Say Anything Blog

More leftie distraction.  Reagan faced down the Soviets, and at that time, Dem cowards were squealing that he would be starting WWIII by his tough stance against communist imperialism.  This is simply ass-covering revisionism from a predictable source.
Blame the Dead Guy.  Reagan was the example of victory first, then diplomacy.
Missed again, Mike!
Again, appeasement is offering something valuable for nothing in return, which describes Obama to a “T”.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Reagan faced down the Soviets, and at that time, Dem cowards were squealing that he would be starting WWIII by his tough stance against communist imperialism.

Not to mention the thrashing RR took at the hands of the “Conservative Caucus” who no doubt wished for “firm action” and none of that “talking stuff.” Who sits down and talks with the enemy anyway? People who want to give credibility to the enemy that’s who.

Defeatists in other words...and Ronald Reagan of course.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Defeatists in other words...and Ronald Reagan of course.

Now you’re being dishonest, Mike; RR completed the defeat of the Soviet Union, while the US is still around.  You dishonestly left out the part where I said: Victory first, then diplomacy.  That’s the winning formula.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

You dishonestly left out the part where I said: Victory first, then diplomacy.  That’s the winning formula.

You can’t refute the facts so you accuse me of dishonesty. Typical.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

It’s not a “fact” that RR offered any appeasement to the Soviets; that’s just your deluded fantasy.  Unless you now want to redefine “appeasement”.  According to you, what did RR offer to Gorby, while asking nothing in return?  The handwriting was already on the wall when RR met with him.  As I said, your dishonesty was in quoting me out of context.  That’s a fact, and I furnished the rest of what I said to prove it.  Shame on you!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Keep attempting to rewrite history, it is all you have.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

r108

It’s not a “fact” that RR offered any appeasement to the Soviets; that’s just your deluded fantasy.

I don’t think RR went to Moscow to appease the Soviets either so we’re on the same page. It is those who equate dialogue and negotiation with appeasement, people such as Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich, etc. who are clearly out of step and I’m glad that I can’t count you in that number.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

It is those who equate dialogue and negotiation with appeasement…

This is simply a strawman argument on your part.  Appeasement has a definite meaning, and it means offering something to your enemy to mollify him, while asking for little or nothing in return, like Clinton’s nuke deal with the Norks, Obama’s promise to cut and run from Iraq, and Chamberlain’s deal with Hitler.  It’s very clear what appeasement is, and you have falsely attributed it to RR in your Reader Blog submission here.  Shame on you!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

This is simply a strawman argument on your part. Appeasement has a definite meaning, and it means offering something to your enemy to mollify him, while asking for little or nothing in return…

I already told you we’re on the same page. I find the idea that conservatives such as Weyrich could accuse Reagan of appeasement as ridiculous as you do. Unfortunately it’s not a strawman argument since there are so many on record accusing RR of appeasing the Soviets just as there are “conservatives” today who label any talks with the enemy “appeasement.” I’m glad that your definition of “appeasement” is clear cut and grounded in the real world.

Bravo to you sir...although your sense of irony could still use a little work.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I already told you we’re on the same page. I find the idea that conservatives such as Weyrich could accuse Reagan of appeasement as ridiculous as you do.

Then, why did you post this article?

Is this the “irony” to which you referred?  You were only joking?  You keep referring to the strawman argument that there are conservatives who label any talks with the enemy as “appeasement”.  I think this is a deliberate misunderstanding of what was said, in order to give cover to real appeasers on the left, like Obama.  I never heard this from anyone until Obama was called an appeaser, and rightly so, I might add.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Then, why did you post this article?

My continuing series is in response to comments made at Say Anything that talking with the enemy constitutes appeasement. My initial response to those comments was quite similar to your general thrust on this thread...that appeasement is an attempt to “buy off” an enemy. Unfortunately, our take on appeasement does not appear to be widely shared in the SA community and thus diplomatic initiatives are dismissed as appeasement.

I don’t know where this twisted and inaccurate understanding of appeasement comes from although the “conservative” criticism of RR in the eighties could well be a significant influence.

You keep referring to the strawman argument that there are conservatives who label any talks with the enemy as “appeasement”.  I think this is a deliberate misunderstanding of what was said, in order to give cover to real appeasers on the left, like Obama.

