The Return Of Contrarious Con-servatism: The Inevitable Conclusion

Our final installment of the Return Of Contrarious Con-servatism continues from Rex’s politely worded question and my fact-based answer.

Well, that Polite Interlude went as expected. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised by the response to our con-servative correspondent’s question.

After all, in his very first communication to me, he called me, "Little Davey",  a dick-head.  That touch of inter-personal charm alone tells us the chances of honest dialogue are nil.

Rex’s response, or retaliation, to the facts in answer to his question was, "Same old tired accusations and rhetoric".  This is the authoritarian tactic of projection, of course.

We recall this famous projection, “No puppet! No puppet! YOU”RE the puppet!”

Yeah, in their world facts are “rhetoric” and as demonstrated, their opinions are seen as facts.

Our studies of Con-servatism have shown Dismissal and Denial of fact and reason are common authoritarian tactics of discourse.

What we are doing here is proving the inevitable conclusion that there can be no good faith communication with these radical far Right ideologues.

As I have stated, we may as well be trying to tell a Moonie that their Republican cult leader is not Jesus. It’s the same as telling the Cult of Con-servatism that Republican Jesus didn’t really send Trump to save America.

As with all cults, emotion trumps reason, and beliefs trump facts. 

~~~~~~~

Rex:

Dave, regarding your question about Rashida, here is some help: (Link to a far Right Federalist opinion.)

As for playing my playing the race card, I am glad you picked up on that, Dave. Too bad you missed the point. It is okay for you and Jeff Davis to do it but you get all but-hurt if anyone from the right does it. I already admitted that Trump is a racist punk, so what’s your point? Woodrow Wilson was horribly racist, but to many on the left he was a wonderful progressive president that did “great” things in warping our nation. Racism is evil regardless of who does it. Calling someone a racist for political points is also evil.

And yes Dave, many of you on the left don’t want a wall because it is “racist”. That is bullshit. If the Canadian government was as corrupt as Mexico’s and people were fleeing into the U.S. across the northern border and bringing drugs, human trafficking etc. with them, then we would want a wall to keep out the lily white Canadians too. Many leftists simply want to expand the welfare state and have a path to citizenship for the southern illegals so that they can expand their power base. It isn’t out of benevolence that they do this but out of cynical partisanship. They use the cry of “racism” to bludgeon anyone that dares speak about limiting the flow of ILLEGAL immigration from the south. They use PC tactics in other words.

“Providing for the general welfare” does not mean what you and the left thinks it means. The constitution as our wonderful former president Obama stated, is a charter of negative liberties, as far as the government is concerned. It is interesting how the left sees the restrictions on government as negative liberties instead of seeing that it does this to ensure positive liberties for us little people out here in America. The federal government was ONLY authorized to do those very few specific things outlined in the constitution. All other duties and responsibilities are left to the states and the people. Your general welfare clause has been perverted to mean that the feds can now do anything the left wants regardless of whether it exceeds the limitations placed on the government in the constitution. I don’t expect you to understand, let alone agree with me.

Yeah, I read your “conservative” article. Nice of you to tell me what I think, particularly (based on your fictional novella) you got nearly every single point wrong. Nice propaganda though. Maybe you could sell that fish wrapper to the Daily Kooks. My assumptions about what the left thinks is based on what they say and more importantly what they are doing. Some few idiots on the right fringes do stupid shit and you think that comprises the whole ideology. Must be the fear in your amygdala kicking in there, Skippy.

Also, try reading the New Testament instead of citing old Jewish law. Christ came along and became the fulfillment of the law in his teachings. Nice try though. Oh, and abusing religion in old Sam Clemmon’s quotes suggests that you think you are far more moral than those that believe and try to live by something greater than themselves… and no… I don’t mean your federal government. Might want to tell Kamala Harris and some of your Democrat reps that whole thing about the religious test being in the constitution, by the way. That idiot keeps wanting to deny seats on the bench to people just because they are Catholic.

It is a damned shame the Democrats insist on hurting people because they refuse to secure the border. Their hate of Trump far outweighs doing the right thing for the nation and their constituents.

==

Dave Dubya:

Rex,

I appreciate your thoughtful offering of the link. I do. It helps me see who formed your opinion.

