Right.

However, it is very important to at least let your voice be heard by going over to The People Decide and actually voting on pending legislation presently before Congress. Your vote will be displayed so that both you and your Congresswo/men can see how their constituencies voted on the issue.

I have no personal connections with this website other than having just joined myself, but I have long been an advocate of using the internet to give We, the people, a voice in our political system, and this site does deserve a look-see.

Please go there, check it out, and let your voice be heard. Then you can come back here and scream out your lungs on useless prattle.

          ex animo

          davidfarrar

Advocate for the health of the Right, not its demise

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 11:17.

I don't see that much of a deep dialog going on here. I see a classic ideological battle shaping up within the Republican Party between the grassroot Tea Party movement against the status quo, the corporate elite of the party, as exemplified by the Crist/Rubio senatorial race in Florida, but there is virtually no real discussion on this salient issue in terms of the Next Right.

I agree. The real challenge for the Republican party is how to respond to Obama's agenda. There are key threats: Socialized medicine, global warming tax / cap-and-trade, union check card, higher spending and more earmark/boondoggle Govt waste, higher taxes, and changes in the GWOT such as freeing Gitmo terrorists etc.

The NextRight is a disappointment mainly because it is completely out of touch with the building grassroots resistance to the Obama administration, the Tea Parties, and the complete and absolute adamant opposition from most conservatives to this far-left administration.  Missing the oppty to build a coalition on that is a huge whiffed oppty. We should be talking about the effective methods to 'Fight the Power' of an Obama Regime and rebuild the GOP 2.0.

A mistake was made here to not police the website and allow liberal trolls and mobys on here.  They give advice of the nature of "The GOP has a headache? Go put a bullet through your head, you creeps."  They hate conservatives, hate conservative leaders and want to destroy conservative influence in politics. So any advice will be useless "Become Democrat lite" garbage.

I know why the threads got ruined. I and other conservatives got sick of the liberal trolls here threadjacking and spouting DNC Talking Point BS and we challenged them on their BS and they went ballistic with ad hominems, which cycled into 'shouting matches', etc. I am unafraid to dish out what the lib-trolls deserve to hear because they are smarmy hypocrites who will blast the right for doing what the left does 10X more.

As for the liberal troll who doesn't want NextRight to become another RedState - CASE CLOSED. NextRight should ASPIRE to be another RedState-like site, with a POINT OF VIEW that actually advocates for the HEALTH of the right/GOP/etc  and with a policed thread administration that makes sure the site doesnt get derailed by those with an opposed agenda. RedState does good for the Right. Even Frum's site, which is more moderate, has at least an agenda to help the GOP. There is civility in those places because it is within bounds.

Every site has a POV. Sometimes it even changes (LGF is a changed site for example). NextRight doesnt have to be HardRight. But it sure shouldnt become OpenSeasonOnTheRight.

Patrick Ruffini will need to do some weeding and fixing. I'll be happy with whatever he decides to weed out. Me or the lib-trolls need to go. If we are botgh here expect fireworks because I wont take their BS lying down.

 

No one is saying cave, but...

Submitted by BWall on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 11:28.

Freedoms Truth, I have to admit, from what I see you contribute as much to the bad tone as any of the liberal posters.  I admire that you have convictions and you stick to them, but you throw out ad hominem attacks as much as anyone else on here.  Liberal "trolls" are not alone at fault here, and while I may disagree with points made by people in both parties, I respect those points when they are made clearly and intelligently.  This isn't a blame game here, so I would suggest to both you and to the liberals that you constantly butt heads with that you tone down the hate and focus on building an intelligent and rational dialogue. 

NextRight or BashTheRight?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 15:12.

Yes, maybe you are new here. Word on other right-blogs is that NextRight has been ruined by the lib-trolls. They say "read the articles, forget the comments, which are full of tripe and trolling'.  There are leftists on this site who want to parrot dKos level talking points and have an agenda. They want to turn NextRight into BashTheRight.

Here's what I was told last week in response to me critiquing someone who said the GOP was dead for a decade. This is their agenda:

The Left are not the pussies you've been hearing about in your comfy little echo chamber.

