Skip to main content

Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: No, it doesn’t.

Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?

Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: Oh, so you’re saying those don’t count?

Liberal: Yes.

Conservative: Oh, so the people there don’t count? They’re not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.

Liberal: No, I said the territories don’t count as states. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: You’re really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don’t care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don’t even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans.

there's more...

Liberal: First of all, I never said all conservatives are racists.

Conservative: Yes, you did.

Liberal: No, I didn’t.

Conservative: Michael Moore says it.

Liberal: I’ve never heard him say that.

Conservative: Yes, he does! He most definitely does!

Liberal: Look, I don’t know what he says. That’s beside the point. And the people in Guam “count,” whatever that means. I don’t even know who lives in Guam; I don’t know the first thing about Guam. I’m just saying Guam isn’t a state – it’s a territory. The USA has fifty states.

Conservative: What about Puerto Rico?

Liberal: What?

Conservative: What about Puerto Rico, huh? You love all those Mexicans coming across the border stealing our jobs – you must LOVE Puerto Rico, right?

Liberal: I’ve never been to Puerto Rico.

Conservative: Well, I have, and those kind of people would be pretty offended to hear liberals like you saying they aren’t real Americans!

Liberal: I didn’t say that!

Conservative: You said they didn’t count!

Liberal: I didn’t say that either! No, wait, just wait… (takes deep breath). I only said the USA has fifty states. Puerto Rico isn’t a state – it’s a commonwealth.

Conservative: And they don’t speak English!

Liberal: Well, many Puerto Ricans do.

Conservative: How do you know that? I’ve been there – you haven’t!

Liberal: All right, OK, fine, whatever. But the USA has fifty states.

Conservative: Well, I say Puerto Rico counts.

Liberal: Fine, but not as a state.

Conservative: Well, that’s YOUR opinion.

Liberal: It’s not my opinion – it’s a fact.

Conservative: Says you!

Liberal: No, not just “says me.” It’s a fact. Look it up.

Conservative: I don’t have time.

Liberal: You don’t have time to find out if the USA has fifty states?

Conservative: Listen, you may have time to sit around all day surfing on your liberal websites, downloading Michael Moore, but I’ve got things to do.

Liberal: Like reading about blacks in Guam and Mexicans in Puerto Rico?

Conservative: See, that’s why you guys always lose. I’m trying to have a nice conversation, and you just keep up with the insults!

Liberal: Listen, I didn’t mean to insult you.

Conservative: Oh, yes you did!

Liberal: No, look, I’m sorry, OK? I didn’t mean to insult you. Honestly. It’s just that… well, the USA has fifty states. That’s a fact. And I’m just trying to state a fact, and you’re getting very defensive, and…

Conservative: Oh, so now I’m defensive.

Liberal: Well…

Conservative: You just said you weren’t going to insult me!

Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to say the USA has fifty states!

Conservative: According to YOUR sources!

Liberal: MY sources?! What are you talking about? Look it up!

Conservative: I told you, I don’t have time to spend all day cruising the internet, looking up geography questions! Maybe if you were busier at your job, trying to live the American Dream, you wouldn’t have time for all this hate!

Liberal: I work hard at my job!

Conservative: Then why are you spending all day downloading Michael Moore?

Liberal: I don’t spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don’t even know what you mean by that! All I’m saying is that the USA has fifty states!

Conservative: Again, according to YOU!

Liberal: Not just me! Here, here’s the World Book Encyclopedia. Look it up – it’s fifty states!

Conservative: Oh, sure, the World Book! Yeah, like I’m going to believe the World Book!

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Come on, it’s a liberal rag!

Liberal: (Long, teeth-gnashing pause) Look, just look up “United States of America.” Ten bucks it says, “the USA has fifty states.”

Conservative: Ten bucks, huh?

Liberal: Yeah, ten bucks. (pause) Wait, that’s the “M” volume.

Conservative: I know.

Liberal: You need to look under “U” for “United States.”

Conservative: I’m not looking for “United States.” I’m looking for “Moore, Michael.”

Liberal: What?!

Conservative: And when I find a big glowing article about him, you’re going to owe me ten bucks!

Liberal: Why would I owe you ten bucks?!

Conservative: You bet me ten bucks that the World Book Encyclopedia isn’t liberal.

Liberal: No I didn’t!

Conservative: Yes, you did! You bet me ten bucks that I couldn’t find a liberal article in the World Book. So when I find Michael Moore’s picture, you owe me ten bucks!

Liberal: Oh, my lord…

Conservative: AHA!

Liberal: Listen, you idiot, just because you found Michael Moore’s picture in the World Book doesn’t mean that I owe you ten bucks! It doesn’t mean the World Book is a liberal encyclopedia! And it certainly doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have fifty states!!

Conservative: Oh, no? Look at this!

Liberal: (pause) “Massachusetts”?

Conservative: Bingo!

Liberal: What the hell does Massachusetts have to do with anything?

Conservative: The COMMONWEALTH of Massachusetts!

Liberal: So?

Conservative: So you said Puerto Rico is a commonwealth!

Liberal: Oh, no…

Conservative: You ADMITTED Puerto Rico was a commonwealth! Admit it, you said it!

Liberal: Oh, man…

Conservative: So if Massachusetts is a commonwealth, and Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, then they BOTH must be states! HA!

Liberal: OK, look…

Conservative: You owe me twenty bucks!

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Come one, pay up! Twenty bucks, let’s go!

Liberal: I don’t owe you twenty bucks!

Conservative: And I’m not even counting Pennsylvania!

Liberal: Pennsylvania?

Conservative: That’s a commonwealth, too!

Liberal: It’s a commonwealth, but…

Conservative: And Washington!

Liberal: All right, look, I lived in Seattle – Washington is NOT a commonwealth!

Conservative: Seattle’s not even a state – it’s a city!

Liberal: Yes, it’s a city, in Washington State! Washington’s a state!

Conservative: I’m talking about Washington D.C.

Liberal: What?

Conservative: Washington D.C. It’s a city.

Liberal: I know what it is!

Conservative: Well, you liberals are always going on about “Statehood for Washington!” Which, you admit, is already a state!

Liberal: Washington D.C. is not a state!

Conservative: Washington State is!

Liberal: You just said Washington D.C.!

Conservative: And you said it should be a state!

Liberal: I never said that! I mean, it should be… but I never…look…

Conservative: Should Washington be a state?

Liberal: Well…

Conservative: Simple question.

Liberal: Washington State?

Conservative: Yes or No?

Liberal: Washington State or Washington D.C.?

Conservative: Right.

(Long pause)

Conservative: He snorts cocaine.

(Long, painful pause)

Liberal: (slowly) This is Washington D.C. you’re talking about.

Conservative: Yeah. The mayor snorts cocaine.

Liberal: Actually, he’s no longer the mayor…

Conservative: I don’t think a state should have a governor who’s used drugs.

Liberal: He’s not the governor; Washington’s not a…

Conservative: Except maybe California.

Liberal: OK, OK, stop for a moment…

Conservative: I mean, that was a long time ago…

Liberal: Listen, listen…

Conservative: I don’t see Michael Moore making any movies about cocaine in Washington State, do you?

Liberal: Please, STOP!


Liberal: Look, I’m just trying to make a simple point here…

Conservative: What about…

Liberal: STOP!!!

(long pause)

Liberal: I’m just trying to make a SIMPLE point here. It’s not a big deal – it’s just a fact. The USA has fifty states. That’s all! Yes, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, but it isn’t counted among the fifty states. Yes, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are commonwealths too. So are Virginia and, I think, Kentucky. I don’t know about Kentucky for sure, and you know what – it doesn’t matter! They’re considered states, OK? They’re states. Washington D.C. isn’t one, even though I wish it was. Guam isn’t one. There are only fifty. Fifty states. Fifty stars on the flag – fifty states. That’s all. Fifty.

(long pause)

Conservative: Rush is so right about you people.

Liberal: Huh?

Conservative: Rush. He gets it. You people are the worst.

Liberal: I don’t…

Conservative: Here I am, trying to have an honest political discussion, and all you can do is bring up this liberal claptrap! You call people like Rush racists, but you don’t want to count Mexicans as Americans. You insult the Governor of California every chance you get. You get all your information from encyclopedias and Michael Moore. You want free cocaine in Washington, and you want Seattle to become a commonwealth, and you won’t pay me my fifty dollars even after I proved that blacks run Guam! And then, worst of all, you insult our flag and our troops!!! You disgust me!

Liberal: Good-bye.

Conservative: See, there you liberals go again! Sneaking off to download porn from Kentucky! I’m not forgetting you owe me 100 dollars!


Conservative: That’s it, cut and run!

(long pause)

Conservative: Why do you hate America?

Originally posted to ellinton on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Been there (4.00)
    and the thought that eventually entered my mind was "why am I even talking to this asshole?"

    I fear the words "I have a cunning plan" are rapidly marching towards this conversation with ill-deserved confidence.

    by Magnus Greel on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:17:41 AM PST

    •  Unfortunately (4.00)
      most of "those assholes" I'm related to.  As a side note, during a truly right-sided "discussion" something like the above, I turned to the winger duo that was attacking me and said, "What do conservatives conserve?"  I was met with blistering silence.  I repeated the question and to this day have NOT gotten an answer.
      •  They're conserving the American Way (3.80)
        Havn't you ever seen "Leave it to Beaver?" That's what they're conserving.

        It's nice you finally came around, although I still question your intentions.

        by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:51:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conserving the "Beave" (4.00)
          Don't you wish that they would at least conserve that.  No, instead Ward's job got shipped away, and now June is a waitress in the local greasy spoon.  Wally went into the Marine corp and got killed when his unarmored Humvee got blown up.  Eddie Haskell is president of the Young Republican Club and has gotten a little bit of money on the side defrauding the local Indian tribe.  The Beaver is living in a trailer south of town paying off his student loans that he needed to pay for High School.

          The Adams family is doing well, the mortician business is doing dreadfully well.

          "I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax." Thoreau

          by NearlyNormal on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:55:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You Forget... (4.00)
            ...they want to turn back the clock and make Beave and Wally remain kids--or, at least, keep them at home even as they grow older.

            What happens is Mrs. Cleaver is still pushing away a now elderly Eddie and his swarmy comments.  Wally and Beave are still sharing a room....

            It's actually pathetic, this desire for the fifties.

            It's even more pathetic, the way "they" argue--I haven't had such a good laugh since "the war on Christmas" got under way.

          •  Okay (none)
            that's more scathing and indepth then I meant. I just wanted to show a black and white reality that never really existed.

            But kudos, I tip my hat to your cynicism.

            It's nice you finally came around, although I still question your intentions.

            by NeoconSemanticist on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 04:43:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Leave it to Beaver (none)
          well, Bush is a cunt...
          •  Hey (none)
            Not cool.

            "The reason we had a right to privacy is because Congress didn't stop them." - Tom DeLay

            by OxyLiberal on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:59:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Which is how liberals argue (none)
            Your example is an extreame view of the code words and insults that pass for analysis in many arguments.
            •  Spelling! (none)
              It's libruls-- or have you abandoned that code word?

              the Wolf Brigade appears to be more of a public relations ploy

              by hhex65 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 03:59:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  shipley!! (none)
              you pompuss ass! There is no code to crack save the Rorschach stains on your effete shorts.
              •  Erudite and thoughtful (none)
                This diary basically demonstated the foolishness of conservative arguments by making one up and then showing that the diarists made up argument is foolish.  It's a self indulgent meaningless exercises.

                You seem to have followed the common course of personal attack on anyone who disagrees with you.  I was objecting to someone blurting out an obscene comment about the president in an almost tourettes-style interjection. You feel the need to make a scatalogical insult.  I don't have to make up arguments to poke fun at, you do it for me.  I could write a "how liberals argue" on red-state and simply quote all this stuff, I wouldn't have to make anything up.

                It seemed appropriate in a diary criticising a made up conversation to point out that on this site there are a large number of similar comments with lots of cute labels.  Its the use of an in-group vocabulary that bypasses the need to analyze and critique.

                This leaves you in an insular group which has to spend it's time discussing how dibold must have stolen the election because you can't imagine the majority of the people didn't vote for John Kerry.  

                One of the rules of biology is that no organism can survive in it's own waste products.  Similarly, if you immerse yourself in your own propaganda you lose track of reality -- a situation that occurs on the right as well.

          •  Actually... (none)
            ...a pretty lame and obvious pun, but funny nonetheless.

