Speaking conservative

[shunyadragon]

LOL - Am I? I think you are in the box of vilifying groups of people thinking they are all a cookie cutter.

As I said, you have proved my point and I thank you for it.

Excellent example of self-emulation.

 

[Falvlun]

No, instead of defending Hillary or making even the slightest attempt to refute what I said, you instead chose to make the topic about me.

So... you didn’t read a single thing I wrote.

It's not exactly what I said.

I’ve asked you to clarify on multiple occasions and you haven’t taken the opportunity.

You seemed to clearly link Hillary’s supposed corruption with her decision to remain with Bill.
If that wasn’t your argument then why did you bring it up in a thread about corruption?

Feminism is not a set of rules which one can "break." Is this like a "No true Scotsman" fallacy?

You were the one claiming it was hypocritical for a feminist to stay with her cheating husband. Not me. You put the constraints upon what it means to be a feminist. Not me.
Since you seem to understand that there is no feminist requirement, then why did you claim it was hypocritical? That was your primary argument.

And I stand by my arguments. Maybe her accomplishments are impressive when compared with Average Joe American, but when we're talking about presidential level politics, it's a different set of criteria we're looking at.

The problem was that it was a complete non-sequitor simply meant to attack Clinton. Not being 100% self-made isnt corruption. So why was that your go-to argument for painting a corrupt Clinton? Particularly when it is just as true of most people, let alone politicians.

Your argument that her accomplishments were simply due to her husband (and you added father later) was really a slap in the face— and paints a depressingly false picture. This sort of perception is exactly what feminists fight against.

It's not an "allegation," as if she's guilty of a crime. It's an impression based on the visible evidence. Others had that impression too, and that's what it appeared as. You may not like it that people have had that impression, and you may think it's totally unfair that people were mean to poor old Hillary. But this is politics, man. Welcome to America.

Again, you used it as an argument for her corruption. How is it corrupt?

The trouble is that you only see what you want to see. This illustrates a large problem with Democrats in general and why they've been so out of touch with the rest of America. When you say "I have yet to see," that's only because you don't want to see.

For someone so sensitive to personal attacks, you sure like to dish it out.

What attacks? I posted in response to the OP in post #32. You were the one who chose to initiate interaction with me in the very next post, not for any other particular reason other than you were apparently upset because I made comments about Hillary. And in that post, only part of it was about Hillary; you didn't even bother to address any of the other points I made.

You attacked my integrity and intelligence when you claimed I was simply talking about you and not addressing your arguments. I spent a lot of time on those arguments. I don’t appreciate being misrepresented.

Why would I address things I don’t care about? You are not owed to have every single thing you write addressed.

It wasn't a "rant about Hillary." I was only addressing points which were brought up in the OP article. That was it. You, on the other hand, seem to be looking around for any and all "blasphemy" against Hillary just so you can go on the attack. You're the one who was looking for a fight here, not me. I just commented on the OP article, and you just came charging out from left field for no apparent reason, other than that you were obviously upset because I dared to blaspheme against Hillary.

The article was primarily about Trump’s corruption. Funny how little you had to say about him, and his affairs, and his inheritance of his daddy’s money and business, and his political opportunism.

You didn’t address anything the article said about Hillary. The article mentioned Hilary to highlight the difficulty women politicians have with conservatives— since they see feminism, and reversal of gender norms, and women in power as inherently corrupt.

It’s like you just saw the name “Clinton” and couldn’t help the disgust that just bubbled Forth.

The only relation your rant had to the article was how clearly it proved it’s point.

See, there you go again. "Latent misogyny"? Instead of simply addressing whatever "errors" you think I made (which you never really did, btw), you instead chose to make it about me, trying to project some sort of insidious motive behind my comments. You simply can't accept what I say at face value and address it on that level. Instead, you have to try to read my mind and guess at what I might be feeling. I consider this to be an unacceptable tack, and yet, you use this tactic over and over and over.

Seriously, if someone was making racist arguments, do you think it would be wrong to call them racist arguments?

I’m going to call a spade a spade. Your arguments display Misogyny. That’s not an attack on you— it’s an attack on your arguments. I don’t know if you are a misogynist or not— most likely you just aren’t aware of how they sound. but calling your arguments misogynistic is no more insidious than calling them fallacious or what-have-you.

 

[Stevicus]

So... you didn’t read a single thing I wrote.


I’ve asked you to clarify on multiple occasions and you haven’t taken the opportunity.

You seemed to clearly link Hillary’s supposed corruption with her decision to remain with Bill.
If that wasn’t your argument then why did you bring it up in a thread about corruption?

You were the one claiming it was hypocritical for a feminist to stay with her cheating husband. Not me. You put the constraints upon what it means to be a feminist. Not me.
Since you seem to understand that there is no feminist requirement, then why did you claim it was hypocritical? That was your primary argument.


