The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Different fighting methods - conservative and liberal

As I was reading some old quotes by Ronald Reagan, I began thinking about my political journey in the last 20+ years which really began with the Gipper. I have observed many politicians and many pundits. It struck me that each side approaches the great debate in different ways. Almost always the conservative approaches the great debate like an arm wrestler. Here is my arm; bring up your arm and we see who is the strongest. While there is some strategy, for the most part it is brute strength against brute strength and the one who is strongest and has the most stamina wins. A conservative will take labels with very little objection and remain constant with the goal in the end of giving their best shot and having the most stamina. This is why when you clearly and concisely place conservative ideas against liberal ideas, conservatives win every time.

A liberal on the other hand, approaches the debate like a boxer. They are constantly moving and do not want to present a constant target. They are there one moment, but when you strike they are not there anymore and you "miss". Liberals do not like labels. They want to constantly move around with fancy footwork and dodges. A label to a liberal is like having your feet glued to the floor. The goal of the liberal is stealth, dodging hoping to cause the opponents strikes to miss while coming at their opponent with unexpected blows that land.

Where the liberal makes their mistake is that political debate is not confined to the boxing analogy. Liberals try to take that approach and if they succeed in tricking the conservative into going along with it, they will win. However, most conservatives have gotten smart about this. Instead of worrying about where the liberals are trying to project that they are, conservatives continue to strike blow after blow where they know liberals to actually be. Liberals continually try to act like conservatives are building a straw man and debating against that. In actuality they are ignoring the mirage man the liberal tries to present and actually debates against the real man. This is how talk radio and the new media continues to meet with success. They just keep landing blows where they know the liberals are, rather than going after where the liberals pretend to be. The inevitable "squealing like a stuck pig" reaction is all that is usually needed to know you have landed a blow.

8 Comments:

  • At 8:56 PM, Anonymous r2w said…

    Rocky Balboa v. Thunderlips

     
  • At 10:04 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    arm wrestling, not WWF :)

     
  • At 8:57 PM, Anonymous r2w said…

    Sorry, the analogy just popped into my mind and I couldn't help but share it.

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Anonymous BILL_OF_RIGHTS said…

    That's some powerful stuff you're smoking. At least it lets you dream.

    This is a nice little narrative, but you offer no real scenario to back up your claims, so I'll offer a few.

    Reagan
    How can you call the Iran-Contra Affair and example of conservative ideas winning on the open, level playing field? You can't. That administration had to go sneaking around behind the backs of Congress and the American people to get their "conservative" agenda enacted.

    Bush Junior
    He sold himself to us as a "compassionate conservative." I've seen zero compassion, and certainly no fiscal conservatism from him. I'll grant you his religious ideological conservatism, but that doesn't belong in government in the first place. Right out of the chute it was far from an honest expression of ideas.

    Social Security. This "conservative" agenda was flatly rejected by the American people. Dead in the water.

    Iraq. Despite your desperate clinging to the opposite notion, it is now well known that there was much disagreement on intelligence assessments before the invasion of Iraq. But instead of being honest with the American people and the world, we were given a dog and pony show invoking mushroom clouds and biochemical weapons for every American man woman and child. The Bush administration did not clearly and concisely put all the facts before Congress and the American people. The "conservative" agenda of the PNAC (which envisioned the invasion and occupation of Iraq) was originally rejected by Bush Sr. The only way they sold it to the American people was through a lot of smoke and mirrors, and in case you haven't been paying attention, A LOT of them are having buyers remorse now, on Iraq AND Bush.

    In the HONEST field of debate, perhaps conservative ideas might win some of the time, but certainly not every time. It's just the law of odds. But your delusion that "conservatives" are the only straight shooters in this game is laughable, especially in this current GOP, which is seemingly quite plagued with pathological liars, backdoor Jacks and pedophiles.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    How can you call the Iran-Contra Affair and example of conservative ideas winning on the open, level playing field? You can't. That administration had to go sneaking around behind the backs of Congress and the American people to get their "conservative" agenda enacted.

