We should find conservative forums!

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
makuck's picture

I was just noticing how in Thom's forum we have about 10 conservatives who will start threads, then have a conversation amongst themselves in the forum. And in threads we start they will show up and in a matter of minutes, between three of them, hijack the thread and have a conversation agreeing with their conservative talking points for half the page. It's always the same people, and I honestly wonder if they are getting paid to do it, because it seems like it must be a full time job for some of them. So I was wondering how effective would it be if we used similar tactics on a conservative forum. The only problem is talkers like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't have a forum, because if they did they would be completely debunked. There must be conservative forums out there though.

  • http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl This one seems to be popular, I think I'll start paying them friendly visits and subtly use facts and logic and possibly help some of them to stop voting against their own best interest. I am not sure how strict their moderators will be, but there's only one way to find out. Thom's forum is great, it lets us get together with like minded people. But often it feels like we are preaching to the choir. We should spread our message to darker corners of the web, and shine light on lies and propaganda, peacefully.
  • Comments

    douglaslee's picture
    Here is one, I read  a few,

    Here is one, I read  a few, because yaknow all media is liberal, so ya really have to hunt for the truth.

    makuck's picture
    That's not a forum, that's

    That's not a forum, that's not even news. It's just a deluge of paid commentary with very limited outsider commentary from readers. I would call it propaganda personally.

    All the media is not liberal. Unless you consider Faux News liberal, or the site you just misdirected me to, or the 10 Rush Limbaugh stations that play 24/7 on my AM radio in Nebraska.. and then we're really screwed.

    Posting that garbage proves my point.. con's trying to hijack a thread that's about them hijacking threads, that's just ridiculous...


    makuck wrote:

  • http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl
  • And after a couple more clicks...(this is a published article, NOT a post)
    Human Events wrote:
    ...The truth had nothing to do with Jefferson being sympathetic to the Muslim world.  The opposite is, in fact, the case.  As the historian Michael Oren points out: 
  • “Jefferson was typical of the Americans who…viewed the region [the Muslim states of North Africa] as the repository of despotism, depravity, and backwardness, a kind of inverse mirror of their own democracy, probity, and enlightenment. Certainly, to his mind, a band of Muslim holy warriors bent on enslaving innocent American sailors was far more deserving of whiffs of grapeshot than bags of hard-earned gold….But with much of American opinion still opposed to using force, Jefferson had no alternative other than to continue negotiating with North Africa for the hostages’ eventual release.”


    To Jefferson, the Muslim corsairs were nothing but “sea dogs,” and a “pettifogging nest of robbers.”  He eventually arrived at the conclusion that only an appropriate military response would be effective, in part in reaction to the many ‘heartbreaking’ letters he received from sailors who were cruelly imprisoned by Muslim pirates, many of whom were ‘mortally afflicted by the plague.’  As Jefferson made known, he “suffered perpetual anxiety” for the innocent American captives. 

    In December 1790, Jefferson recommended that America go to war against the Muslims

  • Whew!  It is nice to be back out of THAT rabbit hole!  And the banner ad on the side is "Concealed Carry Report -- Carry With Confidence!"

    Someone please fact-check this.  But note that the most disturbing part of this article is the tone.

    http://www.humanevents.com/about-he.php The "About" page -- with a YouTube greeting from Ronald Reagan himself -- "I have been reading Human Events for over 33 years."

    "[author] is an author available for speaking and writing assignments in US & Europe. Reach her by email at..."This is from five clicks...I wonder what OTHER alternate universe 5 clicks would get me to?  And would I be so blessed as to find another Ronald Reagan video expounding the virtues of the NEXT publisher of race-baiting garbage?

    makuck's picture
    Yea, some of the rabbit holes

    Yea, some of the rabbit holes you can find are damn scary to say the least. Not for the weak of will. I suppose you could find a KKK site and a neo-nazi site supporting republican talkers like Beck and Rush if you looked hard enough.

    As scary as it may be to tread that ground, I would think a well placed fact would do wonders to debunk an outright lie. Probably can't do much about turning a completely brainwashed, racist, gun toting, Muslim hating, Walmart loving yet China hating, Socialist hating yet social security collecting idiot into an intelligent liberal.. but you could at least get them to second guess their corporate masters who give them their talking points.


    http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?nu... There is post AGAINST privatizing Social Security posted here among the usual "pro" arguments.

