OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Is that all you got?

Nah. Sane conservatives can stay.

This post isn't any more appropriate than the endless "Show us the BC" being posted by the mindless haters. It's certainly not tolerant, and definitely overgeneralizes, lumping all conservatives in with the intellectually-challenged. Yes, they are acting like children, but they are not representative of conservatives as a whole.

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

Just for you reomigrant

bipolar disorder, formerly manic-depressive disorder or manic-depression, severe mental disorder involving manic episodes that are usually accompanied by episodes of depression depression, in psychiatry, a symptom of mood disorder characterized by intense feelings of loss, sadness, hopelessness, failure, and rejection. The two major types of mood disorder are unipolar disorder, also called major depression, and bipolar disorder, whose

..... Click the link for more information. . The term "manic-depression" was introduced by the German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin Kraepelin, Emil (krĕpəlēn`), 1856–1926, German psychiatrist, educated at Würzburg (M.D., 1878).

..... Click the link for more information. in 1896. The manic phase of the disorder is characterized by an abnormally elevated or irritable mood, grandiosity, sleeplessness, extravagance, and a tendency toward irrational judgment. During the depressed phase, the person tends to appear lethargic and withdrawn, shows a lack of concentration, and expresses feelings of worthlessness, self-blame, and guilt. This dual character of the disorder has given it the name bipolar disorder, in contrast to the unipolar depression symptomatic of the majority of mood disorders. The symptoms range in intensity and pattern and may not be recognized at first. Individuals suffering from bipolar disorder may have long periods in their lives without episodes of mania or depression, but manic-depressives have the highest suicide rate of any group with a psychological disorder.

When I was a child, and I acted like a spoiled 5 year old and I whined and stamped my feet and DEMANDED attention because I didn’t get my way…my parents sent me to my room. And I’d holler and wail and stamp my feet until I realized that I would not be invited back to participate with the adults and have my voice heard until I changed my behavior and quit acting like an ass.

I could stamp my feet all I wanted, and nobody cared…because I was acting like a rotten little creep and no one wanted me around. When I got tired of being excluded from adult conversation I told my parents I was sorry and that I was ready to be a part of the discussion again.

We would talk and I would express my needs and they would listen. Sometimes I would get the things I’d ask for and sometimes they would explain to me why I wasn’t going to get things the way I wanted them, but they would be respectful and consider my wants.

It’s time for “birther” conservatives to be sent to their room and ignored. To be left out of the conversation by the adults until they are willing to quit making demands and screaming and stomping their feet…to be sent to their rooms until they are willing to work WITH their family members to make a pleasant, peaceful and respectful home for all of us…instead of dominating the environment with selfish, childish pettiness.

It's time to stop making generalizations about people who disagree with you. Bashing "conservatives" is incredibly childish and turns you into the very thing you are attempting to mock. Grow up.

Twitchy, you said:

"Yes, they are acting like children, but they are not representative of conservatives as a whole."

I'm sorry twitchy, but they ARE representative of conservatives as a whole. They really ARE!

There is absolutely nothing I love MORE than engaging an intelligent, educated, critical thinking conservative on conserative policies. I crush them EVERY time, because conservative policies are INDEFENSABLE without resorting to straw man arguments and name calling and hyperbole and obfuscation and omission and denial and rationalisation.

And when someone can recognize these tactics and call them out for what they are, conservative arguments fall apart.

A conservative who has self awareness and intelligence and is not too insecure and threatened to discuss issues as an adult and examine their own views without falling back on these childish tactics is a liberal...they just haven't figured it out yet.

It has been YEARS since I have found ANY conservative willing to do that. I certainly have not found them here.

OK, aosterhout:

Just for you...just this once. I won't call you childish, and I'll treat you with respect.

Now name me one convervative issue you think you can defend in a rational way, as an adult, with facts, without resorting to any of the debating tactics that I just laid out and let's have an adult discusion.

But if you go back to being a crybaby you have to go back to your romm for a timeout until you can behave like an adult again.

luvwith is typical of the brainwashed college kid that just got a degree and now thingks he is intelligent. Though, he may be younger than that.

