Your thoughts on this conversation with an Obama supporter? [Archive]

Reason

12-03-2009, 02:48 PM

My Email

Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/transcript-president-obamas-afghanistan-speech/) |
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict" (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/29/se.02.html)
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/transcript-president-obamas-afghanistan-speech/) |
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks" (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080213.html)
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/transcript-president-obamas-afghanistan-speech/) |
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined" (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/images/20081215-1_d-0137-5-515h.html)
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/transcript-president-obamas-afghanistan-speech/) |
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle" (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030517.html)
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/transcript-president-obamas-afghanistan-speech/) |
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either" (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html)

His Response

Wait.
Am I supposed to conclude that
--because some of the same phrases are used--
that the goals of the Obama administration
are the same as those of the Bush neocons?

I mean, that IS what's being implied, right?

My Response

you could just combine it with his identical actions.

His Response

I guess I'm just hung up on the
inherent attempt to deceive.

My Response

No need to deceive when actions are clearly visible.

His Response

I would say that anyone who can't tell the difference
between Obama objectives and the neocons is not
very bright.

Anyone who DOES understand the difference,
but attempts to make them SEEM equivalent,
is not very honest.

Dumb or dishonest...not two of my fav things...

My Response

The point is that he is continuing the same misguided foreign policy in Afghanistan that the neocons started so he deserves no more respect than they do in regard to this area.

Do you support Bush's patriot act?

Why not?

What do you think of people who support the Patriot Act?

Do you know that Obama voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act?

Does knowing that change your opinion of him?

Why not?

Do you think we should send more troops to Afg?

Why?

What are the fundamental differences between Obama and Bush on Foreign policy ACTIONS (not rhetoric), as you see it?

Also, note that I am not claiming Bush was better than Obama, you know who I voted for, and this video does a decent job of demonstrating the difference between him and Obama.

YouTube - The Difference: Barack Obama & Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8)

ClayTrainor

12-03-2009, 02:58 PM

Anyone who DOES understand the difference,
but attempts to make them SEEM equivalent,
is not very honest.

He's trying to act intellectually and/or morally superior to you. He's claiming the high ground, by default, by writing you off as dishonest or an idiot. It's time for you to challenge him on his own assertions.

This is a good position for you to be in, in terms of debate strategy, imo. You already have him attacking you. Embrace the position of ignorance, and start asking him some fundamental questions like...

What are the fundamental differences between Obama and Bush on Foreign policy, as you see it? I guarantee you this guys positions are full of holes, and once you get him talking, in depth, he will be easy to deconstruct using the socratic method.

Just my 2 cents.

Good job so far.

SelfTaught

12-03-2009, 03:02 PM

The Long Legged Mac Daddy Strikes Again.

hillertexas

12-03-2009, 03:07 PM

My humble opinion:

I would start asking questions rather than talking "at him". Get his tiny brain working.

Why is Obama different?

Right now, the O Supporter seems unengaged. And he actually has you on the defensive.

Trap him with questions like..."Do you support Bush's patriot act? Why not? What do you think of people who support the Patriot Act? Do you know that Obama voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act? Does knowing that change your opinion of him? Why not? Do you think we should send more troops to Afg? Why? ....blah, blah, blah. Liberals get into trouble when they have to start justifying their talking points.

Making them answer questions forces them to actually work stuff out. I swear it's like talking to a mental patient. Let them explain.

I usually play dumb...like I am really interested in getting those questions answered....and I play it nice (really nice) so they have nothing to do but hang themselves with their own rope. Oh, and I usually always say that I am open to being wrong.....
...basically I handle them with kid gloves. And make them do all the talking.

But that is just my strategery.

Brian4Liberty

12-03-2009, 03:12 PM

Ask them to list the top ten specific (and substantial) differences between Bush and Obama policies/actions...

Reason

12-03-2009, 03:13 PM

okay, I sent this,

Do you support Bush's patriot act?

Why not?

What do you think of people who support the Patriot Act?

Do you know that Obama voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act?

Does knowing that change your opinion of him?

Why not?

Do you think we should send more troops to Afg?

Why?

What are the fundamental differences between Obama and Bush on Foreign policy ACTIONS (not rhetoric), as you see it?

Also, note that I am not claiming Bush was better than Obama, you know who I voted for, and this video does a decent job of demonstrating the difference between him and Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8)v=PVKSfwfy0h8

Todd

12-03-2009, 03:19 PM

Ask him if he was for the surge?

