why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic? i never understood this and would like a conservative to answer this for me. i rarely if ever here a liberal call some one unamerican or unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic?

What makes you think they do? On what evidence are you basing your belief or opinion?

Baron Max

What makes you think they do? On what evidence are you basing your belief or opinion?

Baron Max

these are the reasons talk radio, fox news, and conservatives who post on this forum like you

these are the reasons talk radio, fox news, and conservatives who post on this forum like you

So, ....how many people are we talking about? What percentage?

Or do you always base your opinions on such few numbers and/or insignificant results?

Baron Max

So, ....how many people are we talking about? What percentage?

Or do you always base your opinions on such few numbers and/or insignificant results?

Baron Max

few numbers most conservatives people in the media do it i don't think that is a small number or insignifigant results

It's the last refuge of the scoundrel.

It separates "us" from "them". I don't see how that can lead to anything but hate.

That's why.

few numbers most conservatives people in the media do it i don't think that is a small number or insignifigant results

If you going to make broad, generalized statements like this...It's nice to post at least some examples to support your argument.

What policies are you referring to, or are you saying conservatives call people unamerican or unpatriotic concerning everything? Or are you just talking about the war in Iraq?

Are you just talking about conservatives in the media, such as Rush Limbaugh, or all conservatives, including Joe Sixpack?

Well, there was the time Tucker Carlson called Mayor Newsome of San Francisco a Nazi. Strangely, though, this was in response to the city's decision to reaffirm its sanctuary status for immigrants. And there was the time Bill O'Reilly called Markos Moulitsas a Nazi because the Kos apparently has a sense of humor. And who could forget the President's "with us or against us" line? Or Karl Rove's smear of Max Cleland as unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathizer? Voters responded affirmatively, so it would seem at least some everyday conservatives feel the same.

While I recognize PJdude has inquired about a broad generalization, I think the response so far has demonstrated conservative insincerity. Some folks, apparently, haven't been paying attention to the last six years. And that's fine. It's good to know, in fact. There's no point in taking these folks' opinions seriously, since they're not based on anything.

And, of course, I will note that our esteemed associate PJdude does, in fact, need to learn that he does, in fact, need to comb years' worth of letters to the editors of various newspapers, however many hours of conservative radio and television programs, and, of course, the endless litany from conservative politicians because it seems that these folks are so ashamed of their behavior that they would rather forget it.

My advice is to pity these sad conservatives. The problem with checking their brains at the door is that they have a hard time getting them back, or even knowing when it's time to do so.

It's their party, and they can cry if they want to.

I just wanted him to clarify his question, nothing else...It's just one of my pet peeves when people make generalized statements about an entire group of people, no matter if they are conservative, liberal, white, black, American, European, or whatever.

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic?
To answer your question, it is helpful to know what non-conservatives--such as yourself--agree amongst themselves is what it is to be "American" and what it is to be "Patriotic".

Can you be specific?

its tradition

When anyone transgresses the taboos of a tribe, they can, and often are, ostracised or even expelled. An example? Say some people oppose a war. What happens? They are often called cowards and told to leave the country. Who hasn't heard the insult, "You're a coward! If you don't like it here, get out!" People who say such things think they're being patriotic; in reality they're acting like animals. Emotional, irrational, herd animals, prone to the fear and flight activated by propaganda. Individuals think; groups do not, and cannot.

Narcissism is our inborn tendency to see everything as grandiose or devalued, good or bad, with nothing in-between. It's why nearly every tribe in the world—and nations are just tribes writ large—called itself "the People," "the Humans," "the Chosen," "the Motherland," "the Fatherland," or "the greatest nation on earth," relegating everyone outside the tribe to a devalued non-people, non-human status (aka "collaterial damage"). No wonder it's so easy to kill the outsiders—they're just not quite human.

When you combine those three concepts, you have the basis for all propaganda. If a leader of a tribe tells the people their goodness is under attack by insane, evil people who want to destroy them, they will react just like animals and attack. The Nazi propagandist Herman Goering noticed all you had to do to get people to march off to war is for the leaders to tell them they were under attack, denounce protestors as traitors exposing the tribe to danger, and the people would slander, ostracize and expell the protestors, and then tramp straight off to be slaughtered. He said this technique worked in every country of the world. The State and its Lies (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle331-20050807-07.html)

ja ja, hoary goering quote

You're a coward! If you don't like it here, get out!"

truth of which is borne out it in most complaints threads in sci.
a mod troll :D

ahh, masterful
ja, mr g?

