Excellent post on how conservatives argue their case, and right on the money. I will never look at a post by our right-wing friends the same again. If there was ever a case for not responding to their posts, this is it. The trap is set the moment they leave a comment and we respond. If we think we are going to educate them, or present facts that will sway their opinions, or argue with facts and have them finally understand, we are fools.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 02:37 AMI could see our wrong-wing wregulars in the Kos post. Kudos for finding it!
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 02:51 AMexcellent..it very much echos many conversation i've had with conservatives through the years....kerry was a coward..bush was the war hero..gore was a phoney..bush is the real accomplished one...black is white...it truly never ends with them
Posted by dennis at January 16, 2006 02:58 AMYup, that's right, visit Low & Left for the best quality blogging on this side of the Internat!
Wha'd I say?
Dennis, and don't forget that Kerry shot himself and Gore invented the Internet. God, people will believe anything.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 04:24 AMI stumbled across this while researching another topic. It puts the shoe on the other foot!
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 04:25 AMjudith
the media is a powerful tool..to powerful..they fostered and created the bush facade..very powerful people are in charge of the country and the media...woe to anyone who fights them...clinton ..gore..mccain..dean.. kerry..the media paints them all with the same brush..with lies and soundbites..they are corrupt...listen to al gore today or read the speech he gives..we are in serious trouble....and i think we're on our way to bombing iran as swell
Posted by dennis at January 16, 2006 04:45 AMOf course we are going to bomb Iran. That is part of the Perle/Wolfowitz game plan, and has been for a long time. Wolfowitz and Perle have managed to have the United States achieve the first of their desired goals for Israel, the elimination of Saddam Hussein, and we get the oil for our trouble. If forces are needed in Iran or Syria (if it comes to ground fighting), then the day of Mercenary Incorporated may have just arrived.
This Country will be at war indefinitely because of the grand scheme to take over the "valuable resources" of the middle east while securing Israel. Pandora's box has been opened, and we are seeing the results. Isn't it interesting that Bush gets mad anytime someone suggest that the Iraq War is about oil?
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 05:31 AMThis Country will be at war indefinitely because of the grand scheme to take over the "valuable resources" of the middle east while securing Israel.
And also to keep the corporations that build the weapons happy, too. A war is good for the economy, you know.
Posted by ann at January 16, 2006 05:34 AM"That doesn't make him a dictator," I
said. "Don't be ridiculous."
"Maybe not yet. But he claims he has unlimited powers to fight terrorism. He can spy on anyone, arrest anyone, and kidnap anyone and ship him to another country to be tortured merely on the suspicion that he might be a terrorist. And he argues that this power lasts until there is no more terrorism in the world."
"Well, it will be a long fight," I said.
"Forever," he said.
There you have it folks, the Forever War on Terrorism."
Thanks Pessimist for the site.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 05:47 AMAnd also to keep the corporations that build the weapons happy, too. A war is good for the economy, you know.
Ann, you are right. There are just so many good things war can do for that 1%.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 05:53 AM
In an earlier thread, u.jest performs the troll bait and switch technique of demanding to introduce a new, but legit topic in comments, then when someone finally agrees to discuss it, he ignores all their points and suddenly introduces the point of his interest in the topic: Liberals Suck. Classic example of "The Jekyll/Hyde Troll."
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 05:54 AMACCRA, Ghana - First lady Laura Bush said Sunday that the U.S. government is right to eavesdrop on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists, but a top Senate Republican joined a chorus of lawmakers who think domestic spying is on shaky legal ground.
"I think the American people expect the United States government and the president to do what they can to make sure there's not an attack by foreign terrorists," Mrs. Bush said just before landing here to begin a four-day stay in West Africa.
Well Laua, first of all no one gives a rat's ass what your opinion is, and by-the-way, what happened to the inner city thingy?
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 06:04 AMWell, this will make the trolls heads spin.
Post ombudsman Howell twice falsely claimed Democrats received contributions from Abramoff:
Deborah Howell, the Washington Post ombudsman, falsely asserted twice that Democrats received contributions from Jack Abramoff.
In a January 15 column touting The Washington Post's coverage of the influence-peddling scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell twice claimed that Democrats received campaign contributions from Abramoff. Howell wrote that research by staff writer Susan Schmidt showed Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties," and that articles by Post business reporter Jeffrey H. Birnbaum showed that Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." In fact, as reported in the Post articles Howell cited, Democrats received money from Abramoff's clients and associates but not from Abramoff directly.