After he says "No", remind him that the Iraq surge was a bit above 20,000 troops. Less than the same friggin' strategy that Messiah is going to send to Afghanistan.

ClayTrainor

12-03-2009, 03:22 PM

okay, I sent this,

Do you support Bush's patriot act?

Why not?

What do you think of people who support the Patriot Act?

Do you know that Obama voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act?

Does knowing that change your opinion of him?

Why not?

Do you think we should send more troops to Afg?

Why?

What are the fundamental differences between Obama and Bush on Foreign policy ACTIONS (not rhetoric), as you see it?

Also, note that I am not claiming Bush was better than Obama, you know who I voted for, and this video does a decent job of demonstrating the difference between him and Obama.

YouTube - The Difference: Barack Obama & Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8)v=PVKSfwfy0h8[/URL]
http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/applause.gif

This will be interesting... keep us updated :)

idirtify

12-03-2009, 04:02 PM

that the goals of the Obama administration
are the same as those of the Bush neocons?
I mean, that IS what's being implied, right?
---------------------

Wrong. First, nothing is being “implied”; the direct quotes are hard evidence. Second, the quotes only establish that goals are SIMILAR; not “the same”. Thirdly, the quotes only establish that SOME goals are similar; not all.

----------------------
I guess I'm just hung up on the
inherent attempt to deceive.
----------------------

Me too. That’s the point of the email. It evidences Obama’s deception regarding his campaign promises of “change”. If you truly value honesty, then you surely see that Obama’s words were the original deception; not me emailing them to you.

---------------------
I would say that anyone who can't tell the difference
between Obama objectives and the neocons is not
very bright.

Anyone who DOES understand the difference,
but attempts to make them SEEM equivalent,
is not very honest.

Dumb or dishonest...not two of my fav things...
--------------------

The quotes are exibit A and PROVE SIMILARITY. It is curious that you imply dishonesty on my part, yet ignore how the evidence in the message proves Obama’s dishonesty.

Romulus

12-03-2009, 04:16 PM

As him if he supported the Bush doctrine?
Does he know that the Obama admin now does?

LibForestPaul

12-03-2009, 06:18 PM

His Response

I would say that anyone who can't tell the difference
between Obama objectives and the neocons is not
very bright.

Anyone who DOES understand the difference,
but attempts to make them SEEM equivalent,
is not very honest.

Dumb or dishonest...not two of my fav things...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Does he always use logical fallacies?

dannno

12-03-2009, 06:39 PM

Has he responded yet?

Epic

12-03-2009, 06:44 PM

Show him the Rove editorial in WSJ

Civilradiant_palm_pre

12-03-2009, 06:47 PM

Has he responded yet?

not yet

PreDeadMan

12-03-2009, 09:05 PM

ask him how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop... then ask him where is the so called change this obama character proposed? seems like a 3rd term bush to me ;)

Dianne

12-03-2009, 10:54 PM

There is no difference between George Bush and Barak Obama; other than one is an illegal alien and the other "Bush" is just an alien.

Neither one of those two would have been elected under any circumsance unless there was a greater scheme to put them in place.

Now really... anyone... in your wildest dreams would there ever have been an election between an African illegal alien (Obama) versus a total retard and fluncky like John McCain? If you don't see the set up yet, don't know what it will take for you to wake up. How does the United States of America put forth as presidential nominees, two jokers? Where those the two best choices out of this entire country.................. HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOO .. Did anyone really like either of those candidates? HELLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....

Last presidential election brought to you by the United Nations... the chosen ones for their benefit... An African illegal immigrant goes toe to toe with a complete white haired, flushed american failure, John McCain. Pick your poison america... the illegal immigrant unproven, versus McCain, proven failure.

Wonder who they are scheming on at this moment. Wonder who they will create as the next distraction next election.

newbitech

12-03-2009, 10:58 PM

i would ask which is he, dumb or dishonest because clearly he does not see the difference because the fact is,

THERE IS NONE.

That's just me tho.

jlaker

12-03-2009, 11:49 PM

The Long Legged Mac Daddy Strikes Again.
LOL! Too funny.

idirtify

12-04-2009, 12:18 AM

Reason

12-04-2009, 12:33 AM

Just got a response

"even if I DIDN'T have far too much to do
tonight, I'm not sure I'd want to spend much time
on those questions: I make it a practice (most of the time)
not to argue with folks who are already
entrenched. You clearly believe in this odd little man.

