Originally Posted By Mr X ***<Honest, regular conservatives get a fair shake here.> You're delusional.*** Lovely. ***Please point out the conservatives that you enjoy chatting with.*** WahooSkipper is cool. Williamk99 and I have had some cool conversations. DAR, naturally. Hell, I've even enjoyed talking to BeauMandy before he went postal and became a true troll. He was capable of maintaining his stanch position while still keeping the conversation real and admitting it when someone else made a fair point. In any case, most of the "conservatives" here have been far more like Limbaugh/Beck zealots than real Republican types. I have plenty of friends in the real world who were right wing but still capable of conversing without sounding like a parrot or a noise machine ditto head of one type or another.
Originally Posted By Mr X Thanks, ec...I was trying to think of other names (just woke up, actually), and DVC and vbdad are a couple other great examples of folks who, while we might not agree much, are still capable of holding real, genuine conversations together without the propaganda/debate/attack thing.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Or you could admit that it's not unreasonable for people to want to see what the actual facts are about President Obama's birth and background, and not dismiss all of them as crazy wingnuts. Which of course was my point, before it was distorted and denigrated. << Nope - sorry, there's nothing reasonable in questioning Obama's citizenship, and people who do so are indeed dismissed as crazy wingnuts. Douglas, you reveal yourself as a birther, robbing yourself of any credibility in the process, and then get defensive when people dismiss your viewpoint. If your point is that the president may not be a US citizen - and why else would you be dissatisfied with the documents already provided - you deserve any dismissiveness you may receive as a result. You claim to be withholding your "intelligent debate" because people here dismiss, distort and denigrate it. So instead you reduce yourself to wingnut status with these hackneyed and patently ridiculous claims - such as comparing the intellectual heft of Obama to George Bush, or saying that comments unfavorable to Bush are "baseless", or infering that the press was somehow unfair to Palin, who then went on to quit the only significant position she's ever held less than halfway through her only term, presumeably to more effectively pander to the "common sense" americans like yourself. You say the dems "are trying to ruin our economy" - THAT'S baseless, scurrilous and flat out stupid. Your hero Dick Cheney goes out and says that the president "projects weakness" and "wants to pretend we're not at war" - THAT'S baseless, scurrilous and stupid - and possibly treasonous. Yet not a peep from you. You flatter yourself with the idea that your viewpoints are every bit as informed and legitimate as anybody elses, yet you won't support them in open debate, instead saying that they're being distorted. It's an empty exercise, and one which we've all seen too many times before.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I'll just point out that your guys passed the bailout bill which allowed the big banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take government money << Would that be the TARP bailout of October 2008? Introduced by president Bush and his hand-picked treasury secretary Hank Paulson? Is that the bailout bill that you're referring to? Thought so.
Originally Posted By ecdc Oh yeah, William hasn't posted as much but I do enjoy him. Here's the thing, though. Everything Douglas has posted, from his article (which I did read) to his comments about pseduo-intellectualism, is patently absurd. And easily refutable. So I think people need to chill out. Getting worked up over such ridiculous conservative boilerplate only feeds the machine. It's no different than watching Glenn Beck and yelling at the TV. It's insulated, circular logic. It's strawmen and mischaracterization of the facts. It's anti-intellectualism repackaged as "facts." Take what is said, patiently respond, and then move on. Right now in our country, liberals are on the right side. They have the evidence on their side, by and large. There are, of course, exceptions. Conservatives have melted down into a group of anti-intellectual, anti-science, fundamentalist religionists. They have warped and distorted history, especially American history, into an unrecognizable patchwork of oversimplified conservative thought. In short, don't get riled up and call Douglas names. Don't attack him or use all-caps to shout. Just respond to what's said. It's plenty easy when you analyze it and realize there's no substance. It's typical conservative boilerplate; it's O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity, and Beck massaged to sound original. It's easy.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How freaking convenient!> This website has a search feature. If you're really interested in learning about why I think the way I think on the financial problems we're currently going through, you can go look up what I said. Although the liberals here love to pretend that conservatives are uninformed, most of us have reasonable opinions that are based on logic and fact. The liberals here get to throw out their opinions constantly, on tangental matters, and conservatives are not allowed to challenge them unless we're willing to constantly repeat every fact we've ever pointed out before. It gets tiring.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A personal attack, Douglas.> Which was preceded by several from Mr X. Why don't you point that out? <Second, I enjoy DAR, DVC_Pongo, vbdad, and wahooskipper.> You're correct, I will point out that they are mostly moderate. I will also point out that at least two of them have complained about the same thing I have, and have cut back posting due to it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>reasonable opinions that are based on logic and fact.<< .. and tea leaves and horoscopes and John Birch Society pamphlets and the voices in their heads ....