As I said, the significant record of “conservative” hostility to Reagan’s Soviet policy in the eighties demonstrates that criticism of dialogue and diplomacy on the grounds that they constitute appeasement demonstrates that this is not a strawman argument. It’s not restricted to criticism of “leftists” like Obama but to “conservatives” like Reagan.

At any rate, the target audience of this series knows who it is. If you subscribe to the definition of “appeasement” that I do then you don’t need to read it.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

My continuing series is in response to comments made at Say Anything that talking with the enemy constitutes appeasement.

I have only heard that from you and other lefties as an accusation; I know of no conservatives who have said that.  We call Obama an appeaser for a very specific reason: he said he would talk with terrorist leaders with “no preconditions”.  He has been called an appeaser for that statement, and rightly so.  He has since tried to spin it into something different, like any other politician.

I think this “series” is simply trolling.  You are being deliberately provocative, while maintaining that you don’t subscribe to this definition of appeasement.
The attempt to smear “conservatives"(who are really reactionaries, not conservatives) is contemptible, IMO.  The Cold War was very serious, and you are trying to make a bad joke of it.  Shame on you.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

We call Obama an appeaser for a very specific reason: he said he would talk with terrorist leaders with “no preconditions”.  He has been called an appeaser for that statement, and rightly so.

Slipping back into bad habits I see. Talking with no preconditions is not appeasement. Surrendering the Sudetenland is appeasement because something has been given away in exchange for the hope of non-aggression...and here I detected some rationality only to have it dashed once again.

You can call those who accused RR of appeasement “reactionary” but if it walks like a duck… Reagan wasn’t “conservative” enough for many of the same folks for whom McCain isn’t “conservative” enough...and appeasement is not the same as talking.

I guess you’ll have to continue reading after all.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

It’s not a “fact” that RR offered any appeasement to the Soviets; that’s just your deluded fantasy.

I agree with that statement.  Your attempt to equate Reagan with Obama on appeasement is blatantly false.

“Tear down that wall, Mr Khrushchev”

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Talking with no preconditions is not appeasement.

Wrong.  Recognizing a terrorist leader is the worst kind of appeasement, and you know it.  It’s the recognition, with nothing in return, that is the appeasement.  Your perfidy has been revealed, Mike.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Reagan wasn’t “conservative” enough for many of the same folks for whom McCain isn’t “conservative” enough…

Wrong.  McCain isn’t conservative at all.  You make yet another false analogy.  Giving recognition to terrorist leaders by offering to sit down with them as equals, without requiring that they show evidence that they have mended their ways is appeasement.  It’s giving them something for nothing.
Unless they give up their nuclear weapons program, the only “talk” we should have with Iran is how long they have before their facilities are vaporized.
That’s a one-way “conversation”, understand?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

dd

Your attempt to equate Reagan with Obama on appeasement is blatantly false.

I don’t think Reagan appeased the Soviets by traveling to Moscow for discussions but many “conservatives” did. Time has proven them wrong and proven Reagan right...funny how that worked out isn’t it?

r108

Wrong.  McCain isn’t conservative at all.  You make yet another false analogy.

You’re one who believes that McCain isn’t conservative enough. Did you also have doubts about Reagan’s conservative credentials when he encouraged Soviet reform and negotiated an arms control treaty? Did you think that talking with the Soviets constituted appeasement unless they renounced communism? Did you feel like talking was useless and that the time for military muscle was overdue?

Joel M. Skousen, executive editor of Conservative Digest, a monthly magazine published by Richard A. Viguerie, the conservative fund-raiser, said that ‘’Mr. Reagan is now seen as untrustworthy by many conservatives who believe he has betrayed his own principles in an effort to appease his critics’’ on such domestic issues as education, welfare, the budget and taxes. Ideological conservatives have been expressing similar views for at least a year, but their concerns take on special urgency as the 1984 election approaches. Many conservatives said the President seemed to take their support for granted, on the assumption that they had no place to go and would have to back him if he ran for re-election. The conservatives conceded they were unlikely to support another candidate, but said the more significant question was how hard they would work for Mr. Reagan if he ran. ‘’If the present trend continues, as we expect, ideological conservatives would withhold their support from the President,’’ Mr. Skousen said. ‘’We would not actively campaign for him.’’