            The last time people listened to a talking bush, they wandered 40 years in the desert.

            by DC Pol Sci on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 08:39:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I wonder if conservs know...... (4.00)
          ....the filthiest thing ever said on Big Three network television:  "Ward. weren't you a little hard on the Beaver last night?" :-)
      •  Silly... (none)
        They're version of their rights.
        I've been starting to call them something else.
        It's an ancient word, hardly any one in today's world uses it now.

        Foolish Republicans, now we can spy on your little plans with impunity! Muahahaha!

        by RElland on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:22:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Spot on impression (3.91)
      The sort of roundabout arguing and logical fallacies that you get from conservatives are funny to read, but absolutely mind-numbing when you actually get them in conversation.

      It actually angers me. Sometimes I just want to grab hold of them, shake them hard and say 'shut up, listen, and think clearly.' Wouldn't work, but sometimes their idiocy is so laughably obvious you wonder how a sane person is capable of it.

      A conservative understands the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

      by Mephistopheles on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:34:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's because (none)
        we liberals have an instinctive ability to present a rational and well-thought idea.  Conservatives have to be taught how to do it.

        I fear the words "I have a cunning plan" are rapidly marching towards this conversation with ill-deserved confidence.

        by Magnus Greel on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:53:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have wingers (none)
        on my blog (they're like pet rocks to me).  They aren't that bad--close, but they do cut loose with  their logic (which evolves from moralism every time) and it is fascinating to get a view of their belief systems.

        The ones who only use ad hominems get banned after a  warning.

        I don't know why, but I like my pet wingers--maybe coz they keep my argument muscles toned, or because I believe the adage about keeping your enemies closer, or because they act as surrogate whipping boys where I work out the unresolved anger I have for my Republican family.

        Regardless, this is a great diary--and very funny--thanks.

      •  I get angry (none)
        I actually try to avoid engaging them.  Who wants to argue with a closed mind?  The conversation above has happened way too many times for me.  I think what this conversation is pointing out is how good conservatives are at putting liberals on the offensive by refusing to acknowledge facts.  You're always on the defensive having to prove things.

        It's easier if you turn it around.  Ask them where they get their information.  Usually they don't know.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  If they are going to choose the side against what is conventionally settled (say, global warming) they need to give facts.

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. -- Daniel Patrick Monynihan

        by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:19:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  my go at turning it around (none)
          my boss: The media's mad at the president because they're all communist in the media.

          me: Really? That's wild. Where do you get your information? Newspaper, radio? TV?

          boss: It wouldn't be in the papers. Too obvious.

          me: Uh, okay. Where is it, then?

          boss: It's in the air. It's everywhere. That's why they need to wiretap.

          me: No, no. I mean you. What's your source of information, news, current events and so on?

          boss: That's what I've been been trying to tell you! Why should I care if they listen on my phone? Why should you? We don't have any information. No Americans do!

          Is nothing secular?

          by aitchdee on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 09:27:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah, Is this the right room for an argument? (none)
            A:   If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
            M:  Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
            A:  (Hums)
            M:  Look, this is ridiculous.
            A:   I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
            M:  Oh, all right.
            (pays money)
            A:   Thank you.
            short pause
            M:  Well?
            A:   Well what?
            M:   That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
            A:    I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
            M:   I just paid!
            A:   No you didn't.
            M:   I DID!
            A:   No you didn't.
            M:  Look, I don't want to argue about that.
            A:  Well, you didn't pay.
            M:  Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
            A:   No you haven't.
            M:  Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
            A:   Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
            M:  Oh I've had enough of this.
            A:   No you haven't.
            M:  Oh Shut up.
            •  Or perhaps even more apt (none)
              Liberal : I wish to complain about this parrot, what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

              Right-Winger : Oh yes, the, ah, the Norwegian Blue... What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?

              Liberal : I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.

              Right-Winger : No, no, 'e's ah... he's resting.

              Liberal : Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

              Right-Winger : No no, h-he's not dead, he's, he's restin'!

              Liberal : Restin'?

              Right-Winger : Y-yeah, restin.' Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't it, eh? Beautiful plumage!

              Liberal : The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead!

              Right-Winger : Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

              Liberal : All right then, if he's resting, I'll wake him up!
              (shouting at the cage)
              'Ello, Polly! Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you wake up, Mr. Polly Parrot...

              (Right-Winger hits the cage)

              Right-Winger : There, he moved!

              Liberal : No, he didn't, that was you pushing the cage!

              Right-Winger : I never!!

              Liberal : Yes, you did!

              Right-Winger : I never, never....

    •  the process is simple to refute (4.00)
      The cons work to keep you on defensive- that is their entire game. Once you are defensive, then they throw in all kinds of crap. Simplest way to handle this, is to respond with a stinger, preferably an echo of oen of their personal attacks, just turned around. the quickest way to gain control is to shortcircuit the pattern. They love name callng, so just name call right back, until they have to defend. then take control and keep them on the defensive. Don't think arguement. think judo.

      My personal fave was a con who was against "gay rights". he was quoting Bible endlessly, and i simply asked him, how come he avoided Jesus? Brought him to a halt, then i asked, what did Jesus teach about this? And from there on out, it was my game. And, yes, he did try name calling and storm out, but I told him I'd pray to Jesus for him. Want to really PO a con? Tell them you'll pray to Jesus that He will change their evil heart.

      •  Verbal Akido (none)
        That's my favorite tactic. It's best delivered in an extermely mellow tone, which isn't easy to do when someone is spewing an endless stream emotionally driven claptrap.

        We will NOT negotiate with terrorists...including the ones in the GOP.

        by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:44:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have a different tactic. (none)
        It often works. I just let the winger say what he wants, and when the argument gets going, everytime he makes an assertion, I will come back with, "Oh? Howso?", "Why (is/do you believe) that?" "On what evidence do you base that on?" and similar questions, all the while keeping an airy sang-froid. It seems to frustrate them, and they don't get much traction.
      •  defensive neo-cons (none)
        Here's two very different schools of conservative debate...

        • The conservative will speculate something not only patently absurd but completely baseless. If you call them on their bullshit as having no basis in fact or lacking evidence, they will insist that it is entirely possible and that you cannot prove it isn't. This comes from a Cindy Sheehan discussion over at MMFA in which a wingnut insisted that Sheehan was not acting of sound mind, but rather at the behest of Michael Moore and George Soros [too weird even for me to fabricate]. When I told asked them what their factual basis was for this absurd speculation, they got really hostile and told me that I could not prove it wasn't true.

        • They'll hide a lie between two truths to put you on the defensive. The conservative will say something oblique given the context of the discussion, though they were obviously trying to dog whistle a cheap shot, but they can easily deny they meant it in the context of the central topic at hand. In the end, the post is designed to be deceptive and in no way constructive. Example: a conservative that pesters people at the Newshounds website [calling Fox News on their bullshit] mentioned Al Gore's name in a thread about people that Rupert Murdoch has given money to. The entirety of his post was "So did Al Gore"; nothing more, nothing less. Either he was trying to say that Al Gore took money from Murdoch, or he just wanted to say his name as a fun little non-sequitor. I called him on it, he denied that he meant Gore received money from Murdoch because he never actually said that. Fed up with his word games, I accused him of misleading us with his deception and misdirection of context, and his reply was "And it was so easy". He got banned shortly thereafter.

        Mitakuye Oyasin - Lakota prayer of oneness and harmony with all forms of life.

        by PanzerMensch on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:23:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is hilarious and so true (4.00)
    I've resigned myself to not arguing with these idiots.
  •  the truth and fiction (4.00)
    both strange, and you can't tell 'em apart!

    I've had 78 variants of this conversation, and if I didn't know better I could be convinced that the diarist had been there transcribing.

    •  Same here,... (none)
      ...talking with some of these conservative wingnuts is like beating your head against a wall. Unfortunately the conversation in the diary is probably more truth than fiction.
    •  Only 78? (4.00)
      The day after Hugh Thompson died, I sent a link to the wiki and a brief tribute to his heroism to many of my online friends. Including my wingnut boss. This was the reply I got:
      I'm impressed with this, and there wasn't one police officer killed which you seem to think is heroic,,, wow,, no women wearing c-4 with ball bearings strapped around their bodies at a wedding; no-one thinking if they blow them selves up as a  freedom fighter or slit the throats of flight attendants amongst a lot of unarmed passenger they'll get 69 virgins when they go to heaven, just honest to god (excuse me for that word) people doing the right thing at the right time.  Gee our AMERICAN hero sounds a little different than your freedom fighters...  Oh but wait a minute, I may have taken this whole thing the wrong way,, you are probably thinking this guy was a bad guy and the Vietcong were the good guys,, Oh, I'm sorry that I got momentarily confused with the reason you sent this to me.. yes the freedom fighters won in Vietnam.

      The entire tirade was meant to play off a question I dared ask this particular NRA member: "If your country was invaded, would you not fight too?"
      Funny. He's never answered the question. He just does.........that.

      Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

      by kestrel9000 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 04:53:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ditto that! (4.00)
      I think the diarist has been tapping the phone conversations I have with my cousin. ellinton must work for the NSA or something.
  •  Funny - in a painful way. (4.00)
    You have to do one about how tv reports this conversation.  

    The beneficiaries are likely to be...large corporations and development firms. (O'Connor, J. dissenting in Kelo). God bless you, J. O'Connor.

    by xanthe on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:31:18 AM PST

  •  Funny diary! (4.00)
    So, when did you meet my brother-in-law?
  •  The trick is to take things off track (4.00)
    The conservative mind runs on this track of talkig points.  Liberal brings up A, we say B in response.  If liberal says C then we say D, otherwise, if liberal says E then we respond with F.

    It works very well until the monkey wrench comes along.

    Imagine, for example, the following:
    Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: No, it doesn't.

    Liberal: So you're saying that Rush is a druggie?  That's nto very nice.

    Conservative: What about Guam? ....errr....wait a second, Rush is not a druggie, stop spreading your Michael Moore lies.

    Liberal: Lies?  You purport to prove that Rush is having sex with Moore while snorting cocaine and you say that I lie?  What chutzpah?

    Conservative: I'm nto, wait.  Rush never had sex with Moore, what are you blathering about?

    Liberal: Well, finally we're making some progress.  I'm surprised you admit I'm right about that whole 50 states business then.

    Conservative: But there aren't 50 states, and, in any case, what does that have to do with Rush?

    Liberal: I don't know.  You brought it up.  You were the one insisting Rush had sold cocaine in all 50 states.


    You get the idea.

  •  Hilarious (4.00)
    True + Funny = Trunny!

    I only shop at "Osama's Homo-abortion Pot n' Commie Jizz-porium".

    by Byrd the Stampede on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:40:29 AM PST

  •  I got a little bit of road rage (4.00)
    just reading that.

    Nothing is more fatal to maidenly delicacy of speech than the run of a good library. -- Robertson Davies

    by kismet on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:41:17 AM PST

  •  You forgot the section wherein... (4.00)
    ...the conservative uses an alternative definition from the dictionary to make his oblique or completely non-cogent argument [non-cogent within the context of the discussion, of course].

    Or the part wherein the conservative berates the liberal because the liberal came up with only one example of something saying the United States has 50 states.

    As I read it, my mind put the voices of Kyle and Cartman to the dialogue.

    Mitakuye Oyasin - Lakota prayer of oneness and harmony with all forms of life.

    by PanzerMensch on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 11:42:41 AM PST

  •  Re: Thanks (4.00)
    Thanks for the comments and recommends, everyone. Yes, this was inspired by conversations with family and others. Nice to see I'm not alone!
  •  Maybe there's a way a way to tip the table? (4.00)
    Try this:

    Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: No, it doesn't.

    Liberal:  (Speaking calmly and reasonably with the sense that s/he really does want to understand how the speaker justifies their statement.)

    It doesn't? What makes you say that?

    Now the Conservative has to come clean with what s/he means.  

    From this point on the liberal is in control of the conversation, as a calm and civil challenger asking questions that can have the power to shape the course of the discussion, and expose a bit of truth.


    Here's another strategy:

    Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: No, it doesn't.

    Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?

    Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: Oh, so you're saying those don't count?

    Liberal: -- No. I'm saying that territories are not States.  Why do you want to equate the territories to States?

    Here by saying, "No." and following up with a brief statement that cuts to the heart of the matter, -- the Liberal doesn't let the Conservative frame the answer on their terms, and then the Liberal subtly and civilly takes control of the conversation by following up with a question.

    From here the Conservative has four possible responses:

    1)Answering the question.  

    2)Answering the question, and following up with a question in which case the possibility for real dialogue might emerge.