    Speaking of the usual arguments, here they are in a nutshell: "SS is a Ponzi scheme going bankrupt; it's MY money, let me keep it!  SS has been robbed and I don't want to pay into a system that is getting robbed! The government is only good for taking MY money and redistributing it!" (this is me summarizing 5 or 6 posts).

    Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't these people making fun of Al Gore's "lockbox" comment?

    But I am going to show you where the REAL danger is.  This, I feel, is how the right wing noise-machine finds and grows an audience in its image:

    Let's look at the conservative/Libertarian viewpoint: they see the "bite" taken out of their paycheck, they wait in line longer than expected at the DMV, they encounter some other bureaucratic hassle, and they lump that all in with the rhetoric of someone like a Dennis Miller-type who is saying "it's all SOOOOO simple! Get the gov't off our backs!"

    Why, it IS all so simple!  You drank your Kool-Aid today, right?

    So all of a sudden, "freedom" and "liberty" and "less taxes" means the same thing, and you're lumping yourself in with the Founding Fathers (strap on a gun while you're at it)  -- but we have yet to cover things like trade policy, taxes on the top 1%, environmental regulation, large-scale privatization, national defense contracts & private prisons, etc.

    So it becomes what a "con artist" would call a "shell game."

    In 2009: 0.3% (that's 3 in ONE THOUSAND) estates are hit with estate tax AT ALL, the ones that are pay an EFFECTIVE rate averaging 20% (mainly because the first $3.5M wasn't taxed anyway).

    And yet Tea Partiers will moan and groan about the Estate Tax ALL DAY.

    I think many of them know it's not a battle that plays to their self-interest.  But it's an ideological fight they feel compelled to take on, for the reasons above.  Yes, they are being manipulated, but they also believe in this stuff, by and large.  Think of it in terms of the reproductive rights battle -- the fight is around the edges (partial birth abortion) because that's where the fight IS, not because people think it does/doesn't will/won't apply to them.

    So what you get is people who REALLY, HONESTLY don't need or even WANT the smartest kids on the block to be their leaders.  The arguments are so simple, and they resonate so clearly (if you don't take a LOOONG peek behind the curtain).  The Kool-Aid drinker WANTS someone "down-to-earth" in a position of power -- "Dammit, this isn't rocket science!  Lower my damn taxes!"  Someone who thinks too hard might just f' it up!  And this is not a "dig" at people on the right.  If your kid is on the high school football team, do you hope the coach is going to be a philosopher/explainer/nuanced decision maker, or a "pep-talk" fighter/motivator with an "itchy trigger finger," so to speak?

    Two observations: 1) We should be able to get BOTH, if need be, or better yet, we should understand that true leaders don't always give the best "pep talks," and that a gutsy "call" in the political sphere might take longer than a 30-second time-out to formulate (or explain, for that matter). 2) This is the raw material behind the traction that criticisms of Obama as "aloof" have gained.  Often it's not Obama the leader they are criticizing, but (the perception of) Obama's leaderSHIP.  They want the metaphorical "football coach" -- not just because they identify with him/her, but because "THAT'S WHO WON'T F' IT UP!  LOWER OUR DAMN TAXES!  DEFEND OUR BORDERS AND GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!"

    And if you DO peek behind the curtain, there's always a Friedmanite or a Rand-ian around the corner to tell you (Friedman) it's for the better or (Rand) it really IS better to strip away the public sector.  Where's Michael Medved when you need him?  But, frankly, even the "thinking man's conservative" doesn't need to go "there."  It fits on a bumper sticker: "Streamline the Economy, let us keep our money, get off our backs!"  They don't need Friedman to tell them that.

    We can poke holes in the arguments all day, and righteously so.  And, better yet, we can show (I think unequivocally) how bankrupt their philosophies truly are, and how history has proven so.  It won't do any good.  Trust me.  I don't know how to change someone who has really programmed themselves this way.  It's a lot like trying to disprove someone's religion.  No wonder they're the ones who tend to call dissenting voices "Unamerican."

    That's my "take" on it, anyway.

    mememine69's picture
    I'm a liberal but you can

    I'm a liberal but you can take shots at me for I'm a Climate Change Denier, (not a pollution denier).