We're pissed, we've got you down and we're kicking the crap out of you.  And everyone that pays even the least bit of attention is cheering us on.

Whine as much as you like.  It's not going to stop. 

This kind of cr*p is why you saw some 'bad tone' from me. They hate me and the tens of  millions of like-minded conservative-leaning patriots, and want to come here and spread the hate and rub it in. They are not happy enough with Obama, owning the House, Senate, WH and steamrolling their agenda, they want to 'kick the crap out of' us.

I have not initiated, only responded to statements that were offensive, wrong or lib-type talking points.  They want to ruin NextRight with that kind of garbage. No thanks, I don't need to waste time in a mini-dKOS. They only want to bash my point-of-view, and I'm not going to take the bashing lying down. Not here, unless Ruffini et al lay down a different line. Like I said, if you want peace either the leftist trolls go or a patriot loyal Republican and folks like me go.

The cure for the tone is to kick out the liberal trolls who abuse NextRight's well-intentioned open-ness.

NextRight could be a great site if it focussed on the health of the right, the GOP and the vision, principles, strategies, tactics for getting back to a majority.  I am willing to discuss civilly with those who likewise desire the GOP and conservative ideals to succeed.  I am surprisingly tolerant of different views but will stand my ground, period, and decided to be very intolerant of liars and disruptors, which is what these trolls are. Those who hate me and people like me and say it to me face - what's the common ground? There is none. Whats the point? So either I go or they go or the head-butting will continue.

 Parody of the advice to GOP, my "advice to the Democrats':

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/advice-to-democrats.html

What this American patriot believes:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-this-american-patriot-bel...

 

dude! I don't hate you, I want you to succeed

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 15:25.

... at least somewhat. I'm a proud partisan, but I respect the two party system too much to want to see it completely destroyed.

Nonetheless, some of what you say gets my back up. And it's not what you say, always, but the tone. I think you might want to look at people like lagomorph, who somehow manage to always sound confounded sane, even when they put the blasted tin foil hats on.

Because I don't think you mean to be that incendiary.

Do you want the GOP to win back the House in 2010?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:50.

Do you want the GOP to win back the House in 2010? Or do you want the leftwing Democrats to maintain control?

Do you approve or disapprove of Obama?

If you approve of Obama and dont actually want the GOP to win in 2010, then you dont really have any interest in helping the GOP at all.  As such, any input on what the GOP should do is like kibbutzing your opponent in backgammon and is beyond suspect.

"Nonetheless, some of what you say gets my back up."

Nobody likes to be told their wrong. But I'm doing it for your own good, honestly. ;-)

Maybe one day you'll even wake up ...

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-from-recovering-liberal...

"lagomorph, who somehow manage to always sound confounded sane, even when they put the blasted tin foil hats on."

Sigh, there ya go again, dishing it out against good conservatives here when you cant/wont take it back in kind.

 

 

 

tinfoilhattery... lagomorph would admit it if you asked.

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 10:30.

Americorps as some sort of Brownshirts? That's tinfoil territory -- and though it's fun to look at out of the box things... yeah. sometimes they are Beyond Implausible.

BWall, another thought, consider the forest not the trees

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 15:39.

 You need to read David Horowitz and read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". Discover the Networks, so to speak.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/000002.html

There is an underlying agenda that you are missing here.

If you've read Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind" or seen Political Correctness up front in person, you might understand the dialectic at work here.

What's the forest, not the trees. The partisan wrangling here is a symptom or manifestation of a dialectic that is going on. It goes on at every level of our politics.

To be unware of it or not understand how it works is to perhaps misunderstand what is going on.

Your comments and desires remind me of why the antics of the left so often work. You, for good intentions, want to pacify and make things civil, and yet ... strangely, the more you try to pacify, the worse things get. If you are parent, like me, you might know the drill. Pacify your kid's screaming for attention and a toy and viola - he screams more the next day.

