No conservatives did either. Not even Starving Artist started a pit thread. Why are you not attacking every member of the SDMB except yourself? Why limit it to liberals?
mhendo, excellent, excellent post.
Here I have to doubt how informed you are, while it is true some big name religious conservatives came originally in favor of her, many others protested because Bush could not guarantee that Miers was as conservative as they were, IIRC Dobson hailed that Bush accepted the Miers withdrawal.
Careful. Logic like that will make his head explode.
but we could sell tickets and reduce the national debt.
Yep. You got it. Found us all out. Every single one of us dopers don’t give a shit about the extermination of the jews. Way to go Sherlock. Now make haste to the city, where your talents of deduction are truly needed.
God bless you duffer.
I see. So you somehow see my telling HeelB4Zod that he was perfectly right in elucidating the opinions and point of view that many of us conservatives here feel regarding this and similar matters, and conclude from that that I am a liar and, for some even more baffling reason, a coward.
This is so ridiculous a knee-jerk reaction that…
Do the words, “Hoist on his own petard” mean anything to you?
I have no problem with HeelB4Zod’s interpretation of your motivations, even though i disagree with him.
The reason you are a liar is that your initial post in this thread made quite clear that your accusations against liberals and leftists were far less benign than HeelB4Zod’s interpretation would have us believe. His interpretation is understandable; your agreeing with it, and the associated revision of your earlier accusations in order to make them seem more benign, is what makes you a liar. What makes you a coward is your unwillingness to admit to that.
It would if there was some evidence that you could give us so then you could indeed hoist him to his petard, as is is typical with you, no evidence is presented. So, another useless reply from SA.
Easy there mhendo. I was convinced of your desire to promote human rights. I was convinced you think the Iranian president’s remarks were disgusting. I never meant to imply otherwise, and I apologize if I gave you that impression.
And let me state that I absolutely and unequivocally oppose war with Iran, unless we are attacked first. I hope that’s clear.
The aside about the back channel negotiations was not meant to rebut your point as much as it was about pointing out that because of the U.S’s gradually growing weakness in Iraq, and what I suspect is an unhealthy reliance upon Iran to maintain the tenuous status quo, the rhetoric coming from the White House is not nearly as strong as it ought to be.
After all, if we were actually winning in Iraq and actually constructing a Western-style government diametrically opposed to the theocracy in Iran, don’t you think the rhetoric coming from Washington against Tehran would have ratcheted up ten-fold?
It’s not about you, personally, mhendo. I’m talking about us, collectively, as liberals.
It’s not about convincing the duffers and Starving Artists of the world of our sincerity. We shouldn’t care what they think of us.
But when you say it’s about influencing the U.S. government, you’re right mhendo. It’s about winning the policy debate, in my view. It is about winning the center and convincing them that the current batch of conservatives’ violent methods of spreading democracy are abhorrent, self-defeating, ill-conceived, ill-executed, and just plain wrong. It’s about convincing undecideds that WE CAN DO IT BETTER.
I’m saying we need to attack the outrages of America’s enemies just as vociferously, just as often, with just as much of our intellectual firepower as when we attack Bush or American foreign policy or other frequent targets (and I include myself as one who hasn’t said nearly enough about it).
Frankly, it’s a hell of a lot easier task when we protect our right flank, and not allow the conservatives to frame the debate. I’m arguing that WE need to lay out the narrative: Those of us who want to make common cause with the Iranian resistance and who seek to promote Iranian freedom by organic local change vs. the obtuse conservatives who seek to promote it through violence (instead of the current unfair debate parameters: Brave freedom fighters of America vs. the “Blame America first” crowd).
If we can establish the former narrative, I’m convinced we’ll triumph. Given that public support of the Iraqi adventure is at an all-time low, don’t you think the people are ready to hear our side? But I fear the middle won’t listen unless we make it crystal clear that we hate Iran’s government with every fiber of our being.
I don’t think Joe Q. Undecided Voter really believes that now. I think we have to change his mind.
We need to immunize ourselves from the right-wing smears as best we can. Of course you’re right when you point out the hypocrisy of the fallacy that opposing American policy equates to support for the opposition.
But damned if that fallacy hasn’t wormed its way into the collective American psyche, no?
I appreciate the heads up, dude. 
To be honest, I hadn’t read duffer’s and Starving Artist’s posts before making mine - that was my mistake.
And to argue that liberals don’t give a shit about the destruction of Israel is patently offensive and wrong, and those making that argument are full of shit.
OK, let’s be offended. But I say we learn from it, also.
It’s an indication about how far that particular logical fallacy has made its way into the mainstream, although I think you probably already figured it out, mhendo.
Folks like duffer and Starving Artist can perpetuate that fallacy because their side has established that narrative much more effectively than we have ours. If you believe the polls, the opportunity is there for us to turn the tables, reclaim the center, and establish OUR narrative, which seems much more mired in reality than the current one established by the right wing.
My instinct (backed by the poll numbers) indicates the center is looking for an alternative, but doesn’t trust the liberals on foreign policy. Without the center, we can’t gain power. Without power, we can’t establish our narrative.
I see what you mean. Withdraw the original comment.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that liberal concerns stop at the US border. Both Amensty International and Human Rights Watch routinely condemn atrocities around the world.
Anyway, here’s one prominent liberal’s take on the statements by Iran’s president.
Your Aprioristic broad brush defence does not work here.
The fact that you take pride in your unsubstantiated generalizations makes you an object of even greater ridicule.
No-one is disputing that certain generalizations are necessary, and even useful, in discussions of a political nature. But, in order for people to take you at all seriously, you should at least be able to demonstrate that your generalizations are based on some sort of reality.