If you going to make broad, generalized statements like this...It's nice to post at least some examples to support your argument.

What policies are you referring to, or are you saying conservatives call people unamerican or unpatriotic concerning everything? Or are you just talking about the war in Iraq?

Are you just talking about conservatives in the media, such as Rush Limbaugh, or all conservatives, including Joe Sixpack?

generally speaking of conservatives with influence

To answer your question, it is helpful to know what non-conservatives--such as yourself--agree amongst themselves is what it is to be "American" and what it is to be "Patriotic".

Can you be specific?

personally i view both in rather broad terms. i see being american as being a citezen and like the constition. for being patriotic for an american i believe is supporting our freedoms and trying to better the country while being tolerant.

ahh, masterful
ja, mr g?
So, how's that New Hampshire take-over thingy happening for you big-L folks?

Interesting that you folks and the Jehovah's Witnesses estimate just about the same number of early subsribers will just about fit perfectly into Heaven's available space.

personally i view both in rather broad terms.
Broad and floosie are synonyms. ;)

Broad and floosie are synonyms. ;)

just what in the holy hell does floosie mean?

So, how's that New Hampshire take-over thingy happening for you big-L folks?

Interesting that you folks and the Jehovah's Witnesses estimate just about the same number of early subsribers will just about fit perfectly into Heaven's available space.

big l?
fuck them
i am a wild eyed left wing loon
and i hate pansy assed dems

what yer drinking, g?

If you going to make broad, generalized statements like this...

the fear was palpable
it pervaded america

we all know tho some deny
pathology
thats all

somewhat mccarthesque

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic? i never understood this and would like a conservative to answer this for me. i rarely if ever here a liberal call some one unamerican or unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.What actually happens more than anything else is that liberals accuse conservatives of questioning their patriotism. It's more a case of methinks thou doest protest too much than anything else.

When John Kerry was running for president, anyone who pointed out his record of voting against defense spending was "questioning his patriotism". Why was he so quick with the accusation? Did he, deep down, question his own patriotism?

Hillary's doing the same thing:
“I deeply resent the administration’s continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions,”
Now what prompted her to say this?
Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi constitution, and other contentious issues. Fear of a precipitate U.S. withdrawal also exacerbates sectarian trends in Iraqi politics as factions become more concerned with achieving short-term tactical advantages rather than reaching the long-term agreements necessary for a stable and secure Iraq.
Did you see any questioning of her patriotism there? What liberals want is immunity from criticism. Anyone who questions the wisdom of their ideas with respect to foriegn policy or national defense is "questioning their patriotism".

Again, like the guy always proclaiming that he's not gay, it makes you wonder.

....methinks thou doest protest too much .....

grandma's little nugget of wisdom? old skoool? comfy little homely?

When John Kerry .......

crap, you ignore circumstance and history

,,,,you see any questioning of her patriotism there?

yes (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton:_U.S._presidential _election%2C_2008/political_attacks#On_asking_the_Pentagon_about_an_ exit_strategy_from_Iraq)

On July 19, 2007, Clinton reported that a "letter from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman did not mince words."

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia."

i can charge with treason

/bolding mine

Again, like the guy always proclaiming that he's not gay, it makes you wonder.

ahh
dumped gran and now speaking from experience?
well done!

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic? i never understood this and would like a conservative to answer this for me. i rarely if ever here a liberal call some one unamerican or unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.

Well, as they say "You are either with us, or with the terrorists", paraphrasing Matthew 12.30.


But I find this article from the New Republic very insightful Death Grip: How Political Psychology Explains Bush's Ghastly Success (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19566&prog=zgp&proj=zusr).

It's a bit of a lenghty read, but the point it makes is this:

When people are reminded of their own mortality, they tend to become more intensely conservative, defensive and patriotic than they were before.

...
In their experiments, Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski make a good case that mortality reminders from September 11 enhanced Bush's popularity through November 2004. But, on the basis of their research, it is possible to draw even broader conclusions about U.S. politics after September 11. Mortality reminders not only enhanced the appeal of Bush's political style but also deepened and broadened the appeal of the conservative social positions that Republicans had been running on.