In her January 15 Post column, Howell wrote:
In the fall of 2003, a lobbyist called to tip Schmidt that Abramoff was raking in millions of dollars from Indian tribes to lobby on gambling casinos. Schmidt started checking Federal Election Commission records for Abramoff's campaign contributions. Lobbyists also file forms with Congress that give information on clients and fees.
Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.
The second complaint is from Republicans, who say The Post purposely hasn't nailed any Democrats. Several stories, including one on June 3 by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, a Post business reporter, have mentioned that a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.
Howell mischaracterized the articles she referred to. Birnbaum reported in his June 3, 2005, article that Abramoff "directed" campaign contributions from the Indian tribes he worked for "to Democratic as well as Republican legislators." Schmidt, in a December 5 article, cited Birnbaum's article from June in reporting that "some prominent Democrats, including former senator Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), Sens. Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), were among beneficiaries of the largest campaign contributions from Abramoff's associates and clients." Contrary to Howell's assertions, neither Schmidt nor Birnbaum reported that any Democrat received direct contributions from Abramoff. A Media Matters for America search of the Center for Responsive Politics database of campaign contributions did not find any contributions from Abramoff to Reid or Dorgan or to any Democratic leadership political action committees.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601150001
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 06:11 AMSorry for exposing everyone to that pointless string of commentary last week.
My apologies.
Posted by muckcat at January 16, 2006 06:12 AMMuckcat, you have NOTHING to apologize for. I'm the idiot who posted "there is a silver lining over the rainbow."
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 06:17 AMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011500915_pf.html
Well, someone had the balls to ask outright the question.
Ralph Reed, candidate for lieutenant governor, had just finished his opening statement to the Dawson County Republican Party when retired pulp paper executive Gary Pichon sprang from his seat with a question that cut to the chase:
"Did you accept any gifts, commissions or other payments of any kind from Mr. Abramoff, and are you likely to be a party in the unfolding investigation?"
Silence enveloped the 60 or so Republicans in the auditorium, and Reed's cheerful manner turned tense. "No," he replied. "No to all these."
Wanna bet?
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 06:30 AM"Well, someone had the balls to ask outright the question."
Let's try that again.
Well, someone had the balls to ask the question outright.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 06:33 AM"Well, someone had the balls to ask outright the question."
This is perfectly acceptable usage--certainly not the most common way, but correct nonetheless.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 16, 2006 06:45 AMWhy Do Republicans Hate White People?
dj, in alternate usage would "outright" be offset with commas?
"Well, someone had the balls to ask, outright, the question."
Hmmm. I'd probably use the commas, but I'm a comma person.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 07:16 AMThis was a facsinating post. Somebody is missing it and that intrigues me. Obviously you libs have some amount of logical reasoning, its just your personal bias that gets in the way. I'd just ask you to reason within your own mind, you don't have to tell any other liberals that you are trying to be forthright, just try some intraspective.
Get this...okay, here it comes.
The parody on dkos is exactly the opposite of the truth....thats right. From my perspective, this illogical obnoxious parody is how you guys argue routinely. Reminds me of the book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy” in which the left is exposed for not what they say, but for what they do. Like Moore who says he owns no stock but actually owns the company that owns the stock in Haliburton. . . .
I can't help but imagine if you guys are so blind to your bias that maybe, just maybe those of us on the right are just as easily blinded by ours.
Therefore, I will use this little parody as further evidence that sincerity, albeit a good thing to be, has little to do with truth. One can be sincere in ones beliefs and still be wrong.
So I will continue to try as best I can to see beyond my own rose colored glasses to make sure that I am not so obnoxiously stupid as to ever believe this kind of a parody-in reverse- as being a truth merely because "I" sincerely believe it.
Posted by carpediem at January 16, 2006 07:18 AMcarpy
thank you...you have proven the point beyond a shadow of a doubt..did you know gw really went to viet nam and won the cogressional medal of honor..heard it from a swift boat vet...thank you for helping me see the light
Posted by dennis at January 16, 2006 07:23 AMcarpeKoolaid,
your post ^ another fine example of "50 states".
Posted by emal at January 16, 2006 07:31 AMCarpe couldn't even resist the obligatory Michael Moore reference!
