Sucks to be a conservative.

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
"YOU" sure like to use the word "YOU" in most of "YOU"r posts! In MY first most, I used "I"
and "Me"....funny how that works.

Really? Must be the new math. Zero's personal attack thread from which you quoted came from my reply to your original post. (Got that?) In that reply, I used I/my/me variations a total of nine (9) times. I used you/your variations four (4) times. When I took math, 9 > 4 by a factor of over 2. What was your point again?

Never mind, rhetorical question. I realize it was just another bleating attack-the-messenger comment. That's so much easier than addressing the issues raised.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I realize it was just another bleating attack-the-messenger comment. That's so much easier than addressing the issues raised.

I apologize again; I didn't realize there was an issue raised, as all I saw was attacks directed toward my response to the original proposition.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I realize it was just another bleating attack-the-messenger comment. That's so much easier than addressing the issues raised.

I apologize again; I didn't realize there was an issue raised, as all I saw was attacks directed toward my response to the original proposition.

That's what I figured. Did you ever acknowledge that Iraqis are people too?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Ahh, orbit-and-return...public policy 101

 

[Moonbeam]

Bowfinger, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Galt and Hero I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground. What you hae basically asked for is a rational discussion. I fear your luck in that regard is similar to your hopes for 'clue', but at least you tried. Perhaps next year, when Hero is is 6th grade, we'll get some answers. And dear John, wasn't it subliminal that got you started?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bowfinger, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Galt and Hero I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground. What you hae basically asked for is a rational discussion. I fear your luck in that regard is similar to your hopes for 'clue', but at least you tried. Perhaps next year, when Hero is is 6th grade, we'll get some answers. And dear John, wasn't it subliminal that got you started?

I guess I'm the only one here with a job then. I don't have time to explain the basics of "critical thinking and argumentation" to somebody I seriously doubt will even get it. Interesting that you applaud his insecurity and denial instead of trying to help him yourself.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bowfinger, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Galt and Hero I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground. What you hae basically asked for is a rational discussion. I fear your luck in that regard is similar to your hopes for 'clue', but at least you tried. Perhaps next year, when Hero is is 6th grade, we'll get some answers. And dear John, wasn't it subliminal that got you started?

Actually I, as a highly informed Conservative, know he has not taken any highground. He has infact tried to counter self-perceived attacks with accusations of his own.



CkG

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Actually I, as a highly informed Conservative, know he has not taken any highground. He has infact tried to counter self-perceived attacks with accusations of his own.



CkG

CkG, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Moonie and Bowflex I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground.

 

[Moonbeam]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However had you known the facts you'd have said them first like me. The high ground seeks to rationally discuss the issue calmly deliberately and with facts. For example regarding WalFart, Bow mentioned that surely it has it's down side. Who could argue with that? See?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Actually I, as a highly informed Conservative, know he has not taken any highground. He has infact tried to counter self-perceived attacks with accusations of his own.



CkG

CkG, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Moonie and Bowflex I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground.

No need to hide one's bias. I am a highly informed Conservative and yet I decidedly allowed myself to look at the scenario in a completely unpolitical way or biased way. My statement had nothing to do with moonie or Bow being leftists, nor does it have to do with you(JG) or Hero being on the right side Ofcourse this post is decidedly political in nature but only in an informative fashion
Bow most certainly didn't hold any high ground and moonie should have realized that if he would have looked at it in an objective manner instead of trying to hide behind some thinly veiled "independent and unbiased" front.

To each their own I guess.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

I guess I'm the only one here with a job then. I don't have time to explain the basics of "critical thinking and argumentation" to somebody I seriously doubt will even get it. Interesting that you applaud his insecurity and denial instead of trying to help him yourself.
-------------------
But you got lots of time to bash him instead? To what end, my lovely friend. And I don't need to help him since he did such a fine job himself. See? That's why I'm helping you.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However had you known the facts you'd have said them first like me. The high ground seeks to rationally discuss the issue calmly deliberately and with facts. For example regarding WalFart, Bow mentioned that surely it has it's down side. Who could argue with that? See?

So Bow was discussing this "calmly deliberately and with facts"? Or was it conjecture and assumption? Or are you using reverse irony and you actually agree with us?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However had you known the facts you'd have said them first like me. The high ground seeks to rationally discuss the issue calmly deliberately and with facts. For example regarding WalFart, Bow mentioned that surely it has it's down side. Who could argue with that? See?

