Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Dude, I'm not wounded. You are completely missing my point. For the last few months, every time you pop into a thread to contribute, your post will ALWAYS include some disparagement about conservatives. You will extrapolate a single statement made by a single person across ALL conservatives. This is new to you, and I don't know why you feel the need. It stifles the conversation. It places people into defensive mode - not wounded or victimized, just pissed off that they can't get a word in without some disparagement. Rather than exchanging ideas and letting those ideas bear out who has a better argument, it slams the door on constructive debate. If your position on Obama vs. Hoover is, "Obama is not Hoover and this is why...." then say it. Instead, you start with, "GOOOD LOOORD! There is no end to what conservatives will concoct in their surreal blah blah blah." Conservatives didn't suggest that, Ace did. But you still picked the fight. I would have sided with all of you on that debate, but instead I got lumped with the other side unjustly.
So, just think about. You're going to do what you want to do, but at least consider that picking a fight every time might be interfering with the threads.
As for what the TEA party is *for*, I would say that the most widely heard views at rallies were:
A balanced budget amendment.
Fund it, then spend it - not the other way around.
Fair taxation (admittedly broad).
A simplification of the income tax code.
An end to unrelated earmarks on bills and an end pork projects
Term Limit Amendment for Congress
Now, I ask you. Do those things make us horrible people? Are any of those things outrageous?
|
Cimarron,
I'm sure that everyone knows that when someone says "conservative," they are not referring to every single person who defines him or her self as a conservative.
And I don't see the need to get defensive when someone says "conservatives this or that." That is, I don't see the need to join in and defend the conservatives who do say this or that. As a mirror to that, people on the left side of the political spectrum have also had to deal with certain generalizations, like "Obama the messiah," "Obama the socialist," "Obama the far leftist who is controlled by the radical left." No one suddenly started defending those positions because they were thrown in with the lot. Instead, for the most part, people have challenged those generalizations when they were false.
I have no illusions that the democrats are the "left," so when they are criticized my reaction is not to get defensive over democrats. Whenever I do "defend" democrats, is merely as a way of pointing that there is a huge distance between what the democrats stand for and a true left wing position. Like in this thread: my point in attacking the comparison was not to shield Obama from criticism, but to point out that neither Obama nor Hoover can be thought of as "too interventionist" and that it wasn't interventionism that created either economic crisis.
Regarding "Obama the next Hoover:" it wasn't just Ace who said it. It is a theme that has been repeated by key figures within not only the republican party, but the conservative media apparatus. Now, you may not think that they are true conservatives, and you may not care for them, but we are talking about people who are greatly admired and followed by most people who consider themselves to be conservatives. Sure, we could use "Limbaugh conservatives" instead of "conservatives," but I don't see the use, and I don't see the reason why not doing so should stifle debate.