Another difference between Liberals & Conservatives

[jillian]

Are you stating a question or making a statement? Are you saying all repulicans are Christians? Can a non-Christian be a republican? Can a Christian be a democrat? What does being a Christian mean?

are you claiming that the repub party isn't the party of the christian right?

how viable is a christian left?

 

[Barb]

Another difference (for the most part)... For a conservative, a crime or something done immorally is criticized no matter what the party affiliation... For liberals it's only a crime or immoral if it's a conservative or a Republican doing it.... If it's a liberal that gets caught it's either no big deal, or simply not acknowledged...

I think it depends on the stance taken before the "crime." If it is something the right legislates against, particularly if the person in question has loudly and proudly supported anti-gay legislation [for example] and gets caught taking an entirely different stance in an airport bathroom, the hilarity that follows from the left is justified by the utter hypocrisy involved. Same goes for those riding on brooms after adulterous BJs who didn't have much room to talk. The left generally doesn't make a big deal about these things, they certainly don't see the public value in legislating morality, but when the right steps on their dicks, it's kinda hard not to notice...

or not to point....

especially not to laugh.

 

[MaggieMae]

Another difference (for the most part)... For a conservative, a crime or something done immorally is criticized no matter what the party affiliation... For liberals it's only a crime or immoral if it's a conservative or a Republican doing it.... If it's a liberal that gets caught it's either no big deal, or simply not acknowledged...

That's not true, but I think the reason it appears that way is because conservatives are the ones that come off as so holier-than-thou and when it's suddenly discovered that they have the same personal faults as liberals, it's hard not to throw that back as being hypocritical. There are many examples I could cite, but I'm sure you know what they are already.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's iteresting sometimes to sit back an observe the turf war between competing political philosposhies as they battle for our hearts and minds, and especially the territory they control. While there is such a thing as going too far and exceptions notwithstanding, I've generally observed the following: Liberals can more or less be as bigoted as they like with impunity, but if a conservative levies even the slightest criticism on anyone the liberals have identified as protected he is an intolerant bigot. Half of you know this to be true and the other half denies it vehemently and labels me a bigot for pointing it out. Conversely, conservatives can shit all over this country, it's CIC and it's military with impunity, but if a liberal expresses even the slightest disapproval of this country, it's policies, the CIC or any military action, he is unAmerican and unpatriotic.

And we all buy it. Well, at least half of it anyway.

DISCLAIMER: I am using the terms liberal and conservative in accordance with my general understanding of common, contemporary usage, not as I would define them if it were up to me. To me, liberal is the opposite of authoritarian and conservative is the opposite of progressive. That's why I label myself the oxymoronic liberal-conservative. As best as I can estimate contemporarily speaking, liberals are authoritarian-progressive and conservatives are authoritarian-conservative. They are both authoritarian, they just prioritize differently.

Sorry, I don't see the equivalence, as liberals are usually childlike in their faith in things just working out. Some thoughts on libs:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

And conservative follow their paranoid inclination to start unnecessary wars like Iraq.



And conservatives believe in their political philosophy that tax cuts are good no matter what even in the evidence of $11 trillion in debt.



And conservatives believe that each person should sink or swim on their own and if they sink that is their problem.



Conservatives see a Christian state as utopia.

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

Conservative have "tea parties" to whine about how at 35% income tax and 15% investment tax they are "overtaxed."

As far as facts versus ad hom attacks, PC, I'll invite you to inspect a few threads I've been in then ask you to defend your generalization. Folks like Divecon and Publius and others are hardly liberal but have constantly spewed ad hom attacks.

Are you sincerely being objective here? If you really want to defend that position, let's look at a few recent threads, OK?

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Where is the proof?

Same as above. Liberalis like me have pointed to laws and WWII prosecutions as evidence it is torture. Conservatives have argued "feelings" that water torture is only "stress" and mild discomfort.

Again, we can look at threads if you want.

See, both sides can make overbroad, gross generalization stereotyping the other side for the exact same things, can't they?

This kind of blatant, partisan generalization is beneath the quality of most of the argument I see you take, PC.

