Welcome, I bid you good wealth! If you have found this message, then you are among the most loyal members to our cause!

Perhaps it is time, now that you have been accepted into our ranks, fellow conservative, to finally remove the thin veil that surrounds our source of Logic. For having come this far, a feat which few manage, you will hear the source for all of the astoundingly logical arguments that we bring up, with a few examples to show how simple it is to logically derive our ideas. We base ourselves on the holy god of Logical Fallacies, and we get away with it - because our fallacies always come to popular conclusions.

But what are Logical Fallacies? Let me demonstrate the all mighty double standard on a simple example, along with the very emotional implying of brotherhood;

"Good day sir!" - unenlightened dummkopf
"It is" - me
"So, what do you have to say about the recent senate vote on immigration policies?
"Well hot damn, I say when those foreigners start coming to our country and using our infrastructure and our land , then they better learn to speak the country's language, because are lazy asses sure aren't prepared to adapt to new situations such as immigrants"
"Sir, can you speak Navajo?"
"No, what is that anyways?"

As you can see, I have managed to get the support of the people on MY SIDE rather than on the side of those god damn liberal hippies by using our so very often, and waiving hypocrisy away with a mere hand gesture.

So you ask yourself, but that is too concrete of an example, you require more, yes? Then understand my justifications for anti-gay marriage;

"God, or Evolution, if you're a liberal hippie, dictates that males put their... thing.. into a women's... thing... and not a male's thing into a male's thing. Thus gay marriage should be forbidden! This is of course this way, because sex's only true meaning is reproduction and all of its derived meanings come from this one stem principle. Thus a gay marriage is an abomination."

More? Perhaps a justification for Iraq and torture?

" Do you remember 9/11? How each of us wept a tear, how each and every single one of us felt when we gazed upon our smoldering ashes of two huge pillars which used to extend high into the sky, two proverbial Towers of Babel? Do you remember, how the most educated of us felt confused, wondering why they had not simply crashed the plane into the world central banking system in Belgium?

This is what we're fighting out there, to stop this sort of thing from ever happening again. Because Israel has shown exactly how foreign policy should be done with anyone that so as much gives us a dirty look - we roll in the tanks, never mind that the current generation will come to hate us for it and start a terrorist attack because of it.

Reagan has shown us all means are required when facing huge opposition - he demonstrated this fact by trafficking drugs (while advocating the war on drugs, no less), getting a large amount of income due to selling weapons to two sides of a war, and last but not least, the training of middle eastern terrorists against the evil communist regime.

Is any of this ironic? Heck no, that was like, 30 years ago, no one gives a shit about what happened 30 years ago. It's not as if we're paying off the debt Reagan made 30 years ago.

Would you prefer one foreign person to be in discomfort or for 500 of us to be dead? 9/11 happened, and it might happen AGAIN. Beware the Islamic extremists - they're master tacticians, probably due to no small part in USA training."

Public health insurance option?! No way!

"Do you know what those hippie liberal democrats said 150 years ago? They said;

"OY I'VE GOT A RIGHT TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE WORK MY FIELDS FOR NO PAY"

and I am sure you know what they say now, right?

"OY I'VE GOT A RIGHT TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR MY HEALTH INSURANCE"

need I say more? Those hippie liberals propose that we cut the defense budget - which is higher than the sum of the next five countries together - but I say they're internal terrorists that want to open up a route for those Muslim extremists to do another 9/11 on us.
"

Now you know our secrets, guard them well.

What the heck you want to tell us? That you can make anyone believe the grates nonsense by using fallacies? Or that this conservative believe is superior to the one og those "liberal hippies"?

Every argument you used is easy to refute by the way - But your "text" is kind of confused, so its not easy to see, if you wanted it to be confused. Maybe to make it harder to contradict or because you didnt want to make it clearer or sth. i cannot see because im not logical enough.

Heh, I'm betting this is copypasted from some liberal Glenn Beck equivalent, but I'll post a short reply anyway.

First off, both sides use logical fallacies constantly-- Obama's personal favorite is the red herring, and both sides use the post hoc (not the politicians, but the supporters) fallacy pretty frequently.