LOL!
Posted by snark at January 16, 2006 07:31 AMPoor crappy, always resorting to type. He just can't help himself.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 07:43 AMMatthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Posted by carpediem at January 16, 2006 07:52 AMMatthew 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Matthew 23:26 [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Wow! Copy/clip is fun!
From my perspective, this illogical obnoxious parody is how you guys argue routinely.
Damn! A neo-con who doesn't watch FX, listen to Rush-the-Lush, or Sieg Heil in lock-step with Hanoi Hannity! How precocious! Much like a cigarette smoking monkey in a hat.
Posted by phidipides at January 16, 2006 08:20 AMWhat does "avaroo" mean?
Posted by at January 16, 2006 08:24 AMWhat does "avaroo" mean?
Who cares?
Posted by snark at January 16, 2006 08:30 AMsnark, exactly!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 08:31 AMMatthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Please stop reading before Matthew 25:31. Nero-Cons and Tali-Evan-Fundies should never discover that -even though they've been born again, dunked, forgaved, confessed or cannibalized the body and blood of Hay-Zeus- they will still burn in hell. So stay where you're at in the bible or move to Song of Solomon, if you keep reading from your current paragraph you'll be pissed at yourself.
Posted by phidipides at January 16, 2006 08:42 AMphidipides,
The whole right hand of God, left hand of God thing always screws them up. Sheep/saved on the right. Goats/damned on the left. They think it's analogous to the political spectrum! Everything after that is lost on them.
Posted by snark at January 16, 2006 08:53 AMAnyone gonna watch the Gore speech coming up on C-span?
Posted by emal at January 16, 2006 09:03 AMLet me get this right mr. phidipides...
The topic of this thread is the inability of the right to coordinate a logical argument against the highly intellectual liberal mind.
I post a queiry that perhaps, just perhaps, both sides are blind to the truth because of our biases.
I'm then of course, chided by you guys for posting such comments.
I reply with my usual dry wit, a biblical post that seemed appropriate to the theme, i.e. rose colored glasses/blindness and now I'm chided again with other biblical references....I don't know seems sort of ironic here. I'm the one that is a moron and yet you are arguing with me....
Again, I'm continually amazed at the arrogance from both sides of the political spectrum. Everyone thinks they know everything about everything. We are all so comfortable in our own beliefs that we refuse to even venture out and discuss with some intellectual civility the pros and cons of our convictions....
The mirror is a wonderful thing, but you have to look into it deeply to truely see the image you are seeing.
I stand by my observation, the original parody is seen by the left and the right to be exactly applicable to the other party. Either we both are right, which may be true, we both are wrong, which again, might be true, one is right and one is wrong, which I personally can't see, or there is truth to be seen from the parody.
The truth is . . . how very comfortable we are in our political beliefs and dogmas, that we see only ignorance and anger from those that might disagree with our obviously superior intellect.
Posted by carpediem at January 16, 2006 09:04 AMbtw: I consider myself a christian agnostic. Or a doobie brothers christian.
Which means little I guess. My final paper in divinity school was "Inerrancy, the ultimate Heracy!" So, I'm really not proposing that the Bible is the word of God etc. I do however believe it contains some truth, as does the Koran, and other religious texts. My use of it, is usually only because of my familiarity and not my conscience adherence to its authority, which I believe it offers none... at least not supreme and almight authority.
Posted by carpediem at January 16, 2006 09:08 AMI'm the idiot who posted "there is a silver lining over the rainbow."
You are too hard on yourself, Judith! I thought it a cute comment, which is why I stole it!
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 09:12 AMthat we see only ignorance and anger from those that might disagree with our obviously superior intellect.
I'm glad you concur. But, my quote was just a comment, and allegorical of the difference between the arguments of the left and Nero-Cons. I think it was quite appropriate, germaine to the discussion, and reflective of the current topic.
Hey gang, don't ya just drool over Abramoff's comments about Ralph Reed:
One of the most damaging e-mails was sent by Abramoff to partner Michael Scanlon, complaining about Reed's billing practices and expenditure claims: "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him." Scanlon and Abramoff have pleaded guilty to defrauding clients.
OMG, what a hoot!
Posted by phidipides at January 16, 2006 09:14 AM
we see only ignorance and anger from those that might disagree with our obviously superior intellect.
Now we know! Carp is really William F. Chuckley!