For instance, because worldview defense increases hostility toward other races, religions, nations, and political systems, it helps explain the rage toward France and Germany that erupted prior to the Iraq war, as well as the recent spike in hostility toward illegal immigrants. Also central to worldview defense is the protection of tradition against social experimentation, of community values against individual prerogatives--as was evident in the Tucson experiment with the judges--and of religious dictates against secular norms. For many conservatives, this means opposition to abortion and gay marriage. This may well explain why family values became more salient in 2004--a year in which voters were supposed to be unusually focused on foreign policy--than it had been from 1992 through 2000. Indeed, from 2001 to 2004, polls show an increase in opposition to abortion and gay marriage, along with a growing religiosity. According to Gallup, the percentage of voters who believed abortion should be "illegal in all circumstances" rose from 17 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2002 and would still be at 19 percent in 2004. Even church attendance by atheists, according to one poll, increased from 3 to 10 percent from August to November 2001.
...



P.S.
The Greenberg mentioned in the article is not me. :)

What actually happens more than anything else is that liberals accuse conservatives of questioning their patriotism. It's more a case of methinks thou doest protest too much than anything else.

When John Kerry was running for president, anyone who pointed out his record of voting against defense spending was "questioning his patriotism". Why was he so quick with the accusation? Did he, deep down, question his own patriotism?

Hillary's doing the same thing:

Now what prompted her to say this?

Did you see any questioning of her patriotism there? What liberals want is immunity from criticism. Anyone who questions the wisdom of their ideas with respect to foriegn policy or national defense is "questioning their patriotism".

Again, like the guy always proclaiming that he's not gay, it makes you wonder.

This was cake and eat it too. Clever.

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic? i never understood this and would like a conservative to answer this for me. i rarely if ever here a liberal call some one unamerican or unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.
Because in a sense there is a seed of truth in it. Non-conservatives are a little more likely to be concerned about what we do to other countries, rather than just what they do to us. They are slightly more willing - not willing enough - but slightly more willing to consider that the president may be lying through his teeth about something that is really hurting people. They don't assume Daddy is always right and even if he is not than the best thing is to side with Daddy, whatever the designated Daddy is: president, local preacher, father in the house, CEO, etc.

My country right or wrong.

A non-conservative considers it part of responsible patriotism to question whether the country is right.

It's the same issue that sexually abused children face when they call attention to what the preacher or Daddy did. You betrayed the family. You betrayed the church making up all those lies.

When John Kerry was running for president, anyone who pointed out his record of voting against defense spending was "questioning his patriotism". Why was he so quick with the accusation? Did he, deep down, question his own patriotism?

I think it's because when Zell Miller crossed over and showed how low and dishonest a Democrat has to get before Republicans are satisfied, the core of his speech was to question John Kerry's patriotism according to his defense spending.

At the heart of Miller's speech was the accusation that John Kerry voted against a host of defense programs, including the F-15E. This was turned into the line that John Kerry would have defended New York on 9/11 with spitballs.

Here's the thing, though, and it's something I've addressed before. What makes Miller's speech so despicable is that he was, in fact, laying cover for Dick Cheney. GOP talking points blasted fifteen separate votes by Kerry. Simple research showed that those fifteen votes were spread across four or five general spending bills. One, I believe in 1990, was decried as being bad for the military, and when it passed it was called "Bush's budget", because it reflected Poppy Bush's desires. Naturally, within such spending bills could be found authorization and funds for various programs such as those Miller listed in his speech. The F-15E, the AH-64, &c., &c.

And yet, if you go back to when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he actually testified before Congress (House Armed Services Committee, I believe) and told them to terminate a number of programs: the F-15E, the AH-64, &c., &c. The correlation 'twixt Cheney's advice to Congress and the list of programs Miller blasted Kerry for voting against is deliberate.

The accusation was intended to question Kerry's patriotism, and was also a lie. Period.

As I noted before: It seems conservatives aren't paying attention. As such, what respect do we owe their opinions about matters they're not paying attention to?

"You betrayed the family. You betrayed the church making up all those lies." (granty)

i say!
this is par excellence!

I'm willing to bet anyone here that I can come up with at least twice as many examples of conservatives questioning the patriotism of liberals than they can of liberals questioning the patriotism of liberals. Any takers?

I'm willing to bet anyone here that I can come up with at least twice as many examples of conservatives questioning the patriotism of liberals than they can of liberals questioning the patriotism of liberals.


