Posted on 05/14/2015 4:43:27 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
I am telling you that you cannot persuade anyone by yelling at them. You are simply wrong in your assertions.
You state that those who are negative do not want to be persuaded. So? Are you naive enough to think that the person you address is the real target for the debate? The reader who remains uninvolved is the target, especially when the opposing debater has espoused surrender.
Then you are insidious enough to try and equate my point with the rioters, and fall just a hair shy of calling me liberal. That is laughable.
YOU are a major part of the problem. You act like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House - proclaiming that everyone needs to listen to you but not saying anything.
In all of these posts since I first responded to you, you have not shared a single idea on how to change the outcome, while railing about people not discussing how to change the outcome. I have offered my opinion that proffering ideas needs to be part of your discussion - plant a seed, whether or not it is brilliant, because that seed may bear discussion that ends up in brilliance.
You echo this point somewhat - but only in that you can attack others for not doing what you yourself fail to do.
Your last post to me is gibberish. The left does not offer a constructive point on how to begin and continue discussions - they shout down their opponent. (As you are trying to do to me)
You claim that those who are dispirited are “wrongdoers” and claim the righteous position of railing against them. Then you segue in the non-sequitur that this is what rioters are claiming.
To others reading this post, I hope you can perceive the call to discuss ideas rather than attack people who have run out of them.
I have been posting here for nearly 20 years. Have you read nothing I have offered, even today?
You made your point, such as it is. Now move on. Throwing pearls before swine is not in my constitution.
Here’s a thought experiment:
We know that the conservatives have lost control of the GOP. Assuming that conservatism is still the base of the party, should we try to retake control, or move on to a conservative party (where we will necessarily have to jealously guard against liberalism in the party structure)?
If we agree that retaking control is the more prudent course, then will pushing conservatism bottom-up, which takes time and effort, coupled with rewarding liberalism top-down, as in supporting the GOP candidate regardless of their actual positions because they are the “lesser evil”, be a productive strategy?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
In discussing the difficulties, we may be able to discover workable strategies.
In my mind, the clearest difficulty we have is that the GOP leadership (sic) is entrenched in the business of prolonging their power and influence. I personally do not have any ideas that seem workable on how to reach those folks, absent withdrawing support for them in the short term and allowing the dems ascendancy while we push from the bottom up.
Do you have any ideas we can discuss?
You have been posting here 3 years or so longer than I have.
Thank you for your permission to “move on”, my liege!
Imperiousness suits you well.
It is good to be so respected and honored.
One quick correction to the article: it’s the U3 unemployment numbers that are cooked to reduce the number of jobless. The U6 numbers, which include jobless people who have stopped looking are much better (if still somewhat imperfect)
Oh they are not THAT bad, they actually want to allow a total population of 500 million, not 100 million. See how you have misrepresented their intentions? Don’t you feel bad?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.