Not sure which was funniest, re. the silly YouTube video:
that "libertarian" Paul doesn't mention his unlibertarian
anti-choice position, or that--as we're days from 2010--
it concludes with a pitch for you to vote for him...in 2008.
Something fitting about that.
Old man. Old ideas."

AtomiC

12-04-2009, 12:53 AM

jclay2

12-04-2009, 01:19 AM

Lol he's ducking your questions it seems.

Just ask him simply, "Why do you support Obama?" I don't think he can come up with a good answer to that, and if so it can easily be debunked.

I agree with you on that. I just can't stand arguing against ignorant people like this that duck every single question thrown at them. Like someone said earlier in the thread, you have to talk to these people like their mental patients.

Free Moral Agent

12-04-2009, 02:57 AM

Great questions, but he's obviously trying to make an early exit by claiming that his time is too precious to answer an "overwhelming" amount of questions. In the future, I'd simplify it and leave it out the Ron Paul YouTube video. By reading his responses, I can tell this guy is a bitch yuppie.

ClayTrainor

12-04-2009, 06:39 AM

In the future, you should leave out the part about Ron Paul, when using the socratic method. It's important that you stay in the position of ignorance and not take any firm positions. by doing this he won't have anything firm to insult and distract himself with, other than his own positions. By expressing that you support and voted for Ron Paul, has given him an excuse to ignore all questions and use insults.

In my experience, it's very important to remain in the position of ignorance.

Other than that, this is how i would respond.

Just got a response

"even if I DIDN'T have far too much to do
tonight, I'm not sure I'd want to spend much time
on those questions: I make it a practice (most of the time)
not to argue with folks who are already
entrenched. You clearly believe in this odd little man.

Not sure which was funniest, re. the silly YouTube video:
that "libertarian" Paul doesn't mention his unlibertarian
anti-choice position, or that--as we're days from 2010--
it concludes with a pitch for you to vote for him...in 2008.
Something fitting about that.
Old man. Old ideas."

I'm here to learn from you not teach you.

Do you really expect me to believe that you're just "too busy"? You could've answered those questions in the same time it took you to insult Ron Paul and call me dumb. You're copping out the same way the neo-cons do, when I ask them honest questions about the Bush Doctrine. Can you at least be reasonable and not depend on insults and accusations, like they do?

The first e-mail was nothing but direct quotes from Bush and Obama. You respond by calling me dumb or dishonest, but did not provide a logical reason for these assertions. I followed up these insults by, asking you legitimate questions, which you avoided, and responded with insults towards an individual man. Did you notice that I never took the time to insult Obama or call you some kind of insult?

In other words, you do have time to respond, you just prefer insults and assumptions to logic and reason. You are responding in the exact same way Neo-cons do, when i debate them on foreign policy. All insults and accusations, no logic. Neo-cons make fun of Ron Paul too. Thanks for proving the point that neo-cons and Obama supporters like yourself, have the same mindset about war and use the same strategy to avoid debating the merits of it.

I expect a more sensible approach next time, otherwise you are essentially conceding my point and behaving like a typical neo-con.

Romulus

12-04-2009, 08:30 AM

easy... respond with this and leave RP out of it:

I would say that anyone who can't tell the difference
between Obama objectives and the neocons is not
very bright.

Can you enlighten me with the differences?

hillertexas

12-04-2009, 10:51 AM

wow.
Is this guy a friend of yours? I wonder if you could talk in person, if it would help. The focus has now turned to Ron Paul...so frustrating.

I feel like a car salesman..."What can I tell you that will get you to stop supporting Obama (get you into a car) TODAY?" ha

I really like how ClayTrainor suggest calling him out on his own tactics...i.e. "I see what you did there".

Grimnir Wotansvolk

12-04-2009, 11:01 AM

Nate

12-04-2009, 11:18 AM

He won't answer the questions because he is trying to remain in his blissful state of willful ignorance. This is what happens when people are forced into a state of cognitive dissonance by blindly supporting lying hypocritical politicians. I would respond with something like ClayTrainor's response then not waste too much more time debating with someone so intellectually dishonest they can't even stop lying to themselves.

Some Will, Some Won't, So What, NEXT!

Anti Federalist

12-04-2009, 11:25 AM

I don't see what you hope to get out of exchanges like this. Having tired old arguments with aggressive people who won't budge doesn't get anyone anywhere.