    Taking into account the Bush family and their criminal wars, is it so unreasonable (considering voter support gone now), to suggest that the likes of Al Gore, the criminal lab coat consultants, pandering politicians, lazy teachers, criminal PR firms and most of all, the irresponsible NEWS EDITORS, should all be rounded up and arrested and charged with treason for leading us to a false war of climate change? They condemned billions of people to death by CO2 for 24 years and we are supposed to just let them walk away now? Twenty-five years was wasted by these criminals on climate control instead of population control. Email your authorities in your particular part of the world and maybe, just maybe, history will not mock us all for this modern day witch burning of climate change. Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education. NOW tell us climate change wasn’t a crime!

    Cheesebone's picture
    Personally, I'd LOVE to see a

    Personally, I'd LOVE to see a few of the more well-spoken Progressives here go on conservative messageboards.You guys would be shooting fish in a barrel.

    There's a reason I'm here - the boards for most conservative crowds are full of complete potato chips. I came to Thom's messageboard because I think he's brilliant and hoped to find a group of people with differing opinions who I could still have solid conversation with. I think it's been great for me personally.

    Odds are that many of the stronger posters here would just leave a large majority of those other guys speechless, lol. Especially when you start dealing with the uber-religious and/or war-hungry Right wingers.

    Believe me - I hope I'm not offending anyone with my posts here.. I know at the end of the day that we all want the same thing, we just have differing ideas about the best way to achieve it. I'm probably much more Libertarian that the average member here, but that means I can see eye-to-eye with a lot of things the Progressive crowd does too.

    My primary beef is with the economics end of it (and that's where the majority of my posts end up anyway). But hopefully I've raised a few eyebrows here on my own, and I know I've taken great information away from this place as well. I'd like to think the trading will continue :)

    makuck's picture
    @think_r: I think you're

    I think you're probably right. which is why I pointed out that all the good it might do is get them to question their beliefs, if only for a moment. Someone who already has some doubt and may know they are being fed poison, might all of a sudden realize there is another way. I've seen it happen. For example there are republicans who like doing outdoors type things, and they like nature, such as Boyscouts, hunters, fishers, hikers, campers, etc, but they've been told protecting it doesn't matter - in some cases rich republican hunters joining parcels of land for hunting ground is the only thing protecting it/giving it "value". It can be extremely effective telling that crowd why protecting it, even if it's not for hunting, does matter. Or pointing out the racist dog whistle language to someone who is against racism how many attacks against Obama are racist in nature. That is powerful stuff that can definitely change hearts.. one issue at a time.

    Lets assume you are correct. I would hardly say making mega corporations and industries pollute less is akin to committing treason, directly and knowingly causing the death of American civilians, indirectly causing the death of American soldiers, and directly ordering the massacre of over 100,000 civilian, destitute, tribal people who still ride around on donkeys.

    @mememine69 cont:
    When you look at glaciers that have existed for all of recorded history, that are now gone, such as "glacier" national park which has about 10% of its glaciers left, I question how someone with eyes can doubt global warming. I also question if you are a liberal, as your only talking point on these forums so far has been to deny climate change, while offering no proof whatsoever, not even from a biased right-wing, paid-off scientist to stand in the face of NASA research and research from hundreds of independent scientists from around the world. In other words where are you getting your ideas from, gut feelings? Your only statement, and therefore you, come off as a right wing talking point. and now to call for the arrest of Al Gore.. that is preposterous and you know it.

    Population control is a huge issue though, I think everyone can agree on that and I would be just as happy if something was done about that. Empowering women in third world countries would be a great start.

    It's good to have someone give an opposing view, at least sometimes.. especially if they are being honest about what they believe in, even if I think it's wrong. I've agreed with you on a couple small instances. There are things that the left and the right can see eye to eye on. You would think in those cases that change would be an easy sell.. like population control, doing something about our trade deficit with China, and tax cuts for corporations who manufacture IN America. Unfortunately the elected officials on both the left and the right know what side their bread is buttered on, and it's rarely the side that the people are on. I really believe there is room for bipartisanship, but I don't think the elected officials have enough fear of their constituents to face their true masters to do it. I think that is part of the reason for the record number of filibusters coming from the republican side, even on the measure to give tax cuts to corporations who produce in America, but democrats have a few corporatist shills now too. I don't think republicans voted in senators to just say no to everything did they? They actually wanted them to do something about jobs right? Have both the left and the right lost control of their elected officials?

    mememine69's picture
    Holding a threat of death by

    Holding a threat of death by CO2 over my kids heads just to get them to turn the lights out more often questions my liberal faith. I can't do this CO2 mistake anymore but I'm NOT a neocon so spare me the insults.