We conservatives  TOO OFTEN decide to be the good polite civil folks who dont get out of line. Which is why TOO OFTEN our leaders seem to be like wimps. Think of George W Bush, bashed mercilessly and defamed on the Senate floor by Ted Kennedy, yet then would be civil with him later. The Left knows this and takes advantage of it. They have their Code Pink wackos to be the temper tantrum 2 year olds to make a noise and rely on 'caring parent syndrome' to take over and make amends ... to their advantage.

Now that the left have won power, they are on another quest: NEUTER THE GOP. The only force of opposition to Obama-ism will be a principled and unified force for smaller Government, freedom and opposition to the prosperity-destroying aspects of his agenda. The chance is there, if the GOP seizes it, to build a politically effective counterweight. The core of that counterweight would be the conservative grassroots vehement opposition to Obama's agenda - as evidenced by the Tea Parties. IF THE GOP ELITES AND THE POPULIST TEA PARTIES JOINED IT WOULD SHIFT POLITICS SIGNIFICANT BACK FROM THE LEFTWARD TILT OF THE 2008 ELECTION.

So what do the Leftists need to do? THEY NEED TO SPLIT THE POPULIST GRASSROOTS FROM THE GOP ELITES. The number one way the left does this is to find ways to "ISOLATE" (Alinsky terminology) certain elements in the conservative movement. The obvious example of this is Rush Limbaugh. This came from the top - Obama's comment in January, Rahm E's talking it up to liberal MSM. A clear desire to both isolate Rush and use him to force a wedge in the GOP, the 'polarizing' Rush and the other side. Don't let that happen, because if we internally divide, the left wins.  That does not mean buying into the myth that GOP all follows Rush, but it means not falling into the trap of participating in their callout. Rush is one voice in the right, not a GOP leader at all but a part of the coalition, and in fact ALL voices in the center-right coalition need to be focussed not on INTERNAL criticism.

So when you see the fur fly on whether Rush or Olbermann is a bigger sexist, racist partisan jerk, what you are REALLY seeing is conservative deconstructing an Alinskyite attempt to engage in isolation technique and callout on Rush.

The fact that RINOs and moderates participate in this and engage in it, or want to 'pacify' often indicates their obliviousness to the underlying actions, motivations and agendas. IF you think the shouting matches are happenstance from people who cant control emotions, you are not understanding how power works. The above item on Rush is just one pimple on the rump of what the left is trying to do to neuter the GOP and create a lockhold on power.

The NextRight would do well to consider the ways that the Obama acolytes, the DNC, and the activist leftists are trying to cement their power structure.

 

 

 I would also like to see

Submitted by In between on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 16:30.

 I would also like to see constructive talk, but while you criticize Obama, it was Obama that was elected. There was a reason. Now for the last 8 years all we saw was lies, deceit, arrogance, ignorance, and blunders. It does not make much difference who Bush was, he was incompetent from the start. We saw a war on convenience and not of a necessity, it has cost over 1 trillion dollars, and many people died over the incompetence. The whole Middle East is a mess, the economy is a mess. We saw 8 years of tax cuts and we are back in a recession. So this is what I have seen. Maybe you see it differently. Add to that free trade and the loss of middle class jobs.

Now you have your right to criticize Obama and the democrats, but let us be fair. The republicans failed on a failed ideology. The whole Midwest voted for Obama. And there was a reason for this. Until, you figure it out, then why would people vote for republicans. You, as well as others have said the same old song and dance, and it is more than that. So let us fix what is broken and work together.

See ... BS ... Leftwing BS Talking Points

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:20.

 Now for the last 8 years all we saw was lies, deceit, arrogance, ignorance, and blunders.

Thanks for making my point. Leftists show up her with BS DNC Talking Point bashfests against conservatives and in this case Bush administration. that is not a serious comment, its an incendiary one.

You have a strawman unreal Bush in your head that neglects a lot of what the real Bush did. We saw in Bush compassion, leadership, tax cuts that helped the economy grow for 6 years, good SCOTUS appointees Roberts and Alito, prolife caring, saving millions of lives with AIDS in Africa relief efforts, multi-lateral solutions in many areas, finding and stopping Libya's WMD program,  resolve against the Taliban that took them out of power in 7 weeks, and lot more out of Bush. Last but not least, Bush salvage Iraq with the surge strategy at a time when the est of DC was ready to throw in the towel - that was leadership done right. See also:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986roc...

