How many agree with me?

[Arkana]

I have found that arguing with conservatives is a useless gesture. Every fact, every figure you present them with is shot down by moronic rhetoric and when you finally tire of debating them, they accuse you of having no way to back up your views. It's rather infuriating, and that's why I'm thinking of giving it up.

My question is: who agrees with me?

[historian]

1. nope dont agree

When i argue with them i ask them where they had read and/or researched the facts they are defending. Read? Reasearch?? One dead freeper.

[Arkana]

5. that's good

That is true. Most Republicans would rather have their arms sawed off than do actual research.

But like I said, is it true that arguing with Republicans is like arguing with a stone wall?

[screembloodymurder]

23. I agree

save your breath. Their minds are closed. They cite FOX we cite Salon.

[John BigBootay]

2. It's not a one-sided issue--

Libs, IMHO are equally resistant to conservative point-of-view, facts, figures, etc.

It is my belief that there is some ground that can be shared by both parties on many issues, but the radical leftists and the radical rightists make each subject an "all or nothing" debate.

Which is a shame, because I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle of most arguments.

[maxsolomon]

39. "the radical leftists"?

do we really have any of those? there are many many fewer outright socialists or marxists in america than radical rightists.

the american left was killed off & jailed before ww1.

[politick]

44. I agree

and while I'm often frustrated when arguing with conservatives, I've seen quote a few "liberals" act the same way. Als, many of the conservatives are well-researched. we just have two completely different perspectives gong into thing. I still believe we are right, but there's a difference in values.

Also, I think the political parties have a lot to do with blocking common ground. Things are so partisan, and each group feels so loyal to their party, that the "Other" is automatically inferior, corrupt, and stupid.

[TNOE]

3. I definitely agree

They provide ZERO facts to back up their points so they resort to name calling - almost always spouting "Communist", "LSD", DEMORAT, etc., etc. - then you give them facts - THEY REFUSE TO READ THEM - or if they glance at it - immediately discredit the source UNLESS it is Newsmax and then it's one of their more "liberal" writers so they can't believe a word that is printed. So much denial, such small minds, I found it futal - but I gave em hell until I got kicked off. The truth hurts and in the words of Jack Nicholson - they can't handle the truth. I find it much easier on a one-on-one basis in a discussion - those boards allow the gang up bully factor to try to intimidate. They WORSHIP their selected leader and would crown him King of Kings - but I must say - I can't wait until November - It's going to be a lot of fun checking back in with them. I have converted many family members and many, many new young voters. I'd like to see us duplicate Spain - 80% Kerry.

[Arkana]

7. that's perfect

So you can be smart and inflammatory on forums? Great! I have a proposition for you--help out the sadly outnumbered Dems on the Washington Dispatch boards! (I'm one of them!)

[TNOE]

10. I Don't Know How Much Energy I Have Left

for the hopeless - but you can PM the site - and I'll check it out.

[Arkana]

15. enlist!

For people who want to help out the badly outnumbered Dem battalion at the Washington Dispatch: www.washingtondispatch.com

You can usually post anywhere as just a guest.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

19. Spain was 77-80% turnout but not 80% socialist. EOM

[dand]

4. Agree partially,

the zealots with closed minds are a waste of time, as in "God said it, case closed." the ones with the ability to think I usually have some success with.

[wuushew]

8. God says alot of things

like how there were interchangeably 2 or 6 of each animal on the Ark.

Remind them they are sinning by wearing that cotton-polyester blend.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Use the Socratic Method

Ask them questions that lead them to see the intellectual wreckage that conservatism is.

--bkl

[Arkana]

9. *grins*

You overestimate the average conservative's IQ. They'll do their damnedest not to see it--and if they're in danger of it, they'll start spinning faster than Bill O'Reilly.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Nah, it works like a charm

Maybe I have "the magic touch" with conservatives, but it's actually pretty easy to get through to them when you don't confront them.