Editec is absolutely right. Both parties have their hypocrites and partisans. To claim that only one said is irrational or acts on feeling is just proof of it.

Great rebuttal, especial to #5.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the big difference is that liberals are a bunch of idiots, and conservatives are a bunch of assholes.


[/broad groundless generalizations]

And that would make you what, the scat left behind?

 

[Ravi]

Only an un-American bigot would start such a thread.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I think the big difference is that liberals are a bunch of idiots, and conservatives are a bunch of assholes.


[/broad groundless generalizations]

LOL.

Yeah, but they change.

Sometimes liberals can be assholes and conservative can be idiots.

In fact, many of the brighter ones of both teams can multi-task such that they can be idiotic assholes or assholic idiots.

Kinda makes ya' proud to be human, doesn't it?

Awww, man, that really throws a cog into the whole theory, but I guess you're right. It's just so much more difficult. If they could just stick to their roles it'd make it so much easier to point them out, but they're real crafty, huh?

Are you stating a question or making a statement? Are you saying all repulicans are Christians? Can a non-Christian be a republican? Can a Christian be a democrat? What does being a Christian mean?

are you claiming that the repub party isn't the party of the christian right?

how viable is a christian left?

Uhh, the "Christian Left" has been quite a force in the history of, I think, the majority of today's western democracies. Not so much in the states, I guess, but ever heard of the Rerum Novarum?

Rerum Novarum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian left - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Christian left is a term originating in the United States, used to describe a spectrum of left-wing Christian political and social movements which largely embraces social justice.

The term often specifically refers to Christian beliefs and can be interchangeable with the term Religious left. Subsequently, the term has been used to describe groups and persons from countries outside the US. It is the counter-point to the Christian right, a spectrum of right-wing Christian political and social movements which largely embrace social conservatism.

As with any division inside the left- and right- wings of the political spectrum, such a label is an approximation, including within it groups and persons holding diverse viewpoints. The term left-wing might encompass a number of values which may or may not be held by different Christian movements and individuals.

As the unofficial title of a loose association of believers, it does provide a clear distinction from the more commonly known "Christian Right" or "Religious Right" and its key leaders and political views.

The most common religious viewpoint which might be described as 'left wing' is social justice, or care for the poor and the oppressed (see Minority groups). Supporters of this might encourage universal health care, generous welfare, subsidized education, foreign aid, and government subsidized schemes for improving the conditions of the disadvantaged. Stemming from egalitarian values, adherents of the Christian left consider it part of their religious duty to take actions on behalf of the oppressed. As nearly all major religions contain some kind of requirement to help others, social justice has been cited by various religions as in line with their faith.

The Christian Left holds that social justice, renunciation of power, humility, forgiveness, and private observation of prayer (as opposed to publicly mandated prayer), are mandated by the Gospel (Matthew 6:5-6). The Bible contains accounts of Jesus repeatedly advocating for the poor and outcast over the wealthy, powerful, and religious. The Christian Left maintains that such a stance is relevant and important. Adhering to the standard of "turning the other cheek", which they believe supersedes the Old Testament law of "an eye for an eye", the Christian Left often hearkens towards pacifism in opposition to policies advancing militarism.

While non-religious socialists sometimes find support for socialism in the Gospels (for example Mikhail Gorbachev citing Jesus as "the first socialist"),[1] the Christian Left does not find that socialism alone as an adequate end or means. Christian faith is the core of their belief which in turn demands social justice.

I think the big difference is that liberals are a bunch of idiots, and conservatives are a bunch of assholes.


[/broad groundless generalizations]

And that would make you what, the scat left behind?

You flatter me, but I'm actually much better at vocalese- I haven't reached the vocal control or improvisational ability to do scat yet.

siadhaposdiahsaoihaspoi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's iteresting sometimes to sit back an observe the turf war between competing political philosposhies as they battle for our hearts and minds, and especially the territory they control. While there is such a thing as going too far and exceptions notwithstanding, I've generally observed the following: Liberals can more or less be as bigoted as they like with impunity, but if a conservative levies even the slightest criticism on anyone the liberals have identified as protected he is an intolerant bigot. Half of you know this to be true and the other half denies it vehemently and labels me a bigot for pointing it out. Conversely, conservatives can shit all over this country, it's CIC and it's military with impunity, but if a liberal expresses even the slightest disapproval of this country, it's policies, the CIC or any military action, he is unAmerican and unpatriotic.