    The Democrat side is hardly the one to talk about sneaking around. The Boland Amendment that prevented spending money to support the Contras against a communist regime was "snuck" into a spending bill. They did not present it on its own merits and open it for debate. If they did that, they knew they would be shown to be siding with the communists - a lable the Dems of the '80s had a very difficult time shaking. This is because of their love and affiliation for communists.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Anonymous BILL_OF_RIGHTS said…

    You're kidding, right? No, you're not. You're just out of your mind.

    Since when are you an advocate of abdicating Congressional responsibility and not accepting the results of a Congressional vote?

    However the concise, clear Boland Amendment mustered its 227-194 Committee vote pales in comparison to:
    - secretly selling weapons to Iran in direct violation of an embargo
    - that those Iranians happened to be terrorists who were holding hostages in Lebanon
    - the money laundering through BCCI
    - and if Reagan had been a Democrat you would of course not be defending any of this, especially in light of the allegations that there was tacit CIA involvement in the Contra drug running operations

    If Communists are such evil boogeymen, then please explain to me what the hell our US oil people were doing meeting with Cubans in Mexico, and why those US oil people aren't doing jail time right now despite the Bush administration obviously knowing all about this.

    Hypocrisy. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

     
  • At 12:09 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Since when are you an advocate of abdicating Congressional responsibility and not accepting the results of a Congressional vote?

    Where did you read that in what I said? Reread my statement again and come back with something closer to what I stated. My statement and your interpretation are not even in the same galaxy.

    If Communists are such evil boogeymen

    First, I take it from this statement that you are confirming my statement that there is an affiliation between liberals and communism as you cast doubt on any strong negative against them.

    Second, this meeting has nothing to do with communism. Looks like both sides were trying to find a loophole in the law and action was taken to make it clear it was not acceptable. According to the article the US government (Bush administration) learned of the meeting and took steps to break it up.

     
  • At 10:23 PM, Anonymous BILL_OF_RIGHTS said…

    Where did you read that in what I said? Reread my statement again and come back with something closer to what I stated. My statement and your interpretation are not even in the same galaxy.

    Let me first and foremost point out that what you are doing now is exactly the kind of ducking and dodging that your original post was calling to task. You've got us stuck on some minimal procedural point mired in history 20 years old, instead of directly facing the broad issues put to you.

    So I'll do the history lesson, and then maybe you can address the heart of the matter.

    You said the Boland Amendment was "snuck" in. The Boland Amendment was clearly and concisely written, and there is no way that anyone who voted on the Amendment was unaware of what they were voting on. It would not have made it to the floor for a vote without first passing committee. THEN it gets a floor discussion and vote. It's ridiculous that I'm having to explain Congressional procedure to you like you're a third grader. And you're acting like this is something new or in some way different from how the current Republican House and Senate have been acting for years now. Saying that Boland was "snuck" in suggests that the Representatives had no idea it was there. That is fallacy, and seems to want to give them a pass on being responsible members of Congress who know what they're voting on. This is why I said what I did about abdicating Congressional responsibility. What you said and my response are very much in the same galaxy. Same planet actually. Much closer to being pebbles sitting next to each other on the sidewalk, when you think about it.

    First, I take it from this statement that you are confirming my statement that there is an affiliation between liberals and communism as you cast doubt on any strong negative against them.

    Second, this meeting has nothing to do with communism. Looks like both sides were trying to find a loophole in the law and action was taken to make it clear it was not acceptable. According to the article the US government (Bush administration) learned of the meeting and took steps to break it up.


    Neither of these are really worthy of a response, especially since they're nothing but more dodging and weaving and ducking and avoiding the main issue on your part. But I'm up for humoring you tonight, so here goes.

    The first comment makes no sense. The second is just fantasy. Do you know WHY there is an embargo against Cuba? Hint: it has something to do with communism. Also, if you had really bothered to read the article you would see that it was not US pressure on the oil execs and the Cubans to nix the meeting. US pressure was exerted ON THE HOTEL to make the Cubans leave, stating that it was the hotel that was in violation of the embargo by providing services to Cubans. Go ahead. Read it again. It's right there in black and white.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home