Do (and can) conservative bloggers make a difference?

While Bookie is contemplating her Goodwill donations, let me throw out a question that’s been nagging at me lately.  Do conservative bloggers make a difference?   Here in the Bookwormroom we used to have regular liberal contributors and lively debates.  Now we look more like an echo chamber.  While I’m not a blogger and could well be wrong, I suspect that this has happened all over the blogging community.  Bloggers have sought out like minded bloggers.

So, how much good do we do if we only talk to each other?   Certainly, the exchange of information can be highly useful and the sense of fellowship that one gets from being a part of the conservative blogging community should not be underestimated.  But is that all we do — reinforce each other?  Maybe the most important question is, what can we do to make conservative blogging more effective.  Assuming that we want these blogs to make a difference, how can we maximize the difference they make?  Or is that assumption even valid?  Do we want to make a difference, or are we just enjoying the experience of sharing intelligent conversation with blog friends?  Is that enough in and of itself?  I look forward to your ideas and I thank you in advance for them.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    In the end, the “liberal” argument is bankrupt. While we already know that, liberal visitors, at best, only suspect it. When they arrive here eager to tilt, I think they are overwhelmed by the depth and substance of the arguments they encounter. After seeing their best stuff get volleyed back at them, sliced, diced and skewered, the smarter ones do the prudent thing and leave.

    The types of arguments I’ve seen presented here by liberals seem to range from snark and crude dismissal of our intelligence to self-delusional (for example, the ones made by Helen, perhaps the most racist white woman I have ever read on a blog).

    There may be civil liberals out there, but I run into fewer and fewer of them. Given that their beliefs are based almost solely on emotion, it’s hard to get them to respond in any adult or serious manner to plain assertions of fact (citing Wikipedia does not refute our arguments). If cable TV with its immense resources has a hard time coming up with coherent liberals, it doesn’t surprise me that small blogs like this have the same problem.

    Are conservative blogs effective? Heck yes. Without them many of us would have continued feeling isolated and embattled—voices in the wilderness. But when I come to a place like this and see the incredible quality of thinking and writing (Mike, Danny, suek, SADIE, jj, Spartacus, Oldflyer, and so many more), it gives me great hope for our cause. Multiply this room by hundreds, even thousands, and you have the nervous system that organized the Great American Voter Refudiation of 2010.

  2. SGT Dave says

    DQ,
    While I am sorry that many of the liberal points of view are absent from our discussions, there is a continuing need for community among the conservatives.  In a very simple form, these blogs and the forums allow for discussions that we would otherwise not be able to have.  For BW, she is restricted by the political structure of her family and community.  For myself, I have very little free time (I’m on lunch right now) and find it hard to mesh schedules with other, like-minded (and thus employed) individuals.  The dearth of liberal points of view diminished on many blogs because of the demands for rational, dispassionate, and verifiable commentary.  I know I’m not the best at putting in citations (I try, but with my daily reading intake running to 100+ pages in multiple languages and dialects, I tend to get a bit scrambled), but I try in good faith to provide factual support that can be verified.  Y is very similar – and most conservative bloggers won’t tolerate abusive language or false arguments.  This tends to leave the liberal side often out in the cold – shouting is not so loud on the screen, nor does petulance dominate the conversational space. 
    The blogs are far from an echo chamber; there are many differing points of view.  They are similar, but distinct (i.e. the discussion of marijuana legalization on the ballot).  The ability to go forth, associate, and speak freely are among our core values in this nation; since it has become difficult to impossible to gather together in neighborhoods with like-minded individuals because of the current social climate, we (the conservative blog audience and bloggers alike) have created a new “virtual” back fence to stand along and discuss things of interest with people we find of interest as well.  Once upon a time, Kronkite was the guy across the street who had the good information and sources.  Now, especially in the current media climate, people are finding different sources – mainly via the internet.  We are not alone, are not isolated and dependent upon a small demographic to provide information and commentary, are able to discuss any topic freely with little or no rancor or recrimination, and can actually take time to savor the subtle differences between conservative and libertarian, social con vs. fiscal con, and satisfy our cravings for discussion of things about which we are unsure (such as our long talk about the DREAM act in another thread). 

