Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Amusing Behavior
I'm always amused when liberals expect us to be concerned if we offend them and disagree with them. They act so amazed and sanctimonious, so wounded. You can almost hear them huff, "Uh! Is there no room for discussion?"
No, there isn't, you're wrong. Why do they think agreement between liberals and conservatives is a lofty goal? If I could agree with you I'd change my position. If I didn't think you were wrong then I'd be a liberal too. You're wrong! How can you expect me to agree with you!
We can't even "agree to disagree." That would mean I think it's okay for you to be wrong. It's not. You have the right to be wrong, but it's not okay.
If you hate Bush with a rabid passion and I think he's doing a fair job (certainly better than the alternatives could,) where's the "room for discussion?" If you think the government should be bigger and doing more and I think it should be smaller and doing only what the Constitution allows, where's the "room for discussion? " If you think we shouldn't be in Iraq and I think we should be in Iraq and Iran and Syria, where's the "room for discussion?" If you think the murder of a child is a woman's "right to choose" and I think it should be a crime, where's the "room for discussion?" If you think Christian's religious beliefs should be kept behind closed doors and I think we need more of it, everywhere, where's the "room for discussion?" If you side with people who say "Conservatives are fascist nutjobs," where's the "room for discussion?"
The most amusing part of this is liberals think we want to find common ground to agree with them. We're right, you're wrong. Where's the "common ground?" ¶ Wednesday, May 10, 2006
No, there isn't, you're wrong. Why do they think agreement between liberals and conservatives is a lofty goal? If I could agree with you I'd change my position. If I didn't think you were wrong then I'd be a liberal too. You're wrong! How can you expect me to agree with you!
We can't even "agree to disagree." That would mean I think it's okay for you to be wrong. It's not. You have the right to be wrong, but it's not okay.
If you hate Bush with a rabid passion and I think he's doing a fair job (certainly better than the alternatives could,) where's the "room for discussion?" If you think the government should be bigger and doing more and I think it should be smaller and doing only what the Constitution allows, where's the "room for discussion? " If you think we shouldn't be in Iraq and I think we should be in Iraq and Iran and Syria, where's the "room for discussion?" If you think the murder of a child is a woman's "right to choose" and I think it should be a crime, where's the "room for discussion?" If you think Christian's religious beliefs should be kept behind closed doors and I think we need more of it, everywhere, where's the "room for discussion?" If you side with people who say "Conservatives are fascist nutjobs," where's the "room for discussion?"
The most amusing part of this is liberals think we want to find common ground to agree with them. We're right, you're wrong. Where's the "common ground?" ¶ Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Comments:
<< Home
James,
I think maybe Rich needs to hear this message. He's frequently telling me that he has trouble discussing things with me. Instead of debating with me he either hands out research homework,
or labels me with the ambiguous "unfocused derision" term.
He seems to act like he wants to find common ground. But, as you have so brilliantly observed, there isn't any common ground. I don't think Rich gets it.
I think maybe Rich needs to hear this message. He's frequently telling me that he has trouble discussing things with me. Instead of debating with me he either hands out research homework,
or labels me with the ambiguous "unfocused derision" term.
He seems to act like he wants to find common ground. But, as you have so brilliantly observed, there isn't any common ground. I don't think Rich gets it.
Clay,
Part of their playbook is to speak condescendingly and patronisingly about "common ground" or "toning down the rhetoric" as they ask "Can't we all just get along?"
Can we get along? Sure. Can we "agree to disagree." Sorry, there is no room for compromise with dangerous positions.
Part of their playbook is to speak condescendingly and patronisingly about "common ground" or "toning down the rhetoric" as they ask "Can't we all just get along?"
Can we get along? Sure. Can we "agree to disagree." Sorry, there is no room for compromise with dangerous positions.
hmmmm...seems like it's always you sheep who get bent out of shape when it's pointed out that your leader and role model is a cowardly drunken idiot.
"ooooo...you bush-haters are sooooo mean"
lol
"ooooo...you bush-haters are sooooo mean"
lol
Nah, what bugs me is when you have nothing of substance on which to criticize him (Which is most of the time.) and resort to the meaningless "drunken idiot" style attacks (like now.)
Nothing? Nothing?