And we all buy it. Well, at least half of it anyway.



DISCLAIMER: I am using the terms liberal and conservative in accordance with my general understanding of common, contemporary usage, not as I would define them if it were up to me. To me, liberal is the opposite of authoritarian and conservative is the opposite of progressive. That's why I label myself the oxymoronic liberal-conservative. As best as I can estimate contemporarily speaking, liberals are authoritarian-progressive and conservatives are authoritarian-conservative. They are both authoritarian, they just prioritize differently.

Sorry, I don't see the equivalence, as liberals are usually childlike in their faith in things just working out. Some thoughts on libs:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Where is the proof?

So now that you've listed only 6 of what I suspect is a long list of generalized anti-liberal opinions, will you also be posting a list of tributes for conservatives, whom I can only presume you think can do no wrong? Since the conservative party is so broken, primarily because of their outdated ideologies, that should be interesting.

Thanks for asking.
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it.. Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

 

[manifold]

Only an un-American bigot would start such a thread.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Ravi again.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Talk about broad, baseless generalizations...

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's iteresting sometimes to sit back an observe the turf war between competing political philosposhies as they battle for our hearts and minds, and especially the territory they control. While there is such a thing as going too far and exceptions notwithstanding, I've generally observed the following: Liberals can more or less be as bigoted as they like with impunity, but if a conservative levies even the slightest criticism on anyone the liberals have identified as protected he is an intolerant bigot. Half of you know this to be true and the other half denies it vehemently and labels me a bigot for pointing it out. Conversely, conservatives can shit all over this country, it's CIC and it's military with impunity, but if a liberal expresses even the slightest disapproval of this country, it's policies, the CIC or any military action, he is unAmerican and unpatriotic.

And we all buy it. Well, at least half of it anyway.

DISCLAIMER: I am using the terms liberal and conservative in accordance with my general understanding of common, contemporary usage, not as I would define them if it were up to me. To me, liberal is the opposite of authoritarian and conservative is the opposite of progressive. That's why I label myself the oxymoronic liberal-conservative. As best as I can estimate contemporarily speaking, liberals are authoritarian-progressive and conservatives are authoritarian-conservative. They are both authoritarian, they just prioritize differently.

Sorry, I don't see the equivalence, as liberals are usually childlike in their faith in things just working out. Some thoughts on libs:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

And conservative follow their paranoid inclination to start unnecessary wars like Iraq.



And conservatives believe in their political philosophy that tax cuts are good no matter what even in the evidence of $11 trillion in debt.



And conservatives believe that each person should sink or swim on their own and if they sink that is their problem.



Conservatives see a Christian state as utopia.

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

Conservative have "tea parties" to whine about how at 35% income tax and 15% investment tax they are "overtaxed."

As far as facts versus ad hom attacks, PC, I'll invite you to inspect a few threads I've been in then ask you to defend your generalization. Folks like Divecon and Publius and others are hardly liberal but have constantly spewed ad hom attacks.

Are you sincerely being objective here? If you really want to defend that position, let's look at a few recent threads, OK?

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Where is the proof?

Same as above. Liberalis like me have pointed to laws and WWII prosecutions as evidence it is torture. Conservatives have argued "feelings" that water torture is only "stress" and mild discomfort.

Again, we can look at threads if you want.

See, both sides can make overbroad, gross generalization stereotyping the other side for the exact same things, can't they?

This kind of blatant, partisan generalization is beneath the quality of most of the argument I see you take, PC.

Editec is absolutely right. Both parties have their hypocrites and partisans. To claim that only one said is irrational or acts on feeling is just proof of it.

As you know Iriemon, I really like the back and forth with folks like you and Mags, as the language and thinking is generally on a higher level.

