I spend a lot of time on conservative blogs, mainly because I already know the Lefty ideas about things and I want to find out what the other side says.

When I’m over at, for example, Confederate Yankee, I’m happy to admit my ignorance of firearm-related issues, and the posters there will explain either the technical aspects of guns or their perspectives on the second amendment–this is information and ideas that are new to me, and I’m happy to get them.

Before I got to this point at CY, however, I had to run the gauntlet for months as the generally conservative posters attacked me for being a troll, and then made assumptions about my opinions and closed-mindedness on the issues, accused me of hypocrisy, and so on and so on. The interactions were, at first, absurdly mean and sarcastic, but they gradually mellowed so that now I can express my opinion about an issue without being attacked for it. I might get corrected, and I may or may not accept the correction as being valid, but at least the discussion is civil. In the end, I’ve learned either some technical information or a little bit about what the other side is thinking on an issue. I learned some eyeopening information about the militia (that we’re all apparently signed up for, whether we know it or not) because one of the conservative posters sent me a link to the federal law establishing the militia. There’s no way I would have found that info at a left-wing site.

I’m willing to be patient here, if need be. As I mentioned before, there’s no point in hanging out at DailyKos because I already know how those folks feel about the issues, and I want to get the full picture. I got the impression from a post up above that NC Cop has been over in Iraq. Is that correct? If so, then his opinions about Iraq-related issues mean something. I’ll pit what I think against what he does, and, if it really seems like he has a point based on knowledge and experience, I’ll probably change the way I feel on the issue. I am, after all, in the “reality-based community,” and I’d like my opinions to be grounded in reality.

Some issues, on the other hand, are pure judgment calls. Take, for example, the issue that started this thread: the veto of the war-funding measure. Either you think that Bush is the obstacle or that Congress is the obstacle, but the issue is not open to scientific proof or anything like that–it’s pure opinion.

I know that some here–maybe most–will now say, “You’re a typical liberal piece of crap, Doc. You’re pretending to be open to persuasion, when actually you like roasting and eating fetuses,” or some such. Like I said, I’m willing to be patient. If the posters here are interesting and have something to teach me that I didn’t know before, I’ll wait it out until they decide that I’m not the archetypal Liberal they have in their minds. If there’s nothing to learn here, I’ll move on. I can take plenty of abuse before that happens, though. I don’t have to like it, but I can take it.

[I]f you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war. For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you.

Absolutely, but the fools we have to suffer, will always believe it is better to surrender than to fight. I am certainly happy our founding Fathers were not todays Liberals. – Lorica

We’re tired, tired of fools with no knowledge or understanding coming around, spouting the same old tired talking points that have been shot down dozens if not hundreds of times before. We’re tired of the ignorance, the blind partisan hate, and the inanity. We realize that unlike your protestation of “I don’t set policy” idiots like you and your fellow travelers in the Democrat party do set and influence policy and the mood of the country with your idiotic talking points and deliberate lies, as well as encouraging the very enemy we are fighting. We’re tired of the willful ignorance and the deliberate dishonesty.

While it may or may not be true that everytime a bell rings, an angel gets it’s wings, everytime a terrorist car bomb goes off, a liberal spouts another talking point, and everytime a Democrat politician wails about the war being lost, a terrorist smiles.

[I]f you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war. For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you. On the other hand, you will find your supporters growing cooler towards you, since they will look upon you as weak or pusillanimous. But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you, and, since those with which you were allied will now esteem you, they will be ready to help when you begin to arm, which they would never have done had you given up.

–Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses Book II, Chapter 14.

This has been known since at least when this was written, in 1517. So, the facts regarding how the world works and how enemies respond to weakness has been known for at least 500 years. We all know it has been known by people who are willing to look at reality for as long as there have been people. But still the modern liberal acts like somehow this is all up for debate and unproven.

Doc, in all honesty, you are to blind to continue discussing this with. I get abit tired of wasting my time, going over and over and over and over everything with you guys. I just wish there was a way to get you all in the same room and start pointing out the real facts of history, and not this fantasy fairytale you all have been taught. It is very exhausting. – Lorica

Except poor old Hans Blix, if you’ll remember: he was the only guy who was right,

Really???

“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.”

That seems pretty clear that he is saying Iraq is NOT cooperating with the disarmament requirement of the United Nations. This is approximately 2 months before the invasion began.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes.”

Not much gray area in that one either. This was also Jan. 2003 as the U.S. began to surround Saddam. Blix may have been against the war, but I do not read much from these quotes saying that he didn’t believe Saddam had those weapons.

On the other hand, Lorica, Vietnam didn’t turn out to be the threat that we were told it was going to be.

The millions of people slaughtered after the communists took over, might disagree with you……if they were alive to tell it. But then again, as long as they are not your relatives, you don’t care.

Ignorance is not a virtue, but liberals seem to treat it as one. Ignorance is not only bliss, but apparently a requirement to be a liberal.