So, in essence...

Gunther: Nobody in this thread has argued against that.

You're doing it right now.

Gunther: You've repeatedly attacked anyone who responds to you no matter how polite their response

Please show an example of me attacking someone who was polite. PFQ doesn't count, he gets off on his martyrdom complex and I aim to please.

eraser8: You basically asserted that since Charlton Heston was widely considered conservative in 2008, he must have also been one when he was protesting for civil rights.

"You basically asserted" = "I just made up this narrative". Or, more accurately, "I like PFQ's narrative, so I'm going to imagine it as well."

eraser8: If he had omitted the "the," it might have been possible to (dishonestly) interpret the meaning of his claim as you chose to and fall back on the ridiculous argument you used.

Take a step back. What do you think was my purpose of saying that Heston marched for civil rights? You're claiming that it's a massive conspiracy of weasel words and narratives designed solely to assert a whole bunch of shiat that I never said. Is there any reason for you to take it as anything beyond face value? Is there any hint at all of some kind of combative nature to my post? I mean, christ, re-read what's starting the shiatstorm:
sprawl15: A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston.
That's it. A simple statement of fact. There's a lot of people in this thread trying to find something to argue against simply because they don't like Heston or don't like conservatives, and you're buying their bullshiat just the same.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: You say in one breath that we shouldn't "[attack] Fox viewers as uniformed and thus somehow illegitimate"

what Fox News viewers' uniforms might look like

tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: zappaisfrank: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

Um, no.


No? No to both or do you have a favorite you'd like to defend? Government has grown under both parties and both have agendas to limit freedoms of others. So I'm not sure how you could deny either of doing that.

So, I take it you're one of those political hipsters who distinguishes themselves by being an "outsider" and "above it all" so as to enable yourself to rail against the "two party system", which also adds up to a free pass from objectively looking at the situation and allows you to fart it all off with bogus equivalency comparisons.

Lemme guess.."Paulbot", right? The "growing government" thingie was a dead giveaway.

As far as "limiting freedoms"..can you give me a specific example of the "freedoms" you've lost since President Obama took office?


Sentences I presented that end with a question mark were questions for you. I see you must've missed those.

I just have a "crazy idea" that people should own their own lives and property. Weird, huh?

Are you opposed to anything more than a two party system or are there only two sides for every issue? You approach the idea of personal liberty as being a wild and crazy one, but I think wanting to oppress others in order to reach political or social goals is crazy.

Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Defense Budget, Patriot Act, War on Drugs, Gay Marriage. All of those sound familiar? They should. The Democrats took to the streets over them when Bush was in power. Obama promised to handle all of them. I guess it's ok now that your guy is in power?

The problem with granting more power is eventually someone you won't like will have that power, so be careful for what you wish for.

Would've loved to have seen the protests from Democrats had Bush been the one to sign this: President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law (new window) ...

Well, I see you've taken the easy way out and automatically assumed I'm an Obama supporter, which is typical because it seems Conservatives are incapable of seeing things as anything other than a black vs. white scenario wherein if you are against one you must be automatically FOR the other by default. I see this all the time and it's never surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.

I just have a "crazy idea" that people should own their own lives and property. Weird, huh?

As I asked above..give me an example of how you have been thwarted from owning your own life and property since November of 2008. I'll wait..

Are you opposed to anything more than a two party system or are there only two sides for every issue? You approach the idea of personal liberty as being a wild and crazy one, but I think wanting to oppress others in order to reach political or social goals is crazy.

I am in no way opposed to anything more than a "two party" system but at the same time, I'm a realist in that I also recognize that for any additional "parties" to have any more impact on an election other than to be a "spoiler" it's going to take three very basic things; time, money and candidates who appeal to the center and not the fringes. It's going to take time to weed out the generational voting pools who have only ever known two parties and those who view politics in a "sports team" mentality, it's going to take money to promote the candidate and since the billionaires are Republican and the labor unions are Democrat that's an uphill battle, and the candidates have to be sane, sensible people who can make the sale without appearing to be a wing nut which is too often the public perception of "third party" candidates.

