After they consider them, they will think differently about the world and you will learn more about people and maybe even make a new friend.

ASSUMPTIONS TO WORK FROM

Keep in mind that the following are assumptions that are characteristic of the majority of conservatives.(At least the ones I know, avoid discussing these with them directly as it tends to piss people off)

Conservatives think they can make a moral argument for war.
Conservatives think they have the right to lead because they believe liberals are dangerous and wishy washy.
Conservatives live in the present and are mostly concerned about short term results and rewards.
Conservatives are self centered, but many still retain a belief that there is good in the world.

Using those assumptions I can make conservatives think beyond the point of view that they live in now and show that the actions we take now have a profound effect on generations to come. They will come to understand something about liberals and progressives that I feel has not been successfully articulated in this divided political climate.

I can do it...AND YOU CAN DO IT TOO. Here is how. Some guidlines. Some call it FRAMING the debate.

LETS TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE

It is not about who is right or who is wrong. It is about finding something we all can agree on.

To successfully control the debate with conservatives you have to take focus away from immediate current events and get them to think two or three generations out. Don't say years because that means nothing to people and is abstract. Most people really do not really grasp 150 years as a comprehensible chunk of time. Phrase it in terms of future generations.

DO not let them drag you into a debate about contemporary issues. Tell them that we can go on and on about those things some other time and lets simply refrain from going down that road and stick to a nice discussion about the future...

SAY: I want to talk about the future specifically the future of our children and their children.

SAY: I am going to present some facts and then ask some questions and I really want to know what you think about them.

(That shuts up the talking points, because Conservatives don't typically talk about the future in relation to future generations...they only do so in abstract terms like "freedom" and "democracy" and preserving a way of life without giving any real concrete examples of that.)

FIND AGREEMENT - Some FACTs to use.

First give them these facts and they should have no problem agreeing with them in the above context. Feel free to listen to them and allow discussion as you do. Keep them on message firmly and do let them sway the conversation to contemporary politics or events. Keep them focused on a time frame of two to three GENERATIONS.

The FACTS about the future:

Oil supplies are finite.

We will learn to live with less as the world's resources dwindle.

We will learn to use renewable energy sources.

Our military will ensure it's supply of oil first.

All conservatives I talk to can ultimately learn to accept these simple facts, usually with surprising discussion and some debate. That alone is an amazing thing to share with someone who you asusmed you had noithing in common with. ONe person said oil would never run out. We will alwyas have oil. I said "WE?" just who is "WE?"? Eventually I asked do you actually believe that ordinary people will be able to purchase petroleum based products in the future and discard them in a landfill? He agreed oil is finite resource.


From there I ask these questions:

Remember to LISTEN!

THE FIVE QUESTIONS - LISTEN TO THEIR ANSWERS and ask for more detail.

1. What do you think it is going to take to move from a oil based consumer culture to a renewable energy based one?

2. Do you honestly believe that continued war in the Middle East going to move us forward to that goal? Explain.

3. Do you think our current consumer based culture is a path to energy independance? Explain. (this is very interesting and can go yes or no I have found.)

4. What tools will you give your children and their children to enable them to live and survive in a world that is running out of oil?

5. Do you think it is important to teach children about peace and love?

(This is the hard one...eyes will roll but be firm and ask for an honest answer...it will almost always be accompanied by a big "BUT" we need to BE STRONG, with weapons, gun etc...comeback and say but that is not what I am asking you about I am tallking about peace and love, we all no about national security and the threat of terror but I am talking about peace and love...not violence. YOu will get a look to the floor and a..."yeah of course it is...BUT..." Stop them and ask them to think about why it is important to teach children about peace and love...I sometimes leave it there...with them speechless or rambling on about bombs, and revenge...for 911)

After you discuss these questions with conservatives one of two things happen.

Either the person is insane and says I don't care cause I will be dead and I want what I can take. (I stop there and tell this person they get all they deserve out of life and call them selfish, not many are really this bad)

--OR---

Most agree and you find varied levels of consensus. They find that there is something needed but are not sure exactly what that means. At that point for the majority of conservatives they are confused and are being assaulted with something they probably have never thought about....which is something besides themselves and their current existence.

At that point you have rocked their world. You have shown yourself to be a kind decent person and they have seen that indeed there is much we all share in common. Make sure you acknowledge that and thank them for talking with you.

That is how to win the hearts and minds of others...by using your heart and your mind.

Note: Sure I vent and get mad. But for the most part when talking politics with conservatives I take this tack and I find that it does change the way people think.

Try it out on yourself. Ask yourself those questions and then ask your favorite conservative co-worker, friend or pub regular.

Have fun with it. And let me know how it worked for you.

In quantitative terms, can you define "smaller government" for me? (Then go from there. e.g. If it's money, ask what NFP agency is able to operate on less and less money every year while demands are increased? How many times can you cut that agency's budget without them going completely under?)

Works for me!

that every conservative that I have ever asked a similar question can answer it. Most will start with NPR or PBS. Many choose SS or the IRS. One guy thought the dept of education was the worst government boondoggle in history.

Tell you what, though. I've never met a conservative that thought too much money was going to national defense. Although some of them thought there was a lot of waste there.

because no one wants to cut our defense budget for fear of losing their next election.

Eliminating entire departments of our government is obviously counter-productive and any liberal will agree. But there are specific projects, contracts, subsidies, etc. that have billions of dollar thrown at them year after year without any return whatsoever. Like subsidies for liquid coal gas research, or big dams in the desert. IMHO, when our enemies are stateless covert terrorists, a lean and efficient fighting force that can respond quickly is more effective than all our nuclear weapons and Donald Rumsfield's personal 747.

www.taxpayer.net is a good resource that highlights specific waste in our federal government.

On the other hand, I've found that liberals often think we can solve our problems by throwing massive amounts of money at it, like foreign aid to certain corrupt dictatorships. With neocons, it's Iraq and no-bid contracts for campaign donors. What has $1 Trillion bought us? And we just keep throwing more money at it.

the $1,000,000,000,000.

However, just for the record, conservatives do not agree that eliminating whole departments of government is counter-productive. In fact, some of them think that anything outside of national security is a waste of federal resources.

That's sort of what the disputes between us are about.

gotta wonder how they would feel without city infrastructure (roads, sewers) and services like waste removal.

I'll bet that most call themselves "Christians" too. Have they never read that they should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?

As for military spending; we spend more that the rest of the world's nations COMBINED on our military and (more often) their profiteers.Check it out:

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

that would be conservatives. they tend to think that schools, roads, etc, are state, not federal, responsibilities.

Some, maybe most, are Christians. Not all though. I know a Jewish person, for instance, who is very, and very vocally, conservative. One conservative said to me, "Caesar's been dead for a long time". I think he was being facetious, but knowing him, I'm not quite sure. Another said words to the effect that the dispute was over what belonged to Caesar, and what belonged to him.

As to your final point, yes, we do spend a lot of money on the military. that seems to be part of the dispute, also.

Conservatives and Republicans have their views, and progressives and Democrats have their's. That, not personalities, stolen elections, or political corruption, is what the fight is about. The Dems have to get their message out there, loud and clear. They have to draw a distinct difference between themselves and the Republicans. Otherwise, 2006 will be another in a long line of disappointments to the liberal cause. That cannot be allowed to happen!!!!

...a lot of the answers you will get to the question concerning will be market and/or capitalism-based. How would you respond to those?

IN every generation there are selfish people who are only concerend about the comfort they can gather for themselves.

For them, If it takes violence so be it. But they only choose that becasue they cannot see the way....we need to show them the path to see thier own way.

In every generation there are people who feel responsible to humanity to pass the tools needed to offset the selfish. And those tools are peace and love.