Sound familiar?

Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-conservatives who furnished intellectual window-dressing for the New Right, mocks Reagan as “a pitifully crippled hawk” who refuses to “risk life in defense of the national honor.”

Podhoretz speaks for all those who apparently really believed that massive military expenditures and saber-rattling rhetoric would make us rulers of the world. The vitriol with which some of Reagan’s closest supporters now question his conduct shows us that no one is safe from being branded a gutless appeaser when the New Right is in full panic. “While Reaganites fear their leader is being Carterized,” moaned conservatives Rowland Evans and Robert Novak in an alas-and-alack column, “a princip al perpetrator of the transformation is the president himself."…. The brilliant organizer of the New Right revolution, Paul Weyrich, who first realized the potential of harnessing abortion foes, born-again Christians, critics of the Panama Canal treaty and school-prayer partisans into an effective political force, knows an inflammable issue when he sees one. So he whipped up a New Right claque to fan the flames for harsh retaliation.

“By failing to carry out our threats against terrorists, we have invited more terrorism,” said Weyrich in announcing his umpteenth pressure group, Coalition for Actions Against Terrorism. His first target: Secretary of State George Shultz. Shultz said last fall: “The public must understand before the fact that there is potential for loss of life of some of our fighting men and the loss of life of some innocent people.” But Weyrich and his allies fear Reagan is pussyfooting, now that the nightly news shows our hostages in all their vulnerability. So Weyrich targets Shultz. Reagan is still untouchable; the president is beloved by all the folks whose $10 and $20 checks fuel the New Right’s direct mail operation. The New Right savaged Carter all through the 1980 election campaign, assailing his manhood, his judgment, his nerve. The New Right can’t quite target Reagan with the same vehemence, so Shultz is dragged in as the surrogate weak sister….”

The Pink Flamingo

It’s kind of an honour to be branded an appeaser by American conservatives...at least you’re consistent.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I love you MikeAdamson.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Back to the tired assed lie that he is just using irony, and juxtaposing the Parties positions to illustrate the blahblahblahblah.

Mike, you have already made clear to everyone in this thread, repeatedly, that you will crawl on your knees and beg terrorists not to hurt you. You have made abundantly clear that you will throw your daughters and wife to them, as long as they don’t hurt you. You are an appeaser, a coward. And you are exactly what terrorists despise. They have no fear of you, and that is why they will attack you.

Hold that olive branch out nice and far, that way they have an unobstructed swing as they cut your arm off.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

You’re one who believes that McCain isn’t conservative enough.

That’s your position, not mine; to repeat: I don’t regard McCain as being conservative at all.
What part of that don’t you understand?

It shows how lame your entire position is if it depends on misstating what I clearly said and continuing to call reactionaries “conservatives”.  I guess you regard Buchanan as a “conservative”, don’t you?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

rbb...in a spiritual way I’m sure.

2H9

Back to the tired assed lie that he is just using irony, and juxtaposing the Parties positions to illustrate the blahblahblahblah.

If you’ve been following the series closely then you’ll know that parties and their positions have little to do with it. What I’m highlighting is the willingness of some people to twist the commonly held definition of “appeasement” to use as a partisan bashing point. Liberals do it, conservatives do it, even educated fleas do it...my posts are addressing a specific tactic used for a specific purpose but it could easily address a myriad of other topics.

Mike, you have already made clear to everyone in this thread, repeatedly, that you will crawl on your knees and beg terrorists not to hurt you. You have made abundantly clear that you will throw your daughters and wife to them, as long as they don’t hurt you. You are an appeaser, a coward. And you are exactly what terrorists despise. They have no fear of you, and that is why they will attack you.

Oh dear...however could I given you that impression.

r108

That’s your position, not mine; to repeat: I don’t regard McCain as being conservative at all.
What part of that don’t you understand?

I understand your entire statement. You don’t think McCain is a conservative. I get it.

I believe that you don’t find McCain conservative enough to represent your viewpoint. That is MY position. Get it?

It shows how lame your entire position is if it depends on misstating what I clearly said and continuing to call reactionaries “conservatives”.

My position depends on what I say, not on what you say. Your view of what constitutes a “conservative” is relatively narrow IMO and you resist my labeling some “conservatives” who you don’t believe fit the label. I completely understand. What you may not understand is that not everyone shares your belief...I obviously don’t.

