Eventually it came to a head. "Better Red than Dead". Now you don't go undefeated in debate for 2 years and not see a polemical lay up like that. Like Gen. Grant's line at Appomattox I extended your front and outflanked your argument. "Since you also believe that my support of universal health care like they have in Canada is also communistic does that mean that you think that by extension that I am now 'red' and deserved to be dead'?
Actually the phrase is, "Better Dead Than Red", and no, it doesn't mean that all communists deserve to die. It means that the speaker believes it better to fight to their own death than have communism
imposed upon them. One would think that an undefeated, consummate master debater like Mr. cart would know that.
Which brings me to another point - are the philosophies of liberalism, socialism and communism so perfect, so pure and so unassailable that they cannot be breached by argument? Likewise, are the individuals who propound these philosophies so intellectually flawless that their rhetoric is beyond questioning?
I have no problem admitting that in my discussions with liberals over the years they have occasionally brought up points that gave me pause or facts for which I found it necessary to do further research. Yet to hear self-styled "progressives" such as Mr. cart tell it, there is nothing which causes them to have a moment of reflection, to re-think their position or consider a different perspective. Given the imperfect nature of Man, I am immediately suspect of claims of being "undefeated" in debate. The same question may be asked when conservatives are charged with the blanket accusation of being racist if they dislike Barack Obama. Is the man so perfect, his logic so inexorable, that any questioning of him
must be driven by base feelings of racism rather than disagreement on issues? According to the denizens of the DU fever swamp, it is.
According to Mr. cart, all conservatives were shambling through life as
tabulae rasae until they one day were scanning through radio stations and happened to stop on a channel broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. From that point on they were mesmerized and their theretofore empty minds, minds that had never before thought of politics or morality, were filled with psychotic delusions at the hand of master hypnotist. They couldn't have possibly had formative experiences, observations and education beforehand which led them to their conclusions.
Actually, the converse is true. Conservatives are drawn to commentators like Limbaugh, Beck, et al, precisely because they reflect beliefs that the audience
already possessed. The relative scarcity of them in the media, especially prior to the 1990's, are the reason they were able to individually attract such large audiences. They restate these pre-existing beliefs in an entertaining and informative manner and that is their attraction.
As to the accusations of "hate" - it is not hate to believe that dependence is self-perpetuating. It is not hate to be suspicious of large, oppressive government. It is not hate to be wary of placing one's own health in the hands of a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy. It is not hate to resist turning over one's own income to a bloated, inefficient, politicized government authority for redistribution to strangers because some other stranger thinks they are more deserving of it than you are. It is not hate to want to protect the innocent life of the unborn who have no voice. It is not hate to believe the rule of law must be enforced. It is not hate to bristle at the idea that new forms of discrimination are the remedy for past forms of discrimination. It is not hate to assign individual responsibility. It is not hate to advocate for maximum personal freedom consistent with an orderly and peaceful society.
When ad hominem accusations of hate, intolerance, racism, ignorance, brainwashing and greed are the default position when arguing against the tenets of conservatism, you have already ceded the intellectual high ground. Since these are the stock-in-trade of the vast majority of self-proclaimed "enlightened", "educated" and "informed" members of DU, I can only question whether they are just intellectually lazy, or whether they indeed were ever possessed of any intellect to begin with.