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 09:17 AMMonday must be comedy day for trolls. u.jest is trying to ruin my Sunday Breakfast thread by trying the same tack he tried Saturday. I do believe he is a masochist, which is good, because I love snapping him on the nose with a newspaper! Crappy - superior intellect - now that's a real hoot. Stop it, big guy, I'm busting a gut here.
emal, I can't watch, but I'll be monitoring the liveblogging on dkos. Should be a barn burner!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 09:30 AMiamcoyote,
watching/listening it while surfing now, and reading the liveblog at dkos and booman...are you able to livestream it via your puter?
sorry to hear how your pet is misbehaving.
Posted by emal at January 16, 2006 09:35 AMNow we know! Carp is really William F. Chuckley!
The antecedents of your witfully gregarious commentary will, as we might say in latin, crescite et multiplicamini, possibly much to the detriment of our discourse, and so should be taken cum grano salis, as it were.
I, uh, I, uh, I uh...though I take exception to comparisons in relationship to the more excremental of those amongst our noted company here.
Posted by William F. Chuckley at January 16, 2006 09:40 AMI am listening to Gore, and the phone with my mom is sitting by the speaker, and I'm reading along on RawStory.
Posted by Sharon at January 16, 2006 10:16 AMal gore was tremendous..called for an independent investigation for illegal wiretaps...the man was elected president..i hope he runs again...he has my vote and i will work for him should he run....
Posted by dennis at January 16, 2006 10:29 AMMy corporate boss is in town, so I can't livecast, dangit, but I'll catch it in video!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 10:30 AMChuckles, that was spot on, man!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2006 10:38 AMI wrote Al Gore back in 2004 when he said he wouldn't run, to ask him to not go away from public life since when I heard him talk I felt encouraged and hopeful for America in contrast to how I felt when I read most news. He may never have read it, but he sure has done what I asked and I am right there with you Dennis. When I hear stuff about Hillary running, I get that awful feeling in my stomach. When I hear Al Gore, I feel rays of hope.
Posted by Sharon at January 16, 2006 10:38 AMsharon...my gut tells me he will run...the country is in deep trouble and he knows it better than anybody....i hope he will come back and reclaim his rightful place in history..the country needs him..i believe that with all my heart...
Posted by dennis at January 16, 2006 10:46 AMI think that we should start a telephone campaign and demand that Gore's speech is shown prime time.
NBC Chairman
Bob Wright
212-664-4444
bob.wright@nbc.com
(PS, Bob Wright is the same guy who said on 11/13/05 on Tucker Carlson (ew) that "progressives don't listen to a lot of radio and they don't watch a lot of TV" which was his justification for limiting Progressive hosts.)
Posted by Anjha at January 16, 2006 11:00 AMI agree with you on Hilary,( sinking pit in the stomach feeling too), and feel Gore is certainly a better choice than she is at this time. But anyway, how refreshing it was to hear a true leader string together more than 2-3 words at a time into a complete sentence and then string more than one of those together into a coherent thought without stopping and with passion to boot. Gore's speaking style is far more enjoyable than um...err...yah see... Dear Leader's..who speaks in ...ummm short segments...or otherwise has to...ummm read it verrryyyy slowly. How refreshing for a change.
Posted by emal at January 16, 2006 11:04 AMProgressives don't listen to alot of radio or watch alot of T.V.?
yeah right. The reason is clear, your arguments do not withstand the onslaught of truth. The truth tends to come out when you are "out there". People finally get fed up with the propaganda and hate and then just turn the station.
Liberals do however, control the shows that come out of Hollywood. West Wing, Commander and Chief, and countless movies, which puts the Democratic spin machine to shame. The reason these work is because there is no open debate, no way to defend against their positions, because the forum is dictated by their terms only.
I love to listen to Air America, whenever the 5000 watt station isn't wiped out by the weather. They are just pitiful talk show hosts, in fact, they sound an awful bit like you guys. They don't have an audience so they have to buy one.
Oh, the other night's episode of West Wing was wonderful. C.J., Chief of Staff, saved Dafur from genocide by back door negotiations with the Germans and Chinese. I almost cried to see what true liberals would do if only they had power....
