My definition of the current Republican Party?

And Republi-Cons are the epitome of "logical"??!! (Give me a break.)

 

You think racism is a serious reason blacks are held back right?
That police discrimination is very real?
Are all the worst cities for blacks in democrat run towns?
Do you believe racist republicans are the problem, even though blacks in the worst cities for them are very unlikely to even bump into one, never mind elect one to power or shop at their store?

If you answered yes to all of these questions, you might suffer from lefterism. Signs of lefterism include an enlarged and possible hemorrhaging heart as well as atrophy in the cerebral cortex.

 

You should recognize that the Cold War didn't start with Reagan. You should also remember that other presidents were very involved in dealing with the Russians. JFK went toe to toe with them in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Carter boycotted the Moscow Olympics. What Reagan did was show them that we could outspend them on military systems which would destroy them economically if they attempted to keep up with us. We were part of a world economy and they weren't. They were insulated within their own world of Soviet states. We had a constant source of revenue that they could never match because of their communist system. Their money was actually worthless to the rest of the world. The Soviet Union actually crumbled while Bush 41 was in office. Not Reagan. But I credit Reagan with the insight to show them that we could outspend them forever, and that trying to keep up was hopeless.

But if you're going to get into wiretapping people, you'll need to go back to Nixon. That was a train wreck. So lets back up a bit and use a bit of rationality. Your hatred for Obama isn't rational. You simply hate the guy, for reasons that have nothing to do with his politics. If you were honest, you'd recognize that. The rest of us can pretty easily.

 

No it didn't. You just like to pretend to have a reason not to engage. It's very convenient for you. But it's not logical.

 

I haven't made that claim. The argument that This guy did it, so it's ok for the other guy, is called a Tu Quoque fallacy. That's not what I'm presenting since I never said that either was right. If you can point that out, then do it. What I pointed out to you is that complaining about one person while ignoring the very same thing that you had no problem from the other guy, is the mark of a hypocrite. And you fit the description perfectly. Some people are liberals. Some are conservatives. And some are Hypocrites. You made your choice and I'm simply recognizing it.

- - - Updated - - -

Our friend doesn't grasp why he's presenting a hypocritical position.

 

You are making a claim you cannot back up. Hint: Bush is still not president.

 

Of course. But extremists on the Right (and there are more of them these days) view their 'delusion' as your 'illogic'. (Ignore that nonsense. Treat the extremists as though they were cultists.)

 

Why? That didn't make your case. If you're going to make a claim then support it.

 

Please, take your Right Wing talking-point(s) and place them where the light of truth may shine upon them and sanitize them.
(There probably won't be much left, but hey... that's 'reality'.)

- - - Updated - - -

That is the truth.

 

He couldn't respond. He certainly had an opportunity, but instead, puts up nonsense. Actually it was his post that was irrelevant. He was directing it at me assuming that I was a Democrat. Since I'm not, his post didn't apply. But it did seem like an opportunity to rebut his claim.

 

How do you dodge arguments all day without ever questioning your own beliefs?

- - - Updated - - -

3rd parties and non parties don't matter at all. We have a two party system, pick a side.

 

I will read the rest later. Tht was very funny to me and I laughed for quite a good time. Have a sense of humor. I respond to posts. While I read that book posed to me, why don't you answer those few small questions I posed to Johnny c.

Also, did you agree with me on the policies needed to be put in place to secure these failed demicrat run towns we were talking about the other day? I feel like I didn't get a yes or no out of you.

 

Alright. It's pretty clear by now that you don't understand anything I've posted. I get paid to teach, but sometimes students are simply not up to the task. The claim I made is that you are taking a hypocritical position which I have pointed out. Your hypocritical stance has been noted, and now you're Class is dismissed.

 

I know that you're right about this. I think that the ideological position with them is so Over-the-top nuts that logic actually appears to them as a liberal thing, so they have to reject it on principle. So to them logic is illogic. They maintain their own form of pretzel logic as if it's valid and worthy of being argued as having equal footing with what is actually true. I enjoy the debate process, but it takes a willing adversary and there are rules. You have to keep it real. They don't want to do that, so it makes honest debate pretty hopeless. Your description is pretty spot on I'm afraid.

 

Stop it, please.

You cannot force others to be convinced AND if you want something said, say it yourself; do NOT think that you can manipulate others into saying what you yourself can say.

If you do not like or disagree with what I say, then you can ignore it. Otherwise, don't EVER come in here (especially not with me) and expect that I will be somehow "guided" by your response to take things where YOU wish them to go.

I can tell you NOW that we disagree and certainly... you need understand that.