If consumers feel that driven to purchase green and renewable energey technologies and products then it is because it makes good economic sense to corporations to offer those types of products and services....in that alone you have found common ground with a conservative. It it is found in the future...not in the divisine world we live in today.

the future we will all come together and understand. And when we think about the future...Karl Rove, GW Bush become simple shills for thier own betterment.

And suddenly in the eyes of then conservative the liberal world is not a "moon bat" cave but a place where we all live together.

So merely discussing a oil free world with conservatives leads to the direction that corporate America and our consumer culture needs to turn... from consumers to producers.

An example of that happening right now is BP. solar energy products. They recognize the future. And it is solar and wind on every house in America. and they are investing millions to market and develop products to allow us to produce and not consume...another is hybrid cars, bio-mass fuels, wind and other renewable fuels...

See the shift?

It is remarkable and only takes asking those five questions.


We all want a better future. That is common ground that the liberals, progressives and Democrats should lead from.

You say "find some facts we can agree on" as if it is easy. These people are so far in denial of reality that that's hardly the case. They'll contest any "fact" and turn the discussion into an argument about "how can experts be so sure."

So while this is useful if you can find one that agrees with peak oil, and doesn't just counter "coal!", really you need to ferret out the facts that they do hold true -- and we need more posts like this, but explaining how to work with a given limited set of facts as a base.

they agree on the problem, they have totally differnt solutions.

You know coal is environmentally ruinous and only a stop gap measure.

the real solutions are solar, biomass and wind on small scales. Each household producing what is needed.

Monolithic energy harvesting and retailing is going to fade away.

Look closely at those facts....if you cannot accept them as facts then you are not ready to challenge the right.

Accept them on the basis that they are really the only way to live the post oil dependant world that is coming.

And remenber that violence and war have nbo place in these solutuions. Peace and love are required and the education of our children to these facts so they can challenge the next generation of selfish consumers...

The days of monolithic energy production via coal or nukes is not needed when each household can produce it's own power not only for itself but more several others. This is going to happen.

We all NEED EACH OTHER to move beyond the hate and selfish existience we live in today. We even need the conservatives.

I am seeking a way to make peace and find common gorund that is outside of the influence of television, the news and the other distractions of contemporary life.

We must focus on the future...that is what matters most.

After six years of the Bushies and Republican control of both houses it's becoming obvious (understatement) that our country is crumbling into the deep doo doo. We still have that last 30 something percent who refuse to admit they made a mistake and were wrong. They are running on empty, so their solution is to pretend to drive. They are incapable of a logical debate (on the current issues) so they resort to creating the straw man and giving it a couple of kicks. ( Coulterisim)
Here is one of many examples that most of us are very familiar with. This is a quote from a letter to the editor that was printed in The Idaho Statesman last week.

"Vote Democrat if you like sex perversion taught in our grade schools; Communist teachers screaming "Hate America" at our young students; taking God out of our schools and encouraging anti-government protests instead of voting; liberal radical judges adjudicating from the bench; Hillary Clinton defying Bush by saying, "Jesus wouldn't want immigration laws." Wanting amnesty for everyone; terrorists, gangs, drug runners; Hollywood illiterates and dopers advising Congress.
We have been hit by three major disasters; weather, war and Democrats. Bush has stood his ground; having to confront treason in our own government from leftover Clintonites and cronies to pathetic incompetence by state officials. -- Thank God for Bush!

That is one of many examples we hear every week. I originally had more to say in this post, but after typing that quote I find myself laughing hysterically one minute, then angry the next. I think I might be loosing it. Think it's time to take my dog for a nice long hike in the hills and get back to normal.
Have a good day guys.

however I prefer to run conservatives over with my car and then back up over them to make sure they are dead.... and a tad bit of

They tend to be self-cleaning.

a very, very, very, very, very, very large George Forman Grill.

They are so slippery you don't even need any grease.

Implying murdering somebody with studded tires is just wrong!

Utilizing chains is much more humane.

the most genteel approach would be tied fast upon a pillar and lashed to death with perfume scented shoelaces. pressure and time, all you need is pressure and time... oh, and a good wrist and enough Chanel No. 5

That's mine. Works like a charm.

Thanks for yours too, great!

I'm new here so maybe I need to get a feel for the temperament of the other posters and just shut up.

But if the goal is to make people think, then my question to you would be "How is it that your world is so insulated that you don't know anyone who has lost a loved one in this war"?

And regardless of the details of your answer, "Wouldn't you feel like a total jerk if you asked this of someone who HAD lost someone in the war?

Support the war, or don't support the war. That's your business. But at least remember that these are real people who are dying and coming home in boxes. They have families, children, wives, husbands, lovers, and partners.

And those grieving mothers, fathers, lovers, partners, sons, daughters, husbands, and friends mostly don't really give a crap about discussing "just causes" with you.

But your unthinking question will almost certainly not help them to see your point of view.

i think there is room for both questions. I like your question too...

Mine is not unthinking. I really don't think I would have to ask that question to someone who lost their child.

And if i did, it would probably lead to a very intersting conversation. So no, i wouldn't feel like a jerk in the slightest.

Any assumptions i make with my question are the same yours makes, and my question at least says If. You assume that they live in an insulated world with yours. Maybe the don't and they still feel pro war. Your question also begs an angry reply as there is not a person on earth who believes themselves to be insulated, even if they are. I would take offense to that. My question is an honest inquiry. I truly wonder...

Point well taken.

I did my twelfth KIA funeral since the first of the year today. We get a lot of those in Central Texas. Men, women, the invincible young, older "career" soldiers for whom this was their third, fourth, or fifth war zone.

Young kids barely out of high school, young marrieds with two or three kids. Husbands and wives who were thinking about buying a first home. Others who were thinking about upcoming retirement.

All of them suddenly having to think about a future without their loved one and what it means to suddenly find yourself as a widow(er).

Privates, Specialists, Warrant Officers, Captains, Colonels, Petty Officers, Gunnery Sargeants, Lance Corporals, Lieutenants and Senior NCOs.

Killed by snipers, insurgents, IEDs, helicopter crashes, motor vehicle accidents, weapon errors/malfunctions, bad planning, bad weather, and just plain old bad luck.

It's a question that is non-theoretical for me.

My point was that the "If your child was killed" question is benign in the abstact, but horrible beyond imagination in the specific.

Nevertheless, I do apologize for offending you.

Really off the mark.

Had a person lost a family member in this operation lost cause (Iraq), would they be supporting it so blindly?

Yes, many still do support the war.

The origin of this thread was "5 Questions that rock the conservative world". The author started off the article with this thought: "After they consider them, they will think differently about the world and you will learn more about people and maybe even make a new friend."

I'm simply suggesting that diatribes, presumptions, smarmy questions, or the perception of a superior attitude will not help people think differently about the world.

Some here have said that trying to reason with conservatives is not worth their time. If that is their attitude then, by all means, avoid all contact with conservatives. After all, is there really any tangible difference between "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" and "I'm from the Democratic Underground and I'm here to help you"?

But for those that think that reasoning with conservatives is worth the effort, it's important to go into it with ears and hearts open. And, dare I say it, with the basic respect which any person (even a conservative) deserves.

When I talk with conservatives

My talking with conservatives on the internet is an effort on my part to assure my line of reasoning makes sense to me. I am not going to change anyone’s point of view on the internet and I have not had my point of view changed recently.

I normally speak clearly using simple examples showing an normal progression of logic; A followed by B leads to C. The purpose of my talking with conservatives is improve my ability to articulate my position so that I make sense to myself.

I do not try to convince conservatives of anything. What is most fun is trying to follow conservatives asymmetric logic; the sun is in their eyes and it is too dark to see. Generally speaking conservatives on the internet are trying to lie their way to the truth and know they are following a liar while doing it.


Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

in the war, yet still support it.