“Tlaib’s endorsement of a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and comments supporting the left-wing boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) movement.”

And this, according to the far Right Federalist, means she is “anti-Semitic”. He decided they are all anti-Semitic because he quotes a Palestinian-American’s opinion. 

That’s what you got? A Federalist opinion intended to fuel anger? How emotion-based can you get? Very con-servative. ( The Federalist published an opinion piece defending Roy Moore’s dating of teenagers while he was in his 30s and arguing that such behavior was “not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.”)

This is a common tactic of the far Right. They love to accuse those who disagree with the Israeli Right and their treatment of Palestinians as being “anti-Semitic”. Never mind some of us are Jews and most of us have Jewish friends.

We get a lot of broad accusations unsupported by factual evidence. The word of a conservative is all it takes for them to absorb as absolute truth. Look at their Leader for God’s sake!

Never mind. What good will real examples do in the face of Right wing, ideologically based opinion?

And speaking of missing the point, there you go again with the IOKIAR bit.

"I already admitted that Trump is a racist punk, so what’s your point?"

My point was it’s OK for you to say that, but not for anti-Trumpists.

“Calling someone a racist for political points is also evil”

We get that a lot. WE”RE the evil racists for calling out Trump’s racist birtherism.

But I DO thank you for agreeing that Trump is an evil racist.

No wonder you have a deep emotional need for false equivalence and to project that unto liberals.

”...many of you on the left don’t want a wall because it is 'racist'.”

Thanks for telling us what we think again. And no. Most agree it is wasteful and unnecessary to build a wall across the entire border. We have walls already, so this is really a dispute over degree. What you prefer, of course, is to accuse liberals of wanting unsecure borders so we get more voters. Thanks, Rush and FOX(R) for telling us what we think.

Do you NOT understand that is Right wing propaganda? Obviously you do not. Is any conservative opinion a fact to you?

Another example:

"They use the cry of “racism” to bludgeon anyone that dares speak about limiting the flow of ILLEGAL immigration from the south.”

No evidence to support the accusation. Again, opinion is fact.

“ 'Providing for the general welfare' does not mean what you and the left thinks it means."

And thanks for being our new authority on, not only what we think, but the Constitution as well. You don’t disappoint.

Since Mr. Paine is no longer with us, you might be designated our new “Mr. Constitution”.

Thank you for your lecture. It is mostly your opinion, and again unsupported by evidence. You didn’t even quote the Constitution, as I did.

"The federal government was ONLY authorized to do those very few specific things outlined in the constitution.”

And that is my point. Taxes, regulation of commerce and the general welfare are all included. You don’t like that so you want to unilaterally re-define terms.

You accuse liberals, without evidence again, of having “perverted” views that concur with Supreme Court rulings. I would suggest what has been perverted is the definition of free speech and corporate person-hood.

But obviously you know what I think.

 "Yeah, I read your “conservative” article. Nice of you to tell me what I think,”

Do you mean this? “They believe they are defending liberty, religious freedom and capitalism, instead of repression, inequality, and corporatism.”

Your words have made my point.

 "Here’s a tip, Einstein; just because someone believes in capitalism, morality, and liberty (in other words conservatism) that doesn’t make him a racist.”

Complete with the far Right Victim Card tactic, no less.

Then I went on to cite the repression, inequality, and corporatism imposed by your corporate sponsors and their Party.

 "you got nearly every single point wrong.”

And yet you couldn’t offer one bit of evidence as proof? 

Maybe you need help with a format?

Try this:

“Dave, I have to say you are wrong in stating (_____) and claiming (_______). These facts (_____) and (____) suggest you are mistaken.”

What does it take with your side? It’s called communication. I suppose that is meaningless to an ideology that rejects compromise.

"That idiot keeps wanting to deny seats on the bench to people just because they are Catholic."

How many are Catholics now, again?  Victim card again.

But It’s OK If You’re A Republican to deny the Black President his Constitutional duty to appoint a Justice.

Very “not racist”, of course. Can’t be going there. No sireee.

"It is a damned shame the Democrats insist on hurting people because they refuse to secure the border. Their hate of Trump far outweighs doing the right thing for the nation and their constituents."

And one more wild-eyed, spiteful, anger inciting, evidence-free false accusation.

No. You do not disappoint.

This is con-servatism.