And even if you did change his mind, what does it matter? It's insignificant that one man is a violent imperialist when there are 100,000 more to take his place.

I agree.

Those with an open mind, seeking answers, will look and question, honestly, without guile or rancor, your positions and how you came to them.

Lacking that, trying to blast an entrenched mind from an entrenched position is as productive as trying to teach a pig to whistle.

beerista

12-04-2009, 11:25 AM

In the future, you should leave out the part about Ron Paul, when using the socratic method. It's important that you stay in the position of ignorance and not take any firm positions. by doing this he won't have anything firm to insult and distract himself with, other than his own positions. By expressing that you support and voted for Ron Paul, has given him an excuse to ignore all questions and use insults.

Exactly. You're already battling one entrenched but unsupportable position (his Obama-ness). Why create a second front for yourself?

In my experience, it's very important to remain in the position of ignorance.

Other than that, this is how i would respond.

I'm here to learn from you not teach you.

Do you really expect me to believe that you're just "too busy"? You could've answered those questions in the same time it took you to insult Ron Paul and call me dumb. You're copping out the same way the neo-cons do, when I ask them honest questions about the Bush Doctrine. Can you at least be reasonable and not depend on insults and accusations, like they do?

The first e-mail was nothing but direct quotes from Bush and Obama. You respond by calling me dumb or dishonest, but did not provide a logical reason for these assertions. I followed up these insults by, asking you legitimate questions, which you avoided, and responded with insults towards an individual man. Did you notice that I never took the time to insult Obama or call you some kind of insult?

In other words, you do have time to respond, you just prefer insults and assumptions to logic and reason. You are responding in the exact same way Neo-cons do, when i debate them on foreign policy. All insults and accusations, no logic. Neo-cons make fun of Ron Paul too. Thanks for proving the point that neo-cons and Obama supporters like yourself, have the same mindset about war and use the same strategy to avoid debating the merits of it.

I expect a more sensible approach next time, otherwise you are essentially conceding my point and behaving like a typical neo-con.

IMO, exactly the right approach. Well done, Clay.
OTOH, if this guy's a friend that you value for reasons other than discussing politics, this and almost any other approach that forces him to think about his own positions is almost certain to infuriate him. Whether that also alienates him beyond your friendship is for you to decide. When I used to like to argue more than I do now, I won a lot of arguments and several shouting matches, but very few converts and nearly lost a few friends. Now I argue a lot less and win a lot more converts. Funny how that works. Fine line, that, between an argument and a discussion.
I've got fishing buddies that I fish with and drinking buddies that I drink with and they're not all approachable about politics. They don't all have to be converted...

...at least not right away. :D

ClayTrainor

12-04-2009, 11:38 AM

I agree.

Those with an open mind, seeking answers, will look and question, honestly, without guile or rancor, your positions and how you came to them.

Lacking that, trying to blast an entrenched mind from an entrenched position is as productive as trying to teach a pig to whistle.

I hear what you're saying, but this guy is a friend of CR's, and friends are often worth the time investment, if there is a degree of mutual respect.

I have a lot of friends that have been coming around to my views over the years, and it has all to do with the way I approach them.

I've got fishing buddies that I fish with and drinking buddies that I drink with and they're not all approachable about politics. They don't all have to be converted...

...at least not right away. :D

Exactly! You gotta plant seeds, in a kind and humble manner. Ask the right questions, and don't waste too much time debating "specifics and statistics".... It's always up to them in the end, though.

I used to be a hard-headed Michael Moore fan, so who knows who can be converted. :)

Anti Federalist

12-04-2009, 11:46 AM

I hear what you're saying, but this guy is a friend of CR's, and friends are often worth the time investment, if there is a degree of mutual respect.

I have a lot of friends that have been coming around to my views over the years, and it has all to do with the way I approach them.

I scrolled back through this thread, but I didn't see where it was mentioned that this person was a friend of CR.

I'm just assuming it's a random 'net conversation.

That said, you're right, but I just don't have the demeanor or personality for it.

Hence, I have very few friends.;)

andrewh817

12-04-2009, 11:49 AM

Right now, the O Supporter seems unengaged. And he actually has you on the defensive.

If you're on the defensive against ideals of corruption, you've already lost the debate.

beerista

12-04-2009, 12:07 PM

...friends are often worth the time investment, if there is a degree of mutual respect.