I have met many liberals that know how to think and I know many conservatives that know how to think, and to have an intelligent conversation with either is always interesting. However, luvwith is not a liberal that knows how to think based upon the things I read up here that he has written. Instead, he is one that throws stones and then hides behind his "luvwith" handle.

luvwith, before you call conservatives names for voicing their opinions, maybe you should head over to moveon.org and the huffington post and look at how liberals there whine and moan and scream and emote about the things they disagree with. Its ok with me if they want to they do that, but then, I believe in free speech. Its obvious from your posts that you don't.

You are quick to point out the faults in conservatives but then you overlook the same thing happening on the liberal side of things.

Quit trying to shut down the voice of others with illogical arguments and psuedo intellectualism. You have free speech, so do they.

So after all of that childishness, what conservative policy did you advocate? GO TO YOUR ROOM!

List of Improper Debating Tactics, AVOID THESE.

- Ad hominem. Latin for "at the man". This is a debating tactic that attacks the arguer and not the argument. PLEASE, debate the words that people post, not your idea ABOUT the person that posts. e.g., "member x is a liberal so his objections to the Iraqi war will obviously be unfounded," or ,"member x is a conservative, so he is obviously a warmonger". More directly, "Mr. Smith is an imbecile, therefore all of his arguments are false."

To ricardomigrant...

I'll be damned if I ever shut up my voice because you cannot tolerate the things other people say. I fought many many years ago to preserve your right and the right of all Americans to speak free ly. I lost a lot of blood fighting against a country that wanted to take our freedoms away and I'll be damned if I will stand still while someone like you that that lacks any tolerance trys to shut the voice of those he disagrees with.

WHO CARES if someone up here says something you don't agree with?

Why do you want to take away their right to protest or look stupid?

Why do you think it is good to muzzle the voices of those who disagree with you?

I never understand why people like you are so incredibly intolerant of ideas that conflict with your own!

What the hell are you afraid of?

It is their right to say what they want to say. And I admit its your right to disagree with them to your heart's content, but you are not just disagreeing with them, you are asking that they be BANNED altogether! Are you really serious?

If that is truly your wish, it shows the rest of us up here what you are made of.

Free speech is for everyone, no one has an exclusive right to it.

I like free speech. I'm not particularly interested in having my time wasted if someone is not going to advocate thier own position or even state a position they advocate.

People have been calling all kinds of names here...but still not one person here has advocated a coservative policy and defended it.

What are YOU GUYS afraid of?

luvwith - you obviously have not 1 idea. Just sit there and keep attacking and hiding behind your little keyboard.

ricardomigrant, it was Hillary who once said "dissent is patriotic" If by work together, you mean acquiesce to every demand and desire the liberals have, to roll over and accept and embrace ideologies destructive and alien to America then I have no intention to put up and shut up. The vaunted "mandate for change" entails only 53% of the country (including bogus ACORN votes). That means at least 47% of the country (plus a growing number of those who were caught up in the feeling and moment of making history).

He is getting ready to tax health-benefits (which his campaign eviscerated McCain for allegedly wanting to do), he has spent trillions of dollars we do not have, and we are well on the way to multi-generational bankruptcy.

We will stand up, we will dissent and we will oppose with the ballot, with the internet, with the speech and every other legit means of discourse in this still great country.

Rather than wasting time trying to decide who argues better or worse, why not discuss an issue and demonstrate the appropriate skills? The Liberal" and "Conservative" views should be easy to recognize. The respectively categorized participants can address the appropriate comments and ignore the inappropriate ones.

How about debating an unemotional issue, such as whether or not it is legal/right/smart to set aside the laws prioritizing the legally superior property rights of bond holders, choosing instead to prioritize the legally subordinate property rights of stock holders (or even NON-stockholders, like Union members)in dealing with the debt structure and future ownership proportions for General Motors?

That will give luvwith and others on both side the opportunity to pick and choose what to react to and discuss while shoeing the superiority of the libersal or conservative position without ranting, pouting, foot stomping, name calling, hyperbole, straw men, obfuscation, etc.

By the way, some discussion is valuable not just in order to "crush" the opposition but to have the opportunity to listen, convionce, persuade or even learn.