Again, this huge impingement on your personal liberty seems to be a rather vague generality not backed up by much as far as street level examples. It sounds cute, though.

As far as the rest goes, you're throwing out examples of things I don't support either and acting like I'm supposed to defend them. Nowhere have I said I'm an Obama supporter, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that compared to what the Republicans are throwing at us, he is obviously the more palatable choice. You're taking the easy way out and mounting another "us vs. them" argument by referring to Obama as "my guy" while offering nothing in the way of an alternative idea of a defense of "the other side". Wonder why that is...?

ginandbacon: skullkrusher: ginandbacon: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: He was certainly more liberal than the guy he was running against at the time.

Richard "Captain EPA" Nixon?
I think the country would take Nixon in a heartbeat over the current crop of GO,Please


Yep. Kennedy was more liberal than Nixon was in 1960.

The politics of individuals and groups change over time. What a shock.

Nixon engineered the blatantly racist and horrific drug policy. But yes, I would probably take him over what the GOP is offering up today. I would take any Dem from almost any era over him, though.

well, our drug policy IS horrific but it is not racist. It's application DOES impact minorities much more negatively than it does white people but disparate impact is not evidence of racism.

Nixon's own words about his drug policy belie that fact.

what is racist about the drug policy? Does it specifically target minorities? No, it DOES specifically target dealers and suppliers over users though. Which, in light of what it is trying to accomplish, is probably the right idea.

Philip Francis Queeg: I pointed out that regarding him as a conservative at the time of the act is inaccurate.

Which was, again, an assertion you imagined. You're so far up your own ass you don't even realize it.

Philip Francis Queeg: As such your use of him as an example

"A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston." Charlton Heston is a notable conservative. He fought for civil rights. Please let me know which aspect of this is confusing to you.

Philip Francis Queeg: That pisses you off.

Pisses me off so hard that I'm struggling to stifle laughter.

Wake me when Ailes actually starts firing people for farking up easily verifiable facts, and actually moderates what they report a bit.

//Probably won't happen until Rupert passes on.

sprawl15: You're doing it right now.

You can't possibly really believe the crap you're arguing.

You got me, I guess. 7/10 - solid trolling, but you shouldn't need so many posts to hook people.

X-boxershorts: So pissed you gotta change yer depends now

My fingers are bloody stumps and the only thing that can soothe them is the spittle caking my keyboard, since it's laced with painkillers and pixie sticks.

It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

sprawl15:
zappaisfrank: It does sound familiar..it reminds me of all the times I've been debating Conservatives and they take it upon themselves to write my life story, fill in blanks about my beliefs, call me names, assume I'm an "Obamabot" or any other method they choose to prevent themselves from having to admit the truth about themselves or what they profess to be the truth.

I've had hilarious threads where people like PFQ call me a fascist while people on the right are simultaneously calling me an Obama love slave. People like these simply can't see any positions other than "us" and "them". It's sad, but kind of hilarious when you can unintentionally get a half dozen people to throw a shiatfit with a simple fact to rebut a general statement.

Nice to see I'm not the only one noticing these things. It does seem like righties only know how to approach an argument as an us vs. them conflict and think they can score points by calling you an Obama lover ("Your Messiah" is a common way they refer to President Obama). They are so limited in their scope of thinking that they automatically assume that because you are against one side you are automatically FOR the other side by default. I see it almost every day. Conservatives have managed to take a subject as complex as politics and reduce it down to a "sports team" mentality with their approach to elections being akin to "my team's gonna kick your teams ass!"

I do occasionally run across intelligent Conservatives and when you get past the surface crap you tend to discover that the two sides aren't that different in what they wish to see as an ultimate goal...namely, a government that works again! Too often, though, people get so wrapped up in placing blame and jockeying for power that the ultimate goal gets lost in a sea of bullshiat.

eraser8: RolandGunner: They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

How did you come to that conclusion? Where's your evidence?