So let us fix what is broken and work together.

What's broken is your playback machine. Quit the bashing of Bush. He's gone. Quit parroting liberal talking points (and hoo boy, if you actually believe that tripe .... sigh.)  Get out of that loop and we can get into a productive discussion of what midwest wants out of DC.

 

 

And you make my point. No

Submitted by In between on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:47.

And you make my point. No wonder we cannot connect.

The economy was a false economy as Bush borrowed for his tax cuts and he borrowed for his war. This is called "guns and butter." LBJ did the same with the printing of money for Vietnam and for his Great Society programs. We suffered 20 years of inflation. Bush does the same with deficits and debt. And it was Cheney who said "deficits don't matter.

Bush saw no compassion except with the piling up of Tamiflu and his support in fighting AIDS in Africa. Bush was nowhere for three days till he showed up in Louisiana and then said "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job. Totally clueless. Bush was in la la land for over 3 years saying "We are winning the war on terror" when we were losing the war. Hence, you had the Iraq Study Group, General Petraeus and others that had to figure out on how to fix the war.

Leadership? Bush only followed the neocons. He got into various troubles only to have others to get him out of trouble.

Bush abandoned Afghanistan for Iraq. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban are still in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iraq was  a quagmire. We didn't have enough troops, the countries were not secure, many more people died needlessly, and Iran is the new leader in the Middle East. In short, the Middle East is a total mess. Bush never talked to Bob Gates, James Baker, Brent Scrowcroft, or his father before the war. There was a reason why Bush 41 stopped Schwartkopt from going to Baghdad. Bush 41 was right. Also the war is not paid for.

If you are going to have tax cuts, then you need to pay for them. Or at least you have tax cuts for two years and that is enough to drive the economy. Bush kept borrowing money on his failed ideology. With Bush it was just one way or no way. He never vetoed a spending bill until 6 years later when the democrats came into power. Bush ran the country into the ground with his ideology.

So here we sit with a financial crisis, a housing crisis, an auto crisis, free trade and the loss of middle class jobs, more people without healthcare insurance, higher unemployment, deficits and debt,and the Middle East in a mess. I am not saying he caused all these problems, but we have seen these problems pile up and certainly we saw the deficits and debt 5 years ago. 

And through all this, Bush said last year that "America, has no problems." 

So I would say Bush was delusional and had no business running the country. At the very least, what we saw was the presidency ran by a social conservative. And Ignorance by Limbaugh and Hannity. Like nothing said on deficits and debt. So I see at this time as the republicans as a total joke. 

Pacification or emulation?

Submitted by BWall on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:36.

I appreciate the polite tone you've taken with regards to my comments here, and I think I understand what you're getting at.  If I understand you correctly, you feel that the anger and hate you believe liberal posters use in their posts is an intentional device to divide and marginalize conservatives.  That does sound a LITTLE bit like a conspiracy theory to me, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.

Having said that, it seems to me that you feel that the most appropriate response is to yell back equally as stridently, and this is what I question.  You compared civil discourse in response to pacifying a child's desire by giving in and giving him or her what they want, only to get brand new demands the next day that also must be pacified.  First of all, that's not what I'm talking about here: I don't believe that you need to cave at all, but that you should express your convictions and your policy ideas all you want.  However, I do question the tone that you choose to use.  In my own parenting experience, I've found that parents who scream back at their kids just compound the problem, because all that screaming really accomplishes is to justify the behavior and help the parent get their own anger out.  However, it also reinforces to the child that screaming to get your way is adult behavior.  Rather, the appropriate stance to take is to gently but firmly explain your position and not back off of it: this way, kids realize that adults don't scream and that their screaming is not accomplishing anything.

Does this sound germane to what we're talking about?  Even if your theory is true, it seems to me that screaming back in response is not the best way to handle political disagreement.  I'm sure you've seen political debates where candidates lose their credibility when they lose their cool: in a forum like this, that's what happens when you get angry.  In contrast, the candidate that maintains his or her temper no matter how angry their opponent gets appears the more rational of the two, and his or her IDEAS (which are the key for a blog like this) are the ones that get heard.

