Another difference between Liberals & Conservatives

[PoliticalChic]

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?



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.

I can't defend the abuses of those you mention, but I can assure you that I regularly stand firm when the attacks lack logic, use vile language, use neg reps, and actually fabricate lies about me.

Perhaps just my perspective, but I find libs jump to vicious personal attack more quickly than the other side. On this board in particular, but officials as well:
October 2008 Paul Begala, on CNN, referred to President Bush as “ a barely functioning moron.”

"left-wing radio talk-show host Mike Malloy, who outrageously said of Bachmann: "She's a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She's the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. ... This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman."
Malvaux on Clarence Thomas: I hope his wife feeds him butter and eggs so he dies young.
Gore : Republicans, with that extra chromosome


Alex Baldwin on Henry Hyde: go to his house and kill his family

Huffington Post on Tony Snow- “The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!”

Bill Maher writer Chris Kelly took her column on the death and funeral of her father, John Vincent Coulter, and mocked her and the dead man relentlessly on The Huffington Post. He even compared her dead father to Hitler, 2009 " John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them:
Assholes"


You cannot find any incidents of my posts using any of the above.

I have found more satifaction in avoiding the above, and that's all I can say. Was it Nietzsche, "that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

But you know the old saying about being more careful about those on your side, than those in the opposition.

Standing alone has never been difficult for me.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

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

What could you possibly expect someone to respond to your "points"?

1) Conservatives are moral, liberals are amoral.

2) Conservatives live in peace, liberals are destroyers.

3) Conservatives are prudent, liberals are irresponsible.

4) Conservatives value diversity, liberals want comformity.

5) Conservatives believe in private property, [liberals don't?]

6) Conservatives are charitable, liberals are greedy.

7) Conservatives like people! Liberals like power!

8) Conservatives make informed decisions, liberals... don't.

9) Liberals are envious and greedy, [conservatives aren't?]

10) Liberals only use ad hominem attacks, [conservatives don't?]

So in other words, what you have is really ONE point:

1) Conservatives are good, liberals are bad.

Wow!!! What an intellectually defensible proposition... One side is greedy, envious, and hates freedom and the other side is good, intelligent moral and loves freedom [of course your side]! I don't know what to respond to that! one side is good, and the other is bad... it's all so very simple! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I hope some dumb nutcase doesn't come and ruin it all by doing something like

1) Liberals are moral, conservatives are amoral.

2) Liberals live in peace, conservatives are destroyers.

3) Liberals are prudent, conservatives are irresponsible.

4) Liberals value diversity, conservatives want comformity.

5) Liberals believe in private property, [conservatives don't?]

6) Liberals are charitable, conservatives are greedy.

7) Liberals like people! Conservatives like power!

8) Liberals make informed decisions, conservatives... don't.

9) Conservatives are envious and greedy, [liberals aren't?]

10) Conservatives only use ad hominem attacks, [liberals don't?]

So in other words, what this person would have here is really ONE point:

1) Liberals are good, conservatives are bad.

Damn, that would really throw another cog into the theory! Who to believe? I know that one side is good and the other side is bad, but which is which?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

I do not.

"All we are saying is give spam a chance!"

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.

Liberalism has to do with liberty, but define liberty. As far as restrictions and authoritarianism goes being liberal with the use of restrictions is anathema to an authoritarian whereas any sane liberal sees the need for restrictions.

I believe conservatism can and does support liberty, but conservatism does so with restrictions.

 

[MaggieMae]

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."

Iremon does a good job of focusing on the points. Mine would only repeat those. I do wonder, though, if eventually the word "Republican" will only be found in some archaic lexicon. When I was a Republican, I never lost sight of how lucky I was to have a decent paying job, a roof over my head, a car, and a small savings toward retirement. I didn't go around lamenting about lazy slackers who had none of the above due to their own "bad choices." I empathized with people my own age who were NOT afforded the same basic primary educational opportunities simply because of their geographic location, and thus the same opportunities for even moderate success. Education is something that affects the future of every single American, and thus should have a set American curriculum--just as every other competitive nation on earth has. That's one area where I ferociously disagree with conservatives.

So there, I've addressed an ISSUE which is not laced with articulation meaning squat other than it looks good on paper. I'd be more than happy to debate any ISSUE you wish, but to debate principle is counterproductive because such debates inevitably turn into "what if" scenarios.

 

[Big j]

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.

What's the matter mags, the truth hurt?