I have a lot of friends that have been coming around to my views over the years, and it has all to do with the way I approach them.

Exactly! You gotta plant seeds, in a kind and humble manner. Ask the right questions, and don't waste too much time debating "specifics and statistics".... It's always up to them in the end, though.
The odd thing is that my opinion is sought out and treated with respect much more often now that I am no longer inclined to shove it in people's faces.
At heart, I'm an arguer (one of those people whose family and friends always insisted should be a lawyer), so while it goes against my nature sometimes, I'm much happier not getting into the fray at every turn but guiding instead. And I know my friends are happier. :)

I used to be a hard-headed Michael Moore fan, so who knows who can be converted. :)
LOL. And many years ago, I was a hard-headed Limbaugh acolyte. If we met at just the right time, you and I might have had a serious(ly loud) disagreement.
If we're lucky, we live long enough and gain enough wisdom along the way to be embarrassed by our youth. And if we're really lucky, we're smart enough from the get go that we don't have to be.

ClayTrainor

12-04-2009, 12:49 PM

The odd thing is that my opinion is sought out and treated with respect much more often now that I am no longer inclined to shove it in people's faces.
At heart, I'm an arguer (one of those people whose family and friends always insisted should be a lawyer), so while it goes against my nature sometimes, I'm much happier not getting into the fray at every turn but guiding instead. And I know my friends are happier. :)

I'm an arguer too. I'm actually dreading this Christmas because of a political fight that took place between me and my uncle last Christmas. We haven't talked all year.

Anyways, i realize how unproductive this is, and am trying to work on my approach. Rather than retaliate, i'm becoming more interested in learning from my opposition, by asking the right questions instead of trying to always have the right answers. It puts the ball in their court, and keeps you on the offense.

I think the Socratic Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) is something we should all read up on, and apply to our debates and conversations.

beerista

12-04-2009, 01:16 PM

I think the Socratic Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) is something we should all read up on, and apply to our debates and conversations.

Thanks. Just read the article. Very interesting. Following the links. Got any other recommended sources for this?

Good luck with your uncle.

Reason

12-04-2009, 11:33 PM

I sent Clay's response and this is what I got back...

I'm here to learn from you not teach you.

Do you really expect me to believe that you're just "too busy"? You could've answered those questions in the same time it took you to insult Ron Paul and call me dumb. You're copping out the same way the neo-cons do, when I ask them honest questions about the Bush Doctrine. Can you at least be reasonable and not depend on insults and accusations, like they do?

The first e-mail was nothing but direct quotes from Bush and Obama. You respond by calling me dumb or dishonest, but did not provide a logical reason for these assertions. I followed up these insults by, asking you legitimate questions, which you avoided, and responded with insults towards an individual man. Did you notice that I never took the time to insult Obama or call you some kind of insult?

In other words, you do have time to respond, you just prefer insults and assumptions to logic and reason. You are responding in the exact same way Neo-cons do, when i debate them on foreign policy. All insults and accusations, no logic. Neo-cons make fun of Ron Paul too. Thanks for proving the point that neo-cons and Obama supporters like yourself, have the same mindset about war and use the same strategy to avoid debating the merits of it.

I expect a more sensible approach next time, otherwise you are essentially conceding my point and behaving like a typical neo-con.

His response:

Believe what you will.

I have 11 stacks of papers that should've been
graded days ago, and I saw most of those questions
as requiring detailed, nuanced answers.

Initially, I was pretty polite.
I made clear that I thought that the obvious implication
of the e-mail (I didn't even know if you compiled it,
or were just forwarding it) was misleading.

When you defended it, repeatedly, I got increasingly
less diplomatic. But I started nice.

Just because I'm not impressed with Paul doesn't make
me an "Obama supporter" in any way, And, obviously,
the neo-con cracks are just silly, seemingly tossed in
to cheese me off. But the 'Obama supporter' and neo-con
comparisons are just too far from the mark to entertain.

Look, I think you're a good guy, and determined to do right.
I respect that. As a life-long Libertarian I obviously share
MANY of Paul's core beliefs...but I think he often frames things
so poorly as to reinforce most people's views that Libertarians
are crazy crackpots. And now he seems to be being used by
the Fox News crowd to undermine any change to the
old school, entrenched power structure.

If YOU think it doesn't imply something misleading, that's your
right...but I obviously DO, and arguing that point in numerous
long, time-consuming e-mails is not a priority for me.