    No, this is not a wide-open panoramic site – the demagogues have moved on, looking for greater angst and potent argument; but do not diminish its importance for all the readers, contributors, or even BW herself, because any view of the horizon, however limited, is far better than staring at one’s own feet, mired in the mud.

    SSG Dave
    “We are creatures of conflict; because it is our nature to battle we most long for peace – since that is the only battle within ourselves we shall never win, for in winning that battle we will have lost that which made us strive for it.”

  3. Michael Adams says

    The first wonderful thing about Conservative blogs is that we do encourage one another, lend one another courage.  It’s not insignificant that we suppress the temptation to despair.
    Secondly, there are two ways of establishing a world view.  One is to string anecdotes together. Imagine what you’d think if you only knew the world through NPR sob stories. [Note: Women and minorities hardest hit.] The other is to take a macrocosmic view of the world around us. I well remember when Japan was what we would later call a Third-World country. With a mostly free market approach, they have developed their manufacturing to the point that they, for a while at least, ate our lunch. My Japanese-American friends, and some University classmate from Japan, had a couple of thousand  jokes about Japanese institutional rigidity, a stiffness which surely inhibited their free market economics.   Better examples have been Korea, India, even Communist China, all of whom just let money do what money does, and the result, in all cases, has been more prosperity and less poverty. Conservative blogs encourage us to get our heads above the stream of bilge from the mainstream media, and  to believe the evidence of our own eyes. As blogs grow and proliferate, and attract increasing number of commentators who speak of what they actually know, without the intermediation of lefty journalists, the rising general level of information and  percentage of informed voters offers a serious counter to the Party line.
    Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
     

  4. Gringo says

    The  libs who commented here were for the most part only interested in converting the wingnuts to their points of view, and not in an exchange of views. Helen was very limited in her responses, especially when one gave a highly reasoned rebuttal. IMHO, this is because her politics were based on feelings, not thought- not surprising for a poet- and she was unable to construct a logical reply. [Helen: are you still reading this?]
    Then there was Ozzie, who saw an impending theocracy underneath every bed.
     
    Which brings forth another observation about the libs commenting here: they were often one-track ponies who saw everything through one issue. For Helen Losse, it was race. For Ozzie, it was the impending theocracy.
    They tired of commenting here because other commenters   never bought into their point of view. They decided it was a waste of time to try to get others here to agree with their particular points of view, so stopped commenting. They were correct: it was a waste of time.
     

  5. jj says

    I guess it depends on how you define “difference.”  I guess it also depends on, having defined it, whether or not you actually want to make one – or are you doing something for the pure sake of enjoying it?
     
    Same answer for “do we do any good?”  I don’t know – are we actually trying to do “good?”  What would be the “good” that we might do?  (He said, mangling the English language beyond all hope of repair…)  What can we do to be more effective depends, I suppose, on (A) whether “effective” is actually a goal, and (B) what’s defined as being an indication thereof.
     
    I kind of think that blogging is something you do because you enjoy it, not necessarily because you’re out to accomplish something, or in some way change the world.  And because you’re doing something you enjoy, you attract people who enjoy the same things, or the same way of thinking, or come from the same viewpoint.   People do indeed seek out like-minded people.  Zebra herds don’t generally have too many elephants.  I suppose blogs devoted to gardening don’t much attract people who like to drive construction equipment.  This seems natural and normal to me.
     
    Which I guess means I come down on the side of simply enjoying the experience.  It seems we’ve boiled it down to a core group who often comment, pretty much as Charles points out; but I bet there are a fair amount of others who read, but only pop in on rare occasions when something resonates with them.  Haven’t seen a comment from Deana in a long time, for example, but I bet she looks in, and when she’s moved to do so she’ll say something.
     