They usually have a Basic Belief System -- or Basic BS -- and it's either Jesus, Free Enterprise, or Patriotism in about 95% of the cases. It's not too difficult to find major contradictions between their issue opinions and their Basic BS. Then, rather than "bust" them, explain that they got suckered by someone with an agenda who's parasitizing their Basic BS. It's very easy to get them to understand that con artists can work anybody, especially someone as passionately committed to The Lord/Free Enterprise/Old Glory.

Incidentally, it's one form of rhetoric that can be 100% honest. Most hard-ass wingnuts are parasites.

Bringing these issues to their attention works. Most conservatives have a self-image of being too wise to the tricks of the world to fall for fraud of any kind. It starts a chain reaction. If you are patient and can hold your own anger back, you can break the Freeper brainwashing. They may not become latte-sipping, Volvo-driving, blues-connoisseur Liberals, but having a loose cannon in the "enemy camp" is well worth the effort.

--bkl
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In the most delightful way!

[Arkana]

24. Thanks for that

Thanks for the tip. Think maybe you could help out the badly outnumbered Dems at the WD forums? Our squad takes some pretty rough fire.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. No gloves for air napkin!

I read through some of the threads on Washington Dispatch and saw some of your stuff. I have to hand it to you, you certainly "have a pair" (and forgive, if you can, the sexist quip).

There actually are some rational conservatives over there, but even then, they have a bad tendancy to experience "political overheating". That's when a person in a verbal fight starts losing control -- then, they may start bringing in side-topics, large numbers of citations, rear back into smug "wit", and present long lists of questions to be answered with the implicit threat that unanswered questions indicate surrender.

When a prizefighter starts to lose control, he swings wildly, expends more energy than is required, becomes disoriented, misses obvious openings, takes sucker punches, loses his balance, and soon finds himself on the mat, listening to the ref give the count.

Overheating can be dealt with pre-emptively. First, recognize and define (for yourself) your own topic, argument, and goal. It will be very easy to see when the hotted-up opponant starts to boil over. You can keep steering him/her back to the original topic, and everyone will be able to see that you have kept control where your opponant has lost it. In addition, if you yourself take some blows, it will keep you from overheating, too.

Here's something to add to it: Conservatives think of themselves as rhetorical Bruce Lees. In the effort to keep from losing "respect", they may redouble their efforts. If you cut the boiler some slack, it will pay off well. Your opponant will think of you as being "honorable", his cheering section will agree, and everybody will know that you gave up a certain kill to keep the other guy in the ring. This alone can break the mindset of conservative swagger. Every second that a conservative lets down the guard is an opportunity to break the Neo-Con spell.

There are some fighters who have actually mastered the use of loss-of-control. The main exponent of the "Drunken Master" style of political Kommentary-Fu is Idiot Rott. It's a garden of erroneous rhetorical delight. Let Idiot Rott's mental illness become your library!

I'm going over to WD again to check out some threads.

Fight hard!

--bkl

[Arkana]

35. *grins*

Thanks for the compliment. Not to steal your identity, but I pull no punches with morons--especially the morons over there.

[Dogmudgeon]

41. Some ringside analysis

There's this alpha screech-monkey over there, jmorris, and about half a dozen lesser ass-sniffers who ape his own second-hand "withering sarcasm", "rapier wit" and "backslapping bonhommie".

If you want to waste half an hour on an enlightening exercise, print out one of his messages, and blue-highlight the substantive arguments (even if they are poorly made) and yellow-highlight the smug, self-congratulating humor to which he's addicted. If you have Word or a similar word processor, you can probably colorize it on the computer. That's what I did.

He makes some fairly good points, but most of them are still easily answered. His primary tactic after the stinkwater comedy is to try to trap people into irrelevant arguments, usually based on simple, but meaningless, turns of phrase.