So Bow was discussing this "calmly deliberately and with facts"? Or was it conjecture and assumption? Or are you using reverse irony and you actually agree with us?

I gave an example of a fact so you would have no doubt. Do you agree with it or disagree? Simple, see?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However had you known the facts you'd have said them first like me. The high ground seeks to rationally discuss the issue calmly deliberately and with facts. For example regarding WalFart, Bow mentioned that surely it has it's down side. Who could argue with that? See?

So Bow was discussing this "calmly deliberately and with facts"? Or was it conjecture and assumption? Or are you using reverse irony and you actually agree with us?

I gave an example of a fact so you would have no doubt. Do you agree with it or disagree? Simple, see?

That wasn't the conjecture post I responded to, but I'll oblige anyway.

No, there's absolutly no negative to Wal-Mart. This is a capitalist nation. If a store cannot get people into the store to buy things, then they aren't fit to survive in capitalist waters. Wal-Mart probably won't exist in 20 years...or it may be all that's left...either way it's irrelevent because capitalism (and labor laws) ensures that we, the consumer and employee, win either way. Want to compete with Wal-Mart? Open in a better location. Specialize and reduce prices. Offer better or cheaper products you can't find there. Offer better services for the same price. I know its the foundation of liberalism, but stop whining about how other people are causing all your ills and take a little resposibility for yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However had you known the facts you'd have said them first like me. The high ground seeks to rationally discuss the issue calmly deliberately and with facts. For example regarding WalFart, Bow mentioned that surely it has it's down side. Who could argue with that? See?

So Bow was discussing this "calmly deliberately and with facts"? Or was it conjecture and assumption? Or are you using reverse irony and you actually agree with us?

I gave an example of a fact so you would have no doubt. Do you agree with it or disagree? Simple, see?

That wasn't the conjecture post I responded to, but I'll oblige anyway.

No, there's absolutly no negative to Wal-Mart. This is a capitalist nation. If a store cannot get people into the store to buy things, then they aren't fit to survive in capitalist waters. Wal-Mart probably won't exist in 20 years...or it may be all that's left...either way it's irrelevent because capitalism (and labor laws) ensures that we, the consumer and employee, win either way. Want to compete with Wal-Mart? Open in a better location. Specialize and reduce prices. Offer better or cheaper products you can't find there. Offer better services for the same price. I know its the foundation of liberalism, but stop whining about how other people are causing all your ills and take a little resposibility for yourself.

I'm in the catbird seat. I'm worried about others now. Markets are fine that factor in teal costs. Real costsa aren't so easy to see. That's why your thinking is simple minded. See line three of my sig.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bowfinger, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Galt and Hero I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground. What you hae basically asked for is a rational discussion. I fear your luck in that regard is similar to your hopes for 'clue', but at least you tried. Perhaps next year, when Hero is is 6th grade, we'll get some answers. And dear John, wasn't it subliminal that got you started?

Thanks Moonie, but I won't claim the high ground. I should have ignored Zero's troll, or at least left out the sarcasm. I'm afraid I've become too frustrated at people who constantly attack others, but are unwilling or unable to intelligently support their positions or address issues raised. They may even start with specific points, but when those points are challenged, they resort to the D's -- Distort, Distract, Dismiss, Deny, Denounce.

It's too bad, really. If they are well-informed and have put any real thought into their postions, they're missing a great opportunity to clarify and reinforce them.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However had you known the facts you'd have said them first like me. The high ground seeks to rationally discuss the issue calmly deliberately and with facts. For example regarding WalFart, Bow mentioned that surely it has it's down side. Who could argue with that? See?

So Bow was discussing this "calmly deliberately and with facts"? Or was it conjecture and assumption? Or are you using reverse irony and you actually agree with us?

I gave an example of a fact so you would have no doubt. Do you agree with it or disagree? Simple, see?

That wasn't the conjecture post I responded to, but I'll oblige anyway.

No, there's absolutly no negative to Wal-Mart. This is a capitalist nation. If a store cannot get people into the store to buy things, then they aren't fit to survive in capitalist waters. Wal-Mart probably won't exist in 20 years...or it may be all that's left...either way it's irrelevent because capitalism (and labor laws) ensures that we, the consumer and employee, win either way. Want to compete with Wal-Mart? Open in a better location. Specialize and reduce prices. Offer better or cheaper products you can't find there. Offer better services for the same price. I know its the foundation of liberalism, but stop whining about how other people are causing all your ills and take a little resposibility for yourself.