Well, of course! The very nature of "liberalism" can't possibly include patriotism toward any one single nation. To do so would negate the very essence of ....."liberalism". A liberal can't possibly be patriotic.

Baron Max

Well, of course! The very nature of "liberalism" can't possibly include patriotism toward any one single nation. To do so would negate the very essence of ....."liberalism". A liberal can't possibly be patriotic.

Baron Max

Max is right. For example all the U.S. veterans who gave their lives for their country in the 20th century wars were all conservatives.

The very nature of "liberalism" can't possibly include patriotism toward any one single nation. To do so would negate the very essence of ....."liberalism". A liberal can't possibly be patriotic.

I love posting this link, especially since so few ever pay attention. But just for you, Max:

Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". New York: Mother Earth Publishing, 1908. See http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/goldman/aando/patriotism.html

What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.

Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

(Goldman (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/ANARCHIST_ARCHIVES/goldman/aando/patriotism.html))

Patriotism is a religion, a sacrifice of the intellect much akin to that in which God most delights. Welcome aboard good patriots, please leave your mind at the back of the plane (http://www.azlyrics.us/221562).

Max is right. For example all the U.S. veterans who gave their lives for their country in the 20th century wars were all conservatives.

As were many of the founding fathers of the United States, a good number of the US Presidents, and nearly half of the other political leaders in our country's history. Surely such people could not be patriotic.

Leads me to believe the conservative strategy is really to redefine the meaning of the patriotism so it equates with conservatism--a perfect example of what the original poster was getting at.

I love posting this link, especially since so few ever pay attention. But just for you, Max:

Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". New York: Mother Earth Publishing, 1908.

Geez, Tiassa, even YOU should know that the opinion of one lousy individual means virtually nothing in a discussion such as this. Why do you bother?

Baron Max

It seems conservatives aren't paying attention. As such, what respect do we owe their opinions about matters they're not paying attention to?
That's the crux of all your arguments: Your opinion doesn't matter, so I'll ignore it.
That doesn't indicate a man confident in his own opinions. It indicates a man looking to shut the opposition up. A man with a mind so closed there's no room for ideas different from his own.

I get the impression that if you ever honestly considered a conservative thought, your head would explode like a computer being outsmarted by Captain Kirk.

Geez, Tiassa, even YOU should know that the opinion of one lousy individual means virtually nothing in a discussion such as this. Why do you bother?

Baron Max

I'll give you a hint max

There is more than one reason to quote someone. Sometimes you are using it as evidence....

And in Tiassa's post? I think you can think of another reason.

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic? i never understood this and would like a conservative to answer this for me. i rarely if ever here a liberal call some one unamerican or unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.

because some of those people are

because some of those people are

well? thats it?
ok

no. you are!!!

well? thats it?
ok

no. you are!!!

well, what else is there to say? the explanation is pretty simple.

it's just that the message is communicated poorly, or the receiving end is not too bright.

some on the left are unpatriotic. but when some guy says "the left is unpatriotic", the message is received by the entire left, including that part that IS patriotic. so those who ARE patriotic get offended and start throwing mud at the entire right, including those who never said anything about the left being unpatriotic.

and a flaming war ensues.

but that doesn't change the fact that SOME on the left are unpatriotic. they hate America, its institutions, its governments (current and previous), they spit and stomp the US flag, etc. etc.

surely you can't deny that.

surely you can't deny that.

no, i don't.
but sci does

sci demands citations
who are you referring to?

Well, of course! The very nature of "liberalism" can't possibly include patriotism toward any one single nation. To do so would negate the very essence of ....."liberalism". A liberal can't possibly be patriotic.

Baron Max

you don't have a clue as to what liberalism entails do you. liberalism has as a major part of it as being for the freedom laid out in bill of rights, what could be more patriotic than that.

no, i don't.
but sci does

sci demands citations
who are you referring to?

just google "Berkley" :D

That's the crux of all your arguments: Your opinion doesn't matter, so I'll ignore it.
That doesn't indicate a man confident in his own opinions. It indicates a man looking to shut the opposition up. A man with a mind so closed there's no room for ideas different from his own.