    3)Responding irrationally according to some Conservative script/talking point -- in which case the best response for the Liberal is to gently disengage from the conversation.

    4)Disengaging from the conversation, or changing the subject. In which case the best course is probably to let them do so.  

  •  I gotta go, but I hope to see this when returned (none)
    This is a great post.  

    It is so true.  

    I have really had it today.  

    We're going to go into or over Iran.  If we thought there was chaos now... Iraqis are going to side with Iran, if Iran uses a nuclear weapon it isn't going to reach here.  

    This is a plan  to transform the Middle East?  Same old shit.

  •  Oh my God. I just went through this whole thing. (4.00)
    And it's in text online. I couldn't let it go. I had to keep coming back there, producing facts, to have some other irrelevant point brought up, to produce facts to counteract that, to have someone else bring up the already-disproven point; to have someone else say facts don't matter, it's the intangibles that matter; to have someone else accuse me of historical revisionism for correcting *factually incorrect* assertions... be asked why I keep coming back, which I must admit is the first question asked of me that actually made sense.

    I'm the poster named 'Jim'. The poster boy for arguing against people who don't need no stinkin' facts.

    ...And just like the Godfather, I keep getting dragged back in. Someone help me here? Clinton could have been criminally charged while he was president, right? And certainly after?

    This is a leg off of another irrelevant argument - "Just because Clinton wasn't convicted, doesn't mean he isn't guilty. After all, you don't think OJ is innocent, do you?"

    All the hours I spend trying to bash sense into conservative skulls...maybe I should find a 12-step program for taking on conservative bloggers.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:41:54 PM PST

    •  12-step program (4.00)
      I'm beginning to believe what we need is a 12-gauge program.

      Lib: The US has 50 States

      Conservative: You don't thing people from Guam are Americans?

      Lib: The US Has 50 States <Ka-Chunk>  Do you disagree?

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:55:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have a 4! (none)
      For going above and beyond the call of duty and keeping your head.

      That exchange reminded me of restarting a computer game over and over to try to get a winning game.

      We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

      by Fabian on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 06:00:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  When engaging Republicans (4.00)
      it's very common to fall into their traps. They aren't interested in facts, what they are after rather is the initiative in the discussion. They capture the initiative by rapid-fire specious statements designed to make you work. Falling into their trap involves countering them with well thought out and highly detailed answers. If you give them these, you will be doing all the work... and they will counter you with aggressive one-liners, the facts be damned.

      I am reminded of the old cowboy movies where the bad guy with two six-shooters fires at the feet of the protagonist and tells him to "Dance!".

      Don't dance with them!

      The trick is not to let them get the initiative. Remember it's not about convincing them, they won't listen... it's about smoking them. Attack all the time, just like they do. You probably have sufficient facts off the top of your head to engage them, so don't spend a lot of time, just engage them rapid-fire, and while you're at it, question their education, their reasoning skills, their facts and their patriotism. Make them "dance".

      Most of them aren't too bright, and won't be able to keep up.

      •  It;s all about emotion and outrage with them. (none)
        If someone engages with facts and sincere disagreement, it just escalates them by stoking the fire of their resentment.  I have found that the way to avoid this dynamic is by totally disengaging from their diatribe, since there is never any possibility of winnning through logic.
        As Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to be," which to me means not getting caught in the need to be right, like they are.
        •  It depends upon the venue (none)
          and the reason for engaging them. One on one I think you're absolutely right (most of the time), however there are times when they must be engaged. Where I most often have to engage them is in public spaces (internet and real life) where not engaging them means that they go unchallenged before an audience not of their own, or when they come after us (most common).

          The point is as you say, it's all about emotion and outrage with them, facts don't matter. It's easy to beat them at this game, and if handled properly they can usually be counted on to make fools of themselves (in front of an audience always remember to piss them off royaly while remaining cool, smooth and reasonable yourself).

    •  Couple notes. (none)
      First off, Bush isn't Texan. He was born in Connecticut, raised in Connecticut and educated in Connecticut. He's a blue-blood Yankee carpetbagger, through and through. The ranch in Crawford is a prop.

      If someone starts talking smack about Carter and appeasement, point out that Reagan caved to terrorists and traded arms for hostages. It was called Iran-Contra. Point out that doing that only encourages the terrorists. Ask if they think Reagan did a good thing there.

      If you run into crowing about Clinton-era malfeasance and his endless "LIES! LIES! LIES!", please be sure to ask for the exact lies--aside from the one about the blowjobbery--that Clinton told. It's become an article of faith that he's a liar, but I can't seem to find any examples. Also note that post-Clinton, there was a predicted "tsunami of indictments" that would pour forth from the new Bush administration once it got into office, when the new guys got access to the old administration's files. It kinda failed to materialize.

      Mmm, and if someone claims that Clinton cut and run from Mogadishu, point out that Bush 43 also considered withdrawal from Somalia the right course of action. Clinton did not start the U.S. involvement in Somalia; that was Bush 41 who first sent troops. And reiterate that perhaps Clinton withdrawing from Somalia didn't have quite the same effect as Reagan actually capitulating to the terrorists.

  •  boy my brother (4.00)
    does get around .He even has the "according to your sources" and your sources are all liberal.I notice he will attack the NYT for being biased until it says something positive about the right,then it is immediately quoted as fact.LOL!

     My family likes to call him the brain damaged one because if there is something more amusing than a wingnut,its a black wing nut!

    My civil liberties are non-negotiable.

    by blacklib on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:43:48 PM PST

    •  Your brother needs treatment. (none)
      Send him to Steve Gilliard. Caveat: He may not come back in one piece, though.
    •  No matter what source (none)
      you quote from they will always call it a liberal rag.  My conservative friend at work does that every time.  We really got into when I woudn't agree with him about the liberal media myth.  I asked him why giant companies like GE, etc would have any interest in putting out the liberal viewpoint.  Also, to name more than one semi liberal tv comentator or the fact that conservatove talking heads out number liberal talking heads on tv about 3 to 1.  Of course he had no answers to those points but that didn't even come close to changing is belief.  He finally had enough of me and stormed off.  

      Maybe I am just a lousy debater but I have not changed his mind on anything ever....hehe!

  •  addendum (3.88)
    heres another.I say i can't believe the goverment thinks its o.k to spy on US persons without a warrant and he says "but its ok for Clinton to get a blowjob in the white house"!@#$!@#@   WTF?

    My civil liberties are non-negotiable.

    by blacklib on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:47:53 PM PST

    •  oh, yeah (none)
      I especially love that tactic!

      I'm not a slacker...I'm just surrounded by overachievers!

      by arkylib on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:19:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  great minds..... (none)
      Dang it. You beat me by one minute. Have a 4!
    •  This is what I do (none)
      When someone starts to bring up "But Clinton..." my response is to calmly state "But we are talking about President Bush." Just keep repeating this until they give up and walk away or address the issue. This works with my students who have emotional disabilities too.
      •  Concede the premise (4.00)
        to win the more-important argument.

        Rethug: Clinton engaged in illegal wiretaps

        You (ignoring blatant equivocation and the intentional mangling of context):  Well, if he did the same it he should go to jail too. Why were you guys so worried about a damn blow-job when he was spying on Americans? Jesus, can't Republicans keep their eye on the ball?

        Rethug: [quizzical expression accompanied by desperate fidgeting]

        We will NOT negotiate with terrorists...including the ones in the GOP.

        by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:59:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  it always comes back to Clinton with them (none)
        I've been in arguments about Iraq when suddenly Monica Lewinsky gets thrown into the mix.  Not that I'm condoning it, but it astonishes me how so many Bush believers perceive adulterous oral sex to be the ultimate trump card.  Our lives and freedoms are at stake here, or so I thought.
        •  What's needed: (none)
          A new corollary to Godwin's Law?
           As the length of a discussion of the actions of the Bush administration with conservatives increases, the probability of a reference to the Clenis approaches 1.

          Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

          by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 02:45:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  To most conservatives (none)
      that blow job is the absolute worst thing any president has ever done.  Killing thousands in a mis-guided war, or anything else is nothing compared to that.  


  •  That was funny! (1.12)
    That was really good.

    Here, let me try:

    Liberal:  How's it going?
    Conservative:  Great!  How about with you?
    Liberal:  Terrible.  Just terrible.
    Conservative:  What's wrong?
    Liberal:  Conservatives are all liars, racists, and they are destroying this country.
    Conservative:  What?
    Liberal:  Liars!  Warmongers!  They're all in the pocket of corporate executives!
    Conservative:  I don't really think that's the case.
    Liberal:  If you think that, you've bought into the Conservative talking points.
    Conservative:  The conservative what?
    Liberal:  They want a theocracy so they can steal more elections.
    Conservative:  Do you have any evidence of this?
    Liberal:  Wait, are you a liberal?
    Conservative:  No, I'm a Republican.
    Liberal:  Liar!  Racist!  You're destroying this country!  Get out of here, facist!  Get in your Hummer and go run over some poor people, you bastard!
    Conservative:  Woah, man - calm down.
    Liberal:  You people have destroyed this country - I can't stand anything about this country now.
    Conservative:  Why do you hate America?
    Liberal:  Oh, HERE WE GO with the Conservative talking points!
    Conservative:  (pause)
    Liberal:  Republicans are insane - they're crazy facists.
    Conservative:  You do realize that Republicans are in the majority, right?
    Liberal:  Yeah, you're all crazy!  Everyone's crazy but me!
    Conservative:  (backs away)

    •  You see (3.93)
      the reason this diary is funny is because all the best comedy speaks to some truth about life.

      Yours doesn't.  Sorry.

    • (3.57)
      don't let the door hit you on the way out

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising.

      by The Exalted on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:57:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Typical conservative. (3.94)
      You do realize that Republicans are in the majority, right?

      This is simply not true.  Registered Republicans count for approximately 32% of the population.

      Republicans may hold the majority of elected positions in our federal government, but they are by no stretch of the imagination or statistics, "in the majority" of the general public.

      When in doubt...lie.

      I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

      by GTPinNJ on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:58:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very true! (none)
        Although (per the last election) there are more folks voting republican than democrat.  I'm sure we'll see a flip in '06.

        Regardless, merely suggesting that 32% of our population doesn't really hold much more water....

      •  the Senate, for instance... (4.00)
        The 45 Democrats in the Senate represent a much greater number of people than the 55 Republicans because the Republicans do well in almost-empty western states, where they get two Senators even though the have a population smaller than the west side of Manhattan.

        Congress is Republican because of gerrymandering, which is a centuries-old practice (and I will not blame Republicans for inventing it).

        The end is near for those who wait.

        by tc59 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 03:08:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nice reasoning.. (4.00)
      it says so much about you silly fuckers..

      "We are the majority, therefore we are right."

      Not enough kevlar for the troops?
      -Too bad We are the majority!  We must be right! You dont go tto war with the army you want!

      Republicans nix Democratic plan to tax cut rollbacks on the wealthiest Americans to pay for port and border security?
      -Deficit shmeficit!! We are number one!! Woo hoo!!

      Bush breaks the law, defies the constitution, lies about it in speeches by spying on Americans hundreds of times?
      -So what?!! We are the majority. We are right!

      Bush and Cheney lie repeatedly in video-taped, doumented evidence of them over-stating the threat from Iraq and later deny they said it?
      -Did I mention that majority means "more". You are a crazy liberal!!...Besides...YOU GUYS DO IT TOO!!

      Tom Delay did a great job creating a majority breaking laws, precedent oh yeah and republican arms, not you. Go jerk off to Revelations and wipe your ass with the constitution some more.

      As long as its a republican perpetrating it, it must be right.  This is how democracy fails.

      •  You forgot about Poland (4.00)

        You might also point out, a la Cheney, "Deficits don't matter."  Spend us right into economic bankruptcy and pwned by China...

        Or, as good King George says, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."  Right into another form of bankruptcy -- moral and ethical bankruptcy.

    •  Ha ha! (4.00)
      Hey, I can do it, too!

      Conservative: Don't you think people prefer their own kind?

      Liberal: What do you mean?

      Conservative: Well, why do Blacks always want to live around other Blacks, stuff like that. It's natural for people to prefer their own kind.

      Liberal: Uh, your point is ... is what? That integration was a mistake?

      Conservative: Well, it has failed, you know. I mean, just look at what a mess public education is. Besides, it's natural for people to prefer to be around their own kind.

      Liberal: Okay, so I'll grant you that some people do prefer only the company of those who are exactly like them. But that's hardly a given. Not to mention, so what? What's your point anyway?

