Posted on 01/31/2004 6:27:08 PM PST by softengine
Moving on, that was a nice job you did of selective quoting and stitching sentences together while leaving out the pertinent sentences in between. When you use those methods, you can "prove" just about anything you want. But if you'd care to quote the relevant portions of my paragraph, then we can have a rational discussion about it. Somehow, however, I suspect it would be unnecessary, since I think you already knew that what I was saying wasn't how you characterized it.
Sure, he'll take it into account on one level, but if you support him actively chances are stronger that he'll pay closer attention to what you have to say.
Either you're wrong, or Bush and the Republicans have extremely liberal supporters. I'll go with the former. Politicians do what they need to do to get elected. Those that don't, don't remain politicians for very long. It's that whole Darwin thing.
Constitutional power granted to the President doesn't have anything to do with the skill that a person who holds that office has to be able to nutralize his opponents issues.
The fact remains that you're still giving him credit for something, but not allowing him to take the blame for the exact same thing.
"Your point" remains? From your last post: "The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal...."
When the chances of an event are infinitesimal, it's generally rather difficult to predict when it will happen. Unless you've had some success at this sort of thing?
Nader's candidacy subverted the strength of the Democratic vote, and some in the media were too stupid to realize that. These are the kind of boobs in the media industry who supported Eugene NcCarthy in '68, Shirley Chisholm in '72, and Kennedy in '80. They turn to Nader's Green because Gus Hall's Commies are no longer on the ballot.
You're still not seeing the big picture. They lose individual elections here and there, but in the process they're able to maintain "the socialist vision of the Dems" regardless of who's in power. IOW, they understand that politicians and parties are simply means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. I think you're still not getting that. Then again, maybe you are, judging from the next quote from you I've highlighted.
Bill Clinton is the actually the Republicans secret weapon and he will single handedly do more to damage his party than any other Republican or Karl Rove could even think of conspiring to do.
Am I reading you right, now? Are you telling me that Clinton was good for conservatism? Does this mean you don't bear any grudge against all those conservative Perot voters? Well, hallelujah! That means you should have no objection at all to CP voters either, because if it gets Kerry elected, just think of what he could do for conservatism! (especially with a GOP/CP majority in the election)
You and your CP clan are and will be of no value to long term conservative successes. Your kind never have been. CP positions are about as self-contradictory as they are useless snake oil designed for the consumption of equally useless malcontents, so often seen in conservative failures of the past. Predictably so, I might add. Why should this generation not have their supply of these failure peddlers as well? It is said that the poor will always be with us; so too will poor thinkers inspiring their unthinking lemmings, it seems.
Just keep stepping into your circular firing squads and the successes accorded those like you who already have a string of political darwin awards to boast of will surely be awarded your sucker's prize this time around too.
Always vote for the lesser evil or God will kick butt....bigtime.
Call it old as you may but some truths are timeless whether you want to admit to their wisdom or not.
A conscience that lives contentedly knowing it is helping the enemy is about as valuable as the conscience of any Nazi who ever lived who tried to hide behind his consciencious attention to "duty."
Such an appeal to one's conscience is not only meaningless, it is often harmful. An observer might fairly wonder what sort of "conscience" such a person has to begin with.
There's more than just a little bit of projection in that statement. My prior post to you pointed out two major self-contradictions you've put on display that you refuse to acknowledge. I'll let the transcript speak for itself.
Who's "rules?" And where for that matter did I call anyone a Nazi? One cannot simply slap a knee-jerk prohibition on illustrations that blow away a position simply because the illustration mentions Nazis and remain credible in the argument. You mistakenly think by whining about it that you've won some illusory point in an argument. All you've really done is attempted to stifle speech with which you disagree, because you simply have no credible counter-point.
While that may be your own "little" personal third rail of posting credibility, it is hardly so for anyone else. You might want to brush off your 6th grade English texts and learn how and when nouns are used as subjects. Concenrate particularly on parts of speech known as appositives. Failing that, we'll all be content with the knowledge that you do not read with much ability to comprehend, and will attempt to shut down debate in which your positions are fast losing ground with phoney "rules" that you simply make up and mistakenly think any (non-existant) defining consensus on FR cares anyway.
And plausible-deniability protestations about how you didn't "really" call him a Nazi aren't going to help you.
That question doesn't make any sense. Why would they ever try to "court" someone who they know is already going to vote for them no matter what? It's precisely the undependables that need courting.
Moderates who can't stand the far left seem to be a much more solid base from their viewpoint. In light of this, it would appear that we shouldn't be suprized when the moderates are the people to whom RNC decides to kow-tow.
Threatening to leave isn't much of a threat to the party leadership since these people were never there to begin with. It is our job to convince them that we are valuable. It is pretty late in this election cycle to try for such a sea change, though.
You could say that too ... not that you did of course, but you could. Hypocrite.
Play much chess? When I see a check-mate I don't usually dawdle around and drag it out -- Nazi references sometimes just help put the debating opponent out of their intellectual misery sooner.
You just have a way of stepping all over yourself, don't you?
After a single post you declare check-mate? Anyway, thanks for admitting that the Nazi crack was meant to shut down debate - exactly what you're accusing me of doing.
A SINGLE post? Are you that daft, man? OK, so you don't play much chess then. Answers that question. Little wonder you don't recognize check-mate, but residing in a land of blissful CP-think ignorance, as you do, clearly this is not the only kind of thing that so easily gets past you. You've been playing games on this thread long enough and I've check-mated you with your own logical inconsistencies too many times already.
I decided yesterday that you were just getting too boring, so I decided to start posting to someone else for a change. But then you jumped right in and decided to respond -- not that you couldn't, of course (as though that poster needed any help from you). But you just kept coming back for more, trying to impose imagined rules of discourse which exist only in your mind.
I know I really got to you yesterday and stripped off your silly, self-hating, CP-style "conservative" veneer and showed it up for what it is. I know it probably must hurt, bruised ego and all.
You remind me of that Joe Palooka blow-up boxing dummy I used to punch out when I was 6 years old. You just keep bobbing up and getting your head handed to you repeatedly. Does your nose squeek when it gets punched like Palooka's did? One of these days, just like that dummy, you'll spring a leak, deflate, and be tossed away. But that can be some one else's mess to pickup after.
Real conservatives won the argument against phony conservatives like you long ago when they quit imagining splinter parties (e.g., "Tax-payers Party," "American Independent Party") and forgettable campaigns that went with them and realized that success would only be acheived within the current system. Instead, we united behind Reagan and the rest is history.
You'll just choose to be the butt of history, and that's fine. I'm just finished with responding to any more of your vapid postings for now.
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.