It has been almost a month since my last post. The reason is that I am currently dealing with the massive preparations involved in getting set up for my next two semesters at college. However, just because I am busy in my little bubble does not mean that the world has stood still.
Last week McCain and Obama had their first debate of sorts. It isn't a debate really, but more of a series of questions asked to both of them in two hours. Barak Obama, trying to prove he isn't a radical as the "Vicious Right" says he is, gave nothing but noncommittal answers the whole interview. This made him appear, well, noncommittal. This isn't good, as it is only a short step away from weak and can even worsen the flip flopping accusation he is already suffering from.
Later when McCain answered the same questions, McCain was more direct with every answer. This at best (for Obama) does not cause McCain to suffer the same problems Barrack is suffering from. At worst, it even can make McCain look strong.
(For those who did not watch this you may still find the unedited video on C-Span. If you prefer edited versions with snarky commentary then I am sure You Tube has more than enough to satisfy.)
I do not often relish in helping out competition and really am not fond of doing the same for someone as socialistic as Obama but here are a few tips for not doing this again.
1. Keep to your issues or, at the very least state, your false positions on your issues. You may be called a flip-flopper but that is eternally preferable to being called weak.
2. Give straight answers. If the ground you stand on is wishy-washy, then your ground may very well crumble into a vast landslide.
3. Stop pissing off your base and this goes for McCain, too. The more you stop talking the talk, the less likely your base will support the undecideds you might get.
4. Stand on your principles. A lie is still a lie and the American people are not stupid enough to simply accept anything you tell them as being the truth. The more you stray away from your positions in the primary the more people are going to resent you.
Also on another note, Stop Playing the Race Card, Obama! No one buys it. In a day and age when I would have to literally go look for a single racist, I am not going to buy that. There is this vast swath of voters and Republicans who want nothing more than to stop you from becoming president for many other reasons. Unless, of course, by racist you are including anti-socialists as well.
I don't expect anyone in the Obama campaign to read this or even anyone to read this, but I had to say it. Even if someone from the Obama campaign did read this, I doubt they would take heed. They know their ideas are unpopular. An idiot would take just a moment of thought to arrive to the conclusion that their ideas ultimately lead to dictator ships or as Jonah Goldberg argues, Fascism. Democrats know this, so their ideas are either prettied up or hidden completely. Just as well, I certainly hope Obama loses, then we only have Hillary to deal with in four years. Although I hate to say it, I think Hillary would make a less destructive president then Obama. Now if you excuse me, that last comment makes me want to take a shower.
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Argueing your point
Ever argue with a liberal? If your lucky, you will get a list of talking points. In essence they spit out rehearsed lines given to them by their teachers, friends, relatives, liberal pundits and even candidates for office. Go ahead, stop reading and try it. If your like me you will find it somewhat frustrating to talk to someone as programmed as many of them are. A bigger problem I see is when conservatives imitate liberals by spouting talking points. Even though everyone does this, even I do this, it disturbs me that some of these budding conservatives don't even know why they believe what they believe.
Arguments could very well just be people shouting talking points at one another but this accomplishes nothing. I guess first thing to remember is that before entering a conversation about a topic you need to know as much about that topic as possible. When you take a talking point and remember it, it is also a good idea to know the logic behind that idea. Knowing a talking point might get you points with the choir but a relatively intelligent lib will not be impressed. (despite what Ann Coulter says, they do exist)
When you finally do enter a conversation with a lib you will do well to note a few things about the person you are talking to. Most often libs come in the form of aggressors. They usually come from people who have argued their points with people who already agree with them and have become over confident. Often their reasons for inciting an impromptu debate are to impress friends or attempt to bring in a new member who isn't entirely convinced. Understand that these types of people are never going to be convinced that they are wrong. I would say that it is like arguing at a wall but theoretically your spittle will erode the wall before the aggressor lib sees his/her errors. You can tell an aggressor lib from other kinds of libs by the nasty, often snarky remarks they use to entice you into an argument. Another thing you will notice is that aggressors travel in packs and use numbers to "overpower" you. Their belief is that since there are more of them then there are of you then they must be more right. Eventually when you finish breaking down their talking points they will all resort to belittling you by calling you stupid and a fascist. Calling you a sheeple could be expected. In reality I doubt you will gain anything from these encounters and I would avoid them if possible. Although you may find this fun, especially if you get the confused stare after a good point.
The rest of the libs in the world are unconvinced to some level and can be broken down to subgroups that I shall call pre-zealots, thinkers, confused and the faithless. Pre-zealots are libs who have almost become so far gone that they are aggressors. In fact they may be completely indistinguishable from aggressors except that the confused stare is often accompanied by queries for information. Whether or not answering them will amount to anything is unknown but why not try? Thinkers are much harder to argue against then most libs. They tend to be alone and have thought their ideas more thoroughly than the average lib. These can be zealot like sometimes and mostly depends upon their own belief system. thinkers tend to make good friends as they are more accepting of alternate views and don't necessarily dismiss you the arguer with blanket statements like "your a fascist" or "your stupid".