      Conservative: Well, if there's nothing wrong with Black people having Black clubs and Black neighborhoods and Black Pride, and gay people having gay bars and Gay Pride, and women having women only organizations, etc., what's wrong with White Only Schools and White Pride? Aren't liberals discriminating by opposing White Pride groups?

      Liberal: Hunh??? You are aware, aren't you, that dominant groups cannot and do not suffer discrimination in nearly the same degrees or manners as others? You do know that? What is your point?

      Conservative: Ha ha, typical lib relativism. I thought liberals opposed all forms of discrimination? Guess not. In fact, White Christian men are the most discriminated against group in the country. Besides, it was the Demoncrats who institutionalized discrimination in the first place. Do you support adultery?

      Liberal: Hunh????

      Conservative: Well, we all know Martin Luther King had a number of affairs.

      Liberal: What does that have to do with anything?

      Conservative: It's so typical of you libs to support men who can't even keep the commitment to their own wives. Monica ring a bell? I was so ashamed, just aghast when ...

      Liberal: Wait --- I thought we were talking about ...

      Conservative: Don't try to change the subject. Typical lib!

      •  BZZZZT! (none)
        Conservative: It's so typical of you libs to support men who can't even keep the commitment to their own wives. Monica ring a bell? I was so ashamed, just aghast when ...

        Liberal: Wait --- I thought we were talking about ...

        Conservative: Don't try to change the subject. Typical lib!

        BZZT! Wrong Answer!

        Conservative: It's so typical of you libs to support men who can't even keep the commitment to their own wives. Monica ring a bell? I was so ashamed, just aghast when ...

        Lib: Like Calvin Coolidge? Like Rush Limbaugh (He's on how many wives now?)  Like Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly?  Like Newt "Happy Cancer, I wanna Divorce" Gingrich?

        We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

        by ScrewySquirrel on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 06:01:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Go fuck yourself n/t (2.62)

      Oh by the way, which one's pink? -R. Waters

      by Blue Neponset on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:44:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re: I guess I've hit the Big Time! (4.00)
      Wow! My own troll!

      I feel like Atrios!

      Thanks again to eveyone for the comments and the recommends. Hope you got a laugh or two.

      •  And the best part is (4.00)
        that his debating style almost perfectly matches the parody-conservative that you wrote.

        It's so perfect that I'm almost tempted to think that it's some sort of post-modern perfomance art. A meta-troll, if you will. Probably not, though.


    •  I didn't find your version funny... (none)
      ...but I gave a 4 for having the post it.

      You have reached the point where you must choose
      Between what you lost and what you stand to lose - Michael Penn

      by GreenCA on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:26:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fascist is spelled (4.00)
      fascist, unless it is plural, and then it is fascists. While you are over here, you might as well learn something new.

      "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

      by martyc35 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:39:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not funny but... (none)
      like it was mentioned above, this isn't really that funny since those kinds of conversations don't happen in real life. However, there's way too many wingnuts who talk just like in the diary. Still, I don't think you deserved all those zeros and ones. I'm only giving you a 2 though.
    •  Southern Conservative is right. (4.00)
      There is absolutely NO CALL for some sassy-mouth satirist to suggest in his fancy-pants diary that there's more than TWO (2) election-jerrymandering conservatives working to destroy the world (including ANWAR) or repeatin' fascist GOP talking points framin' Democrats as America-Haters.

      'Cause it's flat-out not true.

      And nobody's got the right to say any conservative in this country is shapin' up to be full-blown theocrat either, praise Dobson-uh-I mean the blessed baby Jesus.

      I bet you didn't know there aren't any conservative corporate liars in America.

      Well, there aren't! It's a scientific fact.

      Okay maybe a couple extra ones got into Enron. All right? Make you happy? But that's all she wrote. One or two beyond maximum load got themselves hired-on some how. HR department had bad intel. The point is Enron does NOT a trend make.

      Besides, haven't you heard Rush pegged Kenny Boy a flamer?--that's right--flyin' right out of his fancy EYE-tal-yan loafers, if you know what I mean. wink Can't tell me you ever heard of a conservative up and go that way.

      Didn't you know Enron's a liberal scandal?

      'A course conservatives all got Hummers. Big crazy yellow ones. Mudflaps. Bunny ears. Mmmm. "W-is-KING!" bumper stickers. Oh yeah.

      [character slips into reverie]

      WELL [snapping out of it] THAT'S WHAT THEY'D HAVE YOU THINK, those liberals, but it's not going to work.

      'Cause all they're DOING--what all the psychological research departments in the country have PROVEN--what the liberals are describing when they describe conservatives is ... (wait for it -->) themselves, of course!

      Er ... now HOLD ON a minute. I thought there was a study. Some study of the liberal brain that proved ...

      I know very well there was no study. I was joking. Pulling yer chain.

      Look. To hell with your study. I happen to personally know a Born Again anti-Semite liberal CEO with a hard-on for illegals. A black guy. He's one of my best friends.

      All right. I get the picture. Don't have to hit me on the barn door on the way out of the ... lock the horse ... whatever. No kidding around on Ye Olde Liberal Blog-o-sphere I guess. Why don't you put up a sign: NO FUN ALLOWED.

      Oh, I see, I get it, you're going to insult my intelligence just because I don't make a lick of sense. Hey! Hey man, come back here! That's not ... that last part is off the record!

      Typical liberal. No sense of humor.

      Is nothing secular?

      by aitchdee on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 08:20:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bwahahaha!!! (none)
    There is, sadly, a lot of truth in there.

    But Lord was that funny!

    Thanks for the laugh. :)

    We shall fight them on the internets. We shall fight in the Starbucks, and in the streets, we shall fight them on the Hill. We shall never surrender!

    by bhlogger on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 12:48:57 PM PST

  •  Missing (3.87)
    Beautiful diary!

    The only thing missing is a "B-b-b-but Clinton did it" section.

  •  Infuriatingly funny (none)
    and sadly exactly what they do.  I am beaten down after reading it.  Well done.  I think.
  •  There are only 46 states. (none)

    Why are you Liberals always wrong?

    I suppose I should include a disclaimer that his is somewhat tongue in cheek.

  •  Programming for Dummies: (none)

    This is exactly what I'm faced with during breaks from school. Exactly, to a tee.

    Wish it wasn't so hard to get through to the ones you care about!

  •  That's it (none)
    I'm not going to dignify your comments with a response.
  •  Moore Guam (4.00)
    It's unbelievable how Moore was able to get under the skin of righties. Unbelievable. Conversations with them is often simply wasteful time, or time spent wasted.
    I think what we're seeing is evolution at work, and their kind--behind as they are on social issues, the environment, and, well, everything--will eventual lose their tails and be gone. They are desparately holding on, and if our side could get on message, the next couple of elections will be their swan song.
    •  He still does! (none)
      When F 9/11 first came out, I spent tons of time at the IMDB site for the film. Bet you money that rightwing "Fallacies of 9/11" David Someoneorother wrote was posted 7,000 or more times last year.

      The other night I stopped there to see what was new. Within ten minutes, someone had posted it -- AGAIN.

      And the stuff they said about Moore? Called him everything but human, over and over and over again. I made the mistake of thinking some of these people had to be jokes; after the election, when talk turned to rounding up all the treasonous liberals...I finally understood.

      Moore bothers them because he combines humor, creativity, mostly solid details and presents it in a way easy for the average person to identify with and understand. He's a huge threat to their fantasy world.

      "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

      by MissAnneThrope on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 04:57:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, fascinating phenomenon (none)
      I've pondered it ofter.  Michael Moore, instant boogeyman.

      What amazes me:  He's so incredibly gentle when he engages another viewpoint.  This is not a shrill, threatening person.

      Hardly effete, smug or elitist

      Must be he hit a huge nerve.  My theory, the ultimate unforgiveable Michael Moore sin, was getting that video of Bush-in-the-headlights on 9/11 before a huge audience.  That should have been on a continuous tape loop at the Dem Convention, IMO

  •  That'd be funny if it weren't so goddamn true! (none)
  •  It's time to fight back (4.00)
    Liberal: Why are you racist? Why have conservatives tried to keep Guam from becoming a state?

    Conservative: We have not!

    Liberal: Yes you have, and......

    They will be caught off guard. See facts and truth don't matter. I know it is very hard for us in the fact based community to make up spin, but they cannot formulate an effective argument once they have been taken away from there talking points.

  •  Michael Moore (none)
    if one guy has managed to unhinge the right its Moore.Hey,michael we need another expose ..

    My civil liberties are non-negotiable.

    by blacklib on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:08:45 PM PST

    •  Re (4.00)
      He's workin' on care is in the batter's box.
    •  after Moore (4.00)
      the next one that gets under their skin is George Soros. The big 3 boogeymen to the right Clinton, Moore, and Soros.

      quando os assholes governam dirão aos pobres que a merda tem o valor
      Revised Portuguese folk wisdom

      by mm201 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:12:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Clintons (none)
        Hillary and Bill.

        My civil liberties are non-negotiable.

        by blacklib on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:16:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually four... (none)
        ...gotta remember to count both Clintons.

        You have reached the point where you must choose
        Between what you lost and what you stand to lose - Michael Penn

        by GreenCA on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:13:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Fab Four!!! (none)
          I don't personally agree with all of the politics of the Clintons, but when the righties smear Moore and Soros I haven't found a case yet where they weren't lying.

          quando os assholes governam dirão aos pobres que a merda tem o valor
          Revised Portuguese folk wisdom

          by mm201 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:20:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  he forgot Poland! (none)
        I mean... you left out Howard Dean. Boy, do righties love to slam that guy, truth be damned.

        -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:47:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What about Teddy? (none)
        Ted Kennedy.  All he has to do to rile the right is open his mouth.  Then they're off - womanizer! Chappaquiddick! boozer!

        A white male feminist - nothing ticks off the fringies more.

        We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

        by Fabian on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:33:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Ted-bashing never fails. (none)
          I ran into that just this week.

          Me: So Mrs. Alito is crying because someone asked her husband about his membership in an organization started to protest admitting blacks and women to Princeton?

          Conservative: Yeah, well, that was 20 years ago! What was TED KENNEDY doing 20 years ago, hmm? At least Alito didn't murder any girls!

          Me: ...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

          •  The appropriate response is "Swiftboat!" (none)
            Talk about GWB's highly questionable record in TANG during the Vietnam War.  A wingnut will be obligated to bring up Kerry's record and the purple heart controversy.  The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, complete no sequitors.

            My lay diagnosis of Alito? Asperger's Syndrome.  A bright focussed professional who seems to completely fail to comprehend the crux of the Vanguard controversy wasn't the potential impact of one case on the price of his stock shares but the mere appearance of any impropriety.  This is a man who is a detail oriented legal scholar, who will support his point of view by dredging up the smallest technicality and parsing the legal language with an electron microscope.  If anyone asked Alito about "the spirit of the law" his response would be that if it isn't in the language of the law, he isn't concerned with it.

            The man is an ideologue.  Of that I am sure.  

            (P.S.  I have nothing against people with A.S..  They are working with A.S. kids nowadays to help them develop their social skills, an intervention that Mr. Alito did not get.)

            We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

            by Fabian on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 03:30:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Make sure... (none)
          If Ted Kennedy's actions from that era are still fair game, then so is Laura Bush's vehicular homicide of her ex-boyfriend. (See Snopes as well.)

          Just sayin'.

  •  I really enjoyed this (3.90)
    And it reminds me of a conversation I had with my roommate's hot girlfriend not so long ago.

    Graduate: The United States is torturing prisoners, shipping off detainees to rogue states, and spying on its own citizens--all without the due process of law.

    Hottie: This is a war! Do you want to play nice? Stop defending the terrorists!

    Graduate: I want to play by the rules. It is ridiculous that you want to ignore the law in order to provide yourself with a false sense of comfort.

    Hottie: It's not false--I'll feel better. Just like I'd feel better if only Arabs were screened before they got on airplanes.

    Graduate: Look, that's not only discriminatory and counter to that which the Constitution requires, but it's also ineffective according to police authorities.

    Hottie: But I have the right to fly on a plane without getting blown up!

    Graduate: Yes, you do, but your rights don't supercede the rights of others to get on an airplane without being strip-searched simply because of where they hail from.

    Hottie: That sort of attitude will kill more Americans. And I can't believe you're against the way we're treating detainees. They cut our frickin' heads off, for God's sake, I think we can torture them in order to get information to save our lives!