How it works:

The French-perfumed one-liners are designed to get you (or anybody who disagrees with him) overheated. They also make it easy to miss the main points and not recognize the coy traps.

It's tough to avoid the traps, since they are often embedded in deliberately inane pieces of the "jokes". But with the colored-highlighter method, they'll be much easier to recognize.

I have to partially retract what I originally wrote. This isn't an argument, it really is a fight, and he's looking to burnish his reputation as an "intellectual street fighter". He has the advantage since his peanut gallery is a lot larger than yours.

He has no respect for his opponants on the field of battle -- ergo, the man is lacking in honor, something you may want to point out in public. And can a man with so little respect for his enemies be counted on to NOT shark on his friends when their own backs are turned? (The alphas within Team Bush do this all the time.)

Consider these tactics:

Focus on the stinkwater comedy and the French-perfumed one-liners. Answer only the boneheaded remarks. Accuse him of using rhetorical prettiness because he has no argument. Use as many words and phrases -- "word mojo" -- that impute childishness, "gayness", and femininity as possible. Accuse him of being a trivialist, a narcissist, a mirror-gazer, and in love with his own "fay puffery" (as an example of female/gay word mojo). Accuse him of relying on his "peanut gallery" (child word mojo).

(Excellent use of the word "Son", by the way. Don't think you're not doing damage with it.)

He will try to switch over to "demanding, demanding, I say, that you answer these questions, Sir!" ("Patrick Henryism" -- Magistrate mocks the style exceptionally well). When he does, tell him to take off the gloves and fight like a man instead of like an 11th grade Catholic school French-major with a crush on Clay Aiken.

You want to overheat a right-wing opponant? Go with the Gay, female, and French stuff. And don't let up on it. Call him a sissy who uses a sissy's rhetoric. Accuse him of prep-school slap-fighting. Don't act smug -- SNEER. And when he responds to your slams, don't answer him directly. Rinse, lather, repeat -- he's fay. He's gay. He fights like a woman. He pouts like a child. He can't fight with the facts, so he fights with perfumed rhetoric. He's a master of savate, French foot-fighting. Include a link to an on-line drugstore's sale on feminine hygeine products. Tell him he doesn't fight like a man. He can't fight like a man.

When he announces that he has won an argument, tell him that's not up to him, it's up to his peanut gallery and his French teacher.

When one of his catchfarts comes after you, accuse him of trying to ape his Jedi Master, jmorris, and shoo him away. "Come back when you grow some hair on your chest, not your knuckles." Make it clear that you will only deal with alphas. And keep in your own mind that "alpha masculinity" applies to animals, not Men. (At least according to the anthropologist who coined it, Lionel Tiger. Yes, that's really his name.)

(Sure, it's sexist -- have fun at the expense of the morons' bigotry. Let the words flow, Let The Eagle Soar! I have nothing against women, gay people, children, and especially not the French. If the situation called for mocking men, heterosexuals, old folks and the Germans, I'd be suggesting the same tack. Since he enjoys serving his sword as lunch, he at least deserves a taste of it -- lovingly complemented with his own famous bile sauce.)

All the while, not a single arguable proposition will pass between you. You want to take him DOWN, in front of his peanut gallery. THEN find out where else he posts, and repost sections of his humiliation.

He's fighting with his pants around his ankles with "Kick My Ass!" magic-markered on his butt. Accomadate his wishes. Frequently.

Well, now I'm getting all psyched up. Unlike jmorris, I have work to do, and I'm still doing it on spec. But feel free to dissect, criticize, adopt, re-use, alter, steal, rape and pillage anything I've written.

All I can do is make suggestions. You've got what it takes -- a keen eye, a solid fist, the ability to come back after a hard blow, and fire in the belly rather than gas in the bowel. You're a contenda. And don't take a dive for anything less than seven figures and a percentage of the door. These guys are chumps -- and a high-profile, edumacated, perfumed chump is still a chump.