The confused and faithless are different levels of the same thing. A confused liberal is a pre-zealot or thinker who has been stumped and is no longer sure of his ideas. given time, they will return to their zealotry but if you the arguer go and fan these flames then the seeds of doubt may grow. Often a confused my be escorted and supported by their zealot friends who will try to bring him back into the fold. A faithless is a lib who is on the verge of abandoning his programming for some independent thought. Many of them call themselves independent and stay out of arguments. They can be escorted by other zealots or be excluded by them depending on the number and complexity of questions he asks. These guys are ripe for the pickings and I would personally risk getting into a pointless argument with an aggressor in order to finish the job other conservative have started.
If your a lib and are reading this then you must be asking yourself "does this guy think he is more right then me?" The answer is, yes. I know I am more right. I spend large amounts of time questioning my own beliefs and figuring out the logic of every point and the premises and values I need to make my conclusion strong. If I argue a point you can bet I have thought it over for long periods of time and yes I am sure I would win or at least draw in an impromptu debate. But hey, I think this has more to do with my opponents weaknesses then any particular strength I have. (I actually think I am a lousy arguer. But that means little in a debate with a lib.) Basically I do not think I am great, I think you are either an idiot (zelots) or uninformed/brainwashed (everyone else). Am I an asshole? probably, but then again so is every other conservative. Leave us alone and we tend to keep to ourselves, call us out and we will intentionally insult your beliefs, and you may not even know it. I hope more conservatives look at their beliefs and learn them inside and out, because one day we will need to take back congress, and that day is soon or never.
Arguments could very well just be people shouting talking points at one another but this accomplishes nothing. I guess first thing to remember is that before entering a conversation about a topic you need to know as much about that topic as possible. When you take a talking point and remember it, it is also a good idea to know the logic behind that idea. Knowing a talking point might get you points with the choir but a relatively intelligent lib will not be impressed. (despite what Ann Coulter says, they do exist)
When you finally do enter a conversation with a lib you will do well to note a few things about the person you are talking to. Most often libs come in the form of aggressors. They usually come from people who have argued their points with people who already agree with them and have become over confident. Often their reasons for inciting an impromptu debate are to impress friends or attempt to bring in a new member who isn't entirely convinced. Understand that these types of people are never going to be convinced that they are wrong. I would say that it is like arguing at a wall but theoretically your spittle will erode the wall before the aggressor lib sees his/her errors. You can tell an aggressor lib from other kinds of libs by the nasty, often snarky remarks they use to entice you into an argument. Another thing you will notice is that aggressors travel in packs and use numbers to "overpower" you. Their belief is that since there are more of them then there are of you then they must be more right. Eventually when you finish breaking down their talking points they will all resort to belittling you by calling you stupid and a fascist. Calling you a sheeple could be expected. In reality I doubt you will gain anything from these encounters and I would avoid them if possible. Although you may find this fun, especially if you get the confused stare after a good point.
The rest of the libs in the world are unconvinced to some level and can be broken down to subgroups that I shall call pre-zealots, thinkers, confused and the faithless. Pre-zealots are libs who have almost become so far gone that they are aggressors. In fact they may be completely indistinguishable from aggressors except that the confused stare is often accompanied by queries for information. Whether or not answering them will amount to anything is unknown but why not try? Thinkers are much harder to argue against then most libs. They tend to be alone and have thought their ideas more thoroughly than the average lib. These can be zealot like sometimes and mostly depends upon their own belief system. thinkers tend to make good friends as they are more accepting of alternate views and don't necessarily dismiss you the arguer with blanket statements like "your a fascist" or "your stupid".
The confused and faithless are different levels of the same thing. A confused liberal is a pre-zealot or thinker who has been stumped and is no longer sure of his ideas. given time, they will return to their zealotry but if you the arguer go and fan these flames then the seeds of doubt may grow. Often a confused my be escorted and supported by their zealot friends who will try to bring him back into the fold. A faithless is a lib who is on the verge of abandoning his programming for some independent thought. Many of them call themselves independent and stay out of arguments. They can be escorted by other zealots or be excluded by them depending on the number and complexity of questions he asks. These guys are ripe for the pickings and I would personally risk getting into a pointless argument with an aggressor in order to finish the job other conservative have started.
If your a lib and are reading this then you must be asking yourself "does this guy think he is more right then me?" The answer is, yes. I know I am more right. I spend large amounts of time questioning my own beliefs and figuring out the logic of every point and the premises and values I need to make my conclusion strong. If I argue a point you can bet I have thought it over for long periods of time and yes I am sure I would win or at least draw in an impromptu debate. But hey, I think this has more to do with my opponents weaknesses then any particular strength I have. (I actually think I am a lousy arguer. But that means little in a debate with a lib.) Basically I do not think I am great, I think you are either an idiot (zelots) or uninformed/brainwashed (everyone else). Am I an asshole? probably, but then again so is every other conservative. Leave us alone and we tend to keep to ourselves, call us out and we will intentionally insult your beliefs, and you may not even know it. I hope more conservatives look at their beliefs and learn them inside and out, because one day we will need to take back congress, and that day is soon or never.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)