A) They're truly, down in their bones, in agreement with bush about the wonders and benefits of removing Saddam and bringing democracy via force to the Middle East. To them, it's utterly correct and reasonable to wish our lifestyle and our belief systems on everyone else, because they seem to work for us (well, some of us, anyway). The problem with that is that it's not true for everybody. Not everybody else in the world, and in other cultures, WANTS to do it our way or convert to our lifestyle and our belief systems. They prefer their own. But I believe there are people in this country who sincerely believe they're doing the noble thing here. Some steadfastly believe that our troops really ARE over in Iraq, "fighting for our freedom." Beyond me, but I've spoken to people who resolutely embrace that belief.

B) They're afraid to face the reality, that their beloved one died - for a lie. If you think of it, imagine how easy that realization would be - to have to face. I couldn't. Couldn't even begin to imagine losing either of my kids to something like this. I think I'd sooner die myself. That's a fate I wouldn't wish on anybody. Not even dubya or dickie go-fuck-yourself. Not even them. It's just too horrible. Or to see them come home maimed and broken - FOR LIFE - when you sent them off, whole and fit and normal. I don't think I could deal with it. It would be hard enough if you felt the cause was truly just. But if you knew, or came to believe, that it was all a lie, that would be a living nightmare. So they fool themselves into believing such a horrible sacrifice was somehow worth it. You'd almost have to, to keep from losing your mind.

Welcome to the D.U. meme_vector!! As much as I can understand and appreciate some people's desire to "slam" those that supported this terrible war..... I lean with you on this one. Thanks for posting your opinion.

I know you will find the D.U. a wonderful place to visit and learn.

I'd really like to see more discussion scenarios similar to this. It would be very beneficial to experiment on a large sample size the best way of "breaking through" the conservative mind-set that keeps these people so locked into their manufactured reality.

when talking / arguing with a young male conservative (18 - 25):

If the war is worth it, why don't you join the military and fight in Iraq?

I'm sure there are better ways to phrase it... but does this lead to any reflection or just piss them off?

question, and the answer I got was in the likes of "if a day comes that I'm called upon (re: draft) to do my duty, I will go there and do it."

That was the end of the "exchange." (At some popular left-leaning songwriter & composer's message board, who's more than famous for writing songs about them 'pigs' who "don't get it.")

I just could not believe my eyes (seeing their "cowardice" through their written words.)

That was the end of it.

I'm not 18-25 anymore, but I was asked that more than once when I as in that age group. The questioner (and the question) were usually not nearly as calm or polite as you seem to be.

The answer is "I did. Where do you think I got this limp"?

The response, assuming I got one, was usually to observe that I was:

1) A fool
2) Some kind of sociopathic monster
3) So indoctrinated by the establishment as to only be deserving of condescending pity
4) One or more of the above

Rarely, if ever, did I get anything close to a "Thank You". Even a "The war is evil, but you've got balls for putting it on the line like that" would have been great. (And BTW ladies, pity sex is more pity than sex...)

You know who did show appreciation? Those old enough to have lived through World War II. Very few people of that age had not been touched by the horrors of war. They lived in constant fear of the Western Union boy stopping at their door.

So who do you think won my "heart and mind" and many of my votes? Certainly not the whiz kid with the smarmy questions. It was the factory guy who bought me a beer or gave me a ride when it was raining.

Let's remember that next time we get the chance to change someone's mind.

I say, support the troops by bringing them home now. Our troops are not getting the respect or treatment they deserve, from the B*sh Administration. The B*sh administration shows more disrespect to US troops than any civilian can.

That spins 'em hard....Not one damn thing. Never had one answer it witha coherent sentance. Just a slew of defamitory gobbelty gook. Looks great in public too,stand there asking LOUDLY "Name ONE thing" & they can't answer-TOTAL egg on the face...

"Bbbbut...Clinton!" (with apologies to whoever on Usenet I stole that from).

One of the key ways that the GOP keeps us divided is by creating an us and them....

To them we are the EVIL liberals who want to raise their taxes through the roof, hand-out welfare to every drug user, and kill babies (abortion). Liberals hate America. Liberals don't support the troops. They keep the message very simple. In essence, liberals are BAD. You don't want to be labeled a LIBERAL. (Why do you think so many Republicans disgusted with the GOP say the following: I can't stand Bush, but I can't vote for a (gasp) democrat). So, immediately, when they meet a liberal or hear a liberal make a point, they immediately dismiss whatever that person is saying as invalid (no matter how factual, logical, or accurate).

It is a loathesome thing to do to people. Create hate, fear, and prejudice to keep us divided so we don't unite against our true enemy which is THEM. That is their worst fear.

But, everytime you meet a Republican, you have a chance to destroy this delusion. If you can make one person see you as a caring human being that has many of the same concerns they do, you have accomplished much! And, once you do this...once you have broken down this invisble barrier, you can them have a mutual discussion with the person actually listening to YOU and not the imaginary 'liberal'. But, how?

1. Tell them something about yourself that they will admire or appreciate. This isn't to brag about yourself. It is a step to undo the brainwashing they have undergone. I tell people I am trained as an R.N and have a bachelor's degree from a state college. Invariably, they respect RN's. Often, they have a family member who is a nurse. Or, they have had a nurse take good care of them. So, I am no longer just a 'liberal' in their eyes. I am a nurse. And, I have a college education. I have just peeled back the first layer of their false image of me.

2. Find something you share in common. A kid in college. A leaky roof. You went to the same high school. Anything that you share in common will expand the conversation further into more shared commonalities. Go with it and keep finding more and more common ground.

3. Acknowledge something positive about them. They work two jobs. They volunteer at their church. They watch their neighbor's kids. Don't give out false compliments, it isn't hard to find something nice about most people. And, you don't need to dote. Just a simple: That is a very kind thing to drive your mother-in-law to work every morning...or whatever.

4. When they bring up a potentially divisive issue, make sure the first few things you say are NOT confrontational. Listen to what they have to say. And, when you do respond, go back to your common ground. No one wants to see the troops injured or die. No one wants the vets to have their benefits cut. No one wants elderly people to lose their pensions. And, when they see you honestly care, they will give much more credence to the facts that you state and actual consideration to what you say.

When I volunteered for Moveon through the Kerry campaign, I had discussions with a lot of misinformed but very good people. A few wouldn't listen to a word I had to say, but with the majority I had a lot of really good conversations. Even, when we couldn't agree, I thanked them for at least hearing me out and letting them know how much I appreciated them listening to me. And, who knows what effect our actions can have on others. Maybe, since the election, they will remember the girl they talked with for 15 minutes who told them something about the Republicans they at last learned was true.

coming from a place of love and true tolerance and vision for the future.

I feel so good about being part of the DU family with these.

those suggestions are vital skills required in asking the five questions....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If I wanted to hear what conservatives have to say, I'll watch FOX.

You are in the wrong forum. We have conversations between progresives to come up with ideas on how to fix the mess that the Republican Party is creating.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am FORCED to listen to the side I disagree on from the very moment I turn on my TV or Radio. Because of such disgust for those ideas and because of reading my history and current events from diverse sources, I got to my own conclusions. With all the lies ones hear one if forced to question every source. So no, my mind is not single sided. That is why I am here at DU to see the progressive side of THINKERS.

And you expect me to try to convert you from your twisted way of thinking? Now that is your problem. If by now you have not convinced yourself that there is something seriously wrong with this administration I won't waste my time on that. You got what you deserve so sorry if you are having guilty feelings.

Yes, I protest too much. I figure I EARNED THE RIGHT TO PROTEST chickenhawks and War mongers the day I became a veteran.

The missionaries for the mormon Church use a program called "The Commitment Program" The very first step is called BRT (Build Relationships of Trust). That is exactly what you have described. Fear divides us - trust will bring us together.

The next couple steps are let them feel the spirit and commit them with a yes or no question. Im on vacation now but if anyone is interested I can explain further when I get home. All of these things believe it or not are your basic sales man techniques and they do work. (Feel the spirit could be anything that makes someone "see the vision" or fell comfort and acceptance.)