--bkl
Meditate on the High Masters -- Ali, Pitt, Bartcop, Viggo, and Janeane

[Arkana]

42. ah, finally

someone who thinks like me. BTW, some of his lackeys include Brian, hsfrug, and a moron who was kind enough to mock me even in SN--land tablecloth.

So you think I'm cut out for those boards, eh? Too bad I never have my "research" when I need it--and by research, I mean reference like Al Franken, Michael Moore, David Corn, and Paul Begala. I'm at school right now, and I never seem to have my stuff when I need it. It's infuriating when I have to search the Net high and low for stuff I know is there.

Again, BTW, did you notice the moron called "land tablecloth" and his rather feeble efforts to make me look like an idiot?

[Dogmudgeon]

48. More weenie roasting

Having references and citations is like having body armor. You do a very good job without them, but having them is always a good idea.

Except you're dealing with pampered chumps and punk-ass girly-men over there, so it's not like it's dangerous ground or anything. The population is under 500. jmorris is pretty clearly "slumming", at least in his own pinched mind. He certainly couldn't compete where real argumentation skills are needed -- if he's an attorney, he probably works as a process server for his Daddy's corporate liability firm when he's not downloading pictures of athletic, buxom, dominant women spanking submissive RNC factotums.

The Winger Known As "land tablecloth" is as shameless a caddy boy as I've seen in a long time. The sad thing is that most of these guys have a couple of brain cells to rub together, but for reasons known only to themselves and their human caretakers, they have decided to carry the luggage of the Great Man (in this case, jmorris). "Light your cigarette, sir? Shine your shoes?"

And that's why it's so effective to refuse to fight with "non-alphas". They're like cheerleaders, only a good cheerleader would smile and look cute in a gaudy red skirt. These dudes are ridiculous. When they come after you like Anna Nicole's little doggie, send them back to jmorris for a Milk-Bone. Or you can reply (indirectly) to jmorris -- "Dude, never send a cheerleader out to do a quarterback's job, even a lazy-ass QB such as yourself." (It's pretty easy to come up with insulting metaphors. It's difficult to do on-the-fly, but try it with a couple, and it should be no sweat in a flame war. And it beats calling the other guy a child molester or a Nazi.)

I'm very good at using search engines, so I don't keep much of an active personal file of data anymore -- just for the arcane stuff. But you might want to keep a "War Book" of references, notes, techniques, and other minutia, with as much indexing as you like. I'd also keep text copies of Hagakure and Book of Five Rings and other samurai classics; Western classics of warfare and politics like von Clausewitz; modern martial arts stuff; etc. David Hackworth has a list of "required reading" for soldiers and officers, and a great deal of it has broad application. A brief conversation with an ROTC student or instructor might yield a ton of information. In spite of their bad reputation, I've never known one to be a weenie or a chickenhawk.

Still, as in any warfare, you should let it be known that you'll offer the enemy an honorable truce. In this case, it would be to let him stop the perfumed slap-fighting and stick to the argument. He gets to avoid the pain of social humiliation, and everybody gets to know exactly how bad he got beat.

Hey, they're playing Aux armes et caetera on the radio. That's Serge Gainsbourg's reggae version of the Marseilles -- the French national anthem. It's an omen, I tell ya!

--bkl

[Arkana]

49. Thanks for the tips

Do you have any idea where I can find some passages of the Bible that try to impress tolerance? I've never read the thing, and I don't have a damned copy, and I can't find anything on the net, believe it or not. And you were right--my buddy land tablecloth is pulling a "Patrick Henry" and "demanding" that I tell him where Jesus teaches tolerance. He sees AIDS as God's punishment for gays--I'm dealing with an ULTRA neocon.

[Dogmudgeon]

56. Jesus and Tolerance

The sickening thing is that the Google search to find the quotes' citations (e.g., "Matthew 7:1,2") turned about approximately 80% links telling Christians that they should be intolerant.