Just some food for thought.  

Suivez la piste

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 18:07.

"I'll accept it for the sake of argument." 'Even if your theory is true"

Good gosh, dont do that!  Dont take it on my say-so, ever! Please, for goodness' sake, look, learn, understand what's right in front of you. .. I gave you the bread crumbs ... Horowitz (among others) has their number. Visit Redstate - keyword 'moby'.  ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1074278/posts

or

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/07/left-wants-in-on-tea-party-action/

Another tree in the forest ... how are THEIR meetings run ...

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/no-faith-in-austin-interfaith....

Suivez la piste!

If you dont 'get it' Ask questions here:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/leftist-disruption.html

Any question will be answered.

I've found that parents who scream back at their kids just compound the problem, because all that screaming really accomplishes is to justify the behavior and help the parent get their own anger out.

Except they are not kids. They are taking a verbal baseball bat to conservatives and the GOP. I think the rest of your comment suggests you dont quite get my point. "play nice" doesnt work when confronted by thugs. The question you need to ask yourself and havent is "Why are they here?" and "What is their goal?" and "Is their goal my goal?"

Once you realize that everything that *I* have said and done here is for a specific reason and I never once lost my cool ... you might understand.

Meanwhile your OWN thread has been threadjacked with a bunch of anti-Bush talking points. We are reduced to ruining this thread with non-german topic of the sins of President Bush or leaving such anti-Bush statements as 'inarguable'. Do you AGREE with "Now for the last 8 years all we saw was lies, deceit, arrogance, ignorance, and blunders."? If not ... answer the call!

 

 

 

the medium as the problem

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:10.

Part of the problem here is the medium in which we operate.  The Internet, because of its anonymity, simply does not lend itself to polite discourse.  Here, it is a piece of cake to call someone a godless communist traitor, but it's a lot harder to do that to someone's face.

Plus, because the discussion is asynchronous, the rules are just a little bit different for Internet discussions.  In a face-to-face discussion, if you make a point for which your opponent doesn't immediately have a good response, you may actually make him stop and think about your point for a moment.  Here, that just doesn't happen.  It may take a while, but he will always come back with a response (if he chooses to), and he doesn't have to respond directly to your points.  Because you can't really force the issue and make him respond to the point you were making as you could with a face-to-face discussion.  You can tell when you are making headway only when your opponent changes the subject or makes you the subject of the argument (e.g., charges of hypocrisy), instead of the discussion point at hand.  But you'll never see someone write "that's a good point, let me think about that a little bit", which is what you might hear from an actual conversation with an intellectually honest person.  The asynchronicity thus only encourages less than civil discourse.

Plus, because everything is written down, you can't really walk away from a discussion if you think you've been particularly humiliated.  You must respond, even if just to save face, and usually not in a particularly nice way, because if you don't, your written words may (and quite possibly will) be used against you in the future.  Not so with an oral face-to-face discussion.

Very good point

Submitted by BWall on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 00:21.

I suppose our willingness to listen is really the core issue here.  I've been spending a fair bit of time reading FT's posts (from above conversation) and thinking about them: while I still don't buy his theory (no offense, FT), it has caused some interesting introspection.  Still, I haven't even thought to note that, which I should have done.  So, thanks, FT, for your contribution.  

Ironically, it would seem logical that a blog like this would allow for that reflective silence to which you referred.  After all, we do not have to respond in real time, and that should give us the ability to take time to think about issues.  In addition to your point that this conversation is written down and therefore provides a "win-loss" element that an undocumented oral conversation might not, I would also imagine that part of the reason for the reflexivity and personal attacks is the nature of our conversations.  Many of us hold our political ideologies very close to our hearts, and so we attack whenever we perceive that they are threatened.  This does complicate the whole "willingness to listen," because a true willingness to listen suggests that we be open to changing our minds on certain issues.  When we come in with the inflexibility that many of us feel, however, we probably end up acting more like two lighthouses screaming at the other one to move.