Posted by carpediem at January 16, 2006 11:23 AMhow in gods name that what comes out of hollywood has anything to do with the mainstream media..or what news is shown on tv..it's fiction and obviously known to be so..the mainstream media on the other hand is what is disseminating and withholding in some cases the truth about this administrations lies..don't try and compare the two it is a specious argument like everything else you say...and i supposed that clown rush limbaugh and his drug induced rants is good listening..you're disgusting
Posted by dennis at January 16, 2006 11:33 AMOh, the other night's episode of West Wing was wonderful. C.J., Chief of Staff, saved Dafur from genocide by back door negotiations with the Germans and Chinese. I almost cried to see what true liberals would do if only they had power....
And what exactly is our Republican government - who does have lots and lots of power - doing about the genocide in Darfur? I believe the phrase you are looking for is: zilch.
Posted by ann at January 16, 2006 11:41 AMDennis, faux "news" is fiction too!
BTW - the number to NBC viewer services is 212-664-2333. Mailbox #2 for news - which is conveniently full.
Other email addresses are:
letters@msnbc.com
viewerservices@msnbc.com
I have reminded them of their obligation to be of service to the people.
I don't know how much good it'll do, but if they receive enough demand to show Gore's speech, they might just do it.
Liberals do however, control the shows that come out of Hollywood.
And who buys those shows and puts them on their otherwise neo-conman program lists????
The corporate media you claim to be so liberal!
Posted by pessimist at January 16, 2006 11:53 AM"Like Moore who says he owns no stock but actually owns the company that owns the stock in Haliburton. . . ."
Carp, and which company might that be?
carpe,
You say the liberals argue the same as the conservatives, and that both sides are blinded by their own biases. I will agree there are biases on both sides that can blind both, but I note a disctinction in how the two sides argue their points. You see a mirror image in the link to "Conservatives argue a case" that I don't see.
Conservatives, or rather more accurately described neo-cons, tend to fall back on a few repetitive points in their arguments that creates a "style" which this link captured perfectly. A "style" which you yourself bring to the discussion with this statement: People finally get fed up with the propaganda and hate and then just turn the station.
A recurring theme of neo-con debate is that liberals "hate." Or "hate" America.
Another classic neo-con argument you made was: Liberals do however, control the shows that come out of Hollywood.
Neo-cons often bring this to their arguments, as if it really mattered what shows come out of Hollywood, or what people in the movie business have to say. It goes along with the Michael Moore and Barabra Streisand remarks; as if these two were the appointed spokespersons for liberal thought, instead of someone with actual political credentials. I wonder if this isn't some sort of Hollywood envy on the part of neo-cons?
Lastly, you say there are no moderates. That moderates don't exist, that they're only figments of their own imaginations or lack of convictions. That's another classic neo-con argument that you won't find liberals making. I don't understand the significance of saying there are no moderates. If this country had wanted a true conservative as president, it would have elected Pat Buchanan, not Bush.
I usually comment on a decidedly right-wing, pro-second amendment blog, and am a life-long registered Republican. Since I don't consider the current administration conservative, and don't hold neo-con beliefs, I get regularly labeled a liberal there and often receive the brunt of the same argument style the link to "Conservatives argue a case" parodies. I don't actually think this style is conservative, but instead neo-conservative. And from your arguments I would consider you neo-conservative as well.
Oh, and please provide a link.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 02:58 PMCarp: I am a Christian agnostic
Agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. I don't think you can be a Christian agnostic because the two words are at odds with one another.
Carp, and which company might that be?
He just saw it on a book cover, I doubt he's actually read the book yet, but is taking it as scripture because he agrees withits premise.
Posted by ann at January 16, 2006 03:09 PMYou are too hard on yourself, Judith! I thought it a cute comment, which is why I stole it!
Pessimist, your right. I am too hard on myself. Glad you thought it cute. I should never post until I have had my morning coffee. Actually silver lining over the rainbow denotes something wonderful just over the rainbow, I guess. :)
Posted by at January 16, 2006 03:09 PMI agree, Gore should be our nomination for President, with Edwards as VP.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 03:11 PMThis thread seems pretty dead but it's the open one so I'm throwing this here.
How valid is this? I've heard it before but this article is new.....
The Truth Behind The Iraq Invasion And A Possible US Conflict With Iran
Posted by Sharon at January 16, 2006 08:20 PMSharon, thanks for the article. Yes, I believe that the article is quite true, and can certainly be considered part of the puzzle called Iraq.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2006 08:40 PM