Here's the main ones. There are probably hundreds of others, but I got these in five minutes.

Matthew 7:1,2
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Luke 6:37
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged."

Proverbs 6:16-19 (NLT)
"There are six things the LORD hates -- no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord among brothers."

John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Incidentally --

Matthew 22:18
But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?"

I find that arguing the Bible is a time-waster. Jesus didn't use chapter-and-verse exegesis, and he didn't use apologetics tied to the Constitution, so why should anybody else? The chapter-and-verse thing was originally a rhetorical ploy that German Protestants used against the local tyrants in the Catholic Church. Modern Christians' attitudes toward the Bible is meso-paganistic in the extreme -- they worship the book even while ignoring huge sections of it.

--bkl

[Arkana]

59. ooops

I believe I have made a mistake--I conceded a point to that grasping, covetous creep. Damn it all! I need to be a bit quicker on the uptake--guess I still have a lot to learn.

Ah, well. Maybe it'll just make him shut up.

[Arkana]

43. wow

BKL, you did a more thorough job on them in one post than I probably could have in a dozen. I don't know about the "feminine hygiene products" link, but I think I have caused a Repug to successfully overheat. You can check out my efforts if you want.

Seriously, we could use your help. If you fight half as well as you say you do, you'd do a hell of a job on morons like jmorris and hsfrug.

[Dogmudgeon]

50. Scanned the recent messages

You're going to make land tablecloth's doctor have to increase his blood pressure meds.

I'm beginning to think that tablecloth is a second account for jmorris. Maybe I'm reading it too casually, but there's something about the language structure that set the alarm buzzer off. It just seems too close -- l.t. wouldn't have to just have his nose stuck up jmorris' butt, he'd have to be connected at the brain. If I had the itch to check the timestamps, I'd probably find that tablecloth boy and jmorris were never logged on at the same time, but why do that?

So be nice if you bring the subject up. Don't accuse them; ask them whether they're the same person, or just hot-bunking a single brain.

I checked out the Washington Dispatch in a little more detail. It's the hobby of a conservative beltway bandit (Shane Cory) who does websites for other conservative beltway bandits. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but chances are good that as soon as a leftist of any sort becomes effective, they get their account yanked and their IP blocked. That's why places like WD have so few liberal and progressive voices. They only want lefties to provide "easy meat" for their brave and buff champions, so they have something to do while making weight for the cheerleader squad.

If you really want to be a forum warrior, this isn't going to be a good arena in the long run. The best places are the news service's forums, like Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, and Excite. Big political chat sites -- the ones that aren't run by wingers -- are also good, but you have to be very quick on your feet (which I beleive you are). And even there, at some point, you're going to want to start fielding op-ed pieces.

Wingers' sites are bad news. In the words of a wiser man than I, "Babylon make de rules". But on one of the big sites? You could play slice-and-dice for the next decade and nobody would even care about all the blood on the floor.

Oh, by the way, first post, I'll send you the screen name I'm using. I'm not going with a moniker like BareKnuckledLiberal! It'll be something neutral. I like to give megawankers the opportunity to draw first blood.

--bkl

[Arkana]

52. Thanks BK

Thanks, dude. Oh, and, confidentially--Arkana is another alias of mine. Heh heh heh...

[proud patriot]

11. I have fun with them

I think they take themselves too seriously ..

Welcome Underground :hi:

[KG]

12. pointing out the obvious to the willfully obtuse is

something i just don't have any patience for. give it up.

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. Arguing with them only winds me up................

The conversation always seems to move to the point that I want to ask them if they are a "fucking moron". As soon as I realize they are the brainwashed variety I have to just get away before I get into trouble.