I guess you regard Buchanan as a “conservative”, don’t you?

I do. If you want to further define him as a “reactionary” or a “paleo-conservative” then I won’t argue.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I believe that you don’t find McCain conservative enough to represent your viewpoint. That is MY position. Get it?

Of course I get it; you’re wrong, despite being informed of what I think.  He’s not conservative at all.
Get it now?

Your view of what constitutes a “conservative” is relatively narrow…

This is your usual dismissive bullshit; any definition is “narrow”, in that it excludes a lot more than it includes.  Your implication is “limited”, as if that is somehow a bad thing.
I repeat endlessly to you lefties that conservatism is based on the Constitution of the United States and its Founding Principles; it is about individualism rather than collectivism, limited govt and individual independence, including the four freedoms: Personal, economic, religious and political.  It doesn’t include global warming bullshit, nor does it include class envy economics, or giving amnesty to those who invade the country through unenforced borders.
Understand?  If you snotty lefties want to call personal freedom and individual independence “narrow”, then be informed that you are full of crap.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

What I’m highlighting is the willingness of some people to twist the commonly held definition of “appeasement” to use as a partisan bashing point.

I have heard this from you and other lefties who fabricated it to defend Obama after his “no preconditions” statement.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Of course I get it; you’re wrong, despite being informed of what I think.  He’s not conservative at all.
Get it now?

I get that you don’t believe McCain is a conservative. How many times do I need to assure you that I get what you’re saying? I get it.

This is your usual dismissive bullshit; any definition is “narrow”, in that it excludes a lot more than it includes.  Your implication is “limited”, as if that is somehow a bad thing.

You can interpret what I say in whatever fashion you like. If I might be afforded the same courtesy, your implication is that there is a single and discernible definition of “conservatism”. In all the time I’ve been here, you’ve never sourced your definition other than to equate it to the beliefs of America’s founding fathers. My definition of “conservatism” is obviously broader than yours because I base it on the history and traditions of political thought and terminology.

I have no idea what you base the authority of your definition on but I am tempted to think that you have conceived it yourself. This is fine although it makes the task of adjudicating differences between our definitions virtually impossible.

When you declare that McCain is not a conservative, I’m thinking “says who?” Just because r108 says so doesn’t make it so IMO.

If you snotty lefties want to call personal freedom and individual independence “narrow”, then be informed that you are full of crap.

I don’t want to call them narrow. I call your definition of conservatism narrow because it excludes a lot of people and ideas that have traditionally been considered “conservative.” I will continue to consider your definition narrower than mine, which doesn’t me full of crap, but places me in the mainstream of political thought.

I have heard this from you and other lefties who fabricated it to defend Obama after his “no preconditions” statement.

Talking with no preconditions is not appeasement.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Talking with no preconditions is not appeasement.

Yes, it is, and I’ll ‘splain it to you one more time: When a major power like the US offers to sit down with a terrorist “with no preconditions”, it gives the terrorist a status he hasn’t earned by word or deed.  This is the “appeasement” part.  Obama would give them status without them making any concessions or without them moving away from their terrorist values or pronouncements; therefore, it’s appeasement in the regular sense of the word.  It’s giving them something for nothing.
It’s giving them legitimacy without them having to be legitimate.

I don’t want to call them narrow. I call your definition of conservatism narrow because it excludes a lot of people and ideas that have traditionally been considered “conservative.”

What part of “individual independence” don’t you understand?  What you lefties don’t get about American conservatism is that it bears absolutely no relationship to European conservatism, which is about supporting monarchy.  American conservatism is really classical liberalism, with its reliance on principles of freedom and individualism, whereas those who now call themselves “liberal” or “progressive” are, in fact, neither.  They support collectivism over individuality, and central authority over freedom.
Each conservative certainly creates his own personal version of conservatism, but it’s always based on certain principles, which I have identified countless times: The Constitution of the United States and the Founding Principles, the four freedoms and “free people making free choices”.  What you lefties always miss is that when free people make free choices, it’s the opposite of your ideal of everyone moving in lockstep to an ideology.  When I think of “unity”, I think of a nation united behind its Constitution and Founding Principles, but free to make their own individual choices within that framework. When lefties use the word “unity”, it means the end of a diversity of opinion and action.  Big difference.
I guess my choice to obey the law, made as someone who chooses peace over chaos, seems “narrow” to you, as does my choice to follow Christian principles, when you would have me be “free” to do whatever I like, and you would be confusing freedom with license, and self-discipline with “rigidity”.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Yes, it is, and I’ll ‘splain it to you one more time: When a major power like the US offers to sit down with a terrorist “with no preconditions”, it gives the terrorist a status he hasn’t earned by word or deed.