Sorry, too, luvwith, but I've had plenty of reasoned discussions with conservatives, and I've had plenty of discussions with self-proclaimed liberals who could do nothing but resort to "straw man arguments and name calling and hyperbole and obfuscation and omission and denial and rationalisation". I've even had rational discussions with Christians. It's 'believers', of all persuasions that tend to be the problem. Unfortunately, conservatives don't have a monopoly on childish behavior and beliefs. Neither do liberals have a lock on rationality.

wmdavis53,

This has got nothing to do with free speech. It's more analogous to being in a crowded restaurant when half a dozen people get up and start screaming at the top of their lungs. Bitching about strawman issues like Obama's birth certificate is not even close to the purpose of this site. They're not exercising their free speech so much as they're interfering with everyone else's.

libturds are the ones who act childish silly idiot,dont you realize that,they dont care about anything but themseves and who is gonna do for them,like little selfish kids who want it their way or they get upset and pitch a fit

To Twitchy... Sorry, when you are trying to "Ban conservative posters" that IS a free speech issue. The topic idea was not to ban a particular set of issues because someone thinks conservatives are beating it to death. The topic idea was to ban a particular group from speaking.

To use your analogy, banning conservative posters would be the same as not permitting them to even step foot in the restaurant in the first place. Its not about what they "might" say, its about people not wanting them even be able to enter the building.

Here is something that will bother many who read this... but in my opinion over my lifetime and through my studies I have learned that its seems every generation has a group of people that become the bigots of that generation. In my opinion and from my observation, especially in the halls of education, the liberals of this generation hold that moniker. They will not allow free speech if they do not like the subject. They are the first to label someone a racist. They do not want certain subjects to be taught in schools.

Liberals today are the thought police. Play by their rules or you are labeled something or other.

I am sorry but I do not agree with people that would ban conservatives or liberals from entering into the arena of ideas.

I am for free speech, even if it offends some people.

We have a whole generation of weak minds that get bent out of shape rather easily. It matters not if its about bashing Bush about WMDs or bashing Obama about his birth certificate. Each ome will offend somebody.

Bashing Bush and calling him a liar is free speech and should be allowed. And it happened by the barrel full when he was in office. Now the other side is bashing Obama. That is fine with me. I think its healthy and part of what makes America great.

Banning either one of the groups from being allowed to speak is tyranny.

"luvwith - you obviously have not 1 idea. Just sit there and keep attacking and hiding behind your little keyboard."

You say I don't have one idea...and then you claim I am attack YOU. Don't you see the irony in that at ALL? The level of ignorance is astounding.

OK here's an idea. Lets regulate wall street and enfore the environmental laws that Bush ignored his entire time in office.

OK? There's an idea. Either give me some facts about why that's a bad idea or come up with one of your own that YOU are capable of defending.

If you come up with a fair criticism of my idea I'll listen and accept your viewpoint of disprove it.

Now let's hear your idea.

americana:

"If by work together, you mean acquiesce to every demand and desire the liberals have, to roll over and accept and embrace ideologies destructive and alien to America"

OK here is where you insert the ideologies that are "alien" to America in order to bolster your argument...next...

then I have no intention to put up and shut up. The vaunted "mandate for change" entails only 53% of the country (including bogus ACORN votes).

OK, this is a bogus debate tactic called:

- Slippery slope. The idea that one action will lead to a secondary effect that is not a direct cause of the original action. "If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to stop abortions of full-term infants", or, "The state should allow abortion in even the ninth month because otherwise, they will be telling us what we can't do around the time of conception." Both suggested changes are effects of an effect. There is no reason to believe either conclusion.

Employees were contracted by Acorn who were paid by the signature. They were accused of REGISTERING people who didn't exist so THE INDIVIDUALS could make more MONEY! Not a single fraudulent vote by Acorn was ever proved to have been cast...not a single one. If there had been, it would have been the lead story of every FOX show for a MONTH! So you can be pretty sure that doesn't exist.

On the other hand THE STATE GOVERNMENT in Florida purged 40,000 registrations in heavily democratic, minority COUNTIES. If it was a statewide problem requiring the intervention of THE STATE GOVERNMENT then why was it only done in some counties and not others?

There, I have proven the ACORN argument bogus. It is no longer an issue, right. OH, HELL NO!!

These knuckle draggers just saw me PROVE that the ACORN stuff is a bunch of BULL! So we'll never see any of these clowns weeping about ACORN anymore right? Give me a break. These guy won't wait 5 minute before they're back spewing the crap I just proved was BOGUS...The people don't care about truth.