[seabeyond]

14. my brother i dont bother

i use to. he is rational, he talks love of constitution, he sounds reasonable. yet cant talk politics. he has been away the last 6 months and i figured all coming out on bush, he is seeing the lite surely, nope, nada, i am getting all these stupid ass right wing post. so no, i dont even bother with him anymore

yet there are a lot of republicans that are reasonable and are open to listen. really it is mostly the females, and i start with bush and the right fundamentalist issue, cause they are all religious and all are moms and discuss what christianity is, and what bush is doing is not, then they start listening. i have a ways to go with some

[info being]

16. Don't agree

It takes time for what you say to sink in. You don't see the results immediately. They go off and view the world with a slightly different perspective and see things they otherwise might not have seen.

[Arkana]

18. heh heh

Not all of them.

[Trajan]

17. In a way .. yes ...

My brothers and I have declared NO ARGUMENT zones around our homes ...

It does NOTHING to move either side from their entrenched positions, and just creates tension in the households ...

But: ... having said that: I think that our arguments ARE having an effect: .. not on those on the extremes, but on those at the margins ... The independents are CERTAINLY moving towards the Democrats of late, if only because the assertions by Democrats are proving true, whereas those of the Right are falling flat ...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

20. In general, I find this to be true. Some here on DU have posted "success"

stories though. But in general, I feel that if you have to spent 9 months arguing to convert someone, it's a poor investment of time and emotional energy. Would make you feel much better to sign up 100 Dem voters or raise some money for a Dem campaign with that same time without the hate and vitriol.

Participated in some nasty political arguments on another board I used to frequent more but got nowhere with the RW heads. Just maddening and a waste of emotional energy. I still post threads that I think might be useful there (Howard Stern situation seems to have traction with some Bush-leaning folks), and just posted a thread with my take on the Spain elections, more so if people read the thread they can click a link or two and learn. But I don't get embroiled in the stupid debates anymore, and I rarely even click on the RWer's provocative threads.

[onethatcares]

22. I don't agree either,

stick with us, use buzzflash, bartcop, mollie irvins, jim hightower, do whatever it takes to stuff the lies back down their throats. They cannot argue facts, they can however turn phrases and lie, stay on top, fight the good fight.

[Arkana]

25. but...but...

...they do argue with facts--that's the whole problem. You use a source you've deemed credible, like the AP or BBC News, and I guarantee you some moron right-winger will find a reason to say the source isn't credible. The only ones they accept readily are from Newsmax.com, and even then, the writer "must be liberal."

They will not accept the legitimacy of sources! That's my gripe in arguing with them.

[LDS Jock]

26. it does feel that way at times

I've argued til I'm blue in the face before and get so frustrated I swear I will never try again. But lately on this one board I go to, the tide seems to be turning. No longer am I the only one against Bush, but its about 40% against him. I don't claim to be the sole reason behind that. Only that I've been exposing people to another side of the issues so they can make up their own mind. Maybe I am naive, but I've always thought if someone is open minded and educated to what is going on, they will respond in an enlightened way. If people understood what is going on now, and whats been going on since the bush selection, they will want him out of office just as we all do.

[northofdenali]

27. I'm ambivalent - because I've met so many Republicans

who are basically just good, but conservative, folks - and many of these are ABB (anybody but Bush) since no WMD's, Social Security, etc. etc. are coming to light.

But neocons/fundies? Forget it - there is NO arguing with them - they will not listen, they will not read, they will not research. Bush said it, they believe it. Period.

And WELCOME to DU!!! :hi:

[Jacobin]

28. There are ways.......

Confronting them directly does not work because they are "true believers" who don't deal in facts or logic. Just soundbytes programmed into them by the likes of Hannity and Limpballs.

I find that indirectly asking them about their beliefs works the best and then it becomes obvious that they disagree with almost every single policy issue that Smirk stands for.

An example. A woman who works in my office. Loves Smirk, hates Clinton, loves Limpballs. One day at lunch I ask her about gays. Oh, she says they are fine and they should be allowed to marry...she knows several who are her good friends....silence. Should we buy the oil we need or conquer it through wars? Oh, we should buy it, we can't steal that would be wrong.....silence. Do you think big deficits are good for the country or bad? Oh we need to have a balanced budget....silence.