You can explain it fifty times if you want. You’re still using the term inappropriately IMO because of the nebulous nature of the price paid for non-aggression. You give an enemy land to ensure peace, that’s appeasement. You let a dictator abuse his people to ensure peace, that’s appeasement. How do you measure status? How do you determine whether an enemy has earned the status to merit talks? I understand where you’re coming from but you’re still using the term as a partisan cudgel with which to bash your opponents.

If RR wasn’t appeasing the Soviets by sitting down for disarmament talks, then what word or deed justified such talks? Was engaging the North Koreans in discussions appeasement? Did they gain status because of those talks? Is removing them from the list of terror sponsoring nations an act of appeasement?

I don’t care if you answer these question BTW and a strategy of not engaging terrorists in discussions is a legitimate stance but mere talking, with or without conditions, can not be appeasement...you set the bar so low that the term is practically useless other than as another name to fling.

Each conservative certainly creates his own personal version of conservatism, but it’s always based on certain principles, which I have identified countless times: The Constitution of the United States and the Founding Principles, the four freedoms and “free people making free choices”.

Says who? Who says that American conservatism is what is defined by you and that anyone who doesn’t agree with your framework isn’t conservative? What is the source of your authority?

I guess my choice to obey the law, made as someone who chooses peace over chaos, seems “narrow” to you, as does my choice to follow Christian principles, when you would have me be “free” to do whatever I like, and you would be confusing freedom with license, and self-discipline with “rigidity”.

I choose to obey the law, I choose peace over chaos, I follow Christian principles, I reject license and “rigidity.” I must be an American conservative although I don’t feel like one.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

...the nebulous nature of the price paid for non-aggression.

An purely imaginary concept with terrorists. They just think we’re weak for “sitting down with them” and not asking them to demonstrate a big movement away from their terrorism.  It’s appeasement if we don’t.  Sorry you don’t understand that, Mike.
We shouldn’t be giving them anything, especially recognition.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

What is the source of your authority?

What is the source of your authority to challenge my personal views, and to define what conservatism is or is not?  You just don’t get the “individualism” thing, Mike.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

My continuing series is in response to comments made at Say Anything that talking with the enemy constitutes appeasement.

As I have ‘splained to you many times before, it depends on what you say: “Surrender or the bombing will start in 30 minutes” is talking, but not appeasement.
Saying you will sit down with them with no preconditions is appeasement.  It’s really a very simple concept.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

How do you measure status? By words and actions.  Duh. How do you determine whether an enemy has earned the status to merit talks? Pay attention to what they say and do.  Duh. I understand where you’re coming from No, you don’t. but you’re still using the term as a partisan cudgel with which to bash your opponents. That erroneous statement is the proof that you don’t know where I’m coming from.  I am doing no such thing.  I am calling what Obama offered(while asking nothing in return), “appeasement”, because that’s exactly what it is.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

You two adversaries are sitting down and talking without preconditions...who is the appeaser...who is the appeasee?

What happens after the sit down is where appeasement might take place.

If two meet without preconditions and one says to the other while pounding his shoe on a lectern “We will bury you”. Where is the appeasement there?

It’s so simple that 108 has to make it difficult.

From the This Week in Appeasement archive

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

rbb: As usual, you are factually challenged.  The incident to which you refer happened at the main podium in the UN, not as a part of any “talks” between the Soviets and the US.  When such talks did take place, there were extensive preconditions.  You are wrong on both counts.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

If two meet without preconditions…

Again, untrue.  The terrorist leaders have already announced their agenda, which is to “kill or subjugate all the infidels”; and Ajad has embellished that by promising to “wipe Israel off the map”, so their preconditions are well-known.  Obama, on the other hand, would, like the wimp he is, ignore all that, and basically put our necks on the line by offering to talk with those scum after what we already know about them, and that, my friends, is the epitome of appeasement.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

As usual 108, you twist and distort. Where did I say US USSR UN...I offered a scenario of two people meeting without preconditions.