I read Fark Politics tab.

RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

I watch a lot of FOX News to confirm my beliefs.

/beliefs about how farked up they are.
//confirmed

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.

eraser8: Honestly, I have no idea why you did it.

Most people, when they have conversations, put forward ideas or information during discussion. A rational response may have been "Oh yes, I forgot about that." Or "true, those times weren't so much GOP/Racists vs Democrats/Not-Racists", or even "That's not really indicative of the entire picture". An attempt to move out of simply framing it as one party was for racism and one party was against it grossly oversimplifies the times and influences. This was the time of the Southern Strategy, where people who were against integration because it was Federally forced (like Buckley) teamed up with people who were against integration because they hated black people. This was a time when Adlai Stevenson, the Dem candidate, ran with a segregationist as his VP and opposed integration while William Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, was a member of the NAACP.

It's a lot more complicated than LOL CONSERVATIVES.

eraser8: Please point out to me EXACTLY where and when you reliably established Charlton Heston as a conservative AT THE TIME he was marching for civil rights.

I didn't. Nor did I ever assert that he was a conservative at the time. If he was or wasn't is irrelevant.

eraser8: Besides, you weren't interested in making a simple statement of fact (unrelated as it was to Gunther's point).

It certainly was related. See above; people tend to paint the world into "us" and "them" and flip shiat when grey areas are revealed.

sprawl15: William Barry Goldwater

No idea how that migrated out of the parentheses.

Crunch61: RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

I watch a lot of FOX News to confirm my beliefs.

/beliefs about how farked up they are.
//confirmed



Cool Story Bro.

meat0918: Wake me when Ailes actually starts firing people for farking up easily verifiable facts, and actually moderates what they report a bit.

//Probably won't happen until Rupert passes on.

No, Ailes is the true believer. Murdoch is just in it for the money.

RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any And you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.

FTFM

cameroncrazy1984: meat0918: Wake me when Ailes actually starts firing people for farking up easily verifiable facts, and actually moderates what they report a bit.

//Probably won't happen until Rupert passes on.

No, Ailes is the true believer. Murdoch is just in it for the money.

Ailes was the one that said they'd fire people for farking up.

When Murdoch dies, I expect the media empire to crumble as it is sold off piece meal to interested parties.

This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.

RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.

Thank you for confirming what the rest of us see whenever attempting to discuss this very subject with Conservatives...nothing factual, simply offhand dismissals of "places that say mean things about Conservatives", the fact that the things they say are true be damned.

/"Soros" boogeyman in 5..4..3...

tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

sprawl15: MyRandomName: The more interesting study that recently came out, from a leftist, is the fact liberals can not comprehend opposing viewpoints while conservatives can.

That study was about as stupid as studies can get without someone losing their job.

Question for self identified conservative: Given the pattern A,B,C; what do you think a liberal will say the next thing in the pattern is?
Conservative: D?
That is correct.
Question for self identified liberal: Given the pattern W,X,Y; what do you think a conservative will say the next thing in the pattern is?
Liberal: Z
Incorrect the conservative said "potato"
Conclusion: Liberals can't comprehend opposing viewpoints! DERP!

RolandGunner: Crunch61: RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

I watch a lot of FOX News to confirm my beliefs.

/beliefs about how farked up they are.
//confirmed

Cool Story Bro.

And the moral of the CSB is: When a simple anecdote completely negates your argument, perhaps you should look for another argument.

moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?

mongbiohazard: This is what's wrong with the folks TFA is talking about, and the Republican party in general. A good read if you haven't read it before. I am re-reading it today after having spent time with my family and being reminded about the tickets to the crazy train they've bought.

I'm supposed to be spending Christmas this year with a rabid Fox News viewer that I have had this conversation with. I've managed to come up with excuses that last few years and avoided it (living 2000 miles away helps).

