Quote:
Originally Posted by biznatch
Let's say Obama felt some country was a threat, and attacked it, in the process losing thousands of civilian and military lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars.
If evidence came out later that the country never was a threat in the first place, or a minor one, wouldn't you be pissed?
|
Yes.
---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
ace: That comment wasn't directed at you. I will say, I now understand why having a conversation with you is like trying to grab steam. Why you can shift positions and side-step the corners you get backed into, and then deny any shift. I now completely understand why it's been so frustrating to interact with you.
|
I thought about this, and I have come to a different conclusion and I think my conclusion is insightful regarding this whole discussion.
I think some see these exchanges in terms of winners and losers. Some see these exchanges as opportunities to better understand opposing views. People who try to "win" an exchange with me seem to be the one's who get the most frustrated.
In many instances I will clearly state the most important core element forming my view. I do engage in the elements of an issue that are not at the core, this may be the basis of what you call grabbing at steam because eventually I will go back to the core element. The core elements are often indestructible. However, it is interesting that the people who can actually have an impact on changing my views are people who have actually invested time and effort into understanding how I think.
So, Roach's OP on this subject is interesting in the fact that someone is actually trying to understand "conservative" thought processes, but in doing so those who read the conclusions interpret the results the wrong way and actually lessen their ability to influence "conservative" thought. For example, using a few recent topics:
*I say that I felt Iraq under Saddam was a threat. I am told my "feelings" on this matter are not important - but I act on those feelings by working on Bush's campaign, voting for him and supporting our military action in Iraq. If, peace loving liberals wanted to influence me, the approach would not be to hit me with a bunch of facts that may or may not be proven true, but to focus on why I feel Iraq under Saddam was a threat.
*I say that as a small business owner in California that I felt like the enemy. I am told my "feelings" are wrong - but I act on those feelings by moving out of the state. If liberals in California wanted to influence me, the approach would not to be to hit me with a bunch of facts that may or may not apply to my experience, but to focus on why I felt like the enemy as a business owner.
*I say that as a conservative the more I feel that the liberal media unfairly attacks Palin, the more she will have my support. I am told there is something wrong with me for supporting her. If liberals really wanted her to go away they should stop the attacks understanding how and why people respond in certain ways regarding the attacks.
Some simply get a good laugh at how irrational they think I am or "conservatives" in general. After the laughter they are often amazed that we have engaged in a war, that we don't have national health care, that we have done nothing regarding "global warming", that investment banks report record profits within months of receiving billions in bailout money, etc, etc, etc.
I again ask, who is in denial?