Thanks for your input here, chemjeff. 

contributions

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 10:14.

Well thanks for your contribution too, even if you are a godless communist traitor.

Actually I wrote about this same phenomenon too, not long after I first joined, albeit from a slightly different angle.  I didn't mind the verbal back-and-forths so much, I was just disappointed that this site had degenerated into the typical left-right battleground.  Now it seems that it's only gotten worse and nastier.  It is just hard for a person like me to get my head around why a liberal would come to a conservative site just to stoke the flames of disagreement.  I can understand it maybe doing it once or twice for amusement, but repeatedly?  That just takes a level of self-righteous smugness and over-inflated ego that I find difficult to fathom.

It looks as if this place will soon turn into a mini RedState

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 10:11.

 

That will be sad. I hope some sanity prevails, both on this site and on the right at large.

It's the job of the moderates and the intellectuals to rein in the raging wingnuts, who by the sheer levels of noise they generate continue to set agenda for one-half of the political spectrum.

 I am confident though, The Next Right will be one of the last remaining lights for sane minds in the right.

And hopeful that NR will turn into rightopshere's beacon for postive, influential action and a leading reality-based community of ideas on the right.

If you don't want another RS

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 10:36.

Then stop saying liberal talking points as if they were obvious, and that conservatives were just closed-minded or ignorant in not listening to them.

Political debate on the internet is for one's own amusement, and to learn new viewpoints. You're not going to convert someone, and if you want to be helpful to your party and your cause, you volunteer at your local branch, help organize, and pound pavement and knock on doors.

I would love an intelligent debate about strategy, or ideology, or current events, but this isn't what we're getting right now, and it's as much the liberal inciters as it is the combustible conservatives.

That's a point...

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 10:53.

 

well noted. But don't fool yourself that there are no anti-liberal inciters. Or liberal reactionaries for that matter.

Hear, hear!

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 11:10.

Then stop saying liberal talking points as if they were obvious, and that conservatives were just closed-minded or ignorant in not listening to them.

I second this notion.

It would behoove the self-described moderates here to actually learn a thing or two about conservatism, and not just see it as their role to beat down the frothy right-wingers.

learn a thing or two about conservatism

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 11:19.

It would behoove the self-described moderates here to actually learn a thing or two about conservatism, and not just see it as their role to beat down the frothy right-wingers.

The problem is not the moderates, the problem is with liberals (some who pretend to be moderates). They want to hurt the Right not help it.

learn a thing or two about conservatism - Good ADVICE!

self-described moderates

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:02.

The problem is not the moderates, the problem is with liberals (some who pretend to be moderates). They want to hurt the Right not help it.

That is why I addressed my comments to the "self-described moderates".

Chemjeff ... I hear ya

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:22.

As if on cue a stuck pig started to squeal wrt your very reasonable request.

 

oh bullshit ... some people

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:20.

oh bullshit ...
some people here love nothing better than
to tell others how it is ...
as if they 'knew' ...
as if they have some sort of patent
on the troof.
they don't.

and you love to tell others what they think ...
to anal-i-ze them ...
tell them what runs/motivates them ...
tell them where they are coming from ...
as if you 'knew'.
you don't.

like i said ...
some things never change ...
and that includes you, FT. ;)

that's part of what i hope does
eventually fade a bit here ...
once the 'silverbacks' are put out to
pasture ...
so folks might at some point be able to
simply come and share what things look
like to them ...
leaving room for others to share their
own interpretations ...
their own experiences in/of the world ...
without all this i'm right ...
you're wrong/you're f***ed up ...
bullshit.

asking too much?
probably.
we will see.

 

ire

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:38.

1. You would serve yourself well to dish the same level of ire against the moralizing liberals among us, the ones who offer up nothing but liberal talking points as truth.

2. Dude, put down the bong.  I liked you better when you were sober.

If you play any Kid Rock

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 13:23.

tune in your mind while reading his last post, its actually quite entertaining.

Wait!

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 19:48.

I have to tune in to Rush to know what to say next . . .

Canadian Rock bands

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:58.