    Graduate: Why would you smear the United States' name by comparing us to al-Qaeda?

    Hottie: I'm not, I'm just saying--

    Graduate: --You're saying that the United States should be able to break its own laws and stoop to the level of terrorists. You're holding the U.S. to an impossibly low standard. But we'll get there as long as people like you hold opinions popular enough to put people in office.

    Hottie: You're damn right! Wait--

    •  Yes. But she was hot! (4.00)

       So, you weren't even tempted to switch sides!  Oh!  Your strength!  Your strength!  Kudos!


      P.S. -- I haven't never succombed to that, by the way.  But I thought I was rare in thinking:  "Oh well, what a damn shame!  If only she was liberal!"

      . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:31:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish you had been one of (4.00)
      my students before you graduated (not that I was hot, just that you can think).

      I think I am figuring out where that "conservative" reasoning came from:

      1.  A student who reasoned that if the textbook said this poem wasn't about love, then it must be about war, the Civil War in particular; when confronted with the fact that the poem was by John Keats, an English poet who died about 40 years before the Civil War, and that the poem was about constancy, not war, he argued that his dad told him he could interpret a poem any way he wanted to and then complained to my department chair.

      2. A student who insisted that Annie Dillard was Chinese-American and had suffered from discrimination all her life. When confronted with a photo of Annie Dillard (white, middle class, red hair), this student fixed a couple of commas in the paper and made no other changes. She had her daddy write a letter complaining about me.

      3. A student who made up her bibliography from casual and random websites, one of which was a porno link. When confronted with an F, she had her boyfriend go with her to complain about me.

      4. A student who wrote about Intelligent Design after being told not to, because the paper was supposed to be about science. When confronted with the problem, he said his parents had received that material in the mail, so he thought it was science.

      I rest my case, except to say that Samuel Alito was never one of my students, but while watching his facial expressions and body language the past few days, this awful thought crept into my mind, and I started thinking about his dad for some reason.

      "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

      by martyc35 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 03:28:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Keats (none)
        Keats is one of my favorite poets (I was an English minor).

        Which poem was it?

        •  Can You Believe This? (none)
          BRIGHT star! would I were stedfast as thou art -
          Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night
          And watching, with eternal lids apart,
          Like Nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
          The moving waters at their priestlike task
          Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,
          Or gazing on the new soft fallen mask
          Of snow upon the mountains and the moors -
          No - yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,
          Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,
          To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,
          Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,
          Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,
          And so live ever - or else swoon to death.

          John Keats

          I was trying to be brief yesterday (I never am), so I didn't say that the student took a big stab at a guess and asserted that this poem was about war, possibly WWI, but more likely the Civil War.  Not only that, but the date 1815 was right by the sonnet in the textbook. But his dad said he could do anything he wanted with a "pome," so there ya go! Nice talking with you.

          "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

          by martyc35 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:23:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hm. (none)
        A student who insisted that Annie Dillard was Chinese-American and had suffered from discrimination all her life. When confronted with a photo of Annie Dillard (white, middle class, red hair), this student fixed a couple of commas in the paper and made no other changes. She had her daddy write a letter complaining about me.
        I know of all sorts of Chinese-Americans that where white and red-haired. Except, where I grew up we called them "Irish" and the real troublesome ones were named "Diedre".
        •  That student had (none)
          Maxine Hong Kingston mixed up with Annie Dillard, only because she didn't read either one. Faked her research paper. I had many really great students over a long career, so I haven't lost faith in America or education. But these experiences did shake me up a little:-).

          "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

          by martyc35 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:29:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  GOP Sez it wants SMALLER GOV (3.80)
    another thing they do is talk in CODE....

    fer instance...when you  hear a conservative republic say he favors 'smaller government'  what he (or she) is really means (in code) is that the conservatives favor vesting ALL power in one man, the president, and getting rid of the other two branch's in all but name only.

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:11:20 PM PST

    •  Comment in rhyme (4.00)
      Fixing a Hole Where the Rain Comes In

      They say that Big Gov is a curse,
      So Repubs choose to plunder the purse.
      With the swag they've been lenient
      So it's damned inconvenient
      That Small Gov turns out to be worse.

      lime rick Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. -Voltaire (tx Cartoon Peril!)

      by mspicata on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:16:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well By Golly ...If Ya Plunder and Steal..... (none)
        The National Treasury then ya can't afford big government no more. There's more than one way to take down a good solid economically secure country.

        One way is let the NEO-CON's have it.......they'll pull in the Enron's,Tyco's,Haliburtons,Exxons, Fox, Blackwater,Sinclairs,Time Warner,General Electric,Disneys, Clear Channels and the Christian idiots to demolish the damn place.

        What a fucking bunch of assholes...Bushco needs to go.........

        "It's Hard Work!" George Bush..."He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." Bejamin Franklin

        by JellyPuddin on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 03:02:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I always thought "smaller government" (none)
      was usually code talk for complaining about Blacks on welfare.
    •  Code, yes (none)
      I was thinking maybe it was some kind of reference to "of the people, by the people, for the people."  As in just some of the people.  A smaller set of the people.
    •  dog whistle politics (none)
      Only some of them are meant to understand what is meant, but when they are called out on it, they are able to say that that is absolutely not what they meant.

      Mitakuye Oyasin - Lakota prayer of oneness and harmony with all forms of life.

      by PanzerMensch on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:52:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And when all else fails.... (4.00)
    conservatives stop their ears and chant "USA, USA, USA!"  Great post.
  •  Did this today (none)
    on dKos, no less.  I had resolved to let the guy go, and then my fingers were moving OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, and pretty soon we were pushing the EDGE OF THE MARGIN, and there wasn't room for full words let alone full sentences, and I GAVE UP, resolving to never do it again.

    Til tomorrow.  Thanks for the laugh!

    lime rick Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. -Voltaire (tx Cartoon Peril!)

    by mspicata on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:12:11 PM PST

  •  hmmm (none)
    Maybe the writer has too much free time on their hands....perhaps if they were working harder at their job trying to acheive the Amurican dreem, then they'd get it.  You sir do not get it! ;-)

    Very well done!  Recommended!

    "The dead do not suffer the living to pass" - Return of the King

    by Webslinger on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:17:46 PM PST

  •  "I don't like books" (4.00)
    "They're all fact, no heart.  You people need to learn to trust your guts. Did you know that your stomach has more nerve endings than your brain?  Its a fact, look it up.

    Now, some people are going to say, 'I did look it up, and it isn't true.'  That's because you looked it up in a BOOK.  Next time, look it up in your GUT."  

    A fairly close quotation of the first Colbert Word segment.

  •  Passive-Aggressive Republicans (4.00)
    What is funniest to me is when tough guy Republicans who are ALWAYS on the attack, and saying the most insulting things imaginable, curl up on the floor and attempt to play the victim when they run out of lies... Tom DeLay is the most recent example, but there are plenty of them....
  •  LOL Okay, this just HAS to be emailed (none)
    to everyone.

    <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

    by bronte17 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:20:52 PM PST

  •  Aims (4.00)
    A friend recently pointed out this phenomenon to me:

    When liberals argue, their aim is to debate the issues.

    When conservatives argue, their aim is to get you to shut up.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

    by poemless on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:36 PM PST

    •  When a conservative disagree with you (none)
      his statement is a "difference of opinion."

      On the other hand, YOU are obviously a "moral relativist."

      The Republicans made a big mistake: They became obvious. --Roddy McCorley

      by Sharoney on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:37:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "grrREEEEEN Acres (none)
    is the place to be ... " I've posted before that being among so-called conservatives is like being Oliver Douglas in Hooterville. It all makes so much sense to them.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the watchers?)

    by The Crusty Bunker on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:21:45 PM PST

  •  I think your source wrote a diary here today (none)

    Check it out for some good recipes :)

    The Republicans have a fundamental problem with telling the truth - Howard Dean.

    by NYC Sophia on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:24:02 PM PST

  •  Mine (back in August). (4.00)


    Me:  Yes, I blame Bush for not doing enough to stop 9.11.

    Kool Aid Girl:  Arh!  Ack!  Sputter!  I can't believe you!  How dare you!

    Me:  Well, just answer me this, do you know of anything he did, specifically, to thwart it, I mean even with his knowing Bin Laden was planning some kind of 'spectacular' attack?

    KAG:  I can't believe what a liberal you are!?

    Me:  Well?  Just tell me, please.

    KAG:  Arh!  Ack!  Sputter!  How dare you!

    Me:  Well, tell me, wouldn't you have pulled out all stops to try and do something to thwart this attack?

    KAG:  Arh!  Ack!  Sputter! . . .


    . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:24:48 PM PST

    •  When people act that way in front of me (4.00)
      I gleefully ask them when that alien is going to shoot out of their stomach.
    •  Sounds Like You Were Talking to (4.00)
      Bill the Cat.

      Gawd I miss Bloom County and Opus.

      •  Bloom County by Berkeley Breathed (none)
        I've been reading Bloom County since I was 8.  That was over 20 years ago!  Thank God I found almost all the old books at a second hand store.  I bought 'em all in a clump and nearly cried on the way home.

        I give credit to Bloom County for my sense of humor.  Seeing Bill the Cat out of the blue like this is awesome to me. ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK!!!

      •  Bill the Cat would've been . . . (none)

         . . . a step-or-three up in class, pleasantness and rhetorical skills from this person.  A mutual friend told me (some months later) that she had a rep as a "drama queen" and told me that my attempt to engage her in a meaningful discussion or debate on politics was like a heavyweight taking on a flyweight, or something like that.  I accepted the compliment, but told the mutual friend that I really wasn't trying to "crush her" in a debate or anything, I was just trying to figure out what was behind her cult-like devotion to Bush and see if I could get her to reflect on things a bit . . .  My friend just shook his head and said my even considering such things, or considering that she could consider such things, was going way, way beyond her capabilities and to just, if I ever saw her again, leave it alone.  Such is the "State of the Nation."


        . . . religion is not a syllogism, but a poem. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 07:16:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Get This Book NOW!!! (none)
    'Verbal Self Defense'

    It'll change the way you argue with people, because it lets you see the exact type of inconsistency of their argument and respond accordingly.

  •  Channeling Sean Hannity (4.00)
    You have perfectly illustrated what "critical thinking" means to the average Republican. It's like a virus. You know that they have sensory input. And you know they have verbal output. But what happens between input and output will remain a great scientific mystery until the end of time. These people are truly not of this Earth.

    Their other favorite activity is to construct Mad Lib attack rants -- which they really perfected during the Clinton years. You basically start with facts, and work backward until you have the story that you want.

    So you start with "White House counsel Vince Foster, a beloved friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, committed suicide in a park by shooting himself in the head. He left a suicide note next to his body explaining his depression and anguish."

    Then, you pick out certain key words and rearrange them.

    Finally you end up with "Bill Clinton was so depressed and anguished by a love note he found from Vince Foster to Hillary Clinton that he shot Foster in the head and then took the body to a park."

    I'm telling you, a Democrat could come out and say "I will hunt down and kill those terrorists who hate America" and these wingers would transcribe the quote as the Democrat saying "I. . . hate America."

    There is low. There is dishonest. Then there is Republican.

    I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn -- Ron Burgundy

    by IndyScott on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:33:37 PM PST

  •  brilliant (4.00)
    two thumbs up!  reading this was like a recording of my discussing anything political with my brother.  maybe the only thing missing was the conservative screaming, "Clinton did it, too!"

    Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

    by AMcG826 on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:45:40 PM PST

  •  That's one way to argue with a conservative... (4.00)
    While I give you big points for humor, because that is really funny, I think you miss the point you are actually making.

    The conservative follows the rule that he who controls the definition controls the discussion.

    Next time, ask him if he hates communists,... the guys who are always saying "from each according to their abilities and to each according to their means".

    Let him rant about communists for a while and then ask him how come he doesn't support our troops?

    when he goes huh?

    Tell him that the purest example there is of communism is a squad of marines in combat.

    Those are guys who would do anything for their buddies.

    They will continue to fire their rifles from their stretchers because they have the ability to do so, and they will go out under fire to tend to a wounded comrade because he needs it.

    "from each according to their abilities and to each according to their means".

    Their motto is gung ho which originated with the Chinese Communists and which we borrowed out of admiration for our communist chinese allies in WWII.

