[DigitalWarrior]

I am bothered by the immature and baseless assertions of "conservatives". "Conservative" politicians claim to be the voice of morals, ethics, and reason. Yet I see so many rediculous things on this board that bring me closer to MicroBalrog.

################################################
I see a bad picture of John Kerry that kinda resembles a picture of the actor who plays Gomer Pile. Do you want me to infer that Kerry is dumb?

I see a faked picture of Kerry standing near Fonda. Do you want me to infer that Kerry supported the North Vietnamese who could have been killing his friends in the service?

I see a faked picture of him with a finger up his nose. What the hell is the point.

I see that a reporter sent him a report of weak security prior to 9-11. What the hell Kerry has a dozen staffers and the President has the US intelligence machine behind him, and then blame kerry for missing a sign.

Headline: Al-Queda and John Kerry. Substance: Unknown guest caller who may not have been affiliated with Kerry at all may have said that there could be a good side effect of a terrorist strike. Yet people here talk about the positive effect of a bloody, desperate and horrifying revolution here almost weekly.

################################################

This is an attack on the likes of Ann Coulter and Micheal Moore. Sure there is comedic relief, but comedic relief is not legal or political. It advances the cause of nothing. If we have points we should make them. If we are to advance our cause don't we need respect and an authoritative voice? Let us leave the pathetic misrepresentations to the enemy, then point them out for what they are.

For instance:
Kerry votes socialist:
example 1:
example 2:
example 3:
-or-
Bush advances Facsist causes:
example 1:
example 2:
example 3:

Not
Kerry is a stinky pinko.
-or-
Bush is dumb
:barf:

[Frohickey]

Yes, there are immature conservatives, but haven't you seen the antics of immature leftists?

My coworker is one, and he's got a GWBush morphing into a chimpanzee.

As to MicroBalrog, I dunno, his last few posts paint him to be a wealth-redistribution animal-rights leftist. I could be wrong though.

[DigitalWarrior]

If you are rational, you just turn to your co-worker and say "but what does that prove?"

If he says "tee-hee, but GW looks like a monkey", you can say "so because a picture of one can be made to look odd he is bad? Isn't that a little childish?"

As far as the Micro comment, I was indicating the alienation I was feeling from a group that relies on the "But kerry hung out with wierd people forty years ago" and "he looks funny" arguments.

[MicroBalrog]

As to MicroBalrog, I dunno, his last few posts paint him to be a wealth-redistribution animal-rights leftist.

Animal rights? Moi?:D

[Joe Demko]

Yes, there are immature conservatives, but haven't you seen the antics of immature leftists?

Which has exactly what to do with the actions of conservatives? Early on in my upbringing, my parents made it clear to me that no matter what somebody else might have done wrong, that was no excuse for me to do wrong.

BTW, there does seem to be growing attitude here that if you aren't for GWB, then you default to being some kind of commie. Whatever. I don't see much difference between Thing 1 and Thing 2 and have no intention of voting for either of them.

[gunsmith]

Besides, Kerry spends more money on his hair then my mom!
any guy that does that is opening himself up for ridicule....

As for Micro,animals do have rights! if they had opposable thumbs and brains they would be as dangerous as the animal on top of the food chain,the most violent predator of all
Homo-Sapiens :cool:


Anyway DW I allways enjoy your post...any problems with carrying the knives?

[TaurusCIA]

then you default to being some kind of commie

It is not who you are for that defines a member but what he posts. If it is a socialist manifesto then he will most likely be put in that camp.

Ditto for conservative postitions.

[Iain]

There has been a lot of political mud-slinging around here lately and there was a big crackdown on it earlier.

It's probably no better on this side of the pond, but I guess we should all stick to the issues. Kerry was in Vietnam and protested against the war later, he's married to the Ketchup heiress - so? He has a 'leftist' voting record, plenty of ammo for the conservatives there.

Bush has a question mark over his service record, his father was president - again so? He introduced the PATRIOT act and invaded Iraq, if you're going to go for him, there's your target amongst others.

Personality politics is a big turn-off, and it is as much the fault of the politicians themselves with their soundbites et al, we don't have to perpetuate it.

[JohnBT]

"He has a 'leftist' voting record"

There's an understatement.

Remember, they're all politicians and can't be trusted to look out for anyone's wellbeing but their own...no matter what they say or how they smile and kiss the babies.

John

[dischord]

Doctored pictures are humor -- nothing different from what you'd see on Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, Letterman, O'Brien or Leno. I can't get too upset about them.

Of bigger concern are some of the facts-challenged pieces alleging this, that and the other bad thing about Bush or Kerry. There does seem to be a circular logic about the people who believe them. Bush/Kerry is bad, so this story must be true, and because it is true, Bush/Kerry is bad.

[MrAcheson]

BTW, there does seem to be growing attitude here that if you aren't for GWB, then you default to being some kind of commie. Whatever. I don't see much difference between Thing 1 and Thing 2 and have no intention of voting for either of them.