Sooner or later, without confronting the obvious contradictions in what they think the believe in and who they support, little lights begin to come on. And when they discover that there are other people who admit to being (shrieeeeeek...liberal) they get a certain comfort level that, no, maybe they won't go to hell after all if they support democratic candidates.

It does and can work, but not through direct confrontation.

Peace

[carols]

29. Arguing with neo-cons is useless

but I have made some inroads with the old-fashioned kind of conservative on the economy and civil liberties. If you get a ditto-head, though, it's a lost cause. All they know how to do is repeat what they have heard on Talk Radio - verbatim, mindlessly. And you can tell they are just looking for an opportunity to physically assault you.
Carol

[Redleg]

30. I have to agree- I realized this today after reading some

letters to the editor in my local paper. Many of the letters by wingers are poorly constructed from a logic standpoint and rely primarily on calling liberals names. I told my wife that we will never be able to convince people like that.

[randr]

32. I agree

I have grown exhausted with the effort. It also seems that the conservatives are now engaged themselves in the debate. My conservative friends do not want to hear any more attacks on B* but they are expressing their own concerns about jobs, economy, and the corporate climate in the WH.
My only comment is that "if you are not concerned you are not paying attention".

[LibDemAlways]

33. I agree.

Freeper types aren't interested in or capable of thoughtful discussion. Rush doesn't even allow any callers who question his lies.
I work with 3 complete freeper morons, and wouldn't waste one second of my day arguing with them. They wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them in the ass.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Find common ground

without making it a direct attack on Bush. There's bound to be some issue that they're concerned about that Bush is either ignoring or actually having a malevolent effect.

Ask them where they got their "facts." If they say Rush or O'Reilly, ask them if either one of them is God. They'll say that of course he isn't, and then you say that if he isn't God, then he can be wrong.

[mdmc]

36. Not me!

My RTL - C - GOP Assembly man just came out in support of medical marijuana! Never give up.
Conservatives are people, just like DLC Dems and Greens. Recently, I had the honor to work with several right wing fundies that were willing to help my friend run for city council, simply because they LIKED him.
Conservatives also tend to hold petty grudges and hostility to-wards those that oppose them; sometimes this includes other conservatives and republicans. Politics offers the opportunity for strange bedfellows. Remember Rudy Gulliani shilling for Mario Cuomo against Pataki? Seems like an eternity ago.

[smirkymonkey]

37. Totally agree...

Believe me, I have tried time and time again. There is no swaying those who are so caught up in ideology that they need to make up "facts" to defend themselves. These people are not logical, reasonable or capable of critical thought. They use the one-liners they pick up from Faux, and like their idiot leader, bludgeon us with their mantra until we can't take it anymore.

Their denial is so thick, that it would take some cataclysmic event to shock them out of it. A lot of these people would accept their own homelessness before they would accept gay marriage or abortion. So f**ked up.

[maggrwaggr]

38. use their arguments against them

it's very easy, especially with fundies, to use their own arguments against them. Like "Jesus said ..." and "the bible said ..."

I like to use God as an argument for being an environmentalist. I argue that God created the earth, the animals, the forests, so to wipe any of those species out on purpose is an insult to God.

It usually works. You can see them actually think for about five seconds.

[tjwash]

40. Not really...

...I manage to have some good political conversations with conservatives. My dad is a conservative, and he is voting for Kerry this year.

It's the frothing at the mouth dittoheads that are lost causes.

[supercrash]

45. Well...

There are different levels of conservatives...

For example....

I had about 800 posts on the Hannity board...and I can tell you that those guys are certified idiots...You can never feel like you have won the debate...no matter how right you are..