    •  They wouldn't understand what you were saying... (none)
      ... and accuse you being a communist. Oh, and hating freedom.
      •  You need to develop a few riffs (none)
        Most conservatives want a minimum amount of government but still would be pro law and order right? Ask them which they prefer, security in adherence to laws (which means all this kidnapping, torture, murder, spying, bribery stuff the president is doing is against the law and he shouldn't do the crime if he can't do the time), or freedom as a state of being without limits which would mean that anyone could do whatever they felt like, which is anarchy, and since anarchy is just the Trotskey extreme of the Marxist Lenin mainline, that would make him a communist radical.
  •  Wrong--You Portrayed Them as Alternating (4.00)
    Republicans don't allow Democrats to speak.

    <div class="blockquote">Liberal: The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: No, it doesn't.

    Liberal: Yes, it does. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?

    LCiobnesrravlative: Those Oh, are so territories, you're not saying states. those The don't USA count? has Oh, fifty so states. the people there don't count? They're not good enough, huh? I thought you liberals wanted everybody to be counted.</div>

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 01:47:02 PM PST

  •  Right Wing slugfest (4.00)
    I remember doing battle with them in the forums. I learned a lot but after a while it became a waste of time for me. I remember making the owner of the moorelies site look really bad that was a lot of fun. I exposed him as being connected to the NRA and called him out to a debate over the Moore film. Silence was golden except for his minions who attacked me.

    What really got me was that there seemed to be paid trolls. They would post m-f from 9am to 5 pm and they'd never post on weekends.

    I did many posts where I called them a cult I know it looked radical at the time but recently it has been written about . C&L had a link last week and people at the Huff have written about it.

    I still stand by the fact that the radical right as well as Bush and the Christian right are very much like a cult.

    Adherents who become increasingly dependent on the movement for their view on reality;
    Important decisions in the lives of the adherents are made by others;
    Making sharp distinctions between us and them, divine and satanic, good and evil, etc. that are not open for discussion;
    Leader who claim divine authority for their deeds and for their orders to their followers;
    Leader and movements who are unequivocally focused on achieving a certain goal.
    The organization is willing to place itself above the law. This is probably the most important characteristic.
    The leader sets forth ethical guidelines members must follow but from which the leader is exempt
    The group is preparing to fight a literal, physical Armageddon against other human beings;
    The leader regularly makes public assertions that he or she knows is false and/or the group has a policy of routinely deceiving outsiders

  •  All Your Missing (none)
    is an intro by Rod Serling and you would have an excellent Twilight Zone episode.

    "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".

    by ParaHammer on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:06:21 PM PST

  •  Conviction vs opinion (4.00)
    Ever notice how cons do everything they can to stay calm in an argument?  When you argue from conviction, you can do that.  Their convictions may be wrong, but they still hold them with a passion much deeper than an opinion, which can change if facts are presented.

    You cannot change a con's mind, but you can make him think he's lost.  If you want to change his mind, first figure out how to change a sports fan's allegiance to his team.

    (Never mind that the goal of a good argument is to learn, not to win)

    Now back to winning the argument against a con.  The best you can do is stay calm yourself.  They hate it.  Whoever yells first, has lost.

  •  I know nobody will read this, (4.00)
    becauise it is so far downthread, but check this one out.


    ~In Which We Meet Jack, The All-Purpose Straw Man~

    Hi Jack.


    How are you?

    "Fine. Boy, do French people suck."

    Yeah they do.

    "Wait, you agree?"

    Sure I agree.

    "No, I mean the French are evil."

    They sure are.

    "You don't really believe that."

    Sure I do, if you mean evil in the vaguely cartoonish way that I believe my mailman to be evil.

    "No, you don't seem to get it. I mean evil like Hitler."

    Weren't the French conquered by Hitler?

    "Yes! I mean, no. They surrendered to Hitler."

    All of them?

    "Well, no...only the ones who were adults at the time."

    Most of those people are dead.

    "Yes, but they still surrendered!"

    All of them?

    "Well, their government did!"

    You mean their elected government?


    Like their Prime Minister?


    That would be Paul Reynaud?

    "Yes! Yes!"

    Reynaud wanted to move the government to Africa.

    "See? He was a coward. What did he want to go to Africa for?"

    Because the German offensive could not be stopped, and the only way the government could continue to fight the Nazis was to keep out of their reach.

    "Well, if he didn't surrender, who did?"

    Petain. He was a war hero who was made vice premier to boost French morale and help fight the Nazis. He took over the government when he forced Reynaud to resign.

  • this E-mail (4.00)
    from today...again!

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Things that make you think a little:
    > >
    > > There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
    > > In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
    > > month of January. That's just one American city,
    > > about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
    > >
    > > When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
    > > have started this war, state the following:
    > >
    > > a. FDR led us into World War II.
    > >
    > > b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
    > > From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
    > > an  average of 112,500 per year.
    > >
    > > c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
    > > North Korea never attacked us.
    > > From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ..
    > > an average of 18,334 per year.
    > >
    > >
    > > d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
    > > Vietnam never attacked us.
    > >
    > >
    > > e.   Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
    > > From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
    > > an average of 5,800 per year.
    > >
    > >
    > > f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
    > > Bosnia never attacked us.
    > > He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
    > > times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
    > > multiple occasions.
    > >
    > >
    > > g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush
    > > has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
    > > al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North
    > > Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
    > > slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
    > >
    > > The Democrats are complaining
    > > about how long the war is taking.
    > > But
    > > It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno
    > > to take the Branch Davidian compound.
    > > That was a 51-day operation.
    > >
    > > We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
    > > in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
    > > the Rose Law Firm billing records.
    > >
    > > It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
    > > Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
    > > than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
    > > Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick
    > >
    > > It took less time to take Iraq than it took
    > > to count the votes in Florida!!!!
    > >
    > >
    > > Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
    > > The Military morale is high!
    > >
    > >
    > > The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
    > > to realize the facts.
    > >
    > > But Wait. Th ere's more!
    > >
    > > Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
    > >
    > > Some people still don't understand why military personnel
    > > do what they do for a living. This exchange between
    > > Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    > > is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
    > > impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
    > > man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
    > > services do what they do for a living.
    > >
    > > This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
    > > some who have never served think of the military.
    > >
    > > Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
    > > "How can you run for Senate
    > > when you've never held a real job?"
    > >
    > > Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
    > > "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
    > > I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
    > > My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
    > > occasions. I was in the space program.  It wasn't my
    > > checkbook, Howard, it was my life on the line. It was
    > > not a nine-to-five job, where I took my tie off to take the
    > > daily cash receipts to the bank."
    > >
    > > "I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day...
    > > to a veterans' hospital and look those men ...
    > > with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM
    > > they didn't hold a job!
    > >
    > > You go with me to the Space Prog ram at NASA and go,
    > >
    > > as I have gone, to the widows and o rphans
    > > of Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee...
    > > and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
    > > that their DADS didn't hold a job.
    > >
    > > You go with me on Memorial Day, and you stand in
    > > Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
    > > buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
    > > those waving flags
    > >
    > > You stand there, and you think about this nation,
    > > and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
    > >
    > > What about you?"
    > >
    > > For those who don't remember ..
    > > During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
    > > representing the Communist Party in the USA.
    > >
    > > Now he's a Senator!
    > >
    > > If you can read this, thank a teacher.
    > > If you ar e reading it in English thank a Veteran.
    > >
    > > It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating.

    And my reply:well I saw this before....and it's not accurate. These people do not know their history.

    Germany had attacked American merchant ships for 3 years and we sent war ships as convoys.  Great Britain & France were our allies and FDR along with the US were ISOLATIONIST not aggressors nor the worlds police force.

    JFK did not take us into the Vietnam war... that is not at all correct.... the Vietnam conflict started in 1957 following a 1955 uprising that threw out the French in SE Asia. So again this is incorrect.

    Truman did not start a war with Korea, the UN did and we went in as UN troops.

    As far as deaths go, in every war the death count decreased because of technical advances in weaponry and in medical treatment of the injured.  This also fails to note that the US invasion in Iraq was illegal under international law. However to again say that our troops killed amount to less murders is outlandish. How about we compare the Lancett study done last year, sponsored by Princeton University that demonstrated 100,000 Iraq civilian death as a result of our invasion and occupation. Again this was a scientific study that had been used in many nations by the US and UN and this researcher was sited by the US as an expert in war crimes trial.

    There is a site that tracks the bell curve of our troops KIA that compares  both Vietnam and Iraq. The bell curve for year three is nearly identical.

    So as you can see, more lies dressed up as hateful propaganda against Americans who believed in a party of principal and not crimes, deceit and lies.

    Gail, please send this back to whom ever sent it to you.  This is all truthful.

    "Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance (liberally)" Jude 2 Brother of Jesus

    by pinkpanther on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:22:53 PM PST

  •  What about the other pariahs? (none)
    It was very accurate to have so many Moore references; but why no references to Hillary being a bitch, Bill having sex, or Howard screaming?  

    Or how we are so crazy to blame Bush for everything and so ridiculous and slanderous as to call him a liar, which he has obviously never done, EVER!  :)

    Check out my lte archive at and feel free to use my ideas for your own lte's.

    by DemDachshund on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:38:40 PM PST

  •  You forgot the part where (4.00)
    the conservative tries to frame your argument against what Teddy Kennedy would do. Because he's liberal, you see. Ultraliberal. And your argument (the conservative will say in a scandalized whisper) is just as liberal as what that girl-murdering Teddy Kennedy supports. When you fail to be convinced about the dirtiness of being of the same political persuasion as Teddy Kennedy, Chappaquiddick will be brought up again. When the conservative still fails to sway you to his/her side with that little tug at the conservative heartstrings, s/he will his at you, "Liberal!" because it's the nastiest epithet a conservative can come up with.

    Or is that just me and my mom?

    •  I've been blindsided by the Ted Kennedy thing (none)
      before too. Once at a little Christmas Eve gathering  when I was afar visiting family, a random guy started a conversation with me that went about like this:

      Guy: So, where are you from?
      Me: I live in Boston right now.
      Guy: [with snide look on face] Isn't that where Ted Kennedy is from?

      He found an excuse to go elsewhere in a matter of seconds. I think he was from Georgia, and I was too surprised by his non sequiter to come up with someone heinous and famous from Georgia that a conservative would hate in the very few seconds the conversation lasted.

      •  sneak attack... (none)
        I'd bring up Neil Horsley. Not exactly "famous," I guess but he's from Georgia, he's conservative (and how!) and he's a mule fucker. Pardon my French.

        -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 03:33:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Forget geography (none)
        Whenever they bring up Kennedy and vehicle history, I always toss back "Yes, I know. Cars can be so dangerous. Just look at what Laura Bush did..."

        Shuts 'em up every time.

        "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

        by MissAnneThrope on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:05:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Screw him! (none)
        Someone would act that way because of what state you're from?  What an asshole!  That reminds me of during the election when Bush referred to "Massachusetts" in a very derogatory way.  Last I remember Bush was supposed to be president of the United States, which includes Massachusetts.  I wish Kerry had answered that way.

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. -- Daniel Patrick Monynihan

        by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:48:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Chappaquiddick retort... (4.00)
      anytime some Dem-hater brings up Kennedy and Chappaquidick, I roll out how Laura Bush killed her ex-boyfriend with a car when she was in high school. And she wasn't even drunk at the time. (Well, she probably was may have been, but we don't know that for sure.)

      If they're willing to give her a second chance, they should extend the same courtesy to Kennedy. Otherwise, STFU, Republican retard.

      -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

      by snookybeh on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 03:37:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's just easier... (none) do an eye-roll and walk away, muttering about how there's a village somewhere that's looking for its idiot...

    Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

    by FemiNazi on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:42:47 PM PST

  •  debate with the right (4.00)
    Debate, discussion, argument...whatever it is you want to call it when it comes to trying to make a point with some right wingnut, it is like arguing with rainman in the movie 'Rainman' about who is on first base.
    These "rainmen" of the GOP don't seem to know that the real joke is the politicians they elected actually represent anything of real value to them and their lives or their childrens' lives.
    Like rainman in the movie, they might suspect but don't really know that there is something screwed up with their party and everything about them.  The politics of their party is such that is like they pushed their constituents heads under the hot water in the bathtub when they were children and then told them the democrats did it to them till they grew up to be adults.  9/11 retriggered the psychotic reaction and they are on a constant replay...with their leaders continuously pushing the button to keep the PTSD episodes raging and always pointing the finger at the dems.