I'm in the catbird seat. I'm worried about others now. Markets are fine that factor in teal costs. Real costsa aren't so easy to see. That's why your thinking is simple minded. See line three of my sig.

We're working from the same set of findings, you hypocrit. My solution is to let capitalism sort it out like it always does. Yours is to...have the Federal government ban Wal-Marts? That's splendid, comrade. Let's also have them ban gay marriage while they're handing out bans. And obesity and McDonald's because I don't like the new McNuggets.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
No, there's absolutly no negative to Wal-Mart. This is a capitalist nation. If a store cannot get people into the store to buy things, then they aren't fit to survive in capitalist waters. Wal-Mart probably won't exist in 20 years...or it may be all that's left...either way it's irrelevent because capitalism (and labor laws) ensures that we, the consumer and employee, win either way. Want to compete with Wal-Mart? Open in a better location. Specialize and reduce prices. Offer better or cheaper products you can't find there. Offer better services for the same price. I know its the foundation of liberalism, but stop whining about how other people are causing all your ills and take a little resposibility for yourself.

Absolutely no negative to Wal-Mart? None at all? Nothing? Wow.

You see nothing wrong with persuading governments to subsidize builing Wal-Marts, especially since they don't offer similar subsidies to Wal-Mart's local competitors? You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart locating stores just outside of city limits to draw away business while avoiding contributing to the community? You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart forcing companies to outsource overseas, costing us good manufacturing jobs, so Wal-Mart can undercut smaller retailers? You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart limiting employees' hours to avoid benefits, then encouraging them to apply for public assistance, even though that means we taxpayers end up subsidizing Wal-Mart's hallowed low prices? You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart using it's size to force entertainment distributors to censor their products?

If you can truthfully say you have absolutely no problem with any of this, then I sincerely pity you. Your values are horribly, hopelessly perverted. I cannot share your heartless, even hateful vision for America. Capitalism is a means to an end. It is not the end, not for any human with a soul.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor
We're working from the same set of findings, you hypocrit. My solution is to let capitalism sort it out like it always does. Yours is to...have the Federal government ban Wal-Marts? That's splendid, comrade. Let's also have them ban gay marriage while they're handing out bans. And obesity and McDonald's because I don't like the new McNuggets.

Please show me where anyone here has suggested having "the Federal government ban Wal-Marts."

Didn't think so.

(Moonie: this is exactly the kind of dishonest, BS argument I find so frustrating. They can't support their position, so they launch into another volley of D's just to fill the void.)

 

[ReiAyanami]

i'm a conservationist when it comes to the enviroment. i'm more liberal than i'd like to be, i'd vote green over dean or bush
SoCal college will do dat to ya

But then again Republicans flipped with Democrats in Lincoln's time

maybe we'll flip again given the high spending, and invasive intrustion of the government into our civil liberties. who woulda thought the republicans would do the democrats job after kicking them out in 2000 and 2002

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor
We're working from the same set of findings, you hypocrit. My solution is to let capitalism sort it out like it always does. Yours is to...have the Federal government ban Wal-Marts? That's splendid, comrade. Let's also have them ban gay marriage while they're handing out bans. And obesity and McDonald's because I don't like the new McNuggets.

Please show me where anyone here has suggested having "the Federal government ban Wal-Marts."

Didn't think so.

(Moonie: this is exactly the kind of dishonest, BS argument I find so frustrating. They can't support their position, so they launch into another volley of D's just to fill the void.)

Then what do you suggest?

I can't wait for this.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
No, there's absolutly no negative to Wal-Mart. This is a capitalist nation. If a store cannot get people into the store to buy things, then they aren't fit to survive in capitalist waters. Wal-Mart probably won't exist in 20 years...or it may be all that's left...either way it's irrelevent because capitalism (and labor laws) ensures that we, the consumer and employee, win either way. Want to compete with Wal-Mart? Open in a better location. Specialize and reduce prices. Offer better or cheaper products you can't find there. Offer better services for the same price. I know its the foundation of liberalism, but stop whining about how other people are causing all your ills and take a little resposibility for yourself.

Absolutely no negative to Wal-Mart? None at all? Nothing? Wow.

You see nothing wrong with persuading governments to subsidize builing Wal-Marts, especially since they don't offer similar subsidies to Wal-Mart's local competitors?

When you factor in the 20 years of huge taxes that will be paid by Wal-Mart, I think the government comes out way ahead.

You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart locating stores just outside of city limits to draw away business while avoiding contributing to the community?