The missionaries for the mormon Church use a program called "The Commitment Program" The very first step is called BRT (Build Relationships of Trust). That is exactly what you have described. Fear divides us - trust will bring us together.

The next couple steps are let them feel the spirit and commit them with a yes or no question. Im on vacation now but if anyone is interested I can explain further when I get home. All of these things believe it or not are your basic sales man techniques and they do work. (Feel the spirit could be anything that makes someone "see the vision" or fell comfort and acceptance.)

"such as"

I made that suggestion to NPR a few years ago, because they kept letting these RW PR spinners on who would spew RW talking points without ever giving any examples of what they were talking about.

Now I hear Terry Gross, Ira Flatow and several of the others use those two simple words almost every time they find themselves interviewing someone spewing meaningless talking points. It really stops them dead in their tracks, or makes them forget the message they had memorized.

From what you wrote, it made me think that maybe we need to offer classes or workshops on "How to de-program a RW "conservative." I know, sounds like a typical "lefty" idea, but most of these people you are talking about a seriously "brain-washed," mostly by RW Hate radio, but some by Fox "news" too.

BTW, What's the deal with the big photo and your profile on the right side of the page when you click this from the DU home page? Is that a new feature, or is that just for DU writers?

Try to find a conservative who is capable of thinking independently, rationally, and able to respond
intelligently. Those talking points actually might work in this case.

Most of the others will likely fall into the "Rush ditto-head" group, or the other
rightwing talk-show groups. There are people who will know the answer before the questions are
asked. Which is to say they don't have enough processing power to do themselves any good.

It's amazing that they can generally drive a car safely and at high speed on the highways every day without a collision. A certain amount of 'processing power' is needed to operate a car, but that doesn't mean the same processing power can be applied to make decisions which have long-term impact, such as invading a foreign country without realizing the consequences 10 years from now.

and only 8 MB of ram....

If we don't then we will have failed our children and thier children.

Lay down the stinging barbs of the present state of political discourse and pave a new path generations ahead that allows two human beings to share a moment of unity.

In doing so we all win.

Thing is, I just don't see myself talking with anyone who drives a 10-mpg SUV that would even get close to admitting that they've made many wrong consumer choices; not with every other talk-radio show host advocating driving ever larger vehicles.

Really, most of the people who need to be asked these questions probably have 52 months of payments left on that Big Rig, along with a 30-year ARM on that new McMansion - and would just as soon walk away from you than face the awful truth.

But I'll try...

and go to a place where we all know can and will exist and simply ask "How do we get there?"

This is a very useful exercise. For the minority of Americans who are the true, hard core conservatives, delusional thinking is pretty well embedded. These people are unlikely to be persuaded by any discussion. However, most people are adrift and awash in a sea of shifting ideas and opinions and have no clear idea of what they really think about a lot of the issues that are bedrock for conservatives. These people clearly can be reached. These are the people we'll need to reach to start winning elections--putting aside for the moment the real continuing risk of election fraud.

Is Iraq no example to you? We had to go to war in order to ensure peace. Therefore, it clearly follows that if we are at peace we will ensure war. So, that is why we must fight: it is the path to peace. Get it? Sheesh!

At least, I hope you were being sarcastic.

What is frightening is that if a wingnut were to have read it, I would have NEEDED to!

The we're liberating Iraq and giving them freedom nonsense. The we're creating peace in the middle east because we're getting the bad guys pantload.

I apologize for questioning you. Newbies get scrutinized, so it's best to use the sarcasm smilie. Welcome!

Both of these groups believe there will be no future. Punks - and by that I mean the Sex Pistols, British-originated version of Punks - believe that there is no future, that we'll all be dead, that there is no Heaven or Hell, only oblivion, so party all you want.

The Conservatives believe in the Apocalypse, that they are the chosen people, that they will be taken up into Heaven and the rest of us will hit the fiery furnaces, and that nothing they do on Earth matters as long as they "believe in God."

Both of these people believe the same essential concept: "When I die, the world ends." Or as Robert Klein once put it, "one second after you're dead...I DON'T CARE!!!"

In the face of that belief, none of the other things matter.

Discussion with wingnuts is a waste of time. Discussion with the "middle" group might be worthwhile, but the important point we still need to focus on is that having the right arguments on the issues does not win elections.

Americans already agree with Democrats on the issues. That's not the problem.

From a USA article in January, '05 two months following Kerry's debacle which was caused by his failure to recognize that issues alone DO NOT win elections.



The Wingnuts like to call us America Hating Liberals"

You want an issue framer? I'll give you an issue framer.

Call conservatives what they are - "American Hating Conservatives" and "Ameican Hating Republicans"

The evidence of their hatred of Americans?

They believe in sending Americans to their deaths or mutilations in unecessary wars.
They believe that Americans should have to work for poverty wages.
They believe that Americans should not have health care.
They believe that Americans should not have affordable prescription drugs.
They believe Americans ..........(fill in the blank, there's plenty more)

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE AMERICANS?
WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE AMERICANS?

And don't even get me started on "Freedom Hating Republicans"......

The demonizing of the word "liberal" began in the mid 60's and was pretty much completed by the time Reagan took office. For the last quarter century, the reinforcement of their message has continued.

Unfortunately, with the control of media by the corporate fascists, our job is tougher but
we won't win by being nice guys. All that does is make their point!

We are not fighting policy or political beliefs, we are fighting ROVE, we are fighting evil.

If we to continue to believe we can win by "gentle persuasion" alone, we will continue to lose.

If this gentle approach works for you, great, but as for me, I'm not about to try to "rock the world" of people with rocks in their heads, in other words -

I ain't singin' KUMBAYA with no wingnuts.

Adversarial thinking in the now will not garner you respect nor will it allow new ideas to filter into the conservative mind set.

The challenge is ours. Reach across the isle and spend time together thinking of the future. We know we cannot agree in the present so we must come together some time...not in our life time but maybe our children's or their children's....

so go there...for a little while and start to lead. And show what we are really made of.

Falling back into thre present will only lead to conflict and division and it unproductive.

but to me the people who are supporting the transformation of our government into a
theocratic-corporate- fascist-oligarchy

are
NOT "adversaries"

they are

ENEMIES!

Although some of them (Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, OxyBoy) are better described as
EMEMAS!

They are decent people who simply have not been asked to think yet.

Just as well are villified by the right we too vilify the people that go along with the right.

I think the ultimate goal is to erode the base of support that the Neocons have and show people a different way. the Neocons do not have a lock on the future.

...we continue to LOSE.

I AM thinking about the future at the same time as I'm thinking about what I have learned from the past. I want a future that includes VICTORIES.

Liberals have suffered through almost three decades of retreat and defeat because we wanted to "discuss" issues. Talk, talk, talk, blah, blah, blah....

Where has that gotten us? As I pointed out before, the majority of the people AGREE WITH US on the issues, but who controls the executive, legistlative, and judicial brances of our federal government?
Is more discussion going to change that?

There were many during the Revolutionary War that wanted to discuss that "situation" with the King.

Fortunately, there were others.

Or simply understanding (from both sides) and voting out the corrupt liars.

Our battle is with the people who have been taken in by Bushco.

we can't win unless the majority of people share some vision with us.

It is up to us. Becasue we know that the Neocons will not listen to us. but the everday misinformed American will if we can show them a real human.

All I said was that we need a change in tactics.

The Revolutionary War reference was just an analogy.

As I've said before, and will repeat again,

THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ALREADY SUPPORT US ON THE ISSUES.

The tactics you advocate have led to a quarter century of retreat and defeat for liberals.

If Karl Rove were to have an anonymous opportunity to advise us on what we should do, he would say, "Keep on discussing those issues."

Meanwhile, he'd be laughing away while planning his next swift-boat victim.