Me: "I'm not concerned so much with right versus left, but authoritarianism versus liberty"
Him: "I'm not concerned with authoritarians. As long as they aren't Democrats".

I wish I was joking.

moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.


Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism.

Oops. Sorry for dropping facts on you.

RolandGunner: It's a wonder little star chamber the Democrats have constructed for themselves. They fault conservatives for watching Fox News because it confirms all their beliefs... and then they don't watch Fox news because it doesn't confirm theirs.

Nope. People are adverse to watching Fox because it makes up lies and persists with them even when they have easily been shown to be lies.

Many people seem to have a need to find sources that can be just believed because they are a trusted Authority without any need to check out their explanations. Conservatives often take this to the extreme that anything one of their Authorities says is true must be so. See my comment earlier in this thread about the conservative embrace of a strong social hierarchy. Conservatives are wired for unquestionable authority while liberals at least allow questions. Three examples of strong social hierarchies are the military, a business, and a religion. The job of a soldier, worker. or lay person is to follow orders and and accept beliefs and not question them. Conservatives tend to think that all of society should be run as the military or a business or a religion.

eraser8: That leaves aside the fundamentally untenable logic you used in countering Gunther's post.

This is where you're farking up. You're imposing this whole argumentative tone onto something that had no argumentative tone. You're assuming it was a combative counter, when it was just kind of a "well, there's this guy".

eraser8: At no time did Gunther claim "no self-identified conservative ever marched for civil rights." He made a statement about conservatives as a collective.

And his statement was wrong. Not just because of a single, small example, but because of broad movements in both parties. As I explained to you already, and you dismissed as irrelevant.

Gunther: See, this is exactly the sort of Talking Point bullshiat I'm talking about. You don't want to admit the obvious and proven fact that it was the left in America that fought for civil rights and it was the right that was opposed. So you're focusing on ONE example of a conservative who fought for civil rights as though that one counter-example disproves history.

His history is just as revisionist as the people who claim the right were the only ones fighting for civil rights. I intended a discussion instead of an argument, but apparently the butthurt must flow.

sprawl15: A notable conservative that fought for civil rights was Charlton Heston. That's one part of what made Moore's shenanigans in Bowling for Columbine so idiotic.

Uh, his fighting for civil rights in the 50s and 60s doesn't excuse his allowing himself to become a pawn of the NRA in the 80s and 90s. Life doesn't work that way.

/It's like saying Ezra Pound's support of Communist causes in the 20s excuses the radio broadcasts he made for Mussolini (and against his own country) in the 40s.
//Of course, Pound was clinically insane.
///And Heston was senile.

X-boxershorts: skullkrusher: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.

So vote Democrat because authoritarianism is like rat droppings in cereal?

Because conservative policy for the past 40 years has a horrific track record?

accepting some authoritarianism because the other party is more authoritarian doesn't have much to do with the other party.

tgregory: moralpanic: tgregory: Both Democrats and Republicans are authoritarian and both eat up whatever their side dishes out: more control of the masses.

So vote Republican!

This false equivalence is such BS.


Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism.

Oops. Sorry for dropping facts on you.

CONGRATS!!! You know how to use a dictionary! Unfortunately for you i wasn't arguing on the definition of the word, but whether it applies equivalently to both sides, which it doesn't.

zappaisfrank:

Well, I see you've taken the easy way out and automatically assumed I'm an Obama supporter, which is typical because it seems Conservatives are incapable of seeing things as anything other than a black vs. white scenario wherein if you are against one you must be automatically FOR the other by default. I see this all the time and it's never surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.


No assumption necessary because you were quick to defend Obama without me even mentioning his name. Both Republicans and Democrats have their views, see it as black and white, and want those views pushed on others. (Authoritarian) The only thing conservative about me is wanting to reign in government spending. Unless pro-choice, anti-drug war, gutting the defense, closing military bases, etc... is now considered conservative.



zappaisfrank:

As I asked above..give me an example of how you have been thwarted from owning your own life and property since November of 2008. I'll wait..