    I'm a Liberal alone with my own convictions now. I can't dare bring this up in the open as I've been shouted down every time.

    I am a Green Liberal Denier.

    Remove CO2 from the environmental equation and nothing changes, except the spear of fear held at my kid's backs.

    Love, not windmills and fear. Why is fear our only motivator? I see climate change as our Iraq War as promising death to all by CO2 is not sustainable for another 24 years. I see a lot of us hoping this misery will come true just for political purposes. That's not progressive.

    makuck's picture
    You're not liberal or

    You're not liberal or progressive. In your previous post you just called for the jailing of half the scientific community and news sources.. that's something a fascist dictatorship does.

    When Al Gore made his movie etc, he was NOT a sitting president declaring war. He was an individual making a statement via a scientific theory supported by scientists. In other words he was not in a position of power as an individual to make calls on what our country should do in terms of green research, carbon curbing, etc. He could only influence the conversation, just like any of us could do with our freedom of speech, and his use of it was entirely reasonable.

    You say you're green but you're against wind power? I suppose you think coal is greener? Obviously you are questioning liberal values because you aren't standing for any of them... anyway, who was hoping misery would come true? Link one example of anyone on this forum wishing that, because when you say a lot of us, that's a blanket statement that requires proof, just like Global warming theories required proof. The entire reason we are trying to do something about it is so misery doesn't come true. Your logic is deeply flawed.

    Back on topic.. how to debate conservatives on conservative turf, not conservatives saying they are liberals on liberal turf.

    I agree that more of you guys

    I agree that more of you guys should visit conservative sites.  Liberals who engage in honest debate are well received and the results are some very interesting and informative discussions.  Unfortunately, most liberals, and wingnut conservatives, do not survive in a fair environment.

    My observation is that most conservatives dwell on the details, while most liberals enjoy the fluff of the big picture.  I find it very enjoyable to watch and participate in discussions that try to draw lines between the two views.

    Before you go to the conservative sites, here are the behaviors to avoid.

    Avoid the "If you stupid people would just listen to us smart liberals, we can explain why you engage is destructive behavior." attitude.  I know it is hard to believe, but for some of you, you're not the intellectual elites you think you are.

    Avoid the following descending discussion path:  make a point, listen to a counter point, insist your point is correct even though you can't support it, listen to the proof that your point has flaws, and respond to the exposed flaw with angry name-calling and innuendoes.

    While both of those behaviors are encouraged and protected here, they will get you ignored in places where open discussions are allowed.

    meljomur's picture
    This doesn't really

    This doesn't really belong under US Domestic Politics.


    makuck's picture
    Mel, it is about politics, in

    Mel, it is about politics, in the US, and it is domestic interactions, not foreign. If it's a big deal, where do you think it should go? Economics? Foreign policy? Environment? World affairs & Iraq? Or Thoms Radio show? Since those are the only other options, which one of those is the better fit?

    Thanks for the tips Paleo-con, I think you're definitely right. If you open up the conversation by calling someone an idiot, for example like I was just tempted to do, and have now basically done, don't expect positive results! Sometimes it's best to just ignore people and realize your time is better channeled elsewhere. Or very carefully choose your words, to evoke positive rather than negative responses, at least where you think it matters.

    It's really easy to get sidetracked when someone takes personal offense or feels personally insulted because an idea they believe in strongly is being challenged. Especially if they think it is an unjust lie that is challenging it. And if there is an actual personal attack that isn't based on the idea in question, and the insulted person responds in kind, the conversation about the idea is basically over and it becomes nothing more than a clash of personalities. It happens on this forum all the time and I've been guilty of it before.

    makuck's picture
    Wow meljemur, you moved my

    Wow meljemur, you moved my post to the lounge. Nice heavy handed moderating there. I'm done with this forum. Way to go Thom, letting someone who votes republican moderate your forum.

    makuck wrote:Wow meljemur,

    makuck wrote:
    Wow meljemur, you moved my post to the lounge.
    I was wondering where it went.  I agree -- "if this isn't US domestic politics, what is it?"  I would only add "if this ISN'T US domestic politics, what is?"