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I will point out that they are mostly moderate.<< I think DD's definition of "Conservative" = everyone else's definition of "koo-koo."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Everything Douglas has posted, from his article (which I did read) to his comments about pseduo-intellectualism, is patently absurd. And easily refutable.> And yet no one has done that. Instead we get posts like No. 63, which claims I'm questioning the President's citizenship, when I've never done so. Please ecdc, show by example. Please actually explain why Mr McCarthy's article was patently absurd.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The liberals here get to throw out their opinions constantly, on tangental matters, and conservatives are not allowed to challenge them unless we're willing to constantly repeat every fact we've ever pointed out before. It gets tiring.>> And it gets tiring to see you continue to deflect from the questions that I raised, by telling me to use a search engine. I asked a legitimate question, based on your assumption that the economy turmoil we face now actually began before the Republicans regained control of Congress in 1995. I asked why Bush and the Republican controlled Congress could not reverse the damage that you claim was started before 1995. And... nothing. You've offered no explanation for why Bush and the GOP Congress could not reverse course in the six years they had control. Still waiting.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And yet no one has done that. Instead we get posts like No. 63, which claims I'm questioning the President's citizenship, when I've never done so >> #7 and #17 refuted your article quite nicely. I don't think there's a need for anymore discussion of these ridiculous, wingnut ideas.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << And it gets tiring to see you continue to deflect from the questions that I raised, by telling me to use a search engine. >> That's just what he does. It gets tiring, but after he repeats the technique a hundred or so times, it becomes so obvious that his credibility goes completely out the window. Eventually, he'll disappear for a few weeks and then come back and act as though we don't remember his illogical postings from before.
Originally Posted By ecdc Let me give a quick example of how easy it is to refute this kind of conservative boilerplate offered up by Douglas: The Obama thesis controversy, with information about what kind of student he was thrown in for good measure. NBC News did an interview with Obama's professor who was responsible for the class when Obama wrote the senior thesis. The professor said he was one of the top in the class and wrote the thesis on Soviet Nuclear disarmament, which jives with what the Obama campaign has said. Also, this was not like a Master's Thesis or Dissertation; it was a senior thesis since Columbia didn't require a full-length thesis. That explains why it would not have been kept by the University. <a href="http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx" target="_blank">http://deepbackground.msnbc.ms...454.aspx</a> Taken at face-value, Douglas' post on this makes it sound sinister and positively riddled with unanswered questions. When examined closer, it's entirely mundane and not the conspiracy he attempts to paint it as. Naturally this won't convince him, but it does show how easy it is to understand this stuff. Conservatives are insular and rely on circular logic to sustain their ideology. Responding to a Glenn Beck-type rant is easy, once you have the facts. But conservatives won't venture out of that protective cocoon, so they don't understand how silly all this is. They think it's devastating information. It's just not. Find the facts. Furthermore, this is a perfect example of what conservatives value and what they don't. They're all about the "values," right? Well they value teleprompters, theses, grades, birth certificates, Hitler posters, and vague references to "tyranny" and "socialism" without even understanding the terms. When liberals criticized Bush, it was over a botched war, dead Americans, dead Iraqis, and letting the people who attacked us get away. They valued life, the Constitution, and freedom. Disagree with President Obama all you like. I do on some issues. But take a look at the reaction to him from conservatives, and from liberals to Bush. Any thinking person can see the difference. The evidence backs me up, as I showed with the analysis of liberal reaction to Bush when Richard Reid tried to blow up a plane, and the conservative reaction to Obama after the Christmas attempt.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Again, ecdc, please actually explain why Mr McCarthy's article was patently absurd.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Please explain why you ignored the other postings that already did this.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Again, ecdc, please actually explain why Mr McCarthy's article was patently absurd.*** It was already done in posts 7 and then in much greater detail by another in post 17. Why don't YOU go ahead and rebut THOSE posts, Doug?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>NBC News<< Liberal media. >>did an interview with Obama's professor<< ACORN plant. >>who was responsible for the class<< Lab assistant. >>when Obama wrote<< or hired someone to write >>the senior thesis.<< THE senior thesis. Not HIS senior thesis. >>The professor said he was one of the top in the class<< of how many students? >>and wrote the thesis on Soviet Nuclear disarmament,<< Pro-Soviet propaganda >>which jives<< as do all Afro-Americans >>with what the Obama campaign has said.<< Like we can believe them. >>Also, this was not like a Master's Thesis or Dissertation;<< Obviously not. >>it was a senior thesis since Columbia didn't require a full-length thesis.<< Convenient, that. Only a Masters Thesis is proof of actual graduation. A senior thesis is automatically issued by a university on request. >>That explains why it would not have been kept by the University.<< Wouldn't the university have kept it if Obama was such a fabulous student? There. Perfectly logical arguments. Let's see if anyone will try to refute them with legitimate facts and logic. I bet they can't. Or won't. Dang fellow travelers.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please explain why you ignored the other postings that already did this.> They were non-responsive. No 7 ignored most of the article and distorted the little bit it addressed. No 17 didn't address the article by Mr McCarthy at all. This is typical of how liberals debate a conservative. If a conservative asks three questions, and they'll answer one tangentially, and then pretend they've shown your whole argument as incorrect, and deride you in the process.