    Some of the GOP minions are very, very smart...just like rainman...they can count 243 toothpicks in a second...but so fucking what!  Show some independent thinking, I'm sick of hearing you trying to figure out who is on first fucking base.
    Like rainman...get a lobbyist rainman in a casino and they make out like a bandit.
    The rainman voters get manipulated by their handlers, like Tom Cruise did, for fantastic financial gains.  Like the movie, the casinos don't want them back.
    If the rainmen GOP supporters don't come out of there ideological stupor, they are going to find themselves or their kids on the battlefield or Iran, Iraq or some other god forsaken country and if they actually make it back to the U.S. alive, 7-11 or Walmart will be their only place of employment to raise their family of eight since the GOP outlawed birth control and abortion.  Cars will still cost a fortune and made in China (Geely), health care will be just of fucking memory, and your mortgage will be 8 times your salary.  Lots of blankets will reduce your heating bill.

    •  It's talk radio (none)
      It's quite the indoctrination tool.  They have a theme of the day, which they repeat over and over and over.  I think this is why they argue this way.

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. -- Daniel Patrick Monynihan

      by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:50:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I saw a great cartoon the other day........... (none)
    I'll decribe it and not draw it as it was drawn.

    A conservative woman was complaining that the animal loving liberals went and put up a Deer Crossing sign on the road she travels and now there are Deer crossing at all hours. She's writing a letter to the highway department to have the sign removed so the Deer will no longer be allowed to cross there. kidding

    "It's Hard Work!" George Bush..."He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." Bejamin Franklin

    by JellyPuddin on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:48:48 PM PST

  •  Catch Phrases: (none)

    "Loser Harry Reid"

    "Gorelick put up a wall"

    "hurting national security for political gain"

    "Release the Barrett Report"

    "You're moving the goal posts"

    "you defend partially delivering a live baby and sucking out its brain but don't care about Schiavo"

    "why no chicken hawk talk for bubba when he engaged in military efforts"

    Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out -- Emperor Claudius

    by Upper West on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:49:44 PM PST

  •  I know we've had enough baseball analogies (4.00)
    this week but this sure reads like a modern-day Abbott and Costello routine.
    Costello: Well then who's on first?
    Abbott: Yes.
    Costello: I mean the fellow's name.
    Abbott: Who.
    Costello: The guy on first.
    Abbott: Who.
    Costello: The first baseman.
    Abbott: Who.
    Costello: The guy playing...
    Abbott: Who is on first!
    Costello: I'm asking YOU who's on first.
    Abbott: That's the man's name.
    Costello: That's who's name?
    Abbott: Yes.
    Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
    Abbott: That's it.
    Costello: That's who?
    Abbott: Yes.

    "One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native land of hope." Wallace Stegner [-7.13 -6.97]

    by Mother Mags on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:49:45 PM PST

  •  One problem... (4.00)
    You forgot to mention that not counting Guam as a state means the terrorists will win.

    (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

    by Steve4Clark on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 02:56:33 PM PST

  •  this is hilarious (4.00)
    and sooo captures the spirit of this kind of conversation. After a while you feel like you're chasing your tail, and you just want to sit down on the floor and hold your head.

    I had an exhausting one a couple months ago that went in circle after circle just like this, until strangely, perfectly, it led right back to the beginning. In a failed attempt to be diplomatic, I (atheist) said, in response to a religious remark by a third party, that people can have different beliefs about the unknown. Case closed, right? No. The arguer, religious and a Sean Hannity fan, said no, the single truth is [religious teaching XYZ], and began lecturing me on it. The discussion that followed was mostly him outrageously twisting everything I said, and circling back over resolved ground again and again, while I repeatedly restated the basis of my beliefs (that I simply don't believe anything without evidence). He pulled the wounded conservative act by saying he felt like now he couldn't "talk about his beliefs" in front of me since I don't believe what he believes, somehow making this out to be an aggressive act on my part (in actuality so non-aggressive on my part he had to drag it out of me and forget that I've gone with him to his church 3 times).

    But the main thrust of it all was that he kept trying to make me out to be closed-minded and not open to alternate ideas, which ultimately magnificently failed when I pointed out that this very argument had begun when he hadn't liked my saying that it was OK for people to have different beliefs.

    It was sick and beautiful, almost mathematical in its circularity.

  •  now we need the Scotty Show official response (none)
    Any takers?
  •  WE CAN'T JUST WALK AWAY! (none)
    The stakes are too high...

    1.  How do we win against this mindset?

    2.  How can we convince others to think the same way, but on our terms?

    3.  Solve 1 and 2, and we're back in the majority for a long time.

    This is how conservatives stay in power...  the great brainwashing of folks to see things throught their myopic point of view... they somehow have tapped into the central core of people's consciousness...  have converted people's disafeection with their lives into action for the wrong political cause.  How can WE tap into that?  WHY can't we?  We were able to do it in the 30's, why not now?




    •  Black and white (none)
      They have been able to reduce every argument to black and white, no matter how stupid.  Before the war, it was either Iraq war now or you love Saddam.  Now, it's either warantless wiretapping or you want terrorists to attack.  The problem with this is that it perfectly fits into a media narrative ("he said, she said").  That's why the media always seems to be pushing the RW narrative.

      So, either we need to push the issues to black and white, in our frame or we need to show the ridiculousness of their either/or arguments.  Both are possible but we need to realize it's happening.

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. -- Daniel Patrick Monynihan

      by Unstable Isotope on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 07:56:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!! (none)
    Dammit Ellinton,

    I hope you got a warrant to tap my conversations with my family . . . .  

  •  i agree with the conservative on one point only: (none) apparently have a lot of spare time!

    I too have danced this weird dance of non sequiturs with the liberally challenged. But then, the truth is I've danced some weird dance of non sequiturs with lots of people whose reasoning apparatus is out of order. Not always about politics ...

  •  yes, Kentucky is a commonwealth... (none)
    ... which I really like, because when the governor delivers his annual speech, it's the "State of the Commonwealth" speech, not the "State of the State" speech.

    You don't want our porn, though. We usually send out for porn.

    -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

    by snookybeh on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 03:27:56 PM PST

  •  Stop calling them 'conservatives' (4.00)
    They are 'radicals' or 'fanatics,' but most definitely not 'conservative.'  
  •  I'm glad (none)
    I'm a moderate.  The Libs and Conservs can duke it out.
    •  Define a moderate. (none)
      What makes you a moderate? Are moderates a force for postitive change? Are they a force for any change? What core ideas does a moderate stand for? Would a moderate be willing to stake his or her future or comfortable position to defend those moderate principles? If citizens are oppressed, tortured or spied upon by thier government, is the better method of moderation to ignore their suffering, average out the amount of suffering, or assume that they are guilty of somthing? How do we moderate the loss of the Republic, slowly or quickly? How moderate should a moderate be?

      We will NOT negotiate with terrorists...including the ones in the GOP.

      by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 08:29:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Middle of the road? (none)
      Great place to get run over.

      Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

      by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 03:18:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Were you videotaping (4.00)
    my Christmas discussion with my borther-in-law?

    The only thing you left out was the part where he declared Goth with blue hair were Satanists--the blue hair was proof somehow....

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 04:25:55 PM PST

  •  Un-EFFING-canny! n/t (none)

    Is nothing secular?

    by aitchdee on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 04:28:16 PM PST

  •  Paranoid schizophrenics. (none)
  •  Funny stuff (none)
    My favorite line:

    "I don't spend all day downloading Michael Moore! I don't even know what you mean by that!"

  •  Another person saying thanks. (none)
    Very funny. I've felt that way in nonpolitical arguments. But it happens relatively more in political ones. All the false gotchas there. Good going!
  •  Awesome JOB!!!! (none)
    When I hung out on a political blog associated with a non-political organization, the wingnuts who constituted 85% of the participants sounded/wrote JUST like this.  I finally just gave up, since I can't get a brain embolism trying to reason with crazy people.

    I'm linking this to my blog - it's totally spot on!! Thanks for writing it!

    My separate place for mental meanderings: Political Sapphire

    by shanikka on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:21:30 PM PST

  •  so what you are trying to say is... (none)
    ... Guam and Puerto Rico should be states?  But what about Washington?
  •  Nice work, one suggestion (none)
    There is nothing a conservative loves more than to call out a liberal as a "bush-hater" and accuse them of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).  In the discussion of drugs, a reference to former governor George W. and his experiences with drugs, and it would open a great avenue for the conservative to then discount the entire discussion.  "You obviously can't think rationally on this topic, because you hate Bush so much."

    "I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium." - Jon Stewart

    by Slim Tyranny on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 05:59:53 PM PST

  •  Get This!!! (none)
    I reposted this on a Catholic political site, and got this response:

    News: American contractors in Fallujah are burned, dismembered, and dragged through the streets by a mob.

    Kos: "I feel nothing...Screw them."

    Too funny!!  The guy responds by furthering the premise!!!

    Man, conservatives!!!!  Why are they allowed to vote!!



  •  Let me state the obvious: STRAWMAN BS (none)
    It's funny, I visit conservative blogs and they do the same thing!

    I've come to realize that both sides do this and does no good to anyone. In fact, this kind of exaggertated "speaking on their behalf" scenarios that politicos get wrapped up is exactly the kind of behavior that worsens the divide.

    I've reached a point where I can have pleasant and civil conversations with my conservative friends and family.

    I think we all need to stop trying to prove that other side is stupid, irrational or misinformed.

    The fact that both sides can set up this strawman mock argument by mischaracterizing the other side is a result of this back and forth figure-pointing that creates these stereotypes that we lump everyone into.

    Most conservatives and liberals are NOT like the outspoken and obnoxious pundits and face-people that we like to use. It's unfair and stupid.

    I dislike Hannity and Oreilly and Tammy Bruce (UGH!) as much as the next guy and I'm sure conservatives get the same feeling from listening to Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy or Garafalo.

    But you know what? Most people are not that comabative and outpsoken.

    Yes, there will always be that ditto head that makes your blood boil. But he's the exeception, not the rule. Polishing up on discussion skills makes the above example a rare anomoly.

    Try it. It works.  

    •  Not so much (none)
      I've had this conversation way too many times to count with extremist conservatives.

      So I know for a fact this is no exaggeration. In fact, it doesn't go far enough.

    •  I take it you're one of those moderate people. (none)
      What makes you a moderate? Are moderates a force for postitive change? Are they a force for any change? What core ideas does a moderate stand for? Would a moderate be willing to stake his or her future or comfortable position to defend those moderate principles? If citizens are oppressed, tortured or spied upon by thier government, is the better method of moderation to ignore their suffering, average out the amount of suffering, or assume that they are guilty of somthing? How do we moderate the loss of the Republic, slowly or quickly? How moderate should a moderate be?

      We will NOT negotiate with terrorists...including the ones in the GOP.

      by HunterKiller on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 08:34:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This kinda proves what I'm talking about.... (none)
        Go look through my diary and judge for yourself what my views are.

        My disdain for these kinds of posts has nothing to do with "liberal,moderate,conservative" labels.

        I could delve into the wonderful, albeit fruitless, world of caricatures, stereotypes and sweeping "worst-case" generalizations.

        Yes, there are people who loosely fit the mold so colorfully described in this mock arguement. But let's remember that 60 million voted for Bush and the HUGE majority of them DO NOT fit that mold at all. I actually laugh WITH my conservative friends about "conservative stereotype" described in this post.

        Views aside, the ways and manners in which some people go about discussing politics is the real issue here. And on this issue, I find it a waste of time to spend time mocking people based on biased stereotype.

        You, me and a conservative fitting this stereotype could be locked in a room. Though I may argee with you on philosophy, I'll be the one fostering consensus, understanding and peace and stopping the 2 of you from broad-brushing eachother into some monstrous anamoly. Disagreements are fine. But ad hominem attacks do no good.

        Yes, it because of idiots like hannity, coulter and malkin that ditto-heads behave the way they do. But the answer is not a liberal counter attack along the same style.

        Real issues that go beyond just scratchng the surface render these destructive simplifications moot. Indeed, behaving like Coulter in reverse does not undermine her, it only adds to the mess she loves creating.

        I agree with Lakoff's idea that most times, liberals and conservatives spend more time talking past eachother than actually agreeing or disagreeing on the issue at hand. It's this, more thn anything that leads people to misconstrue what the other is saying.

  •  Stop! (none)
    You have to tell them to stop as they are being irrational.  This gets their dander up.  Then say what is it about (what you said) that they do not understand? and say this slowly like they have either a hearing problem or they are not too bright (which they aren't).  
    Then when they continue.  Ask them when is the last time they took their meds?  this really pisses them off.  Ask if the whole family is in therapy and by this time they walk away from you.

