Educating Conservatives

I figured he just didn't realize the irony, but I decided not to care about the notion.

I hate to lump him into the 'young' group (hell, I only have half a decade on him), but I think that means sometimes the thoughts require an interpretation of sorts. I'm not quite sure he intended to qualify all conservatives into an undivided group condescendingly. I think it just seems like that because he was highly focused on his main point. I could be wrong, but who cares either way.

I'm guessing, though, that TRAT will look back on this thread and laugh, someday. Hell, I do it with my old posts all the time.

TRAT: You categorize yourself unnecessarily. I say I'm conservative only because that gets my point across of some of my beliefs without me having to go through the process of explaining the premise of what I believe every time I write. You, however, seem to categorize yourself for your own benefit. It appears to be in order to prove that you are distinguished from the bunch. I don't need to lecture you, but seriously, think about it. This isn't a criticism more than something to get certain gears moving in order for you to be more confident in yourself as an individual.

 

Case in poiint.

 

Educating socialists: history books

 

Both sides would profit to read,
[h=1]
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer

Maybe then we could loosen up a bit on our sacred mind entrenchments.and quit holding onto these two idiotic political parties as if their couldn't possibly be anything else worth considering.. [/h]

 

Ad hominems are contributions now? That's it, it is the straw that breaks the camels back. I am outta here.

Here another example of non-productive, infantile, flame-baiting. I bet if I tell you Spain 1936, Ukraine 1918-1921, you would need to google it before you get it. Yet you are talking about socialists needing a lesson in history.

 

What gobbledy gook response is this? What you responded with has nothing to do with what I said. You bray about Conservatives who think that Liberals have a "hive mind" and then post detritus about Conservatives as though they have hive minds. You're a hypocrite poster who is oblivious of their own hypocrisy.

Blather. Your criticisms of Obamacare is that it doesn't go single-payer, which is worse. I know nothing about your gun position, but I strongly suspect that I do not agree with it.

So you respond to all Conservatives as though we all think the same thing because you're objecting to something called a SpaceCricket who apparently thinks that Liberals all think the same thing. Perhaps you ought to have saved your thread for a specific post directed at them.

Focking brilliant.

So you object to someone exercising their free speech rights by telling you to ****.

Be thankful they're simply not shooting you.

Exactly. I do not consider belief systems outside of Conservatism American belief systems. That is my perogative. Free expression, is what that is. What's your problem? I thought you were celebrating all this free speech up in here? Suddenly...you're not? Or does it simply have to be something with which you agree?

She is - you just disagree, and you're a leftist media sponge, sopping up whatever they tell you to believe. But if you prefer to continue to believe that an idiot has you wrapped around her pinky, you do what you wish.

Odd response, seeing as Allen West has done nothing worse than you're doing: disagreeing. Wake up, porkchop.

Of course you fail to see it. Naturally you will do likewise with the perceptions of the people who wrote it. Those perceptions cannot possibly render any insight into the real meaning and intent of the document, could they? Nah.

Let's look at but one of those people:

Hm. He wasn't talking about you there, was he?

A distinction without a difference. By modern application, they are the same. A Socialist is merely a liberal who has come out of the closet.

How exactly do you propose to instill your Socialist vision without defeating my ideology, child?

 

They're not actually. A liberal is the Socialist's mule. A Socialist is the Communist's mule.

And they all tread where the previous shat.

 

Uh...no, the definition of "liberalism" has nothing to do with a specific ideology.

 

Cutting out most of this for the same reason I didn't bother responding in length to yguy. I don't respond well to people looking down their nose at me.

That is NOT my only criticism of Obamacare. It's also absurdly long, the tax is stupid, and so is the individual mandate. There's a lot I don't like about it.

As for guns, I believe every citizen has the right to own as many non-military grade weapons as their hearts desire, as long as they are mentally competent.

You disagree with this? *confused*

SpaceCricket is a user here and he's far from the only one.

No, I don't. They can say it all they want, I won't stop them. Where did I say they shouldn't be permitted to say it? All I said is that people with such attitudes are enemies of free thought.

And that's both ignorant and against the mentality of the men who founded this nation.

Again, where did I suggest removing your ability to say such mindless drivel?

How can I be a leftist media sponge when all I ever watch/listen to is conservative (or neutral in the case of C-Span) media?

I am both moral and religious, so yeah, he was

 

He has the same problem as me with the term Liberalism

He is European and Liberalism for us means another thing, and as he indicated we whatever talk about Classic or Social Liberalism, the one of America are capitalist, because they don't want the abolition of wage system and private property. Both defend it.

Expand this.

 

You have no idea how much I revile your ideology. My family lived it; you lauding Tito means you're clueless about how Socialism is really implemented.

That it isn't single payer disqualifies all other complaints. Single payer is death to the Constitution, and Life to oppression.

No, I don't actually. Your view on guns completely renders the rest of your ideology utterly moot. There is no way to adopt your ideology in the face of this component of it. Of course, this part of your ideology will have to be sacrificed to manifest the rest of it - which is something about which you are unaware.

Moot. He isn't every one.

That doesn't represent anything near an enemy of free thought.

It absolutely is not. It is an acknowledgement of that which bound them. What you espouse stands outside of that, and you're utterly unaware of the truth of it.

I believe you calling someone like Allen West who bled for your right to free thought an affront on reality.

Oh, you're a sponge alright. Very porous.

You really should keep your stories straight.

 

http://i.word.com/idictionary/Liberalism

Definition c.

 

Where did I claim to lack morality or religion? Even my profile has named my religion since I started.