"That means at least 47% of the country (plus a growing number of those who were caught up in the feeling and moment of making history)."

US? You voted for HUSSEIN?

"He is getting ready to tax health-benefits (which his campaign eviscerated McCain for allegedly wanting to do), he has spent trillions of dollars"

Let me guess. You're one of those "principled conservatives" who thought it was just terrible how bush spent all that money fighting "Tarrarism" right?

"we do not have, and we are well on the way to multi-generational bankruptcy."

Every single republican since Nixon has run record deficits. Every single one. Not a single democratic administration has done so during the same period. Argument OVER! YOU LOSE.

Will you admit that republicans run higher deficits and manage government LESS efficiently than democrats now that I have verifiable proof that it is so? Hell no!!!

You think it's not true because you don't want it to be true and conservatives only believe facts that bolster THEIR arguments.

So will you and all the other knuckleheads here stop whining about the deficit and accept responsibility or else go look at the statistics and prove me wrong? NOPE! You'll be right back at it on the next post. You don't care if you're right. You just don't care.

"We will stand up, we will dissent and we will oppose with the ballot, with the internet, with the speech and every other legit means of discourse in this still great country."

OK, we know you are against Obama...but can you put even ONE issue on the table that is part of the conservative platform that you are capable of defending? JUST ONE!

Twitchy:

I've posted ideas. I've defended them rationally. I've engaged...and I've gotten not one serious intellectual argument from even ONE single conservative here out of hundreds I have engaged.

If you believe what you say...then YOU be the guy who engages as an adult. Give us the one conservative issue YOU believe you can defend under scrutiny. Or else resign yourself to the fact that conservative ideology is factually and intellectually bankrupt as I have.

wmdavis:

You seem very confused as too what the liberal position on free speech is. I'll spell it out for you with emphasis on the key words so that even a conservative will understand. It goes like this:

GOVERNMENT shall not pass any LAWS abridging the freedom of speech.

That doesn't mean that if you call a black person a ni&&er in front of me I'm not going to get in your face and call you an ignorant piece of crap, and it doesn't mean that if you walk into a college biology class and say the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaur bones are a commie plot to undermine the Bible, that you are not going to be ostracized and have people think your a kook.

No one is going to look you up for believing the way you do, but it is our right to use the freedom of speech to ridicule you for being ignorant retard. And liberals don't think that right should go away either.

The founding fathers lived in a world where political discussion where people gathered in the town square to talk about politics. It was not possible for and single entity to control the debate to the extent that it is today.

The first amendment worked because every voice had the chance to be heard, and the ones who made the best argument won the day.

We have a dangerous, self-destructive situation in which the corporate media can drown out any person giving better solutions to world problems just by sheer volume of repetition of weak ideas. There is no ability for the best ideas to come out.

When was the last time you heard a libertarian on TV, how about a green party official, how about a natural law party representative, an anarchist? a socialist? (I mean a real one?) a communist? When was the last time you got the point of view of a fascist?

Why are we so afraid of theses voices? If our ideas are better, then having them voice their thoughts should not threaten us so. If our ideas are not better, maybe we will incorporate some better ideas into our platform to make them stand up to the light of scrutiny and debate.

This is why the conservative movement is so abrasive...so ham-handed...so cave-manish. They are afraid and angry. They can't defend the failed ideology but are not mature enough to really explore which aspects of conservatism are worth salvaging and which belong on the trashpile of history. That demands self examination in place of finger pointing...it demands seeing shades of grey and not just black and white.

wmdavis53,

Yeah, I think the "ban conservative posters" is over the top. But then you get wannabes like phylmike34 who don't provide anything useful, just barf all over everything.

I wouldn't exclude any particular group. But this site is supposed to be here for a specific purpose, and posts outside that purpose should be made elsewhere. And all the bull about BO's birth certificate belongs somewhere else, mostly because it is bull.

While I agree with you that way too many liberals are bigots, the same is true of too many conservatives. Generally, the farther away you get from the middle, the higher the proportion of concrete-brained bigots.

phylmike34:

"libturds are the ones who act childish silly idiot,dont you realize that,they dont care about anything but themseves and who is gonna do for them,like little selfish kids who want it their way or they get upset and pitch a fit"

Wow! Where does one begin with the ignorance there. Way to inspire bipartisanship and respect.