I get the impression that if you ever honestly considered a conservative thought, your head would explode like a computer being outsmarted by Captain Kirk.

actually the closed mindness your talking about is more prevalent in conservatives than liberals. It isn't me bashing conservatives, rather it is what the philosophies entail.

well, what else is there to say? the explanation is pretty simple.

it's just that the message is communicated poorly, or the receiving end is not too bright.

some on the left are unpatriotic. but when some guy says "the left is unpatriotic", the message is received by the entire left, including that part that IS patriotic. so those who ARE patriotic get offended and start throwing mud at the entire right, including those who never said anything about the left being unpatriotic.

and a flaming war ensues.

but that doesn't change the fact that SOME on the left are unpatriotic. they hate America, its institutions, its governments (current and previous), they spit and stomp the US flag, etc. etc.

surely you can't deny that.

you would have had more credibility if you also said the reverse, that some conservatives are unpatriotic.

you would have had more credibility if you also said the reverse, that some conservatives are unpatriotic.

conservatives are the ones who get offended when lefties stomp the flag.
what are you talking about?

just google "Berkley" :D

what?
no jane fonda?

you still have not said anything
thats alright tho, you did your best

why do conservatives call those who disagree with them unamerican or not patriotic? i never understood this and would like a conservative to answer this for me. i rarely if ever here a liberal call some one unamerican or unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.

I think it's a minority that do such name-calling, but I do think it happens on both sides. Liberals do not call their opponents unamerican or unpatriotic, but they do call them "evil" based purely on political disagreements.

The reason for the name-calling is, I think, that these people really believe it. They believe so fervently in their own positions that they cannot fathom anyone holding contrary views would be anything other than a threat. From the conservative side, it's hard to call a liberal "evil" since liberals tend to be less war-mongering and more concerned about providing services to the disadvantaged, but it's easy to see how liberal policies, taken to an extreme, might weaken the country or allow our enemies a free hand to attack us. It's a short hop from "bad for America" to "unamerican."

From the liberal side, it's the same kind of analysis. The die hards genuinely feel that no one could hold the views diametrically opposed to their own unless those persons were utterly flagitious or corrupt. There's no way that Dick Cheney is a friendly old man doing what he thinks is right for the country, he *has to be* evil to believe in his policy positions. At the same time, it's hard for liberals on that extreme to call such conservatives "unpatriotic" since conservatives wrap themselves in the flag so overtly.

i shall get to the bottom of this
conservatism is not the issue
it's fascism
the hijacking and redefinition of conservatism
the label and principles

a historical perspective of the republican party
a must eyeball

/shuffles thru the Sciforums Post Portfolio

listen up, hebrew
i am gonna rock your world!

fucking sciforums!

do any of the fascists deny that i can charge hillary with treason?
do they fucking want proof?

resolve the goddamn tp
now!

conservatives are the ones who get offended when lefties stomp the flag.
what are you talking about?

i don't see the point in trying to explain it because i don't think you would get it

you still have not said anything
thats alright tho, you did your best

i'm not in the business of trying to prove to a "reality based" community that the world is not flat and that pigs do not fly (most of the time).

what?
no jane fonda?
oh, who can forget Hanoi Jane?

that bitch was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti aircraft gun. one that very possibly shot some American soldiers down.

some Leftists may consider those actions highly patriotic. go figure. maybe the US pilots being shot down are the unpatriotic ones...

i don't see the point in trying to explain it because i don't think you would get it

no, i get it.

i'm not in the business of trying to prove to a "reality based" community that the world is not flat and that pigs do not fly (most of the time)............


at the very least, a pound of flesh for that bit of insolence :D

no, i get it.

no you don't by your posts you seem to believe only liberals can be unpatriotic which is bullshit

well, what else is there to say? the explanation is pretty simple.but that doesn't change the fact that SOME on the left are unpatriotic. they hate America, its institutions, its governments (current and previous), they spit and stomp the US flag, etc. etc.

surely you can't deny that.

No. But there are some on the right who hate America as well. There has been a much bigger threat of right-wing terrorism in the US in recent years than from the left.

no you don't by your posts you seem to believe only liberals can be unpatriotic which is bullshit

some far right elements are too, but for different reasons. Fred Phelps and his band of mary fruitcakes are one example.

EDIT:
on second hand, i don't know how to classify Felps. he may be very religious, but i don't know his stances about other conservative issues. what i know is that he supported Saddam right before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, because Saddam allowed freedom of religion for Christians.

but there are other far-right movements who are so pro-American, they are anti-American. example: the neo Nazis. they love America so much that they can't stand seeing it changed in any way. they look at "normal" middle Americans as traitors who aren't "really" Americans. so they hate what America has become. i guess you can classify them as anti-American too

mmmm
thank you
you are a good sort really

Thank you, Madanthonywayne for your demonstration of why Conservatives are considered dishonest. After all, it takes a certain kind of illiteracy—namely deliberate illiteracy—to transform this ...