Would that be the Limbaugh one or the Canadian rock band?

I think making sense of "remains ..." requires severe headbanging music.

 

When you say "Then stop

Submitted by acinphx on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 21:38.

When you say "Then stop saying liberal talking points as if they were obvious..." it raises a question for me:  what distinguishes a 'liberal talking point' from an honest counterpoint? 

Looking at this list of examples, it would help me to know whether it's worthwhile to participate in discussion here if some could weigh in on which of these you would consider liberal talking points vs. topics where honest disagreement may be expressed and debated:

  • Government can be the solution, rather than a problem; there are some government programs that operate efficiently and effectively on the whole.
  • The GOP will not attract sufficient younger (under-30) voters to win a national election unless it reconsiders its support for a national ban on gay marriage.
  • Proceeding with investigation (and consequences if justified) of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' furthers the rule of law and government accountability.
  • Stricter and enforced regulation of the financial industry is needed to prevent future abuses that could lead to destabilization of markets.
  • The U.S. is as likely to achieve favorable outcomes with foreign governments through effective diplomacy and market incentives as through military action.

I just tried to pick a few traditional partisan positions and current topics where I'd be curious whether others would perceive a position as strictly a talking point, vs. spirited debate.

talking points

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 21:58.

From my POV, those are all reasonable, defensible positions.  The things I get angry over are comments like "The GOP is dead for a generation", "Tax cuts never work", "George Bush was a disaster", "The Iraq war was an illegal imperialist genocide for oil".  Look, I know liberals believe those things, and I'm even willing to discuss them - once or twice - but when I keep seeing them repeated over and over again, then I know it's pointless.

 "The GOP is dead for a

Submitted by In between on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:49.

 "The GOP is dead for a generation"

The GOP is in a slump and I don't know how long. I don't think either political party is perfect. Either party will have a run for about 30 years. After that length of time (for some reason) the political ideology fails. It is up to that political party to find itself and renew itself. The reasons are obvious if they recognize it. I also think that the democrats will go to far to the left at some time and republicans will come back. However, I was surprised and shocked at just how far right a political party will go. I could put the adjectives down, but we all know them. I would like to see honest solutions to problems, but to many people on this site, it comes back to the same ideology. So I see no middle road in the short term and maybe never.

"Tax cuts never work"

Tax cuts if used the right way will work, but we don't go down the road of tax cuts and a war at the same time-and all on borrowed money. Normally to get out of a recession you use tax cuts for about two years to stimulate the economy and add to that the fed lowering interest rates. Bush overdid it and you had deficits and debt. After 8 years of tax cuts we are back into a recession. Tax cuts alone will not get us out of the near depression. The fed has lowered interest rates to their lowest levels. So today we don't have the leverage in a normal situation. And since the private sector has been in a downward spiral, it is fitting to have the government to come in as a last resort. We are in an unusual situation with further deficits and debt, but we need to avoid a depression at all costs.

"George Bush was a disaster"

I have mentioned this many times and I stand by this. I have never seen a guy who has been so clueless. A guy who let us kept losing a war for over 3 years. A guy who shows up in Louisiana some 3 days after the disaster and says "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." A guy who says "America, has no problems." I just wonder what delusional world Bush lives in. One reason for the delusion is that Bush is a social conservative, and I think he put all his trust in God while everything fell apart. Bush also believed in ideology. Bush stayed the course with the tax cuts and you had deficits and debt. Bush stayed the course with the war as it got worse. There was no deviation, no acceptance that things were going wrong. 

"The Iraq war was an illegal imperialist genocide for oil".

I don't know what the right reasons were for the war in Iraq. Was it for oil? Was it for terrorism? Was it for Neoconism? Was it for WMD? Was it God telling Bush what to do as Bush said "he answers to a higher authority." What we know is that Bush 41 avoided this situation as he knew as well as others that this would be a quagmire. We also know that Bush 41 had 500,000 troops for one war and the war paid for, and Bush 43 had a max of 170,000 troops on two wars. What we also know is that past policies were to keep Iraq and Iran as equals.