But you seem to have taken less than the usual effort in your rebuttal. We did a pretty good job on AlQaeda in Iraq, avoided attacks on the homeland. Do you really want to bring up debt in the light of the works of this administration? You must know that Conservatives give more to charity than libs, and Conservatives don't mention utopia. You are right about some posters being abusive, but not I. We disagree about the nature of 'torture.'

Come on, hit me with your best shot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's iteresting[sic] sometimes to sit back an observe the turf war between competing political philosposhies[sic] as they battle for our hearts and minds, and especially the territory they control. While there is such a thing as going too far and exceptions notwithstanding, I've generally observed the following: Liberals can more or less be as bigoted as they like with impunity, but if a conservative levies even the slightest criticism on anyone the liberals have identified as protected he is an intolerant bigot.

So you think Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank are bigoted? If so please give a few examples.

Why Ted and Barney? Because we are both familiar with them and they are liberal lions.

Half of you know this to be true and the other half denies it vehemently and labels me a bigot for pointing it out. Conversely, conservatives can shit all over this country, it's CIC and it's military with impunity, but if a liberal expresses even the slightest disapproval of this country, it's policies, the CIC or any military action, he is unAmerican and unpatriotic.

And we all buy it. Well, at least half of it anyway.

Half and half?

DISCLAIMER: I am using the terms liberal and conservative in accordance with my general understanding of common, contemporary usage, not as I would define them if it were up to me. To me, liberal is the opposite of authoritarian and conservative is the opposite of progressive. That's why I label myself the oxymoronic liberal-conservative. As best as I can estimate contemporarily[sic] speaking, liberals are authoritarian-progressive and conservatives are authoritarian-conservative. They are both authoritarian, they just prioritize differently.

To me liberal is the opposite of conservative, authoritarian is the opposite of democratic and progressives can be a mixture of anything...a left-progressive is a person who never met a group they didn't feel the need to represent, and is a person who never met an individual they could tolerate. A con-progressive is a conservative who sometimes sides with the progressive populists who could fuck up a Greek wedding.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry, I don't see the equivalence, as liberals are usually childlike in their faith in things just working out. Some thoughts on libs:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Where is the proof?

So now that you've listed only 6 of what I suspect is a long list of generalized anti-liberal opinions, will you also be posting a list of tributes for conservatives, whom I can only presume you think can do no wrong? Since the conservative party is so broken, primarily because of their outdated ideologies, that should be interesting.

Thanks for asking.
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it.. Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Aren't you going to give credit to whatever conservative manifesto you gleaned all that from? The repetitive stuff, plus other clues suggest it's been plagiarized. But that's okay. You simply list ten repititious tenets that can be found a gazillion other places which are based on ideology only rather than modern day realities. And reality is what Republicans (conservatives particularly) need to wake up to.

If everything you posted were real instead of being SURREAL, then Republicans would be in power. I mean it's all so compassionate and majestic at the same time.

 

[Big j]

Sorry, I don't see the equivalence, as liberals are usually childlike in their faith in things just working out. Some thoughts on libs:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

2. Liberals believe that political philosophy should inform economic policy. So we saw the Community Reinvestment Act, and GRE’s such as Fannie and Freddie, which put pressure on lending institutions to give loans with less stringent requirements.

3. Another liberal axiom is that everyone will behave, not in their own best interests, but in the best interests of society, as in “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We see this false posit of the way people act in the Employee Free Choice Act, where we are expected to assume that there will not be pressure and intimidation if we do away with the secret ballot.

4. Liberals always see utopia as an attainable goal. At the heart of the philosophy is the view that the supposedly unique wisdom of government officials should be trusted to plan the lives of the people. The term “politburo” seems fitting here. In fact, for many American Liberals, Western Europe has been nothing less than an abstract symbol of progressive utopia. “Liberals seek utopia but reap dystopia.”

5. Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Where is the proof?

So now that you've listed only 6 of what I suspect is a long list of generalized anti-liberal opinions, will you also be posting a list of tributes for conservatives, whom I can only presume you think can do no wrong? Since the conservative party is so broken, primarily because of their outdated ideologies, that should be interesting.

Thanks for asking.
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it.. Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

I'm new here, but you appear to have thought your position thru quite thoroughly-and quite correctly I might add.