Sorry but I have heard way too many Libertarians make comments identical to both (1) and (2) to be overly worried about the oppression of the 3rd party on this board.

As for Kerry v. Bush, I would like to make this an issue argument. While I have problems with some of Bush's policies, I have problems with all of Kerry's policies that I can name. I wish there was a better candidate than Bush, but I'm not seeing one. Oh and don't tell me "vote Libertarian" I want a government with a prayer of working, not some neo-anarchist pipedream where the strong prey on the weak.

[GoRon]

I just ignore the ignorant comments, it's not that hard.


I am bothered by the immature and baseless assertions of "conservatives". "Conservative" politicians claim to be the voice of morals, ethics, and reason.

I think they claim to represent their constituents, who see themselves as holding on to traditional morals, ethics and common sense.

The dialog on this board is pretty elevated in my opinion. I have been challenged to think through my positions and support them with logic.

I don't get the connection between your political/economic philosophy changing because of immature "conservatives"

What are you going to do when you meet the immature liberals?

What are you going to do when you meet the immature libertarians?

You are guilty of the very thing you are complaining about. You lump all conservatives into one pile of immature hypocrites who make baseless assertions. That my friend is a baseless assertion on your part.

[DigitalWarrior]

I think I see my logical error. I bought a good bit of "conservative" propoganda. I figured that if they claim to represent the good, moral, and reasonable, Then they will act as if they were good, moral and reasonable.

The fact is that conservatives are just as guilty as liberals of double-think. If I understand that the right is just as prone to appeal to emotion rather than reason, the baser instincts of man rather than his virtues, Then I have no quarrel. I believed that their constituents were genuinely interested in the values they claim to hold.

Perhaps I accorded "conservatives" too much respect in the beginning, and now am rewarded with disillusionment.

As far as Immature liberals, I guess that I didn't expect much of them, and was more amazed when I found a mature liberal. That is a very bad thing on my part.

I don't know that I met an immature Libertarian yet. When they don't make sense I just assume that they are tinfoil-hat-wearing-black-helicopter-chasin-illuminati-fearin crazy. Usually in a fun harmless way (I am a Libertarian anyway).

GoRon - I appreciate the majority of your post, however, I made it clear that I was addressing the Anne Coultiers and Mike Moores of the world, not "all" conservatives.

To be continued as I think about this for a while

[Michigander]

Am not! :neener:

[Mark Tyson]

No ideology has a monopoly on bad logic and emotion-driven arguments.

[Frohickey]

Animal rights? Moi? :D

Okay... animal petting rights. Waitaminute... :scrutiny: Petting is supposed to be done in the privacy of your own home. :neener:

[DRC]

I think your disillusionment comes from what you've seen, gathered or heard from the "lunatic fringe" more than anything. Although Ann Coulter (who is a babe) is smart and conservative in her views, she doesn't represent conservatives as a whole. Ann Coulters rhetoric is as bad as Micheal Moore's rhetoric so she is a hypocrit in that respect but more often than not, unless you read her whole article or book, her words are taken out of context.

My advice (which is worth what you pay for it) believe in your ideologies and keep your core beliefs in the forefront and don't worry about people that want to sway you with their words. You know what the truth is so a lie is still a lie no matter which side it comes from, just make sure it is a lie before you condemn it as such.

Take care and remember immaturity comes in all kinds of packages.

DRC

[CarlS]

I see a faked picture of Kerry standing near Fonda. Do you want me to infer that Kerry supported the North Vietnamese who could have been killing his friends in the service?

It is true that photo you mention was faked. However, you did not mention a photo that was not faked - the one where he is seated a row or two behind Hanoi Jane. He was an active member and leader of the VVAW. That, to me, is giving support to the North Vietnamese who could have been killing his friends.

Infer what you wish. The fact is he was not supporting his friends and comrades in harms way.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

So, your contention is that if one does not provide a researched and properly cited dissertation, then there is no need to post.

Most of this requires little or no thought since the issue is so basic and transparent.

The Democrats have been wailing on Bush/GOP for the past 12 months during the vetting process for the primary. Most of the criticism/ranting went unanswered because us morally superior "conservatives" chose not to interfere in the opposing party's political process.

The Democrats have now chosen their presidential contender. Us conservatives have 6 months (at least) of pent up rejoinder looking for an outlet.

It is easy and it is fun. The Democrats have selected THE MOST LEFTIST Senator in the party. Do you need proof of that or is it prima facie ?

:scrutiny: :what: :rolleyes: :neener:

Edited to add

I forgot (briefly) that this is a gun-rights board. Sen. sKerry left the campaign trail on Super Tuesday to make his first vote in the Senate in nearly a year to extend the AWB, close the gunshow "loophole," and to support Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy's ammo ban. If taking away gun rights is that important to him, then my denigration of him is that important to me. This man can not be in charge of the executive branch of the US Government.

[kbsrn]

Immature "conservatives" isn't just another way to say liberal?



Afterall most liberals grow up to be conservative once they earn a little money and see how the world works.