I've attended 11 funerals this year because of that incompetant boob and the pointless war he has dragged the country into. Daily....daily, my friend...I counsel vets who have been immersed in horror and are trying to figure a reason to go on living.
I'm really tired of seeing brave young men sacrifice so much for lies. Does that have enough meaning for you?
I've attended 11 funerals this year because of that incompetant boob and the pointless war he has dragged the country into. Daily....daily, my friend...I counsel vets who have been immersed in horror and are trying to figure a reason to go on living.
I'm really tired of seeing brave young men sacrifice so much for lies. Does that have enough meaning for you?
See, now you've at least got a point, valid or not. So much better than "drunken idiot." Good job, Jay.
No, nothing at all like that.
If you enable comment moderation just so you can block my comments and feebly try to spin the debate your way, then you are a coward. That's pretty substantive.
If you enable comment moderation just so you can block my comments and feebly try to spin the debate your way, then you are a coward. That's pretty substantive.
yeah...whatever
I'm not really too impressed in being called a coward by the likes of you. I attempted to have a reasonable discussion with you on a topic in which we both have very different opinions. Rather than discuss that topic, you decided to start tossing around remarks attacking my character. That may pass for substantive debate here...but not at my place.
I'm not really too impressed in being called a coward by the likes of you. I attempted to have a reasonable discussion with you on a topic in which we both have very different opinions. Rather than discuss that topic, you decided to start tossing around remarks attacking my character. That may pass for substantive debate here...but not at my place.
Right.
A "reasonable discussion."
Is that what you call it when you ask if I was "hiding" with President Bush on 9/11. And you accuse me of attacking your character?
You call an 18-year plus military veteran a "chickenhawk." And you accuse me of attacking your character?
You have a warped definition of substantive, Jay. But then you have a warped definition of truth as well.
A "reasonable discussion."
Is that what you call it when you ask if I was "hiding" with President Bush on 9/11. And you accuse me of attacking your character?
You call an 18-year plus military veteran a "chickenhawk." And you accuse me of attacking your character?
You have a warped definition of substantive, Jay. But then you have a warped definition of truth as well.
James,
So now, Jay wants you to believe he is in the "front lines" dealing with the psychological damage that our war against terrorism has caused? Yeah right. It's kind of like his claim to have served in the military and wounded in action, yet thinks OPSEC is some sort ot secret spy thing.
Jay,
You're pathetic. You have the nerve to pretend like you have tried to discuss reasonably with James only to have him resort to name calling and attacking your character when it has been you that resorts to name calling and attacking your opponent's character.
Both James and I have been forthright with spelling out our arguments only to have to put up with you childish tactics, your smug attitude and your comment moderation so that you don't have to actually defend your pathetic position in the first place.
Don't you have some cat blogging to do?
So now, Jay wants you to believe he is in the "front lines" dealing with the psychological damage that our war against terrorism has caused? Yeah right. It's kind of like his claim to have served in the military and wounded in action, yet thinks OPSEC is some sort ot secret spy thing.
Jay,
You're pathetic. You have the nerve to pretend like you have tried to discuss reasonably with James only to have him resort to name calling and attacking your character when it has been you that resorts to name calling and attacking your opponent's character.
Both James and I have been forthright with spelling out our arguments only to have to put up with you childish tactics, your smug attitude and your comment moderation so that you don't have to actually defend your pathetic position in the first place.
Don't you have some cat blogging to do?
Clay,
Like all liberals, Jay, Mark & Rich, make a big show of pretending to defend their positions. Once you back them into a corner (which isn't too hard) they cut and run or simply stop talking and move to their next weak position. I noticed a post I made a while back where Mark commented and argued with me about a pro-terrorist march in England. Once I'd refuted his arguments, rather than continue to try and defend his point, he simply disappeared.
And they wonder why I call them cowards.
Post a Comment
Like all liberals, Jay, Mark & Rich, make a big show of pretending to defend their positions. Once you back them into a corner (which isn't too hard) they cut and run or simply stop talking and move to their next weak position. I noticed a post I made a while back where Mark commented and argued with me about a pro-terrorist march in England. Once I'd refuted his arguments, rather than continue to try and defend his point, he simply disappeared.
And they wonder why I call them cowards.
<< Home