So yes, the last 8 years was a disaster. This is not a leftist tone. It is seeing a presidency (democrat or republican) caught up in a failed ideology and failed policies and that is all it is. In this case, it was policies of the right.

On the left, there has been missteps by Obama. Too soon to rate him. He was handed a mess and most people will account for that for awhile. 

 

 

 

identity

Submitted by osaycanuthink on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 13:32.

where does a voter go who believes that abortion, end of life choice, and who ncould care less if gays want to marry. Especially if that voter believes that making national policy on the basis of unproven and suspect science, al goreianism, is ridiculous.. who believes extreme environmentalism, extreme atheism, and extreme religousity  are pretty much the same..who believes in LEGAL immigration....who doesn't think everyone should go to college... who admires guys and women who work and produce things... who believes that we should use vclean coal, nuclear energy ,and look for domestic oil.......iguess he howls in the wilderness at the confederation of dunces who make up the political elite.

A sense of 'entitlement' among conserva flamers here

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 22:47.

 

Since this is a right wing site, I am entitled to attack and ad hom the liberal trolls. Anything I don't agree with is a liberal talking point.

The "so called" moderates and the up-front liberals --who are not entitled-- ought to 'learn' from us conservatives.... or else, we will turn this site into a mini-Red State! And lib trolls are to be held fully responsibile for this situation. We are just combustible conservatives, we consume our entire base in fumes of bitterness and righteousness, and turn our base more right, more pure, more fit. And we are winning, not just on this site but will also in national politics!

open minds

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 23:16.

I for one am not here to threaten you with anything.  If you want to spout nonsense, go right ahead.  I know how to ignore people.  All I'll say is this: if all you want to do is repeat liberal myths on a conservative website - what is the point?  I understand that you think, e.g., that the Iraq War is an illegal immoral genocidal imperialist war conducted for the purposes of enriching Halliburton and seizing oil, but we here just don't believe it.  We have good reason not to believe it.  We explain to you why we don't believe it.  In detail.  But you and your colleagues simply continue to repeat the same Daily Kos lines.  After so many repetitions, we come to the quite rational conclusion that you come here not to understand our point of view, but to troll, to gloat in your victory, to rub our noses in it.  And that IMO is not productive.

You are on a right-of-center website.  You've come here for a reason.  If that reason is anything other than wanting to contribute to the discussion, honestly and openly and with an open mind, then why bother?

  I understand that you

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 23:56.

 

I understand that you think, e.g., that the Iraq War is an illegal immoral genocidal imperialist war conducted for the purposes of enriching Halliburton and seizing oil, but we here just don't believe it.  We have good reason not to believe it....

I don't think that it was a war just to seize oil and make profits for Halliburton,  it was a strategic mistake, a risk for geo-political control that didn't pay off. Oh, ya as a non-American speaking from outside your borders I can say that it was illegal, based on false justifications (Saddam-911-WMD), immoral and imperialistic and Bush is a war criminal, yes.  It's certainly not a planned genocide, but scores of civilians have died in a short time due to the invasion. 

Of course, this kind of foriegn policy is not started by Bush, America has an unbroken history in this record, and he took undue advantage of it. The manner in which the administration handled the pre and post situation in Iraq is a new low, and an utter disaster. Ya, I know you have reasons to beleive it is not so, and how great a boon to the whole world is that Saddam was eliminated and freedom was spread to even more people than those who died....

You seem to be hell bent on repeating your conservative charges on liberals and acting like an unrepented Bush-Iraq war apologist, while pissing on dkos-liberals and NR-liberals with blanket claims at the slightest oppurtunity. I would rather listen to  so-cons and econ-cons rather than listen to a neo-con. I don't think you speak for the entire right wing when you spout your Iraq-Bush non-sense.

story

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 00:08.

I speak for nobody except myself.  I only use Iraq as an example.  And if you have even bothered to read a fraction of what I have written, you'll know that I am not a Bush apologist.  He made many mistakes, that is for sure, and I'll call him to the carpet just as soon as any liberal will do.  But I'm not going to stand for liberals coming to a conservative site and then blithely assuming that their story is the only "correct" one and that conservatives are just "wrong".