 

[Iriemon]

Sorry, I don't see the equivalence, as liberals are usually childlike in their faith in things just working out. Some thoughts on libs:

1. A Liberals axiom is that harmony is natural, a misreading of human nature. It should be remembered that when Woodrow Wilson asked Georges Clemenceau, prime minister of France, “Don’t you believe that all men are brothers,” Clemenceau replied “Yes- Cain and Abel.” The result of this belief is that country’s defenses are lowered by liberals, as represented by the Church Committee hearings, the Pike committee, the Torricelli Amendments, all of which tied the hands of the intelligence community, and made it necessary for the Bush Administration to use enhanced interrogation methods. And, of course, the liberal community raged that we were not treating terrorists like our brothers. To gain an understanding of human nature, consider reading The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

And conservative follow their paranoid inclination to start unnecessary wars like Iraq.



And conservatives believe in their political philosophy that tax cuts are good no matter what even in the evidence of $11 trillion in debt.



And conservatives believe that each person should sink or swim on their own and if they sink that is their problem.



Conservatives see a Christian state as utopia.



Conservative have "tea parties" to whine about how at 35% income tax and 15% investment tax they are "overtaxed."

As far as facts versus ad hom attacks, PC, I'll invite you to inspect a few threads I've been in then ask you to defend your generalization. Folks like Divecon and Publius and others are hardly liberal but have constantly spewed ad hom attacks.

Are you sincerely being objective here? If you really want to defend that position, let's look at a few recent threads, OK?

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing. We see this in the oft-repeated claim that the use of “torture” techniques has been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of this claim?For liberals, taking guns away from lawful citizens is tantamount to solving the crime problem. Where is the proof?

Same as above. Liberalis like me have pointed to laws and WWII prosecutions as evidence it is torture. Conservatives have argued "feelings" that water torture is only "stress" and mild discomfort.

Again, we can look at threads if you want.

See, both sides can make overbroad, gross generalization stereotyping the other side for the exact same things, can't they?

This kind of blatant, partisan generalization is beneath the quality of most of the argument I see you take, PC.

Editec is absolutely right. Both parties have their hypocrites and partisans. To claim that only one said is irrational or acts on feeling is just proof of it.

As you know Iriemon, I really like the back and forth with folks like you and Mags, as the language and thinking is generally on a higher level.

But you seem to have taken less than the usual effort in your rebuttal. We did a pretty good job on AlQaeda in Iraq, avoided attacks on the homeland. Do you really want to bring up debt in the light of the works of this administration? You must know that Conservatives give more to charity than libs, and Conservatives don't mention utopia. You are right about some posters being abusive, but not I. We disagree about the nature of 'torture.'

Come on, hit me with your best shot.

You misunderstood my point. I gave those examples to show how both sides can make the type of overbroad stereotypes that your post contained. Here you seem to be saying that these kind of generalizations are fair for you to make because your side is right. Hell so do the partisans on the other side.

Sure we could spend another 50 pages debating the Iraq war and role in the debt, its been done many times before and is being done now in other threads. Both sides have arguments, but what will that accomplish?

I would, however, like you to address one of your assertions, and one that I am willing to investigate if you stand by it, and that is number 5:

You claim:

Liberals hunt for reasons to be insulted the way pigs hunt for truffles. Once they find a satisfactory mote in this category, they feel that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects.

Do you stand by this assertion, PC? I'm a liberal. If you haven't been reading the threads I've been in, I can show you many were I debated with facts and logic, and unless you are going to conted that folk like DiveCon and Publius (and others, those two are the most flagrant) are liberals, I will show you numerous threads where it was not the liberal but the conservative that resorted to the ad hom attack you spoke of.

 

[manifold]

So you think Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank are bigoted? If so please give a few examples.

I do not.

To me liberal is the opposite of conservative, authoritarian is the opposite of democratic and progressives can be a mixture of anything.

I respect your opinions, but you'll have to do a better job of convincing than simply stating a conflicting view. To me, liberal has everything to do with liberty, as the root word would imply. And restrictions on liberty are by definition authoritarian. And conservative has nothing to do with liberty other than it being a reluctance to change the status quo, including the current state of liberty.