[PATH]

Let's put this all in perspective:

Conservatives are on the "Right"

Liberals,progessives, or what ever they call themselves these days are on the "left".



Let us take a look at the word "Right"

When someone gives a correct answer he is "RIGHT"!

When someone speaks the truth we say "Right On"!

When someone is in the "Right" we say he is taking a correct stance on an issue

Most folks are righties and therefore most firearms are for righties as well as most tools produced in this country and around the world.

When someone is very good we call him/her "Righteous"!

We shake hands and salute with our "Right" hand

We are endowed by our Creator with "Certain inalienable RIGHTS"

Our great nation has the "Bill of Rights"

We put our "Right" hand on the Bible to swear an oath" and we put our "Right hand" over our hearts to pledge allegiance!

I could go on but let us look at the use of "left:


"left" over

"left" out

a great number of cultures only use their left hand after using the toilet.

when someone is off the wall we say he is somewhere "in left field"


Let's face it we Conservatives are "RIGHT" and proud of it!

Immature? Am not! Am not! I'm rubber you're glue. Anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you! :D

[Joe Demko]

St Johns nailed it. If you can't attack kerry or Bush on their verifiable records, then no amount of fake pictures or silly insults (like calling him sKerry) does anything whatsoever to bolster your position. Thing 1 and Thing 2 both have egregious enough records that there is no need to to do anything but refer to their documented records as politicians to discredit both of them.

Edited to add: Does that make you a "rightard" PATH?

[kbsrn]

Edited to add: Does that make you a "rightard" PATH?, no it doesn't but Golgo-13 need to add personal insult to the poster certainly make him a person on the left.

[Standing Wolf]

It's my second childhood. I didn't have enough fun during the first. Anybody who doesn't like it doesn't have to play with my toys.

Seriously: in my experience, "maturity" is usually dull, and anyway, American presidential elections have always been at least 50% farce and often much, much more.

[Waitone]

The horse-pucky that passes for political debate is generall framed by our friends in the media. Media, during elections, reports the horserace. Beat reporters get bored out of their skulls listening to the same bilge multiple time a day for day after day after day. They are delighted to get facetime oversome new and interesting. They love to play gladiator A off against gladiator B. Have they done anything to expose the real issues? Who cares. Their job is get something on the air with their face on it.

It takes time, intelligence and some degree of professional skills to research candidate positions. So what is a face starved reporter to do? Why he // she takes whatever dirt a campaign offers and runs with it. Negative research by each party is important because that is how media is fed. Media is too lazy or overworked or doesn't care about facts. The only fact that counts is someone in the party made their life easier and gave them something with a good chance to get more face time. Then when party A get a juicy story placed scuffing up candidate B, candidate B can go to his media sources and scream "Negative Campaigning." No one ever bothered to mention that if media did its friggin' job from the beginning there would be no "negative campaigning."

It is an incestuous system designed to hide truth, but it appears to be the best possible given our current moral condition.

[gburner]

Golgo,

What, may I ask, is a 'rightard'. Are you attempting to make some lame joke at the expense of mentally retarded persons? You seem awfully thin skinned about folks confronting you but don't seem to mind dishing it out. What gives?

[DigitalWarrior]

Against my better judgement, I will defend Golgo's Comment. He saw PATH's absurd post about word derivations being in any way important, and posted that to poke fun at the immaculate word "right". Perhaps he was too subtle.

Personally I think the joke was too tortured to be funny.

[AZLibertarian]

MrAcheson....I wish there was a better candidate than Bush, but I'm not seeing one. Oh and don't tell me "vote Libertarian" ... No need to apologize to this proud Libertarian. I'll be the first one to admit that I have serious reservations about Bush. We really don't want to have me list them all. I didn't vote for his Dad in '92, and didn't vote for him in '00. Bush is far from a perfect candidate.

However, with that said, I don't see any way that I won't be voting for him this fall. I absolutely hate the idea that I'll be voting against someone (again), but I cannot stomach the idea that John Friggin' Kerry will somehow occupy the Oval Office by my use of my vote. As bad as Bush may be, I cannot think of one issue where Kerry is better.

And if one were to be a single issue voter this year, IMO, the issue is the War on Terror. Not the 'War in Iraq', the WMDs, those '16 words', the Patriot Act, the AWB, the economy, jobs, or whatever else. Bush's handling of the WOT has been absolutely masterful. Handing the job over to Kerry will make the mistake the Spaniards just made look like child's play.

As always, YMMV....its what makes America great.

[kbsrn]

13 being from the left. He felt the need to send me a private message telling me to "Stay out of it, skippy. You haven't been here long enough to pigeonhole anybody." In other words, like the typical lefty, shut-up you aren't smart enough to understand what I was saying. I wonder why he wasn't open enough to just post his opinion on the open board?
Why is it that the people on the left have this overwhelming desire to control everyone for their own good?
IE., I'm rom the government and I know what is best for you.

[TheBluesMan]

Argumentative.

Closed.