To win, Democrats must think of the Republicans - at least the people leading that party into the abyss - as the capital-E Enemy.

But we have to do more than try Flower Power to conquer them. We have to fight as dirty and as ruthlessly as they do.

For instance, I suggested in a post that each potential Presidential candidate should be made to hold a debate against Ann Coulter. Any one who couldn't make their points known against the Republican Point Woman shouldn't be allowed on the ballot. And if any of them managed to make her cry and break down - that would be our ideal candidate.

"Bringing a knife to a gunfight," in Connery's words, is not as stupid as bringing a signed petition to a gunfight, which is what Democrats are currently doing. And until they realize it IS a gunfight, with all that implies, they will continue to lose.

been making - why am I only "halfway right"?

Because I dismiss the idea of talking to the zombie wingnut masses?

Yeah, you can blame their ignorance on their leaders, but it is still virtually a total waste of time trying to change their minds. There are approximately 25-30% of the Americans for who valid agruments and facts make no difference. For them, their politics is a matter of faith. You have no more chance of changing their politics than changing their religion. UNDERSTAND THAT AND MOVE ON!
You cannot argue with people who use for proof that man and dinasours co-existed, "Look at the flag of Scotland, it has a dragon on it."

If the post dealt with how to reach the "middle" voters, that would be of value.

But quite frankly, I was very disappointed to see this post, with it's "flower power" message on the front page of DU this morning. I don't question the sincerity and good intentions of the author, but when are we going to learn from our past mistakes?

DU.

Does not the U stand for Underground???

Does not an underground fight?

Or are we to become a talking club whose mission is to engage wingnuts for a chance to convert that one in a thousand? And for every one that can be changed with "gentle persuasion" there is probably one other who could be changed by confrontation. I choose confrontation.

If we're going embrace a strategy that will work some time in the far off future, forget it. By the time that future gets here IT WILL BE TOO LATE!

I understand these people like few on this board do. I was there at the beginning of their climb to power and for over forty years have watched them do what ever they needed to do to achieve it.


Some of my credentials:

1964 - worked in Barry Goldwater campaign
1964 - read "None Dare Call it Treason" - for many wingnuts in the 60's it was the 'bible"
1965-1968
Fourth of July picnics and other events at the local John Birch Society
Member YAF Young American For Freedom
1967 - Delegate to national convention of Young Americans for Freedom
Speakers - Sen. John Tower (R-TX), Sen Strom Thurmond(R-SC),
William F. Buckley, and Gov. Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
1968 - Vice president Youth for Nixon local chapter
1969 - epiphany



BTW, I like your idea of a "Coulterized Candidate" Or maybe have each democratic debate hosted by a different wignut? One with Coulter, one with Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilley....

But alas, I don't think they (either the candidates or the wingnuts) would go for it!

I remember the 1960's and 1970's. There were a lot of people who claimed to be "underground." The extent of their political activity was putting up a Che Guevera poster in the room where they kept their rolling papers. It made them feel good. They didn't DO anything, but it was a romantic time, wasn't it?

There is a tremendous histrionic rush in imagining one belongs to an "underground." But to be involved in a genuine underground movement entails various kinds of risk and sacrifice. And what I guess I'm talking about right now is sacrificing one's carefully preserved self-image and pretentions to politeness.

The right wing had no problems with that. They learned from Michael Jackson and wore one gloved hand. With the un-gloved hand (Bush) they were polite and pretended to politics as normal. With the gloved or chain-mailed hand (Rove, the pundits, the Swift Boaters) they punched, mauled and strangled.

Bush didn't win against Kerry or Gore. Coulter and her group did. And the "underground" supporting the Democratic candidates - which I can safely say is pretty well represented on DU - were unable to counter them, either. To win, there has to be more than righteous, justified anger and rage from us groundlings down here in the pit. That happened the last two times, and it didn't work.

My proposal is that that anger has to go all the way to the top. The candidate has to fight back, not simply because his or her image has been tarnished, but because those attacks tarnish the whole political process. We need a candidate who will not tolerate the WWE wrestling match that the Republicans have orchestrated, who can convince the DU'ers and others that we need to fight back just as dirty, not just complain to the "referee" that Rove is unfair.

By the way, if Coulter is unavailable for debate (which is unlikely, since I think she'll do anything for money) there are some people with anger on this side who might perform the same duty in forcing Democratic candidates through a verbal gauntlet. Bartcop, maybe Lewis Black, possibly some politically impassioned black preachers or rap artists.

As I wrote: An underground fights. A pretend underground does not.

For your example of an underground that did not fight, you chose one that you then go on to say was NOT a real underground, only "claimed" to be one.

(Let me state again that I am NOT talking violent revolution. I am NOT advocating that we all pick up our keyboards and storm the Bastille).

Now obviously, with DU, the U part is not to be taken literally. What kind of traditional underground engages in open discussion? But it needs to at least least have some fight in it.

The "fighting" I'm talking about is the same as you have described previously.

I just have a problem with the "take a wingnut to lunch" strategy outlined in this post. It's a step into the past and not a strategy for victory.

I'm in agreement with you on the "fighting" attitude needing to reach all the way to the top. It was Kerry and his advisors who SAT ON THEIR ASSES in the summer of '04 and ALLOWED HIM TO BE SWIFTBOATED AND TAGGED AS A "FLIP-FLOPPER". They thought it was below them to engage in those kind of discussions. THEY WOULD WIN ON THE ISSUES! By Labor Day, Rove had that election in his back pocket.

And before someone points out that the election as stolen in Ohio, let me say that yes, it probably was. But that election should have been a BLOW OUT for Kerry, if only they had more fight.

If I don't hear a candidate, early in the campaign, make some kind of pledge such as:

"We are going to win, but if on election night, the corporate media declares my opponent the winner, you will never hear me give a concession speech unless every voter has had the opportunity to vote, every vote has been counted, and all questions of voter fraud or suppresion have been answered!
NO MORE FLORIDAS. NO MORE OHIOS."

Then I ain't workin for them.

You are right about Coulter, she WILL do anything for money!

by George Lakoff. It is actually a very handy book, and after borrowing a copy from the local library, I think I need to buy one upon getting money. The issue isn't facts, as the facts, I believer, are on our side. You are on the right track though, as it is the framing of the issue. Let's face it, you cannot argue with a Republican (or neocon) when he is the one framing the issues. Take tax relief. Is any liberal ever going to win by saying he is against 'tax relief'? No, not in a million years. But what if this guy says "Taxes are a way of repaying our country for giving us a career, a way to earn a living, freedom, justice, security, and a family. Paying taxes are our PATRIOTIC DUTY." That would gather more votes, especially if it came to be accepted to the public as the 'common sense' that many Republican phrases have been.
We cannot win the public over by letting Republicans control the language. When you have all the facts, but phrase the words the wrong way, you fail. When you phrase them the right way, even without facts..... well, look at the neocons. That is what has gotten them into their current position of power.

before Lakoff wrote it down.

It's easy to see what the repugs are doing.

JUST DO IT BACK

For a quarter century I have been telling people -

You are not pro-abortion, you are pro-choice/pro-privacy.
The enemy is not pro-life, they are anti-choice/anti-privacy.

Unfortunately, I did not have a Professor in front of my name.

And unfortuneately, I did not have the internet available to spread the word.

I am so jealous that these young whippersnappers have this technology and I did not.

There is nothing that Lakoff has to offer me that I did not realize 30 years ago.

But I am VERY GLAD he wrote it down.

Now go use it.

The problem in the past 25 years is the "democrats" moved to the center and right. They couldn't seem to find a voice that was able to justify being a corporate shill for campaign dollars and a true liberal. The two just don't seem to work together.

How can you say you have honor and values while holding your hand behind your back, palm up, getting greased by "the man"?

