An honest conservative

[johnhp]

I raised the examples of David Brooks and David Frum. What do you make of them? I don't agree with them a lot of the time but I appreciate the fact that they engage and make an effort.

i read them both with some frequency.  It seems to me that the failure, and this is very much the case with Frum, is that he leaves out certain aspects of a situation that would make the political point he is making or the political position he wishes to occupy uncomfortable.  Like so many other people he wants to have "clean hands" from his own perspective.

The kind of guy i like is someone like the pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  He participated in the plot to kill Hitler.  But what he never did was lie to himself that political assassination, although the lesser evil, was an affirmative good.  Our politicians and our political cultures needs more of that.

[dagon]

i read them both with some frequency.  It seems to me that the failure, and this is very much the case with Frum, is that he leaves out certain aspects of a situation that would make the political point he is making or the political position he wishes to occupy uncomfortable.  Like so many other people he wants to have "clean hands" from his own perspective.

The kind of guy i like is someone like the pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  He participated in the plot to kill Hitler.  But what he never did was lie to himself that political assassination, although the lesser evil, was an affirmative good.  Our politicians and our political cultures needs more of that.

i think the best they have working on that side of the fence currently (especially in comparison to frum and brooks) is daniel larison.

peace

[johnhp]

Dag,

An interesting writer, but suffers the fate of all rightists.

[dagon]

Dag,

An interesting writer, but suffers the fate of all rightists.

oh, i agree.  i just said i thought he was the best the have working for them right now.  he's not afraid to be sane once in a while as frum and brooks still can't help but be hopeless sycophants.

peace

[foodserver]

i thought you only needed ONE in your original attempt at diversion but i'll do you better than 5 just to show you how fucking stupid your original question was.

ron paul
rand paul
herman cain (he's a dunce but he's consistent)
ross perot
pat buchanan (crazy racist but consistent)
grover norquist (fucking traitor to the people but consistent)
david duke (believe it or not)
erick erickson (founder of redstate; batshit insane but believes everything he says)
Larry Elder
michelle malkin (for many of the reasons listed above;  a hopelessly ignorant ideologue)


....need i go on?  THIS is why it's a fucking stupid question and an obvious attempt at diversion on your part.

No dags. I'll give ya Rand, Larry (good for you he's awesome!) and David Duke, (though what I don't believe is that you think a known racist is honest)

I'm not interested in you coming up with new ways to slander conservatives but saying " I did say they were honest".

An "honest child molesting serial killing fire-bug conservative" was not exactly what I had in mind.  Also I'm not sure how someone (Michelle Malkin) in your mind can be honest and an "ideologue" and I say this because when the words "ideologue" and "partisan" are applied to me, it's usually to imply that I'm dishonest.

How you can call someone with Cain's background of accomplishment a 'dunce' really says it all and I think also happens to mirror our president's mindset about entrepreneurs.

But anyway, I'm digressing here so let me just say that you've been helpful.  Just remember that you may see some arguments advanced in the future without attribution.  When you jump on to assassinate their religion or their mental state, rather than debate policy, I'll let ya know the argument came from Larry Elder or Rand Paul...

[dagon]

No dags. I'll give ya Rand, Larry (good for you he's awesome!) and David Duke, (though what I don't believe is that you think a known racist is honest)

I'm not interested in you coming up with new ways to slander conservatives but saying " I did say they were honest".

An "honest child molesting serial killing fire-bug conservative" was not exactly what I had in mind.  Also I'm not sure how someone (Michelle Malkin) in your mind can be honest and an "ideologue" and I say this because when the words "ideologue" and "partisan" are applied to me, it's usually to imply that I'm dishonest.

How you can call someone with Cain's background of accomplishment a 'dunce' really says it all and I think also happens to mirror our president's mindset about entrepreneurs.