It seems conservatives aren't paying attention. As such, what respect do we owe their opinions about matters they're not paying attention to? (#28 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1635842&postcount=28))

... into this ...

Your opinion doesn't matter, so I'll ignore it. (#36 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1636410&postcount=36))

So speaking of people who aren't very confident of their opinions, what's your excuse, Madanthonywayne? Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of your bigoted, "I want to complain, but it's easier if I complain about something I invent" campaign. What the hell is your problem, boy? Why the hell can't you respond to what's actually there? If you want to be treated with the respect afforded an honest man, then be honest. Until then, there's not much to be done.

All I want to know is why conservatives seem to so willing to pretend they're ignorant. You're either stupid or disingenuous when you do this. After all, you're either admitting you have no clue what's going on, or being dishonest in order to avoid the subject. Neither outcome reflects on you all that well.

I get the impression that if you ever honestly considered a conservative thought, your head would explode like a computer being outsmarted by Captain Kirk.

That would be ironic if it wasn't so damned stupid.

Seriously, this coming from a man who has to rewrite the argument he's responding to in order to be able to respond to it?

What, Madanthonywayne, is wrong with responding to the argument presented? Why do you have to rewrite my argument before you respond to it? It indicates a man looking to shut the opposition up. A man with a mind so closed there's no room for ideas different than his own.

Why aren't you confident in your own opinions, Madanthonywayne? Could it be that you know how dishonest you're being, and are simply too lazy to put any real effort into your deception?

Seriously, that's absolutely second-rate. Let me know when you decide to grow up.

You're either stupid or disingenuous when you do this.
...
Seriously, that's absolutely second-rate. Let me know when you decide to grow up.


i see that ad hominems are not beyond the Enlightened ;)

i see that ad hominems are not beyond the Enlightened ;)

well it is disingenous to edit a quote to get it to say something you want it to. it also apperars that your quote of tiassa's is edited

i see that ad hominems are not beyond the Enlightened

I see that literacy is no longer a prerequisite to Enlightenment.

(Oh, right, I'm supposed to put a smilie on that.)

:rolleyes:

(Whoops. Let me try that again.)

:rolleyes:

(Damn it.)

:rolleyes:

well it is disingenous to edit a quote to get it to say something you want it to. it also apperars that your quote of tiassa's is edited

if you edit the contents of a quote you should make it crystal clear that you are doing so.

I see that literacy is no longer a prerequisite to Enlightenment.
so we finally see eye to eye :rolleyes:
:D

Well, Otheadp, I just find the elitism of the conservative position on that point ridiculous: We can't have a discussion unless I say exactly what you want me to say.

At that point, it's clear you don't actually want to communicate.


so we finally see eye to eye

Hey, it's your standard. I find it dishonest, worthy of ridicule, an icon of stupidity, a caricature of hatred ... I just think it's sad that conservatives should insist on behaving in such a disrespectful manner while simultaneously complaining that they're not being given enough respect to satisfy their egos.

It's almost like conservatives are bitter because society won't validate their hatred, so they're aiming to disrupt everything in a childish temper tantrum. ("What? We have to be equal? Well, we're going to try to make equality miserable! Take that! Nyah-nyah-nyanyah-nyahh!")

Really.

Pathetic. Disgusting. Sick.

Oh, right. The smilie.

Gotta have that smilie, right?

http://www.addemoticons.com/emoticon/monkey/AddEmoticons126134.gif

It's almost like conservatives are bitter because society won't validate their hatred, so they're aiming to disrupt everything in a childish temper tantrum. ("What? We have to be equal? Well, we're going to try to make equality miserable! Take that! Nyah-nyah-nyanyah-nyahh!")


Libs are the experts at childish tentrums, no?

Code Pink
Trutherism
Berkley
man... the list can be pretty long

what yer drinking, g?
Cragganmore (http://www.scotchwhisky.net/malt/cragganmore.htm).

Shhhh. If it finds out I'm posting here it'll think I'm splashing it on the rocks.

That would mean no sex tonight.

Libs are the experts at childish tentrums, no?