I see holding to ones core values and being honest with the public something that needs to return to Washington. The Repukes may hold to their "values" but we know they lack the honesty, believing the end justifies the means. (soooo wrong)

Is it too much for Americans to have both...honesty and values in government?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm supposed to have discussions with! Yeah, right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Iraqi's WOULD'VE left us alone before the war because they had NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH 9/11.

We did not "take it to theirs" because Iraq had no part in the attacks.

You morans that voted for the criminal don't only have our soldiers' blood on your hands, you have the blood of Americans that haven't even been born yet on your hands. Not to mention the innocent people, of a sovereign nation, that has never attacked us.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I happen to live in Michigan. Did any of us "harbor" McVeigh? Or was he just a freaking nut that didn't represent the vast majority of Michiganders that never attacked anyone? Was John Engler as worthy of overthrow as Saddam?

well, on that, you actually have a point because Engler was an fstick.

But it's beyond proof that Saddam's regime was actually at odds with Al-Qaeda.

Now, if the feds had declared a police action on Michigan and started killing a bunch of innocents, you can bet that the next 40 generations of people in Michigan would've had an honest reason to become militant against the U.S. govt.

This bs war that your chimp decided to fight has created, and continues to create, future "terrorists." And it's on your moranic hands. If you sleep well, it's gotta be the "Oh Yeah."

Hillary Clinton took your guns away. Oops!

Maybe next time you'll be more vigilant.

I ask the following questions with every neocon I meet,

If you support this war in Iraq so much, why are you against higher taxes to pay for it?

Why did Clinton need to have an exit strategy before deploying our forces, but Bush doesn't?

What can the Department of Homeland Security do effectively that the DOD can't?

How can we wage war on terrorism?

Why did 9/11 happen with Bush in power..not under Clinton?


Whenever a neocon starts to speak in favor of the national sales tax I ask.. what makes you think creating a new inflationary tax will eliminate the income tax?

When asked if I support the sales tax I say yes..we need another tax to help pay down the national debt!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Conservatives always love to bait liberals into defending every pain in the butt that comes with life..such as the income tax and government waste. But recently my argument convinced a conservative that backing the national sales tax and this war in Iraq will only result in a larger tax burden.

When Republicans grow tired of defending an incoherent ideology one of two things happen. Either they change the subject or become interested in my point of view and begin to listen!

1. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor were there any al queda there prior to our invasion (Saddam would not have tolerated the competition). Had we spent our time and resources securing our borders, inspecting imports and working WITH the international community, not only would we be safer now and in the future, but we would have more friends in the world, not enemies. Our invasion of Iraq CREATED terrorists there. Based on this fact, we agree, there are terrorists in Iraq, but this war CREATED and/or BROUGHT them there!

2. Since we spent all of our resources in Iraq and not on securing our borders or taking inspection of our imports seriously (DuBai for fuck's sake), when they come for us (and trust me, after a "democratized" Iraq, they most certainly will be coming for our Abu Grahib, Haditha asses) we will not be prepared to protect ourselves BECAUSE of Iraq! Our troops are being worn down, we have done nothing to secure our borders and Bush continues with his bullshit rhetoric that you seem to still find illuminating: when they stand up, we will stand down. I got another one for you: when pigs fly, I will understand this statement. Are you willing to wait for that day too?

3. Iran is, and was, more dangerous than Iraq, but Cheney and Bush decided to LIE TO US (not receive bad information, not believe what everyone else did, but LIE TO US!) in order to send us on a fool's errand. Now our military is shot, our credibilty lost and our hand exposed when it comes to Iran. Thanks Operation Iraqi freedom!!

4. Iraq=Vietnam. We should begin to fight the war on terror as we should of from the beginning, not cut and run, but modify our strategy into something that makes some sense. Whenever we leave Iraq, the terrorists will come after us. It is inevitable. And no, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. But to claim that Bush is responsible, or that this war is responsible for this seems presumptious to me. If you insist, then I insist that Kermit the frog is just as responsible as Bush.

5. Lastly, after 6 years of listening to you wingnuts lie, distort and ignore the truth, I am left to resort to what you conservatives complain about us liberals the most. It is not because we want to or that we cannot argue the points, it is because you people seem to be too fucking dense to let anything that is said sink into your thick fucking heads! Therefore, I resort to the inevitable liberal mantra: FUCK...YOU!

seems to be just bullshit so they would be forced into buying their radiation stock from one or two of the corporate biggies in our land, instead of making their own.

I tried your #1 many times. I get smacked with the Liberal MSM just doesn't report the evidence. I have had people email me documents purportedly from Sadaam's regime that say he was exporting terror of course I reply those could be propaganda and fabrication. I also get the same lines that Al-Qaeda was operating out of Iraq pre-occupation conservative agree that Sadaam did keep them under control but was still sponsoring them. Also they always say things like remember when Brush stood up in front of the UN and gave Iraq warnings that they must come clean and that Sadaam refused to come clean and what other choices did we have... I scream diplomacy, they scream oil for food program... Bottom line is that Congress has not done their job properly. A full investigation into this war is warranted for the American people.

which I will, I think it is safe to say that the war has made us less safe and created many more terrorists in Iraq than were there before (if there were any). And I bet you the ones that were there before hated Israel as much or more than us. But not any more!

There was no reason for me to type "fuck you" at the end of my reply. The bickering amongst us liberals and conservatives has become so caustic that such harsh words seem common place. I just want to acknowledge that this level of disrespect was unnecessary.

(However, the rest of my rant stays as is!)

Yes it actually detracted from the rant!

But he wasn't worthy of your most excellent rant!

The way I figured -

He was either in 8th grade or only had an 8th grade education.

If he's not in 8th grade, then he definitely is an example of the type of wingnut that all the good arguments and all the real facts would have no effect on.

Best to just walk away and not waste your time.


AND WELCOME TO DU!

That was a pretty good rant, it made me laugh.

Here is some scoop for you, in case you were not yet aware of it:



It is customary, but not expected, to provide a short note at the bottom to explain the reason for your edit.

Welcome to DU! I hope we see a lot more from you.

Lasher

Edit: Ha ha, I didn't fat finger this one for a change. This is just a demo for ejbr.

I didn't realize that about the edit. However, I like apologizing to wingnuts without changing my perspective. They try to turn it into weakness, but end up look like the tools they are when I don't bite. They never seem to have the courage or integrity to apologize when they ought. I think THAT is a sign of weakness; their perspective requires them to be indignant 100% of the time or the other side might blink and see the lies for what they are.

the holes you poke almost always seal back up.

Although you have some real good questions, and any neutral observer would see the winning argument they lead to, with wingnuts it's like a religion -

You can show plenty of errors and discrepencies in the "bibles" of the world, but for the fundamentalists it is still the literal word of god (even though they still get to pick and choose which literal words are the IMPORTANT literal words).


But, please keep on POKING. And make sure you have an "audience". Because it's easy to make wingnut arguments look stupid and THAT can have an effect on the "middle" people. Just watch out for an audience that is composed of all wingnuts - they have such a terrible sense of humor.

I can't remember where I recently heard a clip of one of the wingnut talking heads (O'Reilly maybe?),in a discussion comparing Franken to Coulter, saying something like, "At least Coulter is funny. Franken isn't funny."

I ROARED WITH LAUGHTER. Franken is only a successful comedy writer, author, and performer! Of course he's not funny!!!???

Hmmm, maybe that wingnut had "funny" confused with "joke". Coulter is definitely a joke.

I just don't have the time to waste talking to those people, but I try to LISTEN as often as possible.

There have been times when I have visited a message board or two where I was almost always outnumbered with about 10 Republicans and just me as the lone Democrat. I have never felt at a disadvantage when outnumbered this way, as I have found the average Republican to be quite unsophisticated. In a battle of wits it's kind of like they're trying to participate in a machine gun fight, but they only brought a pen knife.

The tiring thing was, the most basic assumptions were challenged. Most of them objected when I referred to them as Republicans or conservatives. Have you noticed how many claim to be Independents? And yet they have a great deal of criticism for Democrats, and absolutely none whatsoever for Republicans. See, you're supposed to think that these independent free thinkers came up with all those Karl Rove & Pentagon talking points all by themselves. Yeah, right.

Or take supply side economics, for example. Most thinking individuals realize the Bush tax cuts mostly benefitted, by far, the wealthiest households. But in the right wingers' echo chambers, this is a highly questionable assumption that must be proven with supporting documentation. So you furnish an article from the New York Times and it is rejected outright as liberal propaganda. You have to furnish something from Fox News or Mein Kempf for the information to be even considered.

So starting at the most fundamental of levels, you struggle through all the components of supply side economics and prove at great length to everyone's apparent satisfaction that Bush's tax cuts (and those of Reagan and Poppy) did very little, except to further enrich the wealthiest 1% of Americans, and add to the national debt. So, you've made some progress, right? Wrong!

The very next day, after having gone through the exercise that I just described, the stock market made some modest gains (never mind the S&P 500 is still lower than it was in January 2001) or there was a report of job growth (they like to pick out one rare month of reported job growth and ignore the disaster that's been going on for almost six years). I don't remember which. Anyway, that very next day they were all saying that the tax cuts were working, and high-fiving each other af this 'vindication' of conservatives' trickle-down economic 'policy'.

I'm not kidding, many of these people really believe Saddam worked with Al Qaeda to attack us on 9/11, that Iraq actually has WMDs and it's only a matter of time before we find them, or that they were spirited out of the country and given to terrorists, or whatever.

Like I said, it was very tiring. I don't regret having jumped in because I honed my debating skills, earned a little respect (I think), and made a couple of friends. I recommend the experience and even might go back at it some time. But for now I have turned the page.

I am impressed with your apparent patience. As you can see from my earlier post, I might go overboard and not help our cause at all. (How fast can I type "fuck you" 10 times?)

A short antedote about such an email exchange before the 2004 elections. I was arguing against Bush and this wingnut was arguing against Kerry. There were several silent observers on the email thread, including a woman from work who seemed fairly neutral at the time. I pointed out Bush's 7 minute goat reading while we were under attack and claimed, "even Dukakis would have responded quicker with his stupid tank helmet in hand!" The woman from work laughed hysterically. The wingnut, on the other hand, had no "self-effacing" humor to lighten up the debate. You'e right, no sense of humor.

Why people still listen to O'Lielly is beyond me. It really explains the state of our union, doesn't it?

with a few beers in my belly I still like to have some fun.

A few months ago, a local TV weatherman was turning the elbow at my neighborhood pub. He turned out to be one of the "global-warming-is-a-myth" type. I decided to engage the enemy. It was fun.

I try to limit my poking to situations where it is one-way. Since wingnuts do not listen anyway, why listen to them, there's nothing they can say that's of any importance to me.

So, on my currently active blog (below), there are NO comments allowed. Take that world!

that these people are a lost cause (we should know this) and that we should concentrate on those who are just too busy to actually think about things the way we are able to find time to do. Then we will have the majority and they can go back to having squat.

I bookmarked your site. Funny Home, Home PA song (although I now have the tune stuck in my head, thank you very much!)

I have that damn "Patty Duke Song" stuck in my head. lol

You are right - these people are a lost cause and a waste of time. That's why I could not believe that a DU front page article would be advocating wasting our time.

But one thing I will again point out: we already have the majority when it comes to issues.

We just need to learn how to win elections. And the answer is not by engaging wingnuts.

lose control of congress!

Or even Neoconservativism (as described by, say, Irving Kristol in his writings). That's a crude approximation of the Republical party's standpoint on some issues.

But when Conservatives and Liberals realize they have the same goal, what happens to the rest of us?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your attempt to 'speak' for conservatives is commendable. I like the way you use the conservatives line of asymmetic logic to answer question number 2.

As for question number 5, are you (conservatives) talking about USA being the bully? Again I love your asymmetric logiv.

I believe the bullies Milhsur refers to are the Fundamentalist Islamists.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is that another way of saying you disagree with the that post? I looked up the term, and can't see what that has to do with "Conservative Response"'s post. Please enlighten me....

When I talk with conservatives

My talking with conservatives on the internet is an effort on my part to assure my line of reasoning makes sense to me. I am not going to change anyone’s point of view on the internet and I have not had my point of view changed recently.

I normally speak clearly using simple examples showing an normal progression of logic; A followed by B leads to C. The purpose of my talking with conservatives is improve my ability to articulate my position so that I make sense to myself.

I do not try to convince conservatives of anything. What is most fun is trying to follow conservatives asymmetric logic; the sun is in their eyes and it is too dark to see. Generally speaking conservatives on the internet are trying to lie their way to the truth and know they are following a liar while doing it.


Bush Lied. People Died. Media Cheered.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hmmmm......Perhaps "Rush Lim" spelled backwards?



"Your anagrams are showing, Doctor Leckter..."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is not Freerepublic. I think you are in the wrong forum.

I bow to your Intense Logic Holding Sway Under Reason


But to put it simply: I don't have time for nabobs and debating societies.

Some here do, and do so well. The OP is one of those folks and God bless him for it.

In my worldview - This is war.

It's a guerrilla war for the future of the republic and for the rest of the world. I'll spend my time spreading the word and exposing the truth among those who are ready to listen.

Those students you say you have, they see what greed, narcissism and "free market capitalism" have done to their world and their future. I'm one of those who won't hesitate to enlighten them what they can do about it and how they can defeat you and your culture of debt, wage-slavery, industrial disease, greed, war, lies and corruption.


No war but class war. See you in the trenches.

I work with a majority of Conservative minded people. Well let me rephrase they are not true Conservatives because they don't care what it costs to run their war machine they could care less about taking care of the poor, homeless, needy and Katrina ravaged as long as we keep fighting the (Islamo-Facists) over there. So I assume these types are the Neo-Conservatives that have hijacked the Conservative party to promote their war.

In any event, because they are so hypnotized by the Bush machine the conversations I have typically degrade to the point that the Neocons are telling me I am using enemy talking points.

I have been told i.e., that after 911 experts agreed that we would definately have another attack in America by the Muslims but because Bush acted we did not and have not been attacked. I explained that launching what amounts to another Crusade is not the answer but found that many are self centered and do not care about anything except how they and their family are affected....

taught all those Muslim terrorists a lesson. They are going to get their asses kicked if they hit the US again. So now they don't dare.

Not sure what to say to that one. I tend to think 911 is not the norm but was a one-time deal. I really can't picture the Muslims sitting around planning more attacks on a woken-up to the idea US. Or I subscribe to the theory that bin Laden was trying to send a message to the Saudis and other governments they consider not-Islamic enough,, look what we can do - and there were some later attacks in Saudi Arabia that tend to support that concept.

and I will use the argument about Osama sending a message to other muslim groups and see how that goes over. The bottom line and I like to end my conversations on this note. Bush had the opportunity to unite this country and the world against fundamentalism but he pissed it away in favor of an ideological war. It pretty much always shuts them up.

1)"The short answer is “time and necessity.”

Necessity we certainly have.

But time we do not.

"To intentionally disrupt our “oil based consumer culture” will lead to economic and social chaos. "


Buddy, you ain't even seen chaos yet.....

The housing bubble is already showing signs of popping, leaving the hedonistic yuppies and working-class yuppie wanna-be's who are up to their eyeballs in consumer debt with their collective tit in the wringer.

But you're probably right about doing nothing; they aren't hungry and desperate enough yet to actually listen.

That time is approaching.



2)"...we are there to keep the radical Islamists from coming here to murder our children and grandchildren."


In a word: Horseshit.