But other boards like www.space.com and www.offshoreonly.com have a smarter kind of conservative...They will recognize win they are beat....but are still Bush supporters

BTW, I have been banned from all these boards....not for breaking rules....but rather for my views...and embarrassing the moderators

It's still fun....But I need another board to invade....anybody have a idea...?

[Arkana]

60. come to this place

www.washingtondispatch.com

Maybe you can destroy the "alpha screech monkey jmorris" (thank you BKL) and reclaim the boards for safe discussion.

[Cleita]

46. I came to that conclusion back in the seventies when

it was impossible to argue with conservatives that their god, Nixon, had done a bad, bad thing. Back then though I blamed it on education and I was sure by the turn of the century everybody would be taught critical thinking and history and civics so they could understand how our country works and make informed decisions. I believed everyone would be taught bigotry and racism was wrong too. Boy, was I wrong. It's ten times worse now and the conservatives aren't even ashamed of their ignorance anymore like they were then.

[Bridget Burke]

47. Don't give up all argument....

It's not always possible to tell somebody's political beliefs immediately. Sometimes they just spout an opinion they heard; if you have information to counteract it--they might listen. Some people will change their minds--or, at least, open them a bit. I try to be fairly friendly in offering interesting facts.

If they start with the tired, racist rhetoric; if they're definitely hard-core neo-conservatives, I'll give up on them. Or sometimes I'll have a bit of sarcastic fun.

[mlawson]

51. Haven't done it in years, since I lived in

East TN, where the fundies rule. Yeah, arguing with them was totally futile, because at some point they would quote their 'pastor', who COULD NOT BE WRONG. And that was that; their eyes then became opaque.

I don't know any neocons here. And that is fine with me; who needs the aggravation?

[SOteric]

53. Yes, I agree. I have changed the minds of more than a few

right wingers, but never by arguing and sharp rhetoric.

[Ksec]

54. You are partially correct as I have been in a three year debate at

another Messge board. It just goes back and forth everyday , never ending . BUT !! I have changed a few minds over there which is good so its been a very shallow victory after so many years of arguing with these knuckleheads.

[vetwife]

55. Take it Back

This is not spamming because my proceeds are helping the dems and Guy James. Get that CD Take it back that Guy has up on his site.
You can back up everything you say. Its a narration of Bush and his dirty deeds and how its costing America.
here is the link. Guy likes it a lot and I hope you do have it because that is exactly why I made it. LEt a family repug member or friend (if you still have repug friends) listen. It leaves Bush nowhere to hide. All documented. Then you can make the argument. They can't say they were not informed. If they need a list of where info came from I list it and for the cost of war I can provide it. DOD, World Hunger, Unicelf, WHO,HHS, Office of Budget Management, US Treasury, Dept of VA affairs....and the list goes on !

http://cafeshops.com/focusgroupnow.9200633

Thank all of you for helping us Take it Back

[sweetheart]

57. defeat them with the present

Conservatives confess to reality when faced by it. The pothole
in the road is a sign of underinvestment. My best success is selling
conservatives an end to the drugs war and watching them bite on
what a great idea that is, to end that taxes paying for the drugs
war. Then the taxes paying for the iraq war, and what a shame.

The best way to defeat a conservative is to argue the conservative
point of view and then watch a republican conservative agree with
you but with emphasis that the repuke policy is the opposite of
conservative. A conservative wants government out of private
affairs, out of unnecessary law enforcement, wars, government
expansionism, white elephant missile systems, space monkey missions
to uranus, and whatever else mess of a free credit card spending
zone the white house has become.... the no-credit-limit zone.

[Exgeneral]

58. Try talking to my mom, it's the same result

she's a Fox watching anti-communist newsletter subscribing misses the good old days when black folks knew their place and were happy about it democrats wat socialism in this country kind of lady.

I mean really, other than honing your debate skills, what good does it do? I think you might stand a chance with a REAL conservative, but that title has been coopted by religious right wingnuts.