Duh.

Can’t you read?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Robert108: You are wasting your valuable time, rbb is wholly incapable of debating any issue rationally, based solely on the facts. It is beyond his intellectual reach!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Mike: You have yet to make any sort of argument that McCain is any sort of a conservative; instead, you have made personal remarks about me to try to invalidate what I said about him.  I’m curious; would you pull the same crap if I said Teddy Kennedy is not a conservative?
BTW, calling Obama on his appeasement of terrorist leaders isn’t “partisan”; I would say the same thing about any “leader” who made the same offer.
You keep clinging to trying to win by personal invalidation, and failing to make any logical or factual arguments.  Shame on you.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

rbb: You quoted Kruschev, moron.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Yes he did say that, but that incident happened at the main podium in the UN, not as two meeting without preconditions.

Get with the program 108, you’re losing it.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Yes he did say that, but that incident happened at the main podium in the UN, not as two meeting without preconditions.

That was my point, moron; you used an example that didn’t fit your bullshit.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Wrong. It fits. Two people. No preconditions one shouts at the other, who is appeased?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

No preconditions…

There were plenty of preconditions to speak at the UN, but they weren’t between two sovereign states.  I do believe you really are that stupid, rbb.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I can’t believe you are that stupid.
I am not talking about the UN.

But you knew that.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

One more time, moron: You gave an example of a statment made by the Kruschev at the UN, to make a point about Obama offering to sit down with terrorist leaders with no preconditions.  You are wrong; there is no valid comparison between the two.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

That should be “statement”.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

There were plenty of preconditions to speak at the UN, but they weren’t between two sovereign states.  I do believe you really are that stupid, rbb.

Damnit, r108! RBB’s example was a hypothetical scenario. Are you really this dumb?  MikeAdamson has the patience of a monk to be able to put up with this shit.

Damnit, r108! RBB’s example was a hypothetical scenario.

Wrong.  It was a specific example of what Kruschev did at the UN. If Mike would only make a factual or logical argument instead of trying to make personal invalidations, he wouldn’t need any patience; just knowledge.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

r108

An purely imaginary concept with terrorists. They just think we’re weak for “sitting down with them” and not asking them to demonstrate a big movement away from their terrorism.  It’s appeasement if we don’t.  Sorry you don’t understand that, Mike.

So if I think you’re weak for discussing this with me, then you’re appeasing me? With respect, you should give that comment some more thought.

That erroneous statement is the proof that you don’t know where I’m coming from.  I am doing no such thing.  I am calling what Obama offered(while asking nothing in return), “appeasement”, because that’s exactly what it is.

I make the statement because I don’t think you’re using “appeasement” as the term is properly understood. You are saying that talking to the enemy without precondition is appeasement. I say it’s not because the enemy has gained nothing. You reply that the enemy has gained status by virtue of being treated seriously enough to warrant talking. I say that status is not a useful guide to whether appeasement has occurred or not because it’s a slippery concept to pin down, unlike more tangible gains like land for example. You say that we can measure status by observing the enemy’s words and actions. I say that makes no sense...do you mean status in the eyes of the world? of the enemy? who exactly?

I think you’re saying that we shouldn’t sit down with an enemy without preconditions because it serves to increase his credibility and status, thus lending him a morale boost. I agree that is a likely outcome and one has to weigh the possible benefits of discussion with the possible costs in terms of increased credibility and status. You may disagree with the latter point on the grounds that there’s nothing to be gained from talks and thus you view the discussion as a one way transaction or appeasement. I understand your objection but I don’t believe it to be valid necessarily because I’m not so quick to dismiss the possibility of benefit from the talking as you are.

If I accept that providing credibility and status to the enemy through talking is appeasement then isn’t the absence of military action appeasement? Doesn’t the enemy gain status and credibility if I don’t attack him? Despite your protestations, I honestly believe that I get what you’re saying but it simply doesn’t make sense to me as “appeasement” because it’s too hard to grasp and quantify what has been won and lost. That’s my opinion anyway.

