User:Caius/RobSandPhelps

Ames #1
So, I've kept my mouth shut about the "Fred Phelps is a liberal" thing, but it's time to put this to a stop. Do you have any evidence that Fred Phelps holds any liberal beliefs? Membership in and contributing to the Democratic Party 30 years ago is different than being a "liberal," and one suspects that the reason that he stopped contributing to Democrats is that he found out how liberal they actually are.

Do you have any other proof that Phelps holds a single liberal belief? Other than the fact that you don't want to admit that he's the logical extreme of conservatism?

Rob #1
All that assume liberalism has some foundational core beliefs to stand upon; the beauty of liberalism is, it can be molded to say whatever is expedient at the moment (see cp:Chinese Rectification campaign, for example).

Ames #2
So what it sounds like to me, is that you think Phelps is liberal because he's not conservative, and "liberal" means anything that's not within /your/ definition of conservatism. Essentially, anything that you don't like is liberal.

I'd like to explain to you something very critical: the world does not follow any such simplistic Manichean dualism. While that seems to be a predicate assumption of Conservapedia - "what we like is conservative and good, what we don't is liberal and bad, no other conditions or explanations required" - it is eminently false. And even if the world did follow some rule like that, I doubt it would be yours, or mine. In short, your definition of "liberal" subsumes your warped viewpoint, and fails accordingly. Under any reasonable definition of liberal - as in, by individual criterion or by the person's viewpoints, rather than your opinion of what you don't like - Phelps is not a liberal.

Come up with a good definition of "liberal," argue how Phelps even comes close to it, and we'll continue the debate. But if it's just you pushing your warped definition, and hiding it with your sysop powers of block & revert, than stop being a jerk and admit you were wrong.

Rob #2
Ehhh, we had some stuff up on the front page recently, some science about how libs are more flexible, and able to deal with ambiguity.

Ames #3
I appreciate the compliment.

However, that liberal beliefs more ably integrate ambiguity does not mean that liberal beliefs are ambiguous. Nor does it mean that you can colorably call anything "liberal." I'm still waiting for proof.

Rob #3
So, why should a clear thinking, flexible, openminded, tolerant of ambiguity, willing to change liberal have trouble with the idea Phelps is a kinsman? Seems rather inflexible & closed minded, doesn't it?

Ames #4
Flexible refers to opinions & beliefs, not facts. Again the sin of factual relativism: no-one at CP seems able to expiate that from their discourse.

Rob #4
"factual relativism," that's a good one. What's your opinion about that?

Ames #5
You're digressing from the original point. Liberalism is defined by a set of beliefs. Which of those beliefs is shared by Phelps?

Rob #5
<< Intervening moments of RobS strategy deleted. >>

Personally, I have a much different view of liberalism than the mainstream understanding. In the 1980s, I thought Ronald Reagan had almost rehabilitated the term, and we would maybe able to divide liberalism from socialism in American politics. Than along came the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon, and made it a dirty word. To get along you have to go along, but truth is in a personal view, I really don't having to divide "liberalism" from "classical liberalism", and confusing liberalism with socialism. OTOH, I learned a longtime ago, nobody gives a crap what I think, and I ain't gonna change the world. So I just play my role as a credible and moderating influence.

Ames #6
The problem is you're not using "liberal" in a credible or moderating manner at all. You're not using an evenhanded, objective, and external rule, you're just defining it by your own mind. If you're actually interested in changing the meaning, then do it; don't throw up your hands, say "I give up," and decide on a case-by-case basis, based on whether or not you like someone, if they're liberal.

Rob #6
You may have not noticed, but generally I don't go off on liberal smearing binges. Maybe once and while, but that's just to tweak you guys and it's sort of expected of my in a leadership role. But you have to pick your spots. Bottomline, I don't care much for partisanship at this moment in history cause it only serves America's enemies interests. So if you guys would just leave it alone, we may find common ground.

Ames #7
You mean, you'd be willing to remove the reference and just say Phelps isn't on either side of the spectrum? In the spirit of healing America? That'd be great. I'd drop the Phelps issue entirely.

More on partisanship later.

Rob #7
Phelps is a countermove; the sniping has to stop over there on your side. What pull do you have with MoveOn.org or the DNC?

Ames #8
So you admit you're just being a jerk about Phelps because we're being a jerk to you? How mature; how trustworthy.

Rob #8, wherein he admits something important
Well duh. You and the RW cohorts got big schemes. You provoke us. What are we supposed to do, hand you the vaseline?