If you really believe that, you are brainwashed. Period.

Someone with far more patience than I will have to tackle that load.



"...The Middle East is a quagmire of fifth century thinking. Their treatment of women and intolerant religious views were moral issues for me before they began to export this philosophy to Israel and now America through violent, explosive means."


You just described the Christianist minions of the Radical Religious Right.

Funny how terrorists and radical extremists really don't differ much, no matter what their religion.

This republic is FAR more in peril from the Christianist Radical Right than it is from OBL or Al-Qaada.


3)"...This statement discounts the ability of humanity in general and Americans in particular to overcome all conditions and thrive.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

News Flash: AMERICANS AREN'T SPECIAL!

This exceptionalist attitude is not only arrogant and numbing, it's destructive because it aids the delusion that we are somehow "different" or "better" than the rest of the world instead of a part of it.

If you're looking for a technological savior; it isn't forthcoming.

What's going to save your ass is Old Technology.

IOW: Join the Green Revolution or die.

The choice is yours.


4)"...I have taught them to critically think and not tie the future to one issue.

Apparently you need to brush up a little on those yourself. Sorry to sound insulting, but you have quite a bit of Hannitization that needs sanitization.

"Is our children learning", indeed.


5)"...“Love,” to me, comes from the commandments: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Uh, that isn't one of the Commandments.

I notice "conservatives" who are all about the Ten Commandments are largely ignorant of the Beatitudes (the "sermon on the mount") which is the real core of Christian thinking and philosophy.

Read them sometime.

And then marvel at how they are almost completely anathema to the platform of the GOP.




Oh, and say "hi" to Rush for us....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Consumer Based Culture....

To really understand what that means cannot be explained properly. You have to learn how to identify it. Just as a fish does not really recognize that they are swimming in water because they are immersed in it all the time, so do people not recognize the culture that is surrounding them because they too are living in it.

But there is a way...if you are up for the challenge.

Do not watch ANY television for 30 days. Do not listen to commercial radio for 30 days.


This may sound drastic but trust me if you do this and return to television you will suddenly see the consumer based culture all around you. Television in particular will look MUCH different after 30 days of not watching it.

Your points on the questions although thoughtful are still colored by current events and in number two are taking great pains to shift the focus of the discussion back into the quagmire of Iraq and you didn't really answer the question in the context of oil being a finite resource. At some point in the future oil will no longer be a economically viable energy source. It will be so scarce and so expensive to extract that companies will abandon it for alternative sources of energy. This is another fact that for some reason is lost on conservatives. There is a belief that oil will always be available. My questions to to whom? Who will be the privileged few to make use of the last remnants of a dead end energy source? So lets get back to the future...who gets the oil...not everyone.

So I ask again....Is war in the Middle East going to allow us to move to a renewable energy, peaceful future?

Love and peace. Is it so hard to focus on? War and violence creeps into your argument and that is not what I am talking about. I am talking TODAY about the future. So lets imagine for a moment that we raise yet another generations to think about themselves first and only and once total comfort and happiness has been achieved then they can throw a bone those less fortunate. Lets raise yet another generation to believe that to love is to divide and to have peace is to wage war. "Tough" love indeed. Love is not tough...and love is not defined by a document. It comes from understanding and caring, honesty and trust. Its vitally important that some of us teach our children that violence is not the answer to violence. Only peace is. And hate cannot end hate. Only love can. If we fail to tell our children this and show them. Then their children will be less capable of preventing war in the future and the cycle of violence will continue. It is important to impart to the next generation that peace and love can exist. And that we can exist together. We just need to visualize how to get there...and we have to to that together.

I must state that we do make our own future. Each and every individual touches and alters the future. We are all part of a vast inter-connected web of life on this earth and the universe. The actions INDIVIDUALS make have profound effects on us all. That is the unfortunate conflict that most theistic religions create. To assume that GOD controls fate and destiny through some omnipresent "WILL" allows a person to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. Pit two opposing religions against one another and violence is generated by the will of GOD. Does anyone win? No.

Can GOD exist in the interconnected web that we call the universe? Yes...but with the understanding that the individual is still PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for his or her actions. There can be no justification of violence or self gratification because of GOD's will. We can still honor and love a God. But we also must honor each other and respect one another with the dignity that we all deserve. "Do unto others..." is not a pretext for violence or persecution. It is an invitation to honor and respect one another.

Conversely to assume that humanity is not responsible for it's action and that we are all simply along for the ride that is controlled by uncontrollable economic markets and global shifts in capital is just as dangerous. It absolves the individual of responsibility and sets the stage for selfishness and greed.

Peace comes through strength of character, not fear or violence. The truly brave extend a hand in friendship and understanding not another gun. This applies to all. Just as many here in the western world are trying to stem the violence of war in the middle east so to are people in Middle east trying to stop the violence with words and understanding. Really looking forward beyond our conflicts to a shared humanity is the only way to begin. Not only between conservatives and liberals in our own society but between Christians and Muslims and all enemies in conflict across the globe.

So the whole exercise of these five questions is to look forward and to imagine a world not bent to the will of one or the other ideology or one nation over another...but one where we share a common peaceful living existence.

What would that be like?

Is that so wrong to simply try to visualize? Is that so dangerous to the "war on terror"?

I wanted to say that I really appreciated your post. I only drop by this website occasionally, and after reading all the rants I go away wondering if anybody is ever going to stop fighting long enough to actually listen to each other. And thank God the fighting in places like this is only in words. I truly fear what some will do if the RW keeps winning elections. When rhetoric gets to the point that many say we are just being controlled by "them" for their evil purposes, then you know it's just a matter of time until some will try to use force to undo this.

I also found your premise on limited oil supplies and a future where we run out of oil interesting. I'm no expert, but I do believe you can make oil (or products equivalent to oil) from other things, like corn and other crops, coal, synthetic methods, or eventually nanotechnology. The question always becomes how much can you produce and at what cost. If there is no suitable source of cheap and plentiful oil (or its equivalent), then we will switch to some other energy supply. Even still, that doesn't mean that we won't have oil. It only means that something else will be more cost-effective in the quantity we need it.

As to what that alternative might be, I wish you all the luck in the world with your ideas, but I'm willing to let the market come up with a solution. When there's a real demand for an alternative, then solutions will be found. People tend to get rich providing the market with what it wants and the prospect of getting rich drives a lot of ingenuity (and dare I say politics).

Which gets me to your focus on consumer greed and our wasteful society. While it may take religion to drive greed out of the human heart, it only takes a depression (or even a major recession) to get people to stop a lot of their wastefulness. In the end, we are wasteful because we can afford to be wasteful, and we can afford to be because things like energy are still fairly cheap. But once supply gets limited, then the price goes up, and suddenly behavior changes because people can no longer afford to be wasteful.

Your argument seems to be that if we only look into the future, we will see that our bank account is about to run dry, so we had better start spending more wisely right now (and stop unecessary wars and such).

However, this doesn't hold up because there are always alternatives (maybe even some that you have proposed). How many more years will it be before they have fusion power? Or nanotechnology that will transform so many things that oil will seem crude in more ways than one? Or how about artificial intelligence that will surpass the human mind in inventing new solutions? Or DNA technology that will create engineered microbes that can not only generate fuel, but also consume spills and our other wastes?

What I'm getting at is that in my view, the human race only has to make it fifty or a hundred more years and we will have technology that will solve many of the problems we face today.

The drawback though is that this same technology can be used against us. So the question becomes, how will we change as a society to prevent ourselves from being destroyed? Will we accept draconian measures to watch who is doing what in order to prevent terrorists from killing us all? Is it even possible to save ourselves, or is our future ultimate hopeless?

I suspect from the way you write that you trust man can rise above his past and forge a new society capable of living in peace. I look around at how more and more can't even talk to each other, and I wonder if man was ever cut out to live in peace.

Cheers!