 

[MaggieMae]

I consider myself a centrist, leaning to the left ever since Reagan's war on poverty ("let them eat ketchup" as opposed to LBJ's war AGAINST poverty). Class differential has been slowly creeping into our mainstream for over two decades. To me, it culminated during the Bush administration when (intended or not), the Bush Republicans divided us by wealth, religious beliefs and domestic v. foreign priorities. As a result, the far left has also begun to overreach in the opposite direction by a misguided effort on many issues to balance it out.

So in my humble opinion, the battle royal over party ideologies and how they translate into our culture and economy will continue until BOTH "sides" start admitting failures and work hard together to repair the damage. It's not enough to simply say "we can do it better" without admitting accountability for what has gone wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So now that you've listed only 6 of what I suspect is a long list of generalized anti-liberal opinions, will you also be posting a list of tributes for conservatives, whom I can only presume you think can do no wrong? Since the conservative party is so broken, primarily because of their outdated ideologies, that should be interesting.

Thanks for asking.
1) Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

2) Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).

3) Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

4) Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

5) Freedom and property are linked. Private property results in a more stable and productive society. Private property and retaining the fruits of one’s labor has been proven successful from the Puritan’s Bradford, to the Stakhanovite Revolution!

6) Conservatives believe in voluntary community and charity, based on duties to each other, with the assumption that each person must do whatever he could to avoid requiring assistance, as opposed to involuntary collectivism, as in “let the government do it.. Burke's understanding that the "little platoon" - family, neighborhood, professional organizations etc - is the "first principle" of society has been consistently identified as providing the necessary inspiration for conservativism. And explains why conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

7) Conservatives view people as both good and bad, and for this reason believe on restraints on power, as in checks and balances, while liberals see power as a force for good, as long as the power is in their hands.

8) Liberals and Conservatives differ in the way to proceed. For Conservatives, data informs policy. (“More Guns, Less Crime” and“Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”- Coulter) We use Conservative principles to the best of our ability, but when confronting new and original venues, we believe in testing, and analysis of the results of the tests. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing; it is based on emotion often to the exclusion of thinking.

9) Conservatives view results differently from Liberals. Liberals respond to success and material wealth with envy and hostility, encourage class warfare and an attempt to obviate any chance that it might happen again. The exception is when it is a Liberal with the wealth. Conservatives see success as the validation and culmination of the application of Conservative principles, most prominently Liberty.

10) Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

Aren't you going to give credit to whatever conservative manifesto you gleaned all that from? The repetitive stuff, plus other clues suggest it's been plagiarized. But that's okay. You simply list ten repititious tenets that can be found a gazillion other places which are based on ideology only rather than modern day realities. And reality is what Republicans (conservatives particularly) need to wake up to.

If everything you posted were real instead of being SURREAL, then Republicans would be in power. I mean it's all so compassionate and majestic at the same time.

I wish I could tell you the sources of the above, but I've composed it based on books I've read, posts, and my own thoughts. If I had one single source, I would recommend it to you.
Nor are they repititious, other than all being the ideas of Conservativism.

But, that is a kind of flimsy response. How about focusing on the points?

And as for " it's all so compassionate and majestic at the same time," thanks much.

Now, as for "then Republicans would be in power," we are not examining 'Republican,' which in many cases differs from 'Conservativism.'

And we do not expect that everyone will see the benefits and rectitude of Conservativism, and many intelligent folks need to rethink that they have been taught (read 'indoctrinated') in government schools, if it's not too late for them, as we believe "The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect."

It's liberals who believe that those with other opinions need to be 're-educated,' or, has been suggested by some slugs on the board, "STFU."

 

[Father Time]

6. For liberals, feeling passes for knowing.

So when conservatives rely on faith to make decisions what the fuck do you call that?

 

[cunclusion]

I am going to take it to the basics. Both Liberals and Conservatives in office have abused power and robbed the american people. The fact that one does more than the other has more to do with the amount of time in power and the amount time in power. Main fact is neither is more moral than the other and neither is more right than the other. When someone comes out and dictates one is more than the other they have blinders on.