But anyway, I'm digressing here so let me just say that you've been helpful.  Just remember that you may see some arguments advanced in the future without attribution.  When you jump on to assassinate their religion or their mental state, rather than debate policy, I'll let ya know the argument came from Larry Elder or Rand Paul...

you can't change the paremeters fs.  EVERY ONE i gave i gave you is consistent with their proclamations!  that means they honestly believe it.  they don't have conflicting statements that say otherwise.

that's the only way that you can determine if someone is "honest".  it's if they are consistent with their statements, lifestyle, voting record and what they say they believe.

next

peace

[foodserver]

dagons says,

you can't change the paremeters fs.

Correct.  You outfoxed me this time.  I asked you for 'honest' conservatives and you calculated that you could comfortably claim they were honest as long as you could include some other adjective designed to assassinate their character and destroy their credibility. (which is the primary purpose of calling someone dishonest) I will adapt to this new tactic and you will no doubt come up with something else.  Such is reality. 

Still you were able to restrain yourself and answer honestly with a few examples, Rand Paul (who I think might be President some day), Larry Elder, (again, I'm impressed) and David Duke (I'll take the latter choice you offer me, I believe it NOT)

I'll do for you what I didn't do for IM2 which is to let you know in advance that I plan to attribute a quote, wait for you to respond solely with an assassination of the character of the alleged source, such as what you are fond of doing with Michelle Bachmann, and then reveal the true source of the quote which will be Rand Paul or Larry Elder. 

This is for your own good (isn't that liberal of me?  ) in that it might encourage you to actually talk about policy once in awhile, instead of mocking people who think citizens should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, even if you don't happen to like them or approve of what they do with those fruits.

[dagon]

dagons says,

you can't change the paremeters fs.

Correct.  You outfoxed me this time.  I asked you for 'honest' conservatives and you calculated that you could comfortably claim they were honest as long as you could include some other adjective designed to assassinate their character and destroy their credibility. (which is the primary purpose of calling someone dishonest) I will adapt to this new tactic and you will no doubt come up with something else.  Such is reality. 

Still you were able to restrain yourself and answer honestly with a few examples, Rand Paul (who I think might be President some day), Larry Elder, (again, I'm impressed) and David Duke (I'll take the latter choice you offer me, I believe it NOT)

I'll do for you what I didn't do for IM2 which is to let you know in advance that I plan to attribute a quote, wait for you to respond solely with an assassination of the character of the alleged source, such as what you are fond of doing with Michelle Bachmann, and then reveal the true source of the quote which will be Rand Paul or Larry Elder. 

This is for your own good (isn't that liberal of me?  ) in that it might encourage you to actually talk about policy once in awhile, instead of mocking people who think citizens should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, even if you don't happen to like them or approve of what they do with those fruits.

fs,  i'm the one who talks about policy;  in addition to making a fool out of you on a regular basis of course.

peace

[foodserver]

fs,  i'm the one who talks about policy;  in addition to making a fool out of you on a regular basis of course.

peace

I'd love to see a post of yours featuring Michelle Bachmann and a discussion of policy!  I suspect, that at least for a while, we'll see a little more of that "policy discussion" and a little less character assassination.

[dagon]

I'd love to see a post of yours featuring Michelle Bachmann and a discussion of policy!  I suspect, that at least for a while, we'll see a little more of that "policy discussion" and a little less character assassination.

start one

i've never seen a post of YOURS featuring michelle bachmann and a discussion of policy.  i would welcome it.

peace

[foodserver]

start one

i've never seen a post of YOURS featuring michelle bachmann and a discussion of policy.  i would welcome it.

peace

If I do, the topic won't be about her "crazy eyes", OK?  While the polls disagree with me I've never regarded her as a "top tier" candidate basically because of her resume, which is why you won't see me talking about her often...

[dagon]

If I do, the topic won't be about her "crazy eyes", OK?  While the polls disagree with me I've never regarded her as a "top tier" candidate basically because of her resume, which is why you won't see me talking about her often...

knock yourself out homes.  i said i welcome the exchange.

peace