    The posts in this topic debate/discuss things like Reagan, Jefferson, estate taxes, Social Security, Al Gore, (US) CO2 emission policy, Beck and Limbaugh, the tone of conservative/liberal political discussion in the US and what we can do to communicate more effectively with the other side, Faux news, US/China trade policy and its ramifications domestically.  If anything, the way the discussion has proceeded places it SQUARELY within the scope of "US Domestic Politics."

    Moreover, fighting the "ground war" by communicating well-founded Progressive ideals (not slogans or soundbites) to reasonable, thinking conservatives and moderates is part of the very MEANING of Thom's "Tag, you're it" tag-line, in my opinion, and the internet is our generation's arena of ideas.   Our cultural "story" (as Thom would put it) WILL shift either hard right or Progressive left within a decade or two at most, and, just as the "story" with Civil Rights did a lot of changing between '44 and '64, so will our idea of who we are as a PEOPLE, and if WE don't find a way to take the discussion directly to them, they will win a well-funded (on their side) war of attrition.

    This is the the mission of our generation.  Or, as Michael Moore put it, "ultimately, we have to decide if we are going to be a WE society or a ME society."  This WILL come to pass within 20 years.  "You can't be neutral on a moving train" (Zinn).

    "They've got the guns, but we've got the numbers" (Jim Morrison).  All makuck is saying is that we should take them on directly!

    Not only should this be in "US Domestic Politics," but a case could be made for it being a "STICKY" at the TOP of the forum, with TH fans posting on conservative forums and then linking from here to those posts: "reports from the 'front,'" so to speak.

    makuck's picture
    Thanks for the support

    Thanks for the support Think_r, you definitely got what I was saying, this is about our cultural story. We can't just ignore the other side of the story that is being acted out. The only way to help the story move in a progressive direction is to be a part of the complete story in its totality. It should start with US Domestic politics, with us.. and hopefully expand from there.

    stwo's picture
    Moderation and administration

    Moderation and administration here is comically inconsistent.   There are many threads in US Domestic Politics that are not related to US Domestic Politics- yet this one is singled out for a move-  nothing to do with the moderator having decided that makuck is a wolf in sheep's clothing I'm sure.

    makuck's picture
    Well, I love polycarp, DRC,

    Well, I love polycarp, DRC, and SueN. Polycarp was one of the main reasons I kept coming back here. Those three seem to be all very level headed, give even die hard conservatives a certain level of respect, and most importantly they are intelligent, actually read posts, and respond with creative insight. If they don't see eye to eye on one topic they don't openly denounce the person, ever. Moderators should seriously refrain from that (personal denouncement), no matter what scope of work they are in, they are supposed to set the standard. They are supposed to create an environment that encourages respectful participation. If a moderator calls every other person a wolf in sheeps clothing, all of a sudden it's acceptable for the entire community to make those types of personal attacks.

    There in another thread I was part of, she is denouncing someone else, in posts #11 and #13, someone who was just stating things as they are, and being completely polite, not advocating any political side at all! Who appointed her to decide who is a real progressive and who is not? What makes her a real progressive? Did voting republican solidify her progressiveness and ability to label others on this site "wolves in sheeps clothing" with impunity?

    It takes someone with true fortitude to allow people who disagree with them to have an intelligent debate about the issues without resorting to personal attacks.

    Mel would have liked me if I said I loved her opinions and her actions. When Mel decided to vote republican I disagreed with her. I disagreed because she was saying she was a liberal while voting republican. The only explanation I could come up with is because the United States no longer agreed with her, she wanted it to fail. She directly stated she wants the United States to fail. Does that sound like a familiar talking point to anyone else? And since then has pretended to psychically know what my motives here are, and given the power of moderation feels proper authority to openly denounce me for questioning her ideas.

    Here is my response: she said if absentee ballots were counted, and helped a republican win, she would donate money to schools in Washington state (since she voted republican), which is where she was absentee voting.

    Shows that republicans won in Washington state, and if you look up data, 2/3rds of the state were absentee ballots and they were all counted. So I'd like to hold you to your statement Mel, and see a donation to a Washington school. What do you think an appropriate amount would be?

    I'll come back to see poly's take once in awhile, and the blurbs Thom starts, but I highly doubt I'll be contributing anymore. Why bother when someone who feigns liberal while voting republican can move your post into a black hole on a whim?