Why Conservatives Win EVERY Online Debate
July 29, 2012
By Don Hamel
To me, the words ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’ are synonymous. I’ll happily agree, should you call me either one. In my estimation they both represent the single quality that enables society to exist:
A realistic worldview.
Because, whether you’d have it do so or not, the world is always progressing. As surely as the earth spins on its axis, it’s an irrefutable fact. The history of man, is the history of progression. Not just evolutionary progress; but cognitive progress, technological progress. And in our lifetime, technology has progressed exponentially. The fact you’re reading this now is proof of that. 100 years removed from the creation of AM radio, today each of us possess the ability to communicate instantly to an entire world audience.
So clearly, to be progressive is to accept that we live in a world moving forward rapidly, and to try and realistically address the social, economic, and ecological challenges we face. So where does that leave conservatism?
Conservatism, especially in its current form, is a baffling miasma of contradictions. Its dogma cries out for a return to a time that’s been overly idealized for its ‘values,’ while its leaders strip away every vestige of the power structure that created the prosperity they wax nostalgic for. It glories in the conceit of moral superiority, even as it spits contemptuously on anyone in need of assistance. It wraps itself in the American flag, but reviles all but a single group of Americans.
And it uses the most advanced technology in mankind’s history, to try to pull man backwards.
Conservatives online are an exercise in frustration; they sit with us at the very pinnacle of the progress of man, and they use our tools to tell us progress is evil. And as they’ve been trained to do, they use those tools to try to drown out the discourse that creates progress.
That’s how you find yourself arguing scripture with someone online, where you’d previously been discussing civil rights. It’s why you’re going back to Google again, to find out how many times Ronald Reagan raised taxes, or to prove that Thomas Jefferson didn’t coin the phrase, “Kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out.”
It’s how you find yourself repeating the same words over and over, to every conservative who braces you with the latest right-wing outrage from whatever source they all seem to be gleaning their narrative. And it doesn’t matter how eloquent you are, or how iron-clad your proof may be; if you’ve told them twice, you’re already losing the debate.
Progressives progress. It’s our goal as well as our nature. Conservative leaders (at this point, we may as well just admit that term refers to the corporate oligarchy that has been strip-mining the American economy since the embezzlement scheme known as the ‘Bush Years.’), do not want us to progress, Their only goal is to inhibit a constructive narrative that might lead to us wrestling our way out from under their thumbs. That’s why people like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch have spent such incredible amounts of money to frighten our least capable citizens into political action against their own best interests.
And that’s why instead of using this incredible technological opportunity to advance our society, we squander it by arguing with people who have somehow been convinced that the president is a foreign spy. And even though their argument is ridiculous, even though the same person telling you Obama is a Muslim today, was losing their mind over Reverend Wright three years ago, as long as they interrupt the conversations of people who genuinely want to discuss the world’s issues, they’re winning.
It doesn’t matter how inept they are; if every other word is misspelled, or if they’re confusing Ted Nugent with Thomas Paine. It doesn’t matter if their entire argument just some pre-digested cut & paste from World Net Daily, that drips with unintended irony or projection. As long as they slow you down for a minute, or distract you, they’re doing their job.
They’re the geek biting the heads of chickens; when you slow down to stare, your pocket is getting picked. They’re the belligerent drunk at the club whose girlfriend steals your money off the bar, while you defend yourself.
They are speed bumps. They are strewn across the internet like Lego blocks in a child’s room, to slow your trajectory and make you swear.
Having said all that, I also realize how irresistible they are; they are the slow pitch over the middle of the plate, that every batter dreams of hitting out of the park. The feebleness of their arguments, and the self-satisfaction they present them with, make them an oh-so-attractive target. I know this. I’ve taken more than my share of swings. And every now and again, it’s a fine distraction to dismantle some addled goober’s deeply (if inexplicably) held beliefs.
But if we’re going to take the next step as progressives, and come to term with the sources of our issues, we’re going to have put the fools behind us. We have the tools. We’re intelligent, inquisitive, and we’re committed. And they can’t distract us forever.
Why is everything Progressive so eerily similar to tyranny? Because social and economic engineering is a compulsion for the mortal megalomaniacs who fancy themselves as gods. All they need is a compliant bunch of dupes to make their fantasies come true and all you little progressives are so willing!