Second, you never stated the "source of our logic", but I'll do you a favor and do it for you-- conservative logic comes from a desire for power and wealth and an inherent self-interest present in all politicians, no matter how they try to shield it. The political world is corrupt, and the conservatives are pinnacles of corruption-- that's what I like about them. We unabashedly start wars, "mistreat" (I put pretty much all subjective words into quotations, other than the more obvious ones) indigenous peoples, and take all their resources-- it is, after all, the American Way. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that-- that's why America is a superpower.

I'd post more, but I have to go to school now.

i am well aware that no one talks like that


politics in general, maybe? or a chance for the conservatives to defend against my huge strawman fallacy? or to see if people agree in that conservatives/politicians use logical fallacies at every turn? Oyster has the right idea by what I meant by the thread



no, I wrote it myself - if you don't believe me simply copy + paste a portion of my text, and put quotes around it, and google it (forget this part oh crap, edit) - yes I realize i could've changed a couple of words to their synonyms, but I could not have possibly replaced ALL of them

the reason this thread should not be moved to rapid threads is that it's an attack on conservatives - a serious topic, only i presented it a bit light-heartedly with a thinly disguised veil of sarcasm



@Oyster: I'm kind of reluctant to see the democrats as the only "other side" - although it's true this thread is more directed towards american politics than others, there are still other viable alternatives - various forms of libertarianism, socialism , etc.

I would also not consider that as the "source of conservative's logic", but rather as the GOAL of the same logic. Although I agree at the corrupt part. By the way, could you elaborate on that last part of your second paragraph? With the amoral decisions - I want to attack that part but I feel like you have more to say on that topic.

I'm aware that there are a multidude of other political stances, but when something as shamelessly conservative-bashing as this pops up, I'd say it's a safe bet that the OP is a liberal.

Heh, my stance on morality is that it has changed so much over the course of human history that it can no longer be applied logically in any way other than it's basis in survivalistic instinct (i.e., don't kill your own, etc.).

And I am a conservative, just not a traditionalist. I understand the foundations of conservatism (specifically, economic conservatism) at their basic level (maximize profit no matter what the cost, expansion of territory no matter what the cost-- you get the general idea).

I'm actually more for a government based on Titoism - I guess the closest political ideology to that would libertarian socialism. Concretely would mean a free market - where the higher ups are not people who started the company, but rather the workers of the company - with the government making sure that no one person will get through to a position of power too quickly.

I am well prepared for a rebuttal in "incentive", or impracticality - so go ahead if you wish.

Well I guess that is kind half-liberal xd


That's still a bit abstract - how exactly does it apply to politics?


I take it you support imperialism? Biggest asshole wins etc.? I'd prefer if this "stating of our respective views" went a little more concrete.

I wouldn't argue about the moral implications of this statement, since nobody really cares, but do you really think this is the most practical policy for a country to have? Were deregulation and the Iraq war really good ideas for the American economy?

Wait, that shouldn't even be phrased as a question. Bush's implementation of "conservative" policies crashed the stock market.

Of course, Bush did quite a bit of spending. Over the last century, of the five presidents who increased domestic spending the most, four have been Republican presidents. Reagan was about the only "conservative" Republican president elected.

The modern Republican party works to satisfy its lobbyists. It then looks to attract conservatives and with lots of "big government" and "cut spending" rhetoric. Then when they get elected they spend more than the liberals did on the lobbyists' issues, and spin their decisions on whatever news show (on FOX usually) to keep their base satisfied. I have no idea how that's worked for as long as it has.

It's not like the Democratic party doesn't have lobbies either. I just tend to prefer theirs. So, unless the conservatives feel like starting the Sarah Palin party and making that work somehow, there's always going to be huge loads of money spent on this crap. I think we need some campaign finance reform.

I'VE BEEN STRAWMANNED. OH, FOR SHAME.

I didn't mention anything about Bush, or Republicans, or anything of the sort-- I'm talking about politics at it's most basic level.

Historical conservatives (i.e., Andrew Jackson) are the kill/maim-the indigenous-to-obtain-resources-and-territory types that I admire-- if it wasn't for them, the expansion of the U.S. wouldn't have happened as quickly (relative to other pseudo-empires) as it did. So one could say that, in addition to producing our own resources, stealing the resources of others worked out pretty well for us-- until the U.N. came along, ofc, but that's another discussion.

What. Unclear and confused OP getting at some dubiously authentic political statement.

Seriously, what's with all the recent explosion of half baked pseudo philosophy and 'social examination' anyway?

Reaganomics is the reason for the financial crisis we find ourselves in today.