    The shrub needs to be pulled he is terrifying

    by libbie on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 06:59:45 PM PST

  •  Funny diary, needs more personal attacks (none)
    beyond reason or comprehension.  Then, it would be entirely accurate.
  •  Arguing with wingnuts is useless (4.00)
    Long ago I realized wingnuts were arational -- not irrational, but arational, i.e., rationality is completely irrelevant in their worldview.

    On an IRC political chat about ten years ago, I dared to debunk, with facts and logic, one of the prized wingnut talking points: that the Democratic Congress of the 1980s was responsible for the ballooning deficits of that era and not Reagan's voodoo economics. Among other facts, I pointed out that from January 1981 to January 1987, we didn't have a Democratic Congess, that we had a split Congress, with the House controlled by the Democrats and the Senate by the Republicans.

    One wingnut's response was to call me a liar.

    So I pointed out that this was an undisputed fact you can access in any almanac.

    He continued to foam at the mouth about me being a liar.

    So I pasted a list from the World Almanac contained in Microsoft Bookshelf of the Senate Majority Leaders during that era, the first being Howard Baker, the second Bob Dole, then asked if these two gentlemen were Democrats.

    He just kept screaming that I was a liar.

    So I asked if Bill Gates of Microsoft was part of the great liberal media conspiracy.

    "LIAR!!!!! LIAR!!!!!"

    And so on.

    That was the moment I realized that arguing with these arational folks was a complete waste of time.

  •  reminds me of (none)
    the SNL parody of the o'lielly factor
  •  True Conversation in a Barbershop (4.00)
    Before the election:

    • CONSERVATIVE: Kerry was photographed with Jane Fonda.

    • ME: The photo is a fake.

    • CONSERVATIVE: (Pause.) I know, but that's the KIND of thing he would do.
  •  Superb (none)
    Sadly this is very accurate.  If only the meida could take the message to heart conservatives have perfected a technique of shutting down any form of meaningful discussion and do not value truth or fact. This is characteristic of a dangerous mass-movement.
  •  error (none)
    media, even.
  •  Imputation (none)
    C stays on the offensive by imputation - accusing L of statements which he never made (misquotation) or implied (the ever-useful 'subtext').

    It's possible to impute right back without straying from the truth. Maybe like this:


    Conservative: What about Guam? What about that Guam, huh? Or the Virgin Islands?

    Liberal: Those are territories, not states. The USA has fifty states.

    Conservative: Oh, so you're saying those don't count?

    Liberal: Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Reagan - none of them thought Guam deserved to be a state. Fact. Look it up. And that goes for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

    Conservative: Yeah, well, I ain't got time for....

    Liberal: (here comes the imputation) So are you saying that Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon, Reagan were racist? Is that what you're saying? How dare you? Because, no matter what my political views, I would never say that about any President of this great nation. Racist! What next? Are you going to say Reagan was genocidal just because he supported and armed death-squads in Nicaragua? Bombed the barrios of Panama? Are you going to sit there and say that?

    Conservative: Reagan never....

    Liberal: (boring in, voice like thunder) You really have it in for all the Presidents who denied them statehood, don't you? You're really sore about that, right? So whyn't you write President Bush about it? He doesn't look like a big fan of Guam either.


  •  RW brain at work: Moore is fat so you're all wrong (none)
    The Editors at The Poor Man nailed it so well and thoroughly, I wonder why Mel Gibson hasn't brought a juicy self-flagellating version to the big screen:

    Maverick film-maker Michael Moore has enrolled on a crash course at a $3,800-a-week (€3,119 a-week) celebrity fat farm in a bid to lose weight. [more]

    And there it is. Proof positive that Michael Moore is fat. Don't try to weasel your way out of this, liberals - you don't check yourself into a fat farm unless you are a fatty-boom-bah-latty, and that's what Moore did. Ergo, he is fat. He has a big fat butt, a swollen beer belly, many jiggly waddles flopping under his chin, big fat sausage fingers, and an all-around doughiness that is the tell-tale sign that someone is a fatty pants, and he needs to do the fatty dance. Fatty fatty fat fat fatty fat fat.
    It is now clear to me that the Iraq war is a splendid rip-roaring success, apart from the horrible job the CIA did which made Mr. Bush look like a stupid liar; that no one in the Administration ever said that Saddam was involved with 9/11, even though he was; that global warming is a myth propagated by Trotskyite climate nerds; that there's nothing wrong with the economy that a few tax cuts for the retardedly rich can't cure; that George Soros is an anti-Semite; [...] and now, at long last, I've got the proof: Michael Moore is a big fat no-neck monster who goes to fat camp. And I see no reason to listen to anyone who says different until Moore loses at least 70 pounds. [More plus comments] (08/25/2005 The Poorman / The Editors)

    If conservatives are today's mainstream, why all the weaseling? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

    by Peanut on Fri Jan 13, 2006 at 08:42:46 PM PST

  •  An Actual Conversation... (none)
    ... in a bar a few weeks ago between three individuals, who I've renamed Archie, Meathead, and Gloria... in honor of All in the Family... because of the mindlessness of the disconnect:

    Gloria: "The trouble with Congress is that they don't get along anymore.  They don't socialize, they don't like each other... hell... they don't even know each other."

    Meathead: "That's because they are only there a couple days a week.  The House goes back into session on a Tuesday afternoon with 6 pm votes... and then adjourns for the week on Thursday afternoon so they can all head back to their Districts to campaign..."

    Archie: "Well... all I've got to say is... Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson did more memorializing for that Tokie Williams gang banger feller who got executed the other day for murdering all those people than they did for Rosa Parks.  Imagine that.  It's just shameful.  I don't know how anyone could support Democrats... especially when they keep pulling shit like that..."

    Gloria and Meathead turn and stare blankly at Archie... and then Meathead finally asks, "What does that have to do with the House not working a full week... or the fact that congressmen don't socialize anymore?"

    Archie: "Well, I'm just saying... if you want to start tearing down Delay and Hastert and Republicans for not doing things right... you better take a look at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the rest of the crap that the Democrats are always spouting..."

    Meathead: "I said nothing about Delay, Hastert, or Republicans..."

    Archie: "Fine... but you were implying... and I'm just saying..."

    A conversation with a brick wall would make more sense...  than talking to someone who can only parrot O'Liely talking points during any conversation no matter what the topic.

  •  Yep, that sounds about right.... (none)
    ....I've learned to argue until they change the subject, and then I know I've hit home.  


    Remember New Orleans

    by AAbshier on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 06:45:59 AM PST

  •  Ouch....! (none)
    My head hurts!
  •  The first (none)
    step is to lower the brain functions by subjecting the subject to long durations of what earth people call television.  These brain functions can be further slowed down by the addition of chemicals into the food chain.  In addition essential nutrients can also be proceesed out of the food and later sold as expensive vitamins.  Fear and religious zealotry can be added to the mix to produce a completely controlled and obedient populace.
  •  This is so true, but this is a whimpy liberal (none)
    I would have slashed this asshole to pieces with intellect in less than 45 seconds and then saved the rest of the time for worthwile enveavors, which this kind of back and forth is not.

    Conservatives, yes, frequently try to change the subject away from relevance.  I have no use for that.

    Now, see, a conservative would likely misrepresent that last sentence as:

    "I have no use for you."

    I don't waste my time with people who intentionally misrepresent my statements or misquote me.

    "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

    by trupatriot on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 08:53:08 AM PST

  •  Could have turned the tables early (none)
    "Conservative: You're really something, you know that? You liberals are always going on about how all of us conservatives are racists, how we don't care about anybody but people who look like us. But you don't even want to count the blacks who live in Guam as Americans."

    Liberal: Well, it's obvious conservatives can't even count, and have no idea how many frickin states their own country has, so I suppose racism is par for the course.

    Conservative: More crap! I'm trying to have an honest discussion here, and you can't stop with the personal attacks.

    Liberal: You said you have no idea how many states the U.S. has.  

    Conservative: I said the blacks (who are people!) in Guam should count!

    Liberal: I agree; they should count.  But according to the law, Guam isn't a state.  You have a problem with the law, now?

    etc., etc.  Go after them personal attack for personal attack, and 95% of the time, they WILL back down.  Think of them as bullies who can't handle a little bloody nose.

    I've been arguing politics online for about 10 years now, including significant combat time logged on Usenet.  The vast majority of conservatives can be had in very short order with reasonable-sounding, to-the-point attacks on their beliefs.

    Go on the offensive early, and you won't regret it.

  •  congrats you're linked from Scripting News (none)
    here. DKOS default is no comments, so all this great commentary may get missed.
Sharoney, Al Rodgers, edverb, bink, Thumb, Superskepticalman, RobertInWisconsin, Davinci, buffalo soldier, MattK D1, tunesmith, Stirling Newberry, Monkeypox, CJB, SWicklund, Nathan in MD, jade, stonedown, jotter, godotnut, Steve4Clark, snookybeh, gogol, AlanF, Tulip, ubikkibu, Raybin, TrueBlueMajority, Tuffy, Unstable Isotope, saraswati, kainah, emal, stumpy, Susan Gardner, Maryscott OConnor, bosdcla14, sphealey, Lahdee, Emerson, Elizabeth D, Shockwave, Jambro, CleverNickName, SanJoseLady, bramish, spacebaby, Victor, wintersnowman, fugitive, Fledermaus, Ralfast, Ed Tracey, tryptamine, Karl the Idiot, DemDachshund, MilwMom, WI Deadhead, frisco, ilona, kweimann, voltayre, BenGoshi, PanzerMensch, musicsleuth, bumblebums, HL Mungo, Poika, Jerome a Paris, HariSeldon, Tom Wingfield, eyeswideopen, jpiterak, bronte17, rktect, bonddad, SamSinister, Ti Jean, susakinovember, Catriana, lpackard, PlaneCrazy, Prairie Logic, ScrewySquirrel, Loquatrix, HippyWitch, poemless, mhale85, PBnJ, Scoopster, Christopher Bair, buckhorn okie, cookiebear, countrycat, treehorn, EastFallowfield, amberglow, sgilman, peeder, marylrgn, LawSkoolPunk, scottincincy, jbeach, House, superba, mystified, itskevin, dcvote, splashy, DoctorScience, aitchdee, Eddie C, LawStudent, PresentMoment, Moody Loner, rcvanoz, jakyra, TexDem, NYC Sophia, airMaufer, xoRfl, draftchrisheinz, lucid, jlynne, missliberties, Blue Neponset, alivingston, lezlie, besieged by bush, TX Expat, hoolia, exiledfromTN, Red State Refugee, I like Ike, grebmar, yet another liberal, churchylafemme, laughingriver, waf8868, DeanFan84, lizah, Sychotic1, Catte Nappe, mrsnart, FLDemJax, Timbuk3, Schup, citizen465, Dood Abides, kismet, cevad, southernblues, HunterKiller, Landon Fox, seanleckey, MikeInFlorida, Toastman, sfluke, Marianne Benz, Steven D, Dr Seuss, HK, buttermyself, rickeagle, kd texan, vacantlook, solesse413, bibble, Timroff, Shapeshifter, guyermo, Dotty Gale, cohe, kevsterwj, Gowrie Gal, a517dogg, nehark, Webslinger, arkylib, Fabian, jabney, still small voice, Bluesee, JSiq, Harkov311, Treg, tolkien, Green Zombie, enough, LarisaW, revbludge, Chinton, wobblie, ejmw, Ari Mistral, clammyc, Simplify, Mephistopheles, ZappoDave, canadianeye, nytcek, Blue Southerner, Brooke In Seattle, Richard Carlucci, Zifnab, oregonhag, FutureNow, snowho, NeuvoLiberal, eru, Mz Kleen, WinSmith, jfadden, freemark, truebeliever, chicagovigilante, GreyHawk, annefrank, QuickSilver, rpm5250, illyia, The Bulldog Manifesto, martik, sleestax, el zilcho, Cannabis, Zergle, gearmonkey, Nineteen Kilo, gotgat54, Frostillicus, tc59, mkrc98, Spathiphyllum, JPete, Drocket, NOdiaspora, cre8fire, barrettzinn, Major Danby, buddabelly, downunder newt, Liberal Protestant, cephyn, kraant, blacklib, Byrd the Stampede, Ceee, SciFiGuy, kestrel9000, sessal, buhdydharma, dougymi, puckish, rhetoricus, Shakludanto, Naniboujou, The Graduate, madcitymelvin, scubaix, sailmaker, reid fan, campdurning, TalkieToaster, Lashe, Xerxes

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site