If that isn't what you want to hear: sorry.

You're a Paul fan. I'm not.
1,000 e-mails from now, that will probably still be the case.
I'm an old man...I don't have unlimited time to debate things
that already seem clear.

But it was not my (initial) goal to insult your position.

TortoiseDream

12-04-2009, 11:50 PM

this guy reminds me of al gore when asked about different, scientifically backed views of global warming than his own.

Austrian Econ Disciple

12-05-2009, 12:13 AM

I sent Clay's response and this is what I got back...

His response:

Believe what you will.

I have 11 stacks of papers that should've been
graded days ago, and I saw most of those questions
as requiring detailed, nuanced answers.

Initially, I was pretty polite.
I made clear that I thought that the obvious implication
of the e-mail (I didn't even know if you compiled it,
or were just forwarding it) was misleading.

When you defended it, repeatedly, I got increasingly
less diplomatic. But I started nice.

Just because I'm not impressed with Paul doesn't make
me an "Obama supporter" in any way, And, obviously,
the neo-con cracks are just silly, seemingly tossed in
to cheese me off. But the 'Obama supporter' and neo-con
comparisons are just too far from the mark to entertain.

Look, I think you're a good guy, and determined to do right.
I respect that. As a life-long Libertarian I obviously share
MANY of Paul's core beliefs...but I think he often frames things
so poorly as to reinforce most people's views that Libertarians
are crazy crackpots. And now he seems to be being used by
the Fox News crowd to undermine any change to the
old school, entrenched power structure.

If YOU think it doesn't imply something misleading, that's your
right...but I obviously DO, and arguing that point in numerous
long, time-consuming e-mails is not a priority for me.

If that isn't what you want to hear: sorry.

You're a Paul fan. I'm not.
1,000 e-mails from now, that will probably still be the case.
I'm an old man...I don't have unlimited time to debate things
that already seem clear.

But it was not my (initial) goal to insult your position.

What is this guy some Cato-esque libertarian, which aren't really libertarians whatsoever? No libertarian can support Obama, period. It's like Thomas Jefferson writing the foreward to the little red book. Just doesn't happen.

The guy obviously is a hack. Time to move on. You have to recognize those willing to open their minds from those who are as inconsistent and illogically block-headed as your typical party-line voters.

I could line by line document every illogical fallacy, and incoherent two-step, but that's not worth my time because in the end the guy just won't listen. So, my advice move on to someone you can persuade. There are going to be the staunch Statists that you have to identify and in your head say "Fuck off you douche-canoe." and then look for your next convert. Besides, who knows what will happen when we reach the critical mass, maybe this guy might turn around on his own.

-- And if you ever needed a reason to dismantle the State this guy is the embodiment. Guys like this are the ones who usually end up in seats of power. Eventually these guys destroy all nations. Why give them the key to the lockbox in the first place?

TortoiseDream

12-05-2009, 01:38 AM

What is this guy some Cato-esque libertarian, which aren't really libertarians whatsoever? No libertarian can support Obama, period. It's like Thomas Jefferson writing the foreward to the little red book. Just doesn't happen.

i loled

JoshLowry

12-05-2009, 01:51 AM

ClayTrainor

12-05-2009, 06:59 AM

I sent Clay's response and this is what I got back...

His response:

Believe what you will.

I have 11 stacks of papers that should've been
graded days ago, and I saw most of those questions
as requiring detailed, nuanced answers.

Initially, I was pretty polite.
I made clear that I thought that the obvious implication
of the e-mail (I didn't even know if you compiled it,
or were just forwarding it) was misleading.

When you defended it, repeatedly, I got increasingly
less diplomatic. But I started nice.

Just because I'm not impressed with Paul doesn't make
me an "Obama supporter" in any way, And, obviously,
the neo-con cracks are just silly, seemingly tossed in
to cheese me off. But the 'Obama supporter' and neo-con
comparisons are just too far from the mark to entertain.

Look, I think you're a good guy, and determined to do right.
I respect that. As a life-long Libertarian I obviously share
MANY of Paul's core beliefs...but I think he often frames things
so poorly as to reinforce most people's views that Libertarians
are crazy crackpots. And now he seems to be being used by
the Fox News crowd to undermine any change to the
old school, entrenched power structure.