The problem was that it was a complete non-sequitor simply meant to attack Clinton. Not being 100% self-made isnt corruption. So why was that your go-to argument for painting a corrupt Clinton? Particularly when it is just as true of most people, let alone politicians.

Your argument that her accomplishments were simply due to her husband (and you added father later) was really a slap in the face— and paints a depressingly false picture. This sort of perception is exactly what feminists fight against.

Again, you used it as an argument for her corruption. How is it corrupt?


For someone so sensitive to personal attacks, you sure like to dish it out.

You attacked my integrity and intelligence when you claimed I was simply talking about you and not addressing your arguments. I spent a lot of time on those arguments. I don’t appreciate being misrepresented.

Why would I address things I don’t care about? You are not owed to have every single thing you write addressed.


The article was primarily about Trump’s corruption. Funny how little you had to say about him, and his affairs, and his inheritance of his daddy’s money and business, and his political opportunism.

You didn’t address anything the article said about Hillary. The article mentioned Hilary to highlight the difficulty women politicians have with conservatives— since they see feminism, and reversal of gender norms, and women in power as inherently corrupt.

It’s like you just saw the name “Clinton” and couldn’t help the disgust that just bubbled Forth.

The only relation your rant had to the article was how clearly it proved it’s point.


Seriously, if someone was making racist arguments, do you think it would be wrong to call them racist arguments?

I’m going to call a spade a spade. Your arguments display Misogyny. That’s not an attack on you— it’s an attack on your arguments. I don’t know if you are a misogynist or not— most likely you just aren’t aware of how they sound. but calling your arguments misogynistic is no more insidious than calling them fallacious or what-have-you.

Look, it's been a week or more since we've had any discussion on this topic. I guess you might have been away, so welcome back. At this point, I've lost the flow of the discussion and I don't really feel like backtracking and reviewing who said what about what and in what context.

On some issues, we can agree to disagree. I'll just chalk it up to "you say pot-ay-to, I say pot-ah-to" and leave it at that.

I'm not necessarily too concerned with what you think of me personally or how you would choose to pigeonhole my arguments or my overall position. I don't believe my initial post was a "rant about Hillary," and in fact, that whole part was more of an afterthought than anything else.

But even if it was a "rant about Hillary," why does it matter? You like Hillary, and that's fine. I don't like Hillary or her husband. I think they've been a pair of opportunistic phonies since day one. I didn't like them even during the Democratic primaries in '92. I've never kept that a secret around here.

Another point I should make, at least in the interest of clarification, is to tell you where I'm coming from with a lot of what I say in terms of my observations. What I've observed among certain politicians, even in America where we eschew the idea of a "cult of personality," we still have shades of "cultish" followers of certain politicians. I recognized it with Reagan and the "Ronnie Robots" one would encounter rather frequently.

I don't know if they were just dazzled by his charisma or just a lot of hype from political hucksters, but it's something that I could never really understand or relate to. I can understand agreeing with a politician's stances and even supporting a politician, but I couldn't see anything truly spectacular about the guy as to deserve that degree of adulation and blind worship. The man could do no wrong in the eyes of his followers - and there were a lot of questionable things that happened during his Administration.

I guess what baffled me is that some politicians might truly inspire and exude a certain greatness in statesmanship and leadership. Lincoln, Washington, FDR, JFK. To me, Reagan was more like Millard Fillmore - maybe not the worst president we've ever had, but far from the greatest.

So, all the gushing and hero worship over Reagan was truly disturbing to me. It's like people showing me a naked man and trying to convince me that he's wearing clothes. I was convinced that the country was gripped by mass insanity.

After Reagan was out, I noticed that Bush never really had the same staying power that Reagan had, so he only lasted one term. But then came Bill and Hillary Clinton, who also somehow developed a similarly "cultish" following of a different kind, although with many parallels, including adulation and blind worship. Among Democrats, that's kind of unheard of.

I would observe that Trump seems to have developed a rather "cultish" following of his own, and I recognized it similarly among Hillary supporters during the last election. I mentioned feminism mainly because I saw a number of feminists extolling her as some kind of "hero," but in the overall context and background, I saw it more as worshiping a "false hero."

I'm not saying it constitutes direct evidence of corruption, but I will say that I have grown wary and suspicious of the kind of "hero worship" (or "anti-hero worship") in politics.

This is politics. It's not a sporting event. These are politicians. They are not to be worshiped or followed blindly under any circumstances.

They should be treated accordingly and judged with wariness and skepticism by a vigilant and informed electorate.

Of course, that never happens in elections, so yes, it does kind of bother me to the point where I will make "rants" against politicians from time to time.

I'm sorry if that bothers you. It's certainly nothing personal against you. I don't even know you.