    This is all kind of rambling – I don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about, I guess.  I don’t know what the goal is, or if there is one, or if there should be one.  Same thing for the “good,” ditto for the idea of making a “difference.”  Politically we do tend to reinforce one another, though often not in other ways.  And I don’t know if Bookworm thinks the group has become too narrow, or wishes there were a greater range of opinion.  I don’t know if the blog is fulfilling her aim for it, or if it’s become very incestuous and kind of uninteresting to her.  I don’t know if she had an aim for it beyond enjoying herself.
     
    I enjoy it.  I think it highly unlikely we’re having much affect on the world.  That’s okay with me.
     

  6. says

    JJ, you are right, of course about gardening blogs not attracting construction workers and about blogs being a chance for people who share interest to get together and chat.  But I wonder if political blogs aren’t a bit different than gardening or construction blogs.  People as intensely interested in politics as the regular visitors to the Bookwormroom are quite often interested in making a difference in the political world.

    Certainly, blogs like the Bookwormroom serve the needs of their community in ways very similar to the a blog dedicated to gardening or construction.  But they might serve a larger purpose as well.  It’s that larger purpose I’m addressing my questions to. 

    BW can speak for herself, but my feeling from talking to her is that she loves her blogging and deeply appreciates the quality and contributions of her readers.  I think she is a little frustrated, though, and wishes it could grow into something even bigger and better than it is. 

    Charles, assuming it was intentional, I simply love “Refudiation”!

  7. esurio says

    Do conservative bloggers make a difference? A resounding yes! Sustenance: something that gives support, endurance, or strength.
    Some random thoughts (from one of those readers who prefers not to comment)…I live in a very, very blue state. I work for education. My sister has proclaimed her love for Castro and my inlaws get their news from the NYT. Conservative blogs are not echo chambers, I live in an echo chamber, conservative blogs are islands of sanity.
    The butterfly effect of conservative blogs… I’ve learned how to better formulate rebuttals and direct discussions when speaking with liberals. When having discussions with liberal friends/family I’m the more up-to-date person on issues and can fix mis/disinformation immediately. However, bloggers themselves have become so influential that they are better able to set/alter the media agenda plus hold Democrats accountable for their behavior.  Plus, I have learned more in the past 2-3 years from reading blogs(and recommended books) than from “all the crap I learned in high school” and college, I pass on what I learn. Finally, I don’t think the Tea Party movement and the 2010 election would have happened without conservative blogs.
    How can we maximize the difference they make? Maybe you could adopt a liberal blog and try weekly online discussions (afterall, they are now calling for civility). One of the conservative* Catholic blogs I read has regular online discussions (theological and political) with the writers of a liberal* Catholic blog.
    *conservative/liberal are not the best descriptors but make the point.

  8. says

    Conservative blogs are also a good place to hone arguments.  We collect data, correct errors, and constantly improve the message.  During the wilderness years, it seemed a bit of rearguard nostalgia but I think that now, as Obama’s agenda proves to be hollow, at best, and dangerous, at worst, our carefully practiced ability to argue, with real facts and coherent analysis, makes us a vanguard in the culture wars.

  9. Tonestaple says

    In my experience, liberals don’t want to hear conservative arguments.  They like to insult and demonize, but they aren’t all that interested in actual argument.  As an example, I will point to “Baghdad Jim” McDermott’s Facebook postings.  Jim posts something pointless and generally wrong, his run-of-the-mill constituents praise his wisdom and thank him for existing, and the occasional out-of-towner says “wish you were here” (to which I voice hearty agreement – I wish he were elsewhere too).  Now when I chime in and point out that what Jim did either made no difference to anything or anyone, or, worse yet, his actions caused actual harm, I am frequently called names but no one ever, ever replies to what I actually said.

    Second, I agree with those who said it’s important that we all have a place to meet.  I live in Seattle.  I have one neighbor who I know is conservative.  When Obama was elected, I did despair because I am so completely immersed in indigo.  Keeping the radio on and reading blogs reminded me that there are plenty of others out there who see things my way.  There are many parts of the country where it can be very lonely to be a conservative and having a place like this and bloodthirstyliberal.com to hang out at do help avoid despair.

  10. Danny Lemieux says

    I agree with Book.
     
    Y’all force me to think based on all the views and points of information provided. I also get great links to other articles and postings from everyone’s interaction. The quality of interaction that I find here is unsurpassed.
     
    Then, I take what I have learned and refined here and use it to a higher calling – converting one Liberal /Lefty Stateopian at a time.

  11. SADIE says

    Everyone needs a “Cheers”- a blog bar. We are already have and are making a difference by a chorus of voices.
     
    Creeks, rivers and streams are lovely to watch, but nothing compares to an ocean pounding at the shore. Every blog is a tributary in its own unique way. If a blog lifts one discussion to a higher level away from the computer, gives support to the lone voice in Marin or NYC …  blogging has created a sea of success.
     

  12. SADIE says

    DQ – Here’s another reason to pull up the stool to the blog bar.
     
     
    SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future.”
     
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/17/sen_rockefeller_fcc_should_take_fox_news_msnbc_off_airwaves.html
     

  13. says

    I’ve made my arguments, in short or extensive analysis, on why I don’t think DQ’s term of an echo chamber is the proper fit for places like here. No point in doing it over again.
     
    I mostly like conservative blogs because I don’t tend to find a lot of weaklings there. That term may not be the exact word that describes my thoughts but it is close enough. Weak people make everybody uncomfortable around them. They get into arguments and lose their cool because they can’t even control their own emotions. And these people are the ones that think they can decide policy for a government of 330 million people on what they should do? Ridiculous. Not gonna work out the way people say it will.


    “People as intensely interested in politics as the regular visitors to the Bookwormroom are quite often interested in making a difference in the political world.”
     
    Which is why they will find easier targets to lurk or post on. Why should somebody pick a generally low comment volume site like this when they got Neo-neocon to harass (before she put her foot down like we all said and started banning people by Ip with new web host thingie) or Hotair or Michelle Malkin?
    With more people, Democrats can practice the “moving the goal post” tactic they like. They can cherry pick the weakest argument out of 10 or 20 counter-arguments and ignore the rest.
     
    Of course libs want to make a difference. But why would anyone think they would choose this place to do it in given the alternatives? Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the feeling that Leftists don’t like me on principle. But they also don’t like talking to me. Could be wrong, though. They could love me. I could have a huge fan group amongst Leftists. Somehow, that doesn’t seem realistic.
     
    (for example, the ones made by Helen, perhaps the most racist white woman I have ever read on a
    blog).

     
    Not the most racist. Just the most honest. There are plenty worse. The black conservatives know who they are. They float around. But they don’t talk about their real beliefs, Martel. They hide it. Just like PillowC hides their blood tank.
     
    it’s hard to get them to respond in any adult or serious manner to plain assertions of fact
     
    I would mention Richard Johnston as a reasonable person, regardless of his politics or views on ERISA. I gave him some initial scouting queries and he reacted in a manner foreign to the Leftists I know. He actually considered what I was saying and made changes to his arguments based upon it, while at the same time being willing to give up some territory on the matter of unions and what not. No real Leftist would do that, if only because their friends and business partners would dump them in no time flat.
    I also get great links to other articles and postings from everyone’s interaction.
     
    For me personally, I always have something in the form of evidence to back up my statements. Regardless of whether they are challenged or not, I always got something in case somebody does. If I was on the Left talking about Bush lied and people died, why would I ever need evidence? No Leftist would challenge me to provide. NoBODY at all would dare say anything other than the party line.
     
    But amongst non-Leftists, you could say, I expect to get challenged on a point that seems new or special. As I was by Tones (I think) on the Catholic Church – Communist angle. People just got to be prepared to Read. As in… actual research reading, not just reading article reading. People telling you what the truth is comes from newspaper articles. Finding out the truth yourself requires you to read a lot of more stuff generally speaking.
     
    In case where I have a guesstimate or a gut instinct, I’ll say that as well if somebody asked me what my view was based on. Usually that’s not the case.
     
    As for Ozzie and Helen, it just looked to me that they only gave up after Obama was elected. That seemed like a special thing. Btw, don’t forget that Ozzie was afraid that Republicans were the only ones out to steal the election and did in fact steal 2000 and 2004 and she expected McCain to steal 2008.
     
    Perhaps the cognitive dissonance got too great for them under Obama. All their old attack and propaganda routines had to be updated for the Obama regime, after all. Can’t be talking about Iraq and Afghanistan being quagmires, for one thing. That takes a toll on a person so maybe they thought they’d take a break from here. And the break turned into a permanent vacation.
    Generally speaking, I don’t tend to like people telling me what to believe, what to think, what to feel, or what God to believe in. Oh, I’ll listen to their arguments with calm and polite manners, but that doesn’t mean I’ll do whatever they tell me to do. The thing is, a lot of Leftists do actually do what the Left tells them to do. Like good cult members. That’s just too freaky if you ask me. Bunch of zombies. Kimochi wari.
     
    Btw, we still got Jack Mayo. I’m hoping he’s still reading this since he said he was a fan of my comments here and had read a lot of them. Or at least he acted like. I miss Mayo, mon.
     
     

  14. says

    Good comments, all.  I especially like Book’s comment about honing arguments, though it would work even better with a few liberal foils to hone against.

    esurio, thanks for commenting even though you don’t usually like to. You added to the quality of the discussion.

  15. says

    Take a random sample here and have them make up “liberal foils” and they would do a better job of it then real liberals.
     
    Don’t need liberals when you can act as other people’s devil’s advocates.
     
    For example, back in 2003, I could generally always argue the anti-Bush side better than the actual Bush haters.

  16. says

    It’s similar to what Dave does when he plays the “bad guy”.
    Why do you need an “actual bad guy” to train with? Chances are, he’d suck compared to Dave the bad guy. And you wouldn’t risk getting blown up for real like the CIA did with their “informant”.
     
     

  17. esurio says

    Thanks DQ. I’m always disappointed in the quality of my own writing when I see it in print. However today, I just wanted you and Book to know how important your blogging contributions are to me all the way over here on the East Coast. I highly value the comments of the regular contributors too.
     
     

  18. Indigo Red says

    Yes, conservative blogging does make a difference. There’s just a lull in commenting and posting because we’re between presidential elections. Even with the very important mid-term elections two weeks ago, most folks were not wired in to the debates. Conservative bloggers played a big role in maintaining conservative interest, while liberals thought they had the whole government locked up and the Republican party was dead.

    I just come home from a TEA Party meeting  where a young college kid stood and asked a question. He said this was his first TP meeting and he was new to the whole political debate. Another guy asked him what got him interested. The kid said he’d been reading some bloggers with whom he agreed and they pointed him to the TEA Party and Conservative philosophies. Yeah, we do make a difference.

  19. suek says

    >>In a very simple form, these blogs and the forums allow for discussions that we would otherwise not be able to have.>>
     
    Exactly.  Direct opposition is often a good thing – it’s challenging – but it cannot be the _only_ thing.  We should not “get hooked” on the conflict.  I have a feeling that the Lefties have a need for the adrenalin rush that comes with conflict – that that’s one of the reasons they respond with nothing cerebral, but just name calling.  It seems as if they’re itching for a fight…so let them chew on each other.
     
    We need the time and space without conflict to consider the many real issues that need to be addressed – conservative blogs provide that medium.  We may all generally agree on the basic issues, but we come with different approaches, different life experiences, different educational backgrounds.  What I know is entirely different from what Sadie or Y or SSG Dave knows.  Like a wonderful stew, if everybody contributes what they can, the outcome is likely to be much better, because in a very large society like ours, with so many cultural backgrounds – one size does _not_ fit all.

  20. says

    I have a feeling that the Lefties have a need for the adrenalin rush that comes with conflict
     
    Suek, if they were truly anti-war, why would they keep using terms like “fight” and always talking about forcing evil companies to their will? Is that really how a pacifist talks? Force, coerce, enforce, fight, and suppress others. So I think you are quite right. They do have a need. A dark, hidden, self-destructive desire. I wouldn’t call it adrenaline. I would describe it more as the fervor of a zealot. A newly converted being who wants to prove his ideological purity and standing.
    True pacifists are like the Amish. They don’t get up in your face and talk about how you are a racist hatemonger that needs to be silenced by big government goons. That’s not being pacific
     
    But the Left are illiterate to begin with so you can’t expect them to understand what words mean.
     
     
     

  21. says

     
    “I would mention Richard Johnston as a reasonable person, regardless of his politics or views on ERISA.” … “No real Leftist would do that, if only because their friends and business partners would dump them in no time flat.”
     
    Well first I need to get over blushing at Ymar’s kind remarks.  I do try to be reasonable and I do also tend to recoil at over-the-top vituperation.  I have two comments to offer here.
     
    First, I think we probably have a tendency to perceive our adversary’s bad conduct with a lot more sensitivity than we do our friend’s.  I tend to become frustrated and weary of suggestions that those of a more liberal bent have a mental disorder, or hate America, etc. I hasten to add I find it equally tiresome to hear those of a more conservative bent called fascists, racists, etc.  It’s all silly.  I was recently called a “liar” for mentioning common unfavorable perceptions about Sarah Palin, which I explicitly said I do not share.  I did not find that conducive to continuing the discussion.
     
    Second, I think there’s a definitional issue at work here.  Many here seem to me to define a “Leftist” or a “liberal” as someone who acts unreasonably or irrationally.  The definition becomes tautological: if that which acts irrationally is a liberal, than by definition liberals acts irrationally.  Ymar’s kind remarks about me are, I think, illustrative; regardless of my “politics or views on ERISA” (and the latter are much more doctrinaire than the former) I can’t be a “real Leftist” because I have acted reasonably in our discourse.  So being a “real Leftist” is not about one’s political outlook but about one’s conduct, and if “Leftist” and “irrational zealot” are one and the same then of course no one can expect to have a reasonable discussion with a “Leftist.”  But if they are one and the same, then equally with saying “Leftists” are jerks, you’re really just saying jerks are jerks.  And with that I agree.  I have to – it’s a tautology.
     

  22. says

    “So being a “real Leftist” is not about one’s political outlook but about one’s conduct”
     
    A perceptive point. If the alliance of the Left was simply an organization which we differed politically on, there would not be such a problem. Compromise is possible to ensure all parties get what they want. I think lawyers would be familiar with the term of a “settlement”. However, many individuals, and I include myself in this category, believe the Left is an alliance created for the sole purpose of destroying the United States Constitution and then replacing it with their own brand of Power Politics and Aristocratic rule.
     
    Thus we speak not simply of political differences but also of social and alliance differences. You are not part of them, unless you are allied with them. And you are not allied with them if you don’t associate with them or speak the same or have the same lunch clubs or go to the same golf resorts. A simple difference, but it often makes a definitive conclusion.
     
    To use one example, Peggy Noonan has spent a lot of time around progressives and other pro-union type people in DC social parties. That’s why Noonan immediately reacted negatively to Sarah Palin. Because she is not of Noonan’s circle and Noonan’s friends would demand that such be recognized. This is true even though Peggy Noonan was a speech writer for Reagan and believes that America needs another inspirational leader like Reagan. So she voted for Obama because he has speech abilities just like Reagan’s.
     
    That’s not a political issue. That’s an alliance issue.
    “I can’t be a “real Leftist” because I have acted reasonably in our discourse.”
     
    Actually, there’s another better indicator for that. I mentioned before that your social circle would penalize you for acting in a way that the Left has deemed impure. So if you act in such a fashion and I don’t see evidence you are being penalized, then you are not associated with such or at least they know nothing of it, yet. For example, both Book and Neo-Neocon, for uttering simple statements about Bush and the war, know very well what would happen if they said so in certain circles.
     
    You can’t be a real Leftist because that behavior, Johnston, would get you crucified by the Left. I have to do nothing. They will crucify you and expel you them any social engagement or business contract themselves. You may not have personal experience on this, but plenty of people, formerly of the Left, can enlighten you very easily.
    “The definition becomes tautological: if that which acts irrationally is a liberal, than by definition liberals acts irrationally.”
     
    So the reason why it isn’t a tautology is because the organizations we speak of are real. And those organizations will themselves penalize you, without us saying a thing about it. That is the objective context used to check, often times.

    There are many things going on with the internet concerning Left vs Republican or Democrat vs conservatives or Tea Party vs RINC. They’re too complex to go into here in one sitting so I’ll pass on it for now.
     
     

  23. says

     
    First, I think we probably have a tendency to perceive our adversary’s bad conduct with a lot more sensitivity than we do our friend’s.
     
    I would say that is true. We are far more sympathetic to people we only partially agree with than with those we consider “The Other” or “mortal enemies” or “100% different”.
     
    Which is often why a staple of classical argument and debate was the requirement that you be able to rephrase your opponent’s argument in a way that pleases your opponent, before refuting it.
     
    They often do this a lot in Greek dialogues, although whether it is accurate or not is debatable.
     
    In real life, I don’t push people as hard as I do arguing on the net since their body language gives them away when I first see them. On the net, I’m going to need them to actually write something and analyze their emotional state from their writings. My accuracy rate goes up the more material I can collect. SSG Dave can perhaps give you a professional view of analysis tools since he learned it from an official intel capacity and I only picked it up as a side hobby, if you wish to ask him about it.
     
    In my limited experience, I have found that Leftists are often very emotional, even over things I would expect no reaction from. On the other hand, Libertarians and conservatives are very hard to make angry on the internet. Very, very hard. I know, cause I’ve tried a few times over the years.
    Why did I try? Simple curiosity. Gathering intel. Getting material to make my own judgments. Take your pick.
     

  24. says

    Indeed, suek. Juan Williams is similar to Johnston, although Johnston’s actually smarter than Juan Williams in my view. But that’s probably my bias speaking, as whenever Juan repeated the Leftist propaganda, my view of his working brain would automatically go down. Still, Juan has come to see and more importantly, admit to seeing, racial injustice. Real racial injustice that is. That, in itself, is a heresy and would have been enough IN ITSELF for them to label and punish him for apostasy. They tolerated hm for a long time being connected to Fox News. But that kind of racial stuff like what Bill Cosby said, is too much for the white Left to handle.
     
    So they expurgated Juan Williams. And now Juan Williams is no longer a Leftist. By no choice other than the Left’s. They deliberately engineered and pushed him into the Fox News camp. FNC couldn’t have paid NPR enough to get them to do that, if NPR didn’t want to do it already.
     
    Correction: expel you FROM any connections, not them connections.
     
    Honesty is something I will respect in any individual, man or woman. When Juan Williams said guns make him afraid, I might rag on his Leftist inconsistencies but I also respected him for his honesty in actually saying things that he believes to be true. I neither called him a coward or a “bigot” against guns simply because he had the moral strength to expose his inner fears on camera. I said the same about helenL before. Racist though she be in the eternal war over humanity’s fate, but at least she isn’t like other Leftists and trying to tell us (lie to us) it is about the children or “poverty”.
     
    I would rather have an honorable enemy that tells me his intentions straight out and keeps to his word, than the craptastic sneaking, conniving, Leftist goon squads led by Soros and Obama. Two faced, mealy mouthed, rules lawyers all in all. No honorable foe amongst them.
     
     

Leave a Reply