If YOU think it doesn't imply something misleading, that's your
right...but I obviously DO, and arguing that point in numerous
long, time-consuming e-mails is not a priority for me.

If that isn't what you want to hear: sorry.

You're a Paul fan. I'm not.
1,000 e-mails from now, that will probably still be the case.
I'm an old man...I don't have unlimited time to debate things
that already seem clear.

But it was not my (initial) goal to insult your position.

IMO, he's basically telling you that he has no interest in an honest discussion with you.

He's willing to write a long-winded response explaining himself a about how busy he is, but won't even take the time to answer very simple questions to back up his claims.

He's not being honest with you or himself. When he says things like "If that isn't what you want to hear: sorry.", he's just basically saying. "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it"

He's on full defense right now, and the only thing he knows how to use against you is that you like Ron Paul.

Todd

12-05-2009, 08:52 AM

As him if he supported the Bush doctrine?
Does he know that the Obama admin now does?

Well......Some of the other Libtards sure think so too. What's Civil Radient's freinds major malfunction then? See here: http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8690

klamath

12-05-2009, 09:19 AM

This guy does not want to question his beliefs at this time. You cornered him on Obama so he couldn't defend Obama so now he went noncommited but anti Paul.
But you have to respect his wish not to argue. Anymore pushing will back him into a position where he will never support Paul because of the horrible things he would be forced to say against Paul. Someday in the future he might start thinking about Paul but would never be able to support him because of the sheer amount of crow he would have to stomach and it will be even harder if you push so hard that he actively comes to dislike you.

Reason

12-05-2009, 11:24 AM

/sigh

ClayTrainor

12-05-2009, 11:44 AM

/sigh

Sometimes converting the individuals is hard, we did all we could do here, really. If there was 1 mistake made, it was bringing up Ron Paul. He decided to use that as an excuse to not answer your questions. If you encounter this guy in a public discussion you can make him look silly and irrational by just asking the right questions. We don't even need to announce our positions or who we support, in order to make their arguments look silly.

His positions and assertions hold absolutely no weight, and he proved it by ignoring the questions and talking about how busy he is, and how wrong Ron Paul is.

I don't think you're going to convert this guy any time soon, but you may or may not have a planted a seed in his mind. He might be starting to notice his own hypocrisy, though he won't admit it to you, due to his ego. Every now and then, send a dose of humble, undeniable truth like you did here, and see if his approach changes at all.

MelissaWV

12-05-2009, 11:47 AM

I don't see that final response as "I'm right, you're wrong"... I see it as "I think I'm right, and you think you're right, so let's stop bashing heads about it, please." I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. This is generally what happens when someone pushes, and pushes, and pushes. I see this as no different than a very persistent Jehovah's Witness pounding at your door day after day, or a telemarketer questioning WHY you don't think you need better long distance.

If we're to put stock in the concept that people are free to believe what they'd like, then this guy is likewise free to believe what he'd like. Perhaps you made him think a little, and that should be a worthwhile outcome of it. Pushing him further is not going to make him think; it's going to turn him off even further, and perhaps give him fuel to say "Oh God... Ron Paul... yeah I had this crazy long email exchange with one of his kook supporters who just could not take 'no' for an answer... what a jerk. Typical Libertarian crazy."

I'm sure you would hate it if he were sending you email after email about Obama the Messiah, and all his good works. The response to that is likely "yeah, but Obama is WRONG and BAD and RUINING this nation" and from our perspective that's true. In order to fight the good fight, though, be honest and realize there are people who disagree, and be consistent and realize those people have a right to disagree.

ClayTrainor

12-05-2009, 11:51 AM

I don't see that final response as "I'm right, you're wrong"... I see it as "I think I'm right, and you think you're right, so let's stop bashing heads about it, please."
After re-reading, you're right, that's probably what he meant with that.

If we're to put stock in the concept that people are free to believe what they'd like, then this guy is likewise free to believe what he'd like. Perhaps you made him think a little, and that should be a worthwhile outcome of it. Pushing him further is not going to make him think; it's going to turn him off even further, and perhaps give him fuel to say "Oh God... Ron Paul... yeah I had this crazy long email exchange with one of his kook supporters who just could not take 'no' for an answer... what a jerk. Typical Libertarian crazy."

I 100% agree. The approach has to be humble, and non-intrusive. It's time to back-off the issue, until something triggers it down the road. He's made it clear that he does not wish to discuss it right now, which wasn't clear in his first few responses. :)