By contributing to communities do you mean local taxes? If so how would you solve this? Sounds like smart and legal business practices to me. Otherwise I don't see how it couldn't contribute to a community that will inevitably be the bulk of the hiring and shopping base.

You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart forcing companies to outsource overseas, costing us good manufacturing jobs, so Wal-Mart can undercut smaller retailers?

You don't have to go overseas to compete. Those who are will ultimatly fail in the long term...you have to be smarter than that.

You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart limiting employees' hours to avoid benefits, then encouraging them to apply for public assistance, even though that means we taxpayers end up subsidizing Wal-Mart's hallowed low prices?

Then get a different job or unionize. Many companies do this.

You see nothing wrong with Wal-Mart using it's size to force entertainment distributors to censor their products?

The censored albums sell, so there's a market for them. And they aren't forcng anybody to do anything.

If you can truthfully say you have absolutely no problem with any of this, then I sincerely pity you. Your values are horribly, hopelessly perverted. I cannot share your heartless, even hateful vision for America. Capitalism is a means to an end. It is not the end, not for any human with a soul.

My values are American...be smart and work hard and you can achieve anything. What are your values? Complain and whine till you get things your way because you can't compete otherwise?

 

[GrGr]

The title of this thread made me remember this article about the nature of conservatism.

Published on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Study of Bush's Psyche Touches a Nerve
by Julian Borger in Washington


A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality".

Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of gray and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".

Another author, Arie Kruglanski, of the University of Maryland, said he had received hate mail since the article was published, but he insisted that the study "is not critical of conservatives at all". "The variables we talk about are general human dimensions," he said. "These are the same dimensions that contribute to loyalty and commitment to the group. Liberals might be less intolerant of ambiguity, but they may be less decisive, less committed, less loyal."

But what drives the psychologists? George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism, noted, tartly: "The professors have ideas; the rest of us have emanations of our psychological needs and neuroses."



link

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bowfinger, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Galt and Hero I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground. What you hae basically asked for is a rational discussion. I fear your luck in that regard is similar to your hopes for 'clue', but at least you tried. Perhaps next year, when Hero is is 6th grade, we'll get some answers. And dear John, wasn't it subliminal that got you started?

Thanks Moonie, but I won't claim the high ground. I should have ignored Zero's troll, or at least left out the sarcasm. I'm afraid I've become too frustrated at people who constantly attack others, but are unwilling or unable to intelligently support their positions or address issues raised. They may even start with specific points, but when those points are challenged, they resort to the D's -- Distort, Distract, Dismiss, Deny, Denounce.

It's too bad, really. If they are well-informed and have put any real thought into their postions, they're missing a great opportunity to clarify and reinforce them.

Actually it was you who trolled. Your "well-informed" input was a definition of "sheep". Attacking eh? I suppose that's why you changed Hero's name to "Zero"? ...or does that somehow "intelligently support" your position or address the issues raised? You always seem to be clamoring for other's to prove things yet you don't seem to have anything to back up your own assertions.

Nice try Bow, but you have no place to criticize anyone in this thread about the things you are trying to - You are just as guilty of it in this thread as those you accuse.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bowfinger, as a completely independent and unbiased observer of your exchange with Galt and Hero I can say categorically and without threat of contridiction by similarly alert minds that you are the one holding the high ground. What you hae basically asked for is a rational discussion. I fear your luck in that regard is similar to your hopes for 'clue', but at least you tried. Perhaps next year, when Hero is is 6th grade, we'll get some answers. And dear John, wasn't it subliminal that got you started?

Thanks Moonie, but I won't claim the high ground. I should have ignored Zero's troll, or at least left out the sarcasm. I'm afraid I've become too frustrated at people who constantly attack others, but are unwilling or unable to intelligently support their positions or address issues raised. They may even start with specific points, but when those points are challenged, they resort to the D's -- Distort, Distract, Dismiss, Deny, Denounce.

It's too bad, really. If they are well-informed and have put any real thought into their postions, they're missing a great opportunity to clarify and reinforce them.

Actually it was you who trolled. Your "well-informed" input was a definition of "sheep". Attacking eh? I suppose that's why you changed Hero's name to "Zero"? ...or does that somehow "intelligently support" your position or address the issues raised? You always seem to be clamoring for other's to prove things yet you don't seem to have anything to back up your own assertions.

Nice try Bow, but you have no place to criticize anyone in this thread about the things you are trying to - You are just as guilty of it in this thread as those you accuse.

CkG

It didn't stop you.

Hero, Bowfinger's got your number. No need really, to add a thing.