"libturds are the ones who act childish silly idiot,"

Dude I almost feel bad for you. Are you a little slow?

Oh, wait..you're a kid aren't you. Nevermind. You're probably 10 years old and that age appropriate grammar for you. Keep trying son. You'll be able to write soon. Don't give up.

And if you are older than ten there's nothing to be ashamed of about riding on the little bus, you just keep on truckin' and no more eating pennies OK?

luvwith,

As I said, I don't think this is the appropriate forum for such a discussion. And it would have to be on a topic where I actually support a more-or-less conservative position. I'm more of a moderate with a bit of a lean to the libertarian side. Got anywhere that you prefer?

But, to briefly address one of your points, every Republican administration since WWII, right up until Shrub, had to deal with a Democratic Congress, with very minor exceptions. While very Democratic administration, up until Clinton's last two years, had to deal only with...a Democratic Congress. And Clinton's last two years were two of his best, though I tend to believe that that's only because the Republicans got elected based on the Contract with America, and they had to make at least a token effort to follow through, or lose the next election.

Would having to deal with a mostly hostile Congress most of the time help explain their lower performance?

Twitchy:

Sure. That explains everything. It explains why all the conservative presidents presided over only moderately disasterous, stagnant, low-growth, high unemployment economies, and not a complete meltdown of the world economy that 8 years of George Bush got us.

Like the Carter economy? 7;-]

Also, note that the Democrats held Congress for Bush's last two years, and did nothing to even slow down the disaster. Which, BTW, had its roots in the Clinton admin, though Shrub gave it way too much fertilizer.

You're overgeneralizing. And, as usual, there's plenty of blame to go around.

But, as I said, this isn't really the proper forum for this discussion. Is there someplace else you'd like to continue this?

Actually It think it was fixed ....the election.....Ii always have thought that

Obviously bloviators like Glen Beck and Limbaugh have sent their ditto-heads here in hoards to share their mistaken perspectives. In fact, like all good Right wingers, they probably intend to TAKE OVER! But let's not worry about them. They are merely unknowing, and may eventually arise out of their swoon. Let's hope so, anyway.

Naw, it was WND that sent all the birthers over here, to try and disrupt the legitimate functioning of the site.

But, hey, if you don't have the facts on your side, whine and pout.

xrxs1020,

Im sorry what do you mean by mistaken perspectives?

Anything I have seen from Mr Beck is acfactual and he shows you FACT SO YOU CAN SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES and not sure about Mr LIMBAUGH ,,,,,,havent hear anything from him in a while....If you look you will see...I use to have a lot of liberal friends and they actually will believe that a red carpet is green if a democrat or main strem media tells them so....Not sure where you get your info ..Hope you dont get sucked in anymore .....

Gypsy, here's one small example of Beck's disconnection from reality.

In a recent piece, Beck claims Obama has "unprecedented power with virtually no oversight." This is hyperbole, and it's hysterical. Why? Anyone who knows anything knows that the real movers and shakers in America are the mega, transnational corporations whom Obama must deal with, and his chances are very iffy as to whether or not he can prevail. Why do you think medical care is such a huge issue? Because the insurance lobby doesn't want to allow a single-payer plan. Why? Because it would be vastly cheaper, people will flock to it, and then guys like William McGuire wouldn't be able to reap 1.78 Billion dollar bonuses for his stellar "work." These Fat Cats are fighting tooth and nail. It's likely they will prevail, or allow a watered down compromise, which will be a victory for the corporation.

In light of this reality, how much "unprecedented power with virtually no oversight" does Obama really have?

Beck et al are all about whipping up hysteria, and their lack of concern for facts is stunning.

Libs tend to be analytical types who favor "REALITY." But the ditto-heads generally tend to believe what they want to believe, facts be damned, and I just gave you one small example of that.

xrxs1020,

'Some' liberals "tend to be analytical types who favor 'REALITY'". Many are just emotional, near basket cases when confronted with true reality.

But the birthers are just sheep, following their partisan masters into fantasyland. They're really not much different from liberals in that way.