Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

While your assessment of the motives involved may possibly be right, I should tell you that one thing you have to get used to around here is the incessant demand for "evidence" beyond what I and apparently you normally feel obliged to produce in a discussion. I've found that it is weighted unfairly but decided that's the way it is and don't fight it. You might be able to get your topic accepted if you buttress it with plenty of links from authorities, especially Muslim authorities.{EDIT: P.S. A good clue that you are right in your assessment is that it's unusual for an admin to reject a proposal outright like that. Usually there's some give and take as they advise the poster on how to make the topic more acceptable.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 08:09 PM

You keep asserting this and have not proved it. Whatever it was I didn't see it. A quote please.Your assertion that I regard the term as "meaningless" has no support whatever.

Your feelings are hurt, that's all. This is nothing but vindictiveness. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for this and for what I've denounced you for in the past. In fact you should be suspended for this diatribe against me. When I denounced you I expected to be suspended for it, and decided that it was worth it as you deserved it.Speaking of "unsupportable bullshit," I notice that you offer no support whatever for this bit of shrieking.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 08:24 PM

Evidence please. You are putting out so much heat and so little light you are going to turn into a black hole all by your little self.

I agree. Actually there are about a dozen standards for conservatives, and for creationists too I might add, to which the leftists and evolutionists need not conform. It's beyond me to sort them out. You kind of discover them as you go. I see that TrueCreation is raising a topic proposal to object to how "evidence" is construed against his points, which I had thought was unfair when I read through his thread, but there's no way to argue against all this effectively. It's odd but in this place where Reason is SUPPOSEDLY god, there's quite a bit of whimsy involved in the service of various biases.Somebody just said that the Coffee House is open for anybody to post in without going through the formal process of proposal. I didn't know that, but if true go post it over there. You'll be dealing with the same mentality of course, and a lot more of it all at once, but that's the breaks.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 09:22 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 09:24 PM

That is simply another statement from the biased point of view. While there's a grain of truth in it, in that most of us creos and conservatives stumble in here with a much more casual experience of internet conversation behind us and find ourselves slapped with the requirements of PhD dissertations even in Coffee House conversations, it's only a grain as we have plenty of evidence that is simply cancelled out by bias, and the evidence on the other side is really pathetic a great deal of the time, and even nonexistent, as CS just pointed out.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 09:34 PM

The difference is that YOUR bias is backed by the majority and by the Establishment here. You have no way of seeing how powerful a force that is.

Yup. Anybody the Right produces is not acceptable evidence, nor any argument no matter how well argued with how many facts. Quoting a creationist the same. Our sources are biased by definition while theirs are accurate and neutral by definition. My first attempt here to argue along these lines about the terrorism inherent in Islam itself Islam does not hate Christianity got me soundly blasted as a "bigot" Message 319 after much argument.My sources are just bigoted by definition you know, no matter how scholarly. And I produced a list of 25 references at one point. Message 243 Admittedly I violated forum rules in not introducing each but I was new here at the time.That's also a thread that to my mind demonstrates the local difficulty with logic. But they're very aggressive about their misunderstanding of logic nevertheless.Forgive me if I sit back a bit and let you be the target this time. I'm sure I could be provoked to join in eventually.It's simple. If a writer believes terrorism is inherent in Islam, that's bigotry, period. There is NO reasonable argument for this position on this site. By definition. But since the poor things are simply blind to their own bias, I just shrug it off. It does have the effect of making me less than eager to track down evidence for them, and I'll admit my research has been sloppy at times. It's just not worth it. They'll scream if you do and scream if you don't.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-20-2005 03:09 AM

You AREN'T hearing it over the media, you are referring to the conservative talk shows I'm sure. They aren't "the media." The media are the journalists, the reporters, the news reports and the commentators within their bailiwicks. It happens to be true. You don't argue your case, you simply repeat the same old leftist line. You call the right bigots and liars based on your own bigoted viewpoint and will not even try to follow the argument. You don't even know what the argument is, as is clear from your next statement (after the tutsis/hutus). That is true, and it describes what is going on here on the part of the left, which is what you guys will never see. There is no willingness whatever to even think through the reasonable arguments on the right so sure are they of their rightness. You insist on your own bias, that's all that's going on here, and absolutely refuse to understand the arguments that support the view being discussed. You just regurgitate the same old leftist swill that distinguishes bbetween "radical fundamentalist islam" and all the decent Muslims without the slightest recognition that that is taken into account and answered by the argument you are trashing. I don't think you've bothered to read any of it you are so sure of the rightness of your viewpoint, which is EXACTLY what CS and I are agreeing is the typical kind of thinking around here. Do you even know what the term "bigotry" means? It fits your argument here to a t. It means having a viewpoint that will not yield to any amount of reasonable correction.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-20-2005 04:15 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-20-2005 04:17 AM