You said:
I’ve asked you to back up that claim, just as i’ve asked duffer to back up his claim that there are liberals on this Board who would defend the rantings of the Iranian President.
I don’t expect you to be able to demonstrate that your generalization applies in every single case, but you should at least be able to offer some evidence that it applies in some cases. So far, you haven’t even been able to show that it applies in even a single case. And you wonder why you’re not taken seriously?
Oh, sure it does. The SDMB is just a tiny, tiny little sliver of the population that we discuss here. Whatever is discussed here, or whatever is allegedly proven or disproved here, is of absolutely no consequence in regard to what does or doesn’t go on in this country.
Don’t take this “fighting ignorance” stuff so seriously. I’ve seen far more ignorance in action here, and far more of it go unchallenged, from the leftist contingent here than you ever have from the right.
The Dope is a great place, populated by very intelligent people, but it is still just a message board and your assertions as to what will or won’t work here are, frankly, a bunch of hooey. This is a place where people are free to speak their minds and/or give their opinions however they choose to do so. Argue with them if you wish, pretend to defeat them with cites or calls for cites, or ignore them if you want. But get down off your high horse about what does or doesn’t “work around here” unless you’re a mod.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say I take great pride in them. I merely state them, and often in a strong or declarative way, but that doesn’t mean I necessarily take pride in them. They simply are, and that’s all there is to it. I don’t think I’ve ever thought to myself, “Wow, SA! That’s a really cool opinion you have there.”
I wonder no such thing.
After seeing the way even people such as Sam Stone and Martin Hyde are treated around this place, I no longer concern myself with whether or not I’m being taken seriously around here. For a conservative to be taken seriously here on any kind of on-going basis is virtually impossible. In fact, it’s so virtually impossible as to be absolutely impossible.
I simply state my POV and argue this or that point if I’m inclined to do so, and let people make of it what they will. There is absolutely no point in trying to actually convince anyone around here of the validity of the conservative point of view. No matter how much “evidence” is presented, or in however a calm, reasonable way ala Sam Stone, it will still be met with the same type of hostility and the same type of name-calling as has been going on here.
At least from what you quoted from SA there I don’t see how anyone could back it up. Not because it is or isn’t true (I think its true or not true on a case by case basis, not across the board at some nebulous group of ‘liberals’) but because I’m unsure what proof could be provided for the second part. How do you prove that an issue HASN’T been properly addressed or addressed with enough furor? Certainly a lot of cites could be given for US liberals being upset by injustice in this country…but how to prove that they are unequal in their furor about when other countries step out of line? I’ve seen liberals who have attacked the US justify their hotter stance towards the US than towards an Iraq or a North Korea by saying that they expect the US to do better so thats why they are more critical. Would this acceptable as the proof you are looking for? Probably not…because the US SHOULD be and act better than an Iraq or a North Korea.
I look at the number of pit threads and GD threads dedicated to being critical of the Bush administration and the US, especially about Iraq and I compare them to…well, any other issue…and I can see where some conservatives would feel as they do. Criticism of Bush and the US dominates the discussions on this board, popping up even in threads that have nothing to do with him or the US at all. Things like Abu Ghraib and the invasion of Iraq are endlessly talked about and pitted…yet we don’t see much discussion or Pit threads about the horrors perpetrated by the insurgents, or about a lot of other things going on in the wider world. Certainly I think the US SHOULD be criticized more about things its done…but there should be some criticism of other things also.
I’ll give one example that to me shows this (it probably won’t mean much to you or prove anything to you): There have been endless threads in GD and the Pit about the Plame affair. I think this is an extremely minor thing myself…a government official fucked up and did something he shouldn’t. It was a political game played by our Bueracrat masters, and means more to them than us. Most people don’t even know all the players in this drama, nor was anyone actually harmed. Its a partisan issue that acts as a proxy for attacking Bush directly (IMO). This isn’t to say that Libby and whoever else shouldn’t be hung out to dry, or that perjury isn’t a serious crime…it is. But in the greater scheme of things this issue is peanuts. I could give you a count on Pit and GD threads dedicated to this bread and circus’s issue if you like but I’ll just leave it at: lots.
By the same token the UN has released information about the Oil for Food program it had in the 90’s and the corruption IT found. This may not be all that important I suppose, though the UN is kind of instrumental in the scandal and it also shows how the major powers have subverted the UN making it a toothless wonder. In addition it also throws some question about corruption in various international corporations and even indicates that there might have been corruption of government officials both here in the US and in other nations. How many thread have there been on this subject? Well, I started one and was shot at instantly for having a conservative agenda and getting my talking points from Fox (in spite of the fact that all I did was quote from an AP article and ask a few questions). I gave up on that thread early…there really was no interest in the subject aside from some sniping at me. I didn’t even bother to answer my own questions in the end…especially since everyone assumed what my answers woud be. I haven’t seen many other threads on the subject.
What does this ‘prove’? Nothing. But it makes me wonder…if the corruption had been strictly about and in the Bush administration, how many GD/Pit thread would there have been? And if the subject of the Plame outing had happened in some other country, how many thread would be be looking at for something this minor?
Oh well, I’ll probably get reamed for this post, even though in essence I actually agree with you. C’est la vie. 
-XT
Feh, I have seen this stupid defense before, it is silly because then the question becomes what are you doing here? And it becomes clear that deep inside, you already know the other sites or sources of information were you are getting your information are incomplete.
This is not the message board you are looking for.
Of course I am not a mod, but if you still want to follow the path of discussing topics without evidence to back your opinions, all here will dismiss you as a dupe.