Progressives can't even keep the same name for long because you always taint it with real blood!
hilariously ridiculous.
where's that billboard? yeah right here:
http://www.google.com/imgres?...
It reminds me of little boys building up large mounds of dirt and then, with great glee, plowing them down with their Tonka toy truck.
Of course that analogy is difficult for some Liberals to relate to since the preferred toy was dolls. But I guess it's never too late to go through that construction/destruction stage . . . even with fantasies (nothing more substantial lest they get dirt under their fingernails). And then self-ingratiatingly extol it as 'Progressive'. Yay!
And even more amusing to watch the brain dead useful idiots exclaim their awe at the bashing of those false constructions with statements like, "Wow. Excellent post."
The simple-minded are readily duped and so easily impressed.
To be progressive is to support communism.
"All the lies fit to regurgitate"
been awhile, been serving 30 days on providing services under the street light? I'm honored that as soon as you got out, you looked me up. Oh my the sexual tension is thick, you can cut it with a knife.
I like the fact I'm aging in reverse
Why Conservatives Win EVERY Online Debate
YOU ARE THE STRONGEST LINK!! LOL LOL
Time for liberals and progressives to come out and masterbate to their own self righteousness.
Problem is , they call everything a jobs bill. Renaming a post office? That's a jobs bill. Adding/amending the endangered species list? That's a jobs bill. So, yes, this is why they have 20-30 ' jobs bills' when in reality they have nothing. Yet on this forum people fall for that kind of chicanery over and over . And really, why would they need that many different jobs bills in the first place? That makes no sense .
Lying is no big deal. Remember when Sen. Jon Kyl said ..." If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does. " That is a blatant lie and when called on it, he shrugged it off and insisted numbers don't matter and that "was not intended to be a factual statement." WT ????
False information like that which Kyl was propagating kept the debate from moving forward . Next time Sen. Kyl wants to blatantly lie on the floor of the U.S. Senate, he should preface his comments with "this is not intended to be a factual statement" -- or, better yet , " I'm talking out of my azz right now as usual".
my good progressive friends to try to talk facts to the trained monkey's on SH . We have our work to do to re-elect our President so let's do that and not worry about the con's on SH. They are hopeless !
What both Liberals and Conservatives need to understand is; that there are large sections of their population which are flat out stupid and or ignorant, who do their agenda and platform more harm than good.
They also need to understand; that a large portion of each, doesn’t actually represent what the opposing force thinks they believe in.
Liberals often point out the big business aspect of conservatives; and yes, there is a portion of conservatives who are rich and powerful. But honestly, those rich and powerful people only make up a small percentage of the conservatives. This is probably why Liberals on a whole, fail to understand conservatives on a whole. From the Liberals point of view, they see this small percentage, and cannot fathom why a group of people would back the conservatives, when they aren’t helped by those rich and powerful people. After all, why would any sane individual back a philosophy, which only helps out a small portion of the group?
What the Liberals fail to understand, ...
What both Liberals and Conservatives need to understand is; that there are large sections of their population which are flat out stupid and or ignorant, who do their agenda and platform more harm than good.
They also need to understand; that a large portion of each, doesn’t actually represent what the opposing force thinks they believe in.
Liberals often point out the big business aspect of conservatives; and yes, there is a portion of conservatives who are rich and powerful. But honestly, those rich and powerful people only make up a small percentage of the conservatives. This is probably why Liberals on a whole, fail to understand conservatives on a whole. From the Liberals point of view, they see this small percentage, and cannot fathom why a group of people would back the conservatives, when they aren’t helped by those rich and powerful people. After all, why would any sane individual back a philosophy, which only helps out a small portion of the group?
What the Liberals fail to understand, is that their own philosophy is so horrid to this individuals, that they have no alternative than to turn to the group which opposes them.
If the Liberals would ever figure this out, and actually address some of the issues which half the nation finds so distasteful, reverse some of their positions concerning these issues, clear up some of their own confusion; then they would clean up, and we would turn into a one party rule system, because the upper 1%, is, well, only 1%.