What is the source of your authority to challenge my personal views, and to define what conservatism is or is not?

I’m challenging your ability to determine, for all of us, who is a conservative and what constitutes conservatism. You are entitled to your personal views, beliefs and opinions but that’s what they are...personal. I say McCain is a conservative, you say he isn’t and so we disagree. How do prove who’s wrong? Is it possible? I say that your definition of conservatism is relatively narrow, certainly narrower than mine. You take offense...but it’s just two conflicting opinions. As I stated earlier, if the authority for your definition is your personal understanding then that’s fine but don’t assume that your personal understanding enjoys more weight than my personal understanding because it doesn’t.

I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

So if I think you’re weak for discussing this with me, then you’re appeasing me?

Wrong again, unless you’re a terrorist out to destroy me and my value system.  Once again, you use an improper analogy in that trading comments on a blog is not in any way comparable to engaging in face to face talks with the head of a nation state.

I’m challenging your ability to determine, for all of us, who is a conservative and what constitutes conservatism.

I have done no such thing; once again I repeat: I speak for myself as an individual; since you have made no argument proving McCain is a conservative, you are trying to twist what I have said into a counter argument for your position(whatever that is), by denying what I have said on a personal basis.
Again, I also say that Teddy Kennedy is not a conservative; are you going to attack me personally for saying that?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Mike: While I have explained my view of conservatism extensively, you have yet to state yours; all you can seem to do it to attack mine by using leftie buzzwords like “narrow” and “rigid”.  You state your opinion that “mine is narrower than yours” without giving any examples or comparisons, other than that generalized one.  Have you the courage to state your “definition”?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Have you the courage to state your “definition”?

It’s not perfect but I’m comfortable with the principles listed here:

1. Belief in natural law
2. Belief in established institutions
3. Preference for liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power - and of human nature
5. Belief in exceptionalism
6. Belief in the individual

I’ve yet to meet anyone in person whose point of view or attitudes could be described as 100% conservative or liberal but I believe it’s fair to say that observing these principles identifies one as a conservative. I acknowledge that this likely doesn’t address your specific Anerican conservatism but as a guidepost I think it would be reasonably reliable.

Once again, you use an improper analogy in that trading comments on a blog is not in any way comparable to engaging in face to face talks with the head of a nation state.

I see...consider this scenario then. Lets say that I engage you in a lengthy exchange of blog comments. Lets say that I don’t agree with your comments, I know that there is little chance that my comments will persuade you nor will your comments persuade me but I derive benefit from the exchange for reasons other than the possibility of persuasion. By continuing the exchange, aren’t I in fact appeasing you? Lets say I find your logic torturous in some areas, lacking in others and yet I still continue the discussion because I’m still deriving a benefit so I continue to offer you a discussion partner...me. Aren’t I really appeasing you by providing you an opportunity to put your viewpoint out there in the context of a discussion rather than as a reader blog?

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

2. Belief in established institutions

A very slippery slope.  Only if those institutions are in line with the Constitution and the Founding Principles of the US. Hint: That’s what it means to be an “American” conservative.

By continuing the exchange, aren’t I in fact appeasing you?

Not in my view.  Your rather tortuous logic doesn’t stand the test, and your continued playing with semantics and word definitions is rather tiring for me, though.  I find I spend the bulk of my time with you in fending off your assumptions about what I might believe or feel, than actually dealing with the facts and logic behind our relative positions on any particular subject.
By your definition of “conservative”, it is very clear to me why you do what you do.
Again, how do you respond to my assertion that Teddy Kennedy is no conservative.
BTW, you’re not “offering me a discussion partner”; you’re usually trying to assert the superiority of your usually undefined views by denigrating mine, my thought processes and my value system.
I don’t know how you can possibly spin that into “appeasement”, but am not surprised that you would try to do so.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Your rather tortuous logic doesn’t stand the test, and your continued playing with semantics and word definitions is rather tiring for me, though.

It might surprise you to know that I find nailing down semantics and definitions very tedious as well. The problem I have with your comments is that I have difficulty discerning when you’re offering your opinion and when you’re assigning factual status to your words. When you say McCain is not a conservative then I assume you mean that factually rather than as an opinion. When I’m harping on definitions then I’m assuming it’s the former. I should ask you rather than assuming it’s one or the other.