 

[strollingbones]

how can anyone debate that either party cares about the american voter and taxpayer? perhapsy even more importantly how can the american voter and taxpayer claim to care what the government does?
most need to go back to "school house rock" and watch "i am a bill".. this country has been lead by both parties away from the fundamentals of the constitution.

 

[strollingbones]

and is it really necessary to use the quote feature to fill the entire page? i think you can simply address points without repeating the op or some post over and over.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Part if not ALL of the problems in Washington (going to the basics) is that trying to get even the most simple and uncomplicated thing done hits up against the huge bureacracy of not just floor debates but conferences, committees, caucuses, blah blah blah. When you consider that Congress has almost as much time off as they do working, it's no wonder our system for enacting law is so slow and all too often churns out bad results. Some people call for term limits, which would only compound the problem because then the sparse amount of time congress is actually working FOR US will be shared with campaiging FOR US.

The whole organization chart of how the respective chambers of Congress operate needs to be revamped. But I'll sure 'nuff be dead before that ever happens.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I can't defend the abuses of those you mention, but I can assure you that I regularly stand firm when the attacks lack logic, use vile language, use neg reps, and actually fabricate lies about me.

Perhaps just my perspective, but I find libs jump to vicious personal attack more quickly than the other side. On this board in particular, but officials as well:
October 2008 Paul Begala, on CNN, referred to President Bush as “ a barely functioning moron.”

"left-wing radio talk-show host Mike Malloy, who outrageously said of Bachmann: "She's a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She's the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. ... This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman."
Malvaux on Clarence Thomas: I hope his wife feeds him butter and eggs so he dies young.
Gore : Republicans, with that extra chromosome


Alex Baldwin on Henry Hyde: go to his house and kill his family

Huffington Post on Tony Snow- “The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!”

Bill Maher writer Chris Kelly took her column on the death and funeral of her father, John Vincent Coulter, and mocked her and the dead man relentlessly on The Huffington Post. He even compared her dead father to Hitler, 2009 " John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them:
Assholes"


You cannot find any incidents of my posts using any of the above.

I have found more satifaction in avoiding the above, and that's all I can say. Was it Nietzsche, "that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

But you know the old saying about being more careful about those on your side, than those in the opposition.

Standing alone has never been difficult for me.

PC, quoting left-wing comments by politicos is just plain silly. You are practically BEGGING for some [in]famous quotes by right-wing tv-radio folks like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Malkin, and <GASP> Ann Coulter whom you quote for your signature. How blinded you are sometimes. Why would you even engage in such hypocrisy?

 

[jgbkab]

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

What could you possibly expect someone to respond to your "points"?

1) Conservatives are moral, liberals are amoral.

2) Conservatives live in peace, liberals are destroyers.

3) Conservatives are prudent, liberals are irresponsible.

4) Conservatives value diversity, liberals want comformity.

5) Conservatives believe in private property, [liberals don't?]

6) Conservatives are charitable, liberals are greedy.

7) Conservatives like people! Liberals like power!

8) Conservatives make informed decisions, liberals... don't.

9) Liberals are envious and greedy, [conservatives aren't?]

10) Liberals only use ad hominem attacks, [conservatives don't?]

So in other words, what you have is really ONE point:

1) Conservatives are good, liberals are bad.

Wow!!! What an intellectually defensible proposition... One side is greedy, envious, and hates freedom and the other side is good, intelligent moral and loves freedom [of course your side]! I don't know what to respond to that! one side is good, and the other is bad... it's all so very simple! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I hope some dumb nutcase doesn't come and ruin it all by doing something like

1) Liberals are moral, conservatives are amoral.

2) Liberals live in peace, conservatives are destroyers.

3) Liberals are prudent, conservatives are irresponsible.

4) Liberals value diversity, conservatives want comformity.

5) Liberals believe in private property, [conservatives don't?]

6) Liberals are charitable, conservatives are greedy.

7) Liberals like people! Conservatives like power!

8) Liberals make informed decisions, conservatives... don't.

9) Conservatives are envious and greedy, [liberals aren't?]

10) Conservatives only use ad hominem attacks, [liberals don't?]

So in other words, what this person would have here is really ONE point:

1) Liberals are good, conservatives are bad.

Damn, that would really throw another cog into the theory! Who to believe? I know that one side is good and the other side is bad, but which is which?

We all know that one is the right one...the one I'm pointing at right there.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Anyone claiming that liberals are hypocrites and conservatives not (or vice versa) is blind as a bat.

the inconsistencies and hypocricies of the uber liberals and uber conservatives are pretty bleedin obvious to we radically stuck in the middle of this pissing match.

A pox on both your houses, you dimwitted partisan numbskulls.