As I see it, the average Liberal (and yes, there are exceptions) has as his primary goal to improve society for all of its members. Some will disagree as to what "improve society" means - for instance, I believe that recognizing that same sex marriage is no threat to "traditional" marriage and allowing people to marry whomever they choose is an improvement of our society. You or any conservative may disagree with that conclusion, and you have every right to your own opinion, but when conservative media (and that includes this site) attack Liberals for "trying to destroy marriage" or "legitimizing sin" I think they ignore the issue entirely for the sake of simply disagreeing with anything a Liberal proposes. The average Conservative, on the other hand (and yes there are exceptions) never seems to give a damn about improving society or helping all of us live better lives, but simply focus on their own immediate needs and desires. They may not like the Health Care Reform Law, but they suggest nothing to see to the health needs of mill...
As I see it, the average Liberal (and yes, there are exceptions) has as his primary goal to improve society for all of its members. Some will disagree as to what "improve society" means - for instance, I believe that recognizing that same sex marriage is no threat to "traditional" marriage and allowing people to marry whomever they choose is an improvement of our society. You or any conservative may disagree with that conclusion, and you have every right to your own opinion, but when conservative media (and that includes this site) attack Liberals for "trying to destroy marriage" or "legitimizing sin" I think they ignore the issue entirely for the sake of simply disagreeing with anything a Liberal proposes. The average Conservative, on the other hand (and yes there are exceptions) never seems to give a damn about improving society or helping all of us live better lives, but simply focus on their own immediate needs and desires. They may not like the Health Care Reform Law, but they suggest nothing to see to the health needs of millions of Americans who cannot get health care, and go so far as to demonize those Americans in need as "lazy bums who don't want to work and want to spend their lives getting handouts from the government."
Personally, I would like to see Polygamy legalized; and if it was, I’d have no issue calling my fu...
Personally, I would like to see Polygamy legalized; and if it was, I’d have no issue calling my future marriage to two wives, a tri-iage.
As far as the support goes, well as I tried to say, they support the candidate who opposes the president, or other liberal leader, because they hate what that person is advocating that much more.
If the liberals, backed off from a lot of the nanny state mentality, backed civil liberties they didn’t always agree with, and applied things equally across a wider base; they’d clean up! Take for example, how many poor folks, who live in rural America, would the Democrats pick up, if they backed off religion and gun control? President Obama did a lot of damage with his God and guns speech; and yes I did hear the whole thing, and he had a fairly good message there, because the people in rural America (I was one of them) have been shafted, they have slipped through the cracks, and it is a tough sell to convince them that some ideas could help them; but saying they cling to their God and guns, did nothing but alienate them further.
I think I understand some of the objections and the idea of those who think same sex couples should be able to have everything that heterosexual marriages can have but just call it something else. It just seems to me that that is still sending a message of inequality, of saying to same sex couples that their committed relationship doesn't mean as much as heterosexual couples' commitments to each other. I'm not saying that's always the message that's intended to be sent, but I think most same sex couples see it that way.
I often wonder why the Right always waxes on about a "nanny state mentality". To me that implies a desire to make people dependent and keep them dependent. That is not what Liberals fight for. Liberals fight for opportunities for people to improve themselves so they don't have to depend on anyone but themselves. We want to...
I think I understand some of the objections and the idea of those who think same sex couples should be able to have everything that heterosexual marriages can have but just call it something else. It just seems to me that that is still sending a message of inequality, of saying to same sex couples that their committed relationship doesn't mean as much as heterosexual couples' commitments to each other. I'm not saying that's always the message that's intended to be sent, but I think most same sex couples see it that way.
I often wonder why the Right always waxes on about a "nanny state mentality". To me that implies a desire to make people dependent and keep them dependent. That is not what Liberals fight for. Liberals fight for opportunities for people to improve themselves so they don't have to depend on anyone but themselves. We want to increase funding for education and teachers, because a good education improves a person's chances of finding a job that will pay enough for them to be independent. We support job training programs, again to enable people to take better care of themselves. Because a disproportionate number of the neediest people tend to belong to minority groups, we are especially sensitive to actions that have a disproportionate negative impact on those groups (like the voter id laws, for instance). We oppose cuts to food stamps and preschool programs not because we want to keep anyone down, but because without food stamps children will die, and without preschool programs the parent doing everything she can to try to make a living is even more burdened. These people don't get to choose to stay home and raise the kids instead of working often multiple jobs just to avoid homelessness.
As far as the polygamy issue, that is simply a societal judgment as to what is or is not "acceptable". If enough people really wanted polygamy legalized, it would be (though I doubt it would ever happen.) But there, like the same-sex marriage argument - if you and your wife want to take on another wife, why do you need to call it marriage? Why don't you just call it "husband and wife and really close friend who live together"?
And; the same sex marriage issue, is a prime example. Conservatives want to limit the definition of marriage to one man, one women; while liberals want to expand it to a union of two people; where I want the government out of the process all together; because, I really don’t see how it’s the governments business at all.
The “nanny state” thing is a twofold issue; the first issue being, being told what to do. Many people object to being told to do something, even if it is the right thing; being forced to do it, really gets into the craw. Telling someone that they need to wear a seatbelt, because it improves their chances to survive a car crash is one thing; but passing a law telling a person they must wear the seatbelt, is a huge difference than suggesting they do so. When seatbelt laws were passed; I often heard, where is it going to end; and I heard many on the left saying that it wasn’t that bad, and to live with it. But now, you have a mayor in NY, passing laws restricting the size of a drink; I think just about everyone can agree that is over the top; and brings back the question of, where is it going to end.
The second main issue with the “nanny state”; I’ve never mee...
And; the same sex marriage issue, is a prime example. Conservatives want to limit the definition of marriage to one man, one women; while liberals want to expand it to a union of two people; where I want the government out of the process all together; because, I really don’t see how it’s the governments business at all.
The “nanny state” thing is a twofold issue; the first issue being, being told what to do. Many people object to being told to do something, even if it is the right thing; being forced to do it, really gets into the craw. Telling someone that they need to wear a seatbelt, because it improves their chances to survive a car crash is one thing; but passing a law telling a person they must wear the seatbelt, is a huge difference than suggesting they do so. When seatbelt laws were passed; I often heard, where is it going to end; and I heard many on the left saying that it wasn’t that bad, and to live with it. But now, you have a mayor in NY, passing laws restricting the size of a drink; I think just about everyone can agree that is over the top; and brings back the question of, where is it going to end.
The second main issue with the “nanny state”; I’ve never meet a person who really wanted to get rid of all the social programs out there; I have meet several though that had issues with many of the programs which are in place. Everyone will base their emotions, and views, on their experiences; for me, and the folks I grew up with, we had issue with many of those social programs. I grew up on a farm; we were poor, we didn’t have much, we never went hungry since we grew food, but past that, we really didn’t have much. But, we also weren’t eligible for many of the social programs available to others. Even though our farm only netted around 20K a year, which wasn’t enough to send a kid to college, since the farm consisted of 100 acres it was deemed that my parents had enough in assets that none of us kids were eligible for any education programs. And, my family wasn’t alone in this; almost all of rural America is in the exact same situation. So, from where they are sitting; if you’re a poor white farm boy, who worked hard, kept their nose clean, and stayed out of trouble, then you’re screwed; but if you are a minority in the city, who screwed up several times, then you get a free ride to college. To add to it then; many of them do manage to make something of themselves, and they do it without government help, which leads them to the conclusion of, “if I did it, then why can’t they?”
Also, on the second part of the twofold issue; comes the who should receive assistance. I have a friend; who had a mentally retarded child, who needed a lot of help, and constant supervision. Her husband, the child’s father, said “I don’t want no retard for a kid.” and left her and him. He didn’t pay child support, he didn’t pay alimony, she was left to take care of the kid by herself. Because of the kids needs, she really couldn’t work, and if she did, she had to work in a job which would allow her the ability to get up and leave at a moment’s notice. No one, has issue with her drawing benefits for her, and her kid. But how do you help her out, and keep those off the benefits who are just riding them out? Because I know another person, who is very capable of working, and should be working; but once she finished college and entered the work force, she found out that work, is well, work. So…. she faked a couple of suicide attempts (her admission), and filed for disability. The Fed’s paid off her student loans (80K worth), and now she draws a check every month; since her “anxiety” is so sever, she can’t work.
As far as the polygamy thing goes; that would work, but it wouldn’t entitle my second wife, to any of the benefits of my first wife; you know medical benefits, retirement, rights to hospital visits, basically everything that same sex couples seek.