If you’re talking about American conservatives then I would assume that you’re talking about American institutions.

Ted Kennedy is not a conservative.

I denigrate your views when you claim something to be true when it is not factually true. I can respect differences of opinion and I’m not hard on you when you’re offering yours. As the old saying goes...you’re welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.

TTFN.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

I assume you mean…

Yes, you constantly assume you know what I think and mean, even when I clearly state otherwise.  This is usually an indication of prejudice on your part.  I don’t think I ever speak in a general way, except when I indicate it by using words like “we”, and the like. As one who is an individualist, I speak for myself.
Wrong premise, wrong conclusions.  GIGO

Ted Kennedy is not a conservative.

Are you stating that as fact?  If so, what is your line of reasoning?  If necessary, I will explain mine with regard to my statement about McCain, once again.  I state it as my fact- and logically-based opinion.  I’m always glad to enumerate the reasons for my statements.  They aren’t about beliefs, slogans or partisan talking points, btw.

I denigrate your views when you claim something to be true when it is not factually true.

When you do so without presenting a logical or factual counter-argument, as I have said numerous times, you are simply making a personal attack.  If you have a good argument, no personal attack is necessary, and if you don’t have a good argument, no amount of personal attack will allow you to prevail.

I repeat: I’m always glad to back up what I say with either facts or logic, but only when I’m presented with an argument on that level.  I won’t appease you by treating your personal attacks as if they are actual factual or logical arguments.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Whenever I discuss with you, Mike, I’m reminded of an old saying: “He who slings mud, loses ground.”

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Yes, you constantly assume you know what I think and mean, even when I clearly state otherwise.

If you clearly state something otherwise then there is no reason for me to assume. If I am attempting to extend the discussion then I might put out my assumption of what would logically follow from your stated position...logically follow to my mind at least. If I’m incorrect in my assumption then you correct me.

When you do so without presenting a logical or factual counter-argument, as I have said numerous times, you are simply making a personal attack.  If you have a good argument, no personal attack is necessary, and if you don’t have a good argument, no amount of personal attack will allow you to prevail.

If I attack you then that is a personal attack. If I attack your idea then that is not a personal attack. I try to focus on the words and not the person typing the words but I’m not perfect.

I suggest you skim through the comments on this thread and determine who personalises the discussions...you might be surprised.

I don’t identify Kennedy as conservative because he’s prepared to use the State and its laws to correct inequalities that he observes in American society. Having considered the matter overnight, I think that how one views the role of the State is probably the best measurable test of where one falls on the liberal/conservative axis.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

...I think that how one views the role of the State is probably the best measurable test of where one
falls on the liberal/conservative axis.

I agree that it is one important aspect of the difference, but certainly not the main one.  For me, it’s the difference between the primary belief in individual independence, as opposed to the faith in collective action; I regard that as the basic premise from which all the other differences are derived.
I would like to elaborate on my thoughts about your claim that “belief in established institutions” is part of American conservatism.  I believe that to be a mistake commonly made by lefties; it is a holdover from the Euro definition, wherein “conservative” meant “royalist”.  In fact, American conservatives fit the old definition of “liberal”, which derives from libertas, meaning “freedom”.  Today’s “liberal"(or progressive, whatever) is really a subversive, meaning to take over old institutions for the purpose of power and control.  As an American conservative, I am primarily moved by performance of an institution, so I see nothing wrong with the institution of marriage, for instance, but want the institutions of govt schools, Social Security, the Dept of Education, Political Correctness, and the Dept of Energy, to name a small fraction of dysfunctional institutions, completely dismantled.  The primary reason is that they tend to deprive citizens of their individual independence, while giving nothing, or very little, in return.  As an American conservative, I tend to value things in general on a cost/benefit basis, rather than an ideological one, as lefties tend to do.  As a result, I favor what might be called a respect and reverence for the environment, but don’t define it as only wilderness, and certainly don’t believe that our liberty should be sacrificed in pursuit of some ideological purity in the matter.  I don’t see stopping a housing project or an oil refinery on the basis that it might endanger some insect or small mammal or reptile.  To me, the cost/benefit of that sort of thing isn’t even close to being workable.
I also include humans and human activity in what I call “the environment”.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin