It is not just me

A very frustrating aspect to political debate occurs when your opponent refuses to accept any evidence or premises you offer. The conservative mind seems never able to admit a point that did not originate with them and simply ignores attempts to demonstrate hypocrisy or illogic. I used to feel that my many jousts with my nemesis, the DJ, were special cases in this regard but this morning Lincoln Log ran into the same difficulty.

I realize now that you are indeed an advocate of Alexander Hamilton--not any libertarian nonsense. Your obsession with cost-recovery as the basis for any action, assuming that the rich know what they are doing, and government as the ultimate custodian of property rights--these are Hamilton. You may think you are endorsing Jefferson, but your posts are a Hamiltonian as can be.

[responses]As usual, LL, you are eloquent in your premise. And, as usual, you are wrong.

Please point me to any one place where I have argued that the "rich know what they are doing," any more or less than any of the rest of us. I doubt you have one to offer.

Rather, my basic premise is that they are entitled to the same fundamental expectation that they be more or less "left alone" as are the rest of us. 

And "gov't as the ultimate custodian of property rights"? I have no idea where in the world you are coming up with that. I want nothing more from gov't than to see it shrink by 80 to 90%. 

Now DJ's favorite is to cry "whoa is me" and "oh, everything is great about government except when dubya was running it" or something to that effect. 'always blame dubya' and the like. It never fails because fair-minded people do not want to kick losers when they are down. But obviously, the empirical evidence that dubya did screw everything up is irrefutable. I for one am so utterly exhausted about arguing this though, especially after living through that administration and watching them blame everyone for their own mistakes. What was it? bush could not think of a single mistake he made during his terms? Maybe because everything he did ranged from harmful to disastrous?

Why is it that people outside the conservative movement, authoritarians if not worse inside, have such a hard time challenging baseless assertions? Why do we have such a hard time calling lies what they are? Or correcting the blurring of definitions and debunking nonsensical accusations?

I know it is not just me that tires easily from trying to counteract the black magic of conservative thinking. I know it is not just me who encounters this debate style. And I know now that I am not the only one who cannot make a simple statement without getting attacked.

It is not just me who appears weak without responding to conservative baiting. Good to know.

PS, several people chimed in to point out the respondent's inconsistency and misunderstanding in LL's original posts.