While you jerks are squabbling about which of you have the higher moral ground the masters you both take your thought bites from are stealing the farm.

Wake up.

You need a nap.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

as a liberal....i dont find anything you have said insulting or untrue....democrats like to come off as pollyanna's in blue jeans while robbing the candy from the babies....republicans like to come on as high and mighty moral and just...while just robbing everyone...

on here i am amazed at the people who claim to be moral and yet their posts reflect a total immorality..
they claim to live by the word of their bible yet spew hate and venom. all religions are guilty of this mindset and people today..have made poltical parties a religion...referring to the president as "the messiah" shameful

I read a story the other day about how poor people in California pick fruit from people's trees if they hang over their fences.

How many Republicans would SCREAM get off my lawn! Even though they pretend to be Christians.

9 "When you harvest your crops, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop.

10 It is the same with your grape crop--do not strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and do not pick up the grapes that fall to the ground. Leave them for the poor and the foreigners who live among you, for I, the LORD, am your God.

but let the land rest and lie fallow during the seventh year. Then let the poor among you harvest any volunteer crop that may come up. Leave the rest for the animals to eat. The same applies to your vineyards and olive groves.

What are you driving at exactly?

 

[Iriemon]

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."

...

I realize that this is well beyond your intellectual means... the purpose of this statement is simply to demonstrate your limitations and belittle and berate you for being such a FOOL...

Any questions Sis? [to a male]


You're either a liar or an idiot... I frankly don't care which as one is a unenviable as the next...

ROFLMNAO.... Leftists...

STFU!

So now that you've been educated... Stop trolling and find something LESS SUBVERSIVE TO DO WITH YOUR TIME.

How did Publius become deemed to be a liberal?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Ok, I just went off on a tangent. I'll stop now. I hope this isn't all over the place:

I think the Democrats have taken the side of the people on every issue. They just stab us in the back behind closed doors. But the GOP are clearly the anti labor and pro corporation party. They were unashamed about it for so long. Great example is how McCain thought he could get away with voting against the troops 80% of the time and STILL say he was pro troops. And voters almost bought it. That's because republican voters will defend their party even against their own financial interests. Why? Maybe it hasn't hurt them yet. But then their 401K's and homes lost value too, yet they still defend the GOP. That's because the GOP appeals to their conservative values. God, Gays, Guns and Less Taxes. And it is now obvoius the GOP doesn't care about any of those things. They just used those wedge issues to get people to vote outside of their tax brackets. Also the GOP caters to the racist vote.

The Dems don't have anything to admit or apologize for. The last 8 years are a direct result of GOP policies. Deregulations, tax shelters, loopholes, speculation, gouging, emptying the treasury, hiring illegals to lower wages, outsourcing, etc. That was all Republican free market bullshit. Sure Clinton signed NAFTA, but look at how the GOP loves NAFTA and they don't want to change a thing.

Now we do need to stay on the Dems, because they are just as easily corruptable as the GOP. But if you paid attention the last 8 years, you know the GOP was corrupted from the top down. Tom Delay and Bush had complete control of government. They got the votes they needed by any means necessary. And they passed laws that hurt us. Helped them, but hurt 95% of us.

So if you see the dems passing laws that give corporations tax breaks for sending jobs overseas, like the GOP did, then you can say they are anti American too.

Dodd is a great example. That son of a bitch tried to sneak in bonus' to AIG execs? We need to kick his ass to the curb if the does that again. But don't throw him out until he proves to be a sellout who can't reform. Because what is the alternative? Replace him with a Republican who would do the exact same thing, only he wouldn't be ashamed about it?

 

[manifold]

Liberalism has to do with liberty, but define liberty. As far as restrictions and authoritarianism goes being liberal with the use of restrictions is anathema to an authoritarian whereas any sane liberal sees the need for restrictions.

I believe conservatism can and does support liberty, but conservatism does so with restrictions.

Playing fast and loose with the context again huh?


I think there may be more I can learn from you yet.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

i am referring to people who claim they follow the bible and yet spew hate on here. read enough posts and you will see it. people wanting to kill muslims....people defending the actions of israel over the interests of their own country yet they claim to be patriots....then i see muslims claiming their religion is peace loving while defending the bombers etc...it goes on and on...this is what the "powers to be want" people to be distracted by parties etc...so they never see reality

Yep. The inhabitants of the world do not align themselves well or consistently with the ideologies and behavior theories the elitists use to classify the great unwashed and direct their values and beliefs. We all approach all things through our own lense. Want to thank God for something? That is a good candidate.