Code Pink
Trutherism
Berkley
man... the list can be pretty long

Your ignorance is your bliss, Otheadp. Why would you pretend Truthers are solely liberal? Many of them are superstitious, libertarian-conservatives. Pay attention.

As to Code Pink and Berkley? Stop trying to elevate yourself. There's a difference between, "This war is a lie, stop it now", and "Waaah! I have to be equal! That's not fair! Waaah!"

See, the thing is that you want to change the subject in order to make really stupid arguments like the one you just made, but we're apparently supposed to pretend you're intelligent, else we're unfairly insulting you.

Show some genuine intellect for a change. Show some genuine rational thought. As long as you behave contemptuously, you will be held in contempt. It's really quite simple.

all i see is you inventing all kinds of interesting things about conservatives. but i shouldn't expect more from you. after all, you're from the Reality Based world. all that is left for me to do is to Smile and Nod.

you really are entertaining :)

all i see is you inventing all kinds of interesting things about conservatives. but i shouldn't expect more from you. after all, you're from the Reality Based world. all that is left for me to do is to Smile and Nod.

you really are entertaining :)

I have not invented shit.

actually the closed mindness your talking about is more prevalent in conservatives than liberals. It isn't me bashing conservatives, rather it is what the philosophies entail.That statement is nothing but prejudice on your part. It's common thinking among the left. I remember debating a communist in college. When she refused to even consider any of my arguments, I accused her of being close minded. She was flabergasted. She said "How can I be close minded? I'm a communist?"

Open or close mindedness is not wedded to a particular side of the political spectrum. There are narrow minded people on both sides of the aisle.

Open or close mindedness is not wedded to a particular side of the political spectrum. There are narrow minded people on both sides of the aisle.

Conservatism has seemed to be based on keeping things the same (as they were in the 50s). Change is seen as threatening, anti-patriotic.

The irony is that conservatives found their ideas on people who were certainly liberal, if not radical for their time period.

Conservatism has seemed to be based on keeping things the same (as they were in the 50s). Change is seen as threatening, anti-patriotic.

The irony is that conservatives found their ideas on people who were certainly liberal, if not radical for their time period.
The irony is that that is the same simple-minded definition of conservative that allowed the media to dub communists in post soviet russia as "conservatives".

I believe in the ideals our nation was founded on. In freedom, both economic and political. Opposed to change? Hell, I'd like to see the majority of the federal government put out of business. It's the Left that is opposed to change. Their solution for every problem is the same: more government.

That statement is nothing but prejudice on your part. It's common thinking among the left. I remember debating a communist in college. When she refused to even consider any of my arguments, I accused her of being close minded. She was flabergasted. She said "How can I be close minded? I'm a communist?"

Open or close mindedness is not wedded to a particular side of the political spectrum. There are narrow minded people on both sides of the aisle.

i am not saying liberals cannot be closed minded but that how the tware defined makes it more likely that close minded person is conservative. A pure liberal is in parf defined as open minded.

I think it's because when Zell Miller crossed over and showed how low and dishonest a Democrat has to get before Republicans are satisfied, the core of his speech was to question John Kerry's patriotism according to his defense spending.

At the heart of Miller's speech was the accusation that John Kerry voted against a host of defense programs, including the F-15E. This was turned into the line that John Kerry would have defended New York on 9/11 with spitballs.

tiassa, you had several good points,
Zell Miller is the Repo in Dem-clothing that has acted as the Repos point man, bulldog/chihuahua biting at the ankles of Dems that waiver on the WAR ON TERROR, he's the House counterpart to Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), that effectively tie down the Dems on 2 fronts;

1; Dems don't want to appear weak on the military, unpatriotic after 9-11, its a 3rd rail for them, that the Repos have successfully pushed Dems onto, witness Kerry, Dukakis, Carter, etc... (2 of which served in the military, mind you)
2; they don't have the votes to over-ride Bush's veto, so they are forced into the "loyal opposition" stance, biting their time, trying to avoid the 3rd rail, while not alienating their base to much in the meantime,

btw, if the "surge" works, Bush & McCain look like geniuses, McCain accepts the Iraq National "Medal of Valor", gets elected because he brought the troops home, Bush wins the Iraq War, vindicates his father, Bush legacy lives on, so that Jeb Bush can then run after McCain retires from the Presidency after just 4 years, runs on the slogan, "1 banana, 2 banana, 3, Vite fior Generalissimo Bush", I mean, we'll officially be a banana republic by then, why lie to the world?