Really? Obamacare? Tighter regulation? More bailouts? Extending the Patriot Act? Adding to America's wars? And those are EASY things to list.

And why start in 2008? Let's go back further. You sure are quick to defend Obama. Bush kicked off a lot of this with the bailouts, the Patriot Act, the wars, etc... Anytime our government tries to create something it takes from somewhere else. (Government 101) When did you sign up for Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? I sure don't remember signing up for that. Would you like it if a company signed you up for a service you didn't agree to? Of course not. Hell, people are pissed when they're held to something they DO sign up for. (Credit cards, anyone?)

Regulation and the Obama administration

Obama's Authoritarian Style



zappaisfrank:

I am in no way opposed to anything more than a "two party" system but at the same time, I'm a realist in that I also recognize that for any additional "parties" to have any more impact on an election other than to be a "spoiler" it's going to take three very basic things; time, money and candidates who appeal to the center and not the fringes. It's going to take time to weed out the generational voting pools who have only ever known two parties and those who view politics in a "sports team" mentality, it's going to take money to promote the candidate and since the billionaires are Republican and the labor unions are Democrat that's an uphill battle, and the candidates have to be sane, sensible people who can make the sale without appearing to be a wing nut which is too often the public perception of "third party" candidates.

Again, this huge impingement on your personal liberty seems to be a rather vague generality not backed up by much as far as street level examples. It sounds cute, though.

As far as the rest goes, you're throwing out examples of things I don't support either and acting like I'm supposed to defend them. Nowhere have I said I'm an Obama supporter, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that compared to what the Republicans are throwing at us, he is obviously the more palatable choice. You're taking the easy way out and mounting another "us vs. them" argument by referring to Obama as "my guy" while offering nothing in the way of an alternative idea of a defense of "the other side". Wonder why that is...?



"I'm a realist" is a statement people say when they want to stop thinking of better solutions. However, if we operated as a true free society who is in power makes no difference because they couldn't say gay marriage should be illegal, or that you have to pay into social programs, or that you have to fight in a war, or that you have to pay for public school even though you don't have children or send them to private schools, etc... because we'd all own our lives and our property and no one could vote that away with majority rule (or a dictatorship).

Do you think we're totally free? If not, welcome to my side.

meat0918: When Murdoch dies, I expect the media empire to crumble as it is sold off piece meal to interested parties.

That's usually what happens. But his older kids have an active interest in keeping the whole thing together, as it's their main source of income.

What will be interesting is if Wendy (his current wife) gets her way and he screws his older kids over by leaving the whole thing to his youngest children (he has children by three different wives ranging in age from 50 to less than 10 years old).

Also, keep in mind that Rupert's mother is still alive, so we may be waiting a long time for him to drop dead.

Dwight_Yeast: meat0918: When Murdoch dies, I expect the media empire to crumble as it is sold off piece meal to interested parties.

That's usually what happens. But his older kids have an active interest in keeping the whole thing together, as it's their main source of income.

What will be interesting is if Wendy (his current wife) gets her way and he screws his older kids over by leaving the whole thing to his youngest children (he has children by three different wives ranging in age from 50 to less than 10 years old).

Also, keep in mind that Rupert's mother is still alive, so we may be waiting a long time for him to drop dead.

He had wives as young as 10? Holy Shiat, he's even worse than I thought!

zappaisfrank: RolandGunner: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The largest, most popular cable news channel in the country is putting out a nonstop stream of information that is actively misinforming tens of millions of Americans


Any you know this because MSNBC, Comedy Central and Media Matters tells you it is so.

Thank you for confirming what the rest of us see whenever attempting to discuss this very subject with Conservatives...nothing factual, simply offhand dismissals of "places that say mean things about Conservatives", the fact that the things they say are true be damned.

/"Soros" boogeyman in 5..4..3...



Oh, the irony. When the thread is kicked off with a leftist Alternet.com blog post telling the leftist rabble how they should think conservatives think then you have already conceded the high ground.