[WSJ] How Democrats Can Avoid Losing

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to state.

Most of the D&D now is a debate between time line of events and whether they occured or not. There is an objective set of events and a timeline somewhere muddled deep in the the media and social media spin.


The D&D used to be more of a debate of ideas and policy rather than an argument of whether an event occured or not.

 

My apologies, and correct me if I'm wrong when I assume that you personally support the statements made above, and they aren't sarcastic or otherwise commentary that doesn't state your personal opinion.

But if I do assume correctly, this does line up with another remarkable shift in the American right very recently: moral relativism.

What used to be the hallmark conservative criticism of liberals, (you'll still see it here when liberals split hairs on criticizing Islamic extremism, and conservatives demand that one take a stand) now American conservatives like to invoke moral relativity.

I think the reasons why are clear: to repeatedly and constantly deny the findings of the scientific community; to know that your side is engaging in awful behavior and resort to false equivalence and both-sideism and various dodges invoking moral ambiguity; to be led by the human personification of amorality and spend time consciously or unconsciously defending and excusing his behavior, one must wade neck deep into moral relativity. Welcome to the party, guys!

Where contemporary conservatism was once a bastion of universal morality, standing upon the rock of traditional values to judge the liberals and their constant complaining about some new injustice that wasn't there last month- now we have tens of millions of conservative Americans engaging in a collective shrug; hemming, hawing, ducking, dodging and excusing that which is clearly wrong and immoral, rather than take a stand for what is right and risk losing an election(s).

 

Dude, this is the first time I've seen you write a post longer than a sentence with your own thoughts and your own take, and it's great. In all seriousness, please keep it up. You clearly have a lot more to contribute than cutting & pasting.

I know it may take too much time to do, but if you have more to write on the subject, I'd rather read that than the article you posted earlier.

 

Indeed, that was a great post by OS. There seems to be a lot of talk about Nietzsche these days. And it also seems that he has been unfairly maligned/characterized as some kind fascist/Nazi (probably because Hitler cited his works).

Nolen, I'll have to get back to your post, but I don't think I was "cheerleading" with my "there is no observable truth" comment. I was just making the comment that as more years go by, the more "facts" I see that really are subject to interpretation.

Now, this is not to say that there are *no* observable, black-and-white facts (I think there are) -- it's just that there are not that many "facts" which cannot be debated.

For now, I'll leave you with this:

 

We have been over this before, don't have an issue with anybody posting anything but at least acknowledge what you are posting and stop trying to pass it off as from unbiased sources.

My real problem with that poster is when challenged on what he post he never tries to have meaningful discussions and it dissolves to posting memes.

I also have to disagree with you most people do try and distracts and are willing to debate those facts and when someone post opinion pieces they are willing to defend there merits.

This poster never does that which is why I asked what he was trying to accomplish here?

 

Thanks for making my point extremely clear.