 

When was the last time you questioned your own "beliefs"? Here's a question for you. I'm assuming that you're a conservative. You adhere to the conservative ideology. I'm also assuming that you recognize that you're a fallible human being. That you could be wrong about a lot of things right? So tell me this: How can an infallible ideology (conservatism) come from a fallible source? If you know that you're fallible already then you know that you could be wrong. And If you know that as a fallible human that could be wrong, how is it possible that any idea coming from a fallible human being could itself be infallibly true?

The biggest difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the conservative KNOWS he's right. The liberal KNOWS that he could be wrong. So just when exactly was the last time you questioned your own beliefs?

 

I'm to the point, where I simply say what I KNOW from education and experience is true and reasonable. And I'm fairly confident that the as people continue to do that, eventually the best things will organically come from the general public consensus; thus shaping this nation (politically) as it needs to be.

It takes time/patience and there is a LONG arc to the same... but we'll get there.

 

Republicans did all of those things. Still belive in them too, that has never changed; but they did convince some democrats. Child labor laws pissed me off when I was a kid, why do you think they are a great idea?

No arguments here, just a rant.

Libbers never challenge the status quo of government. They love evey 80 year old failing program they find. All social spending is sacred. Conservatives have faith in God, and question government. Libbers question god and have faith in an almighty government.

Name one, just one big social program the Democrats willingly cut later when it produced bad results. Please explain how brilliant libs who question everything control the 30 worst cities in America?

Are you getting confused with the literal definition of liberals (low taxes economic freedom no racially discriminatory laws like AA), with the way it is used in America to describe the left?

Was stopped by republicans

Thanks to the republican constitutional amendments

show data.

The majority of hate crimes and the majority of problems for blacks occur in democrat districts. You can't even name 1 race riot in a republican town for every 4 I can name in a democrat run town.

You hate half the country according to this post, how high is your horse?

especially of you have the past the democrats have.

For the left. Twice now. First blacks, now hires as you point out.

As do democrats who blame all problems on race. That is why most race riots occur in their districts. That is why they have the most hate crime, that is why they run all of the police forces and all of the city governments in all of the towns that give blacks the worst results.

Via voucher

with full choice kids can go where they want and we dont need to worry about te government segregation of schools the democrats put in place.

by democrats and parents who did t want their kid to have to be bussed across town to make a leftist feel good

no, vouchers are.

All of the worst 100 schools in America not run by Indian tribes are run by democrats and they are mostly failing black students. Maybe if you crowed less about racism and more about policy results they wouldn't be securely held in the teacher's union's grasp. Why do you think the worst schools are all run by democrats without exception?

 

I question myself. I spent time living on a commune and I am now on the right as a conservative libertarian. As are most people who question themselves.

Gay marriage. Fine, they can have it just not happy about it

What social programs do you think failed? Was it just because not enough money?

- - - Updated - - -

Dodge.

 

Yes!! I'm human and know that I could be wrong. But so many of the Conservatives (especially within this forum) almost seek to force their belief or view upon you; and to justify that, they start off thinking or pretending that what they say is somehow 'perfect'. Or more accurately, they seem to be absolutely certain that what's in THEIR BOX, is all there really is to consider.

Seems like a 'cult-ish' mindset, to me.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you saying?

Got logic?

 

go with that feeling.

Then why dodge the simple argument I presented to you?

There was no argument there. The poster just inferred they were smart.

 

3rd parties and non parties don't matter at all. We have a two party system, pick a side.[/QUOTE]

Philosophically I'm a Critical Rationalist. That makes me a liberal according to your view. That means that when I vote, I vote for liberals and liberal ideas if I think they make sense. Today that aligns me mostly with the Democrats. However...parties have been known to change their positions. I saw that when I was younger. The South used to be all Democrat and very racist. Today those same racists moved to the Republican party and the South is all Republican. So I never register with any party. If the Democrats of today begin to move in another direction, I'm not going to be part of any ideology that rejects reason. Being an independent is NOT a party, so your suggestion that being an independent means that I'm part of some third party is nonsense. It means that I'll reserve my vote for those that maintain a position of reason. There is nothing reasonable with the Republicans. They can't be reasoned with at all, so I reject them.

 

OK so just be honest and say you are on the left and a democrat. Independents like you claim that just so they can cherry pick what they like about their side. If I am stuck defending everyone on the right you are stuck defending everyone on the left.

 

I agreed to discuss the policies on their merits, and we did.. I never agreed to participate in a 'bash the Democrats' exercise, which is obviously what you intended it to be all along. Now go look at the 'Rules of Radicals' and see what your next move should be.

Rule 0 of Rules for Radicals should be 'don't publicly discuss the rules, if you intend to use them.' Ol' Saul must have considered that too obvious.

 

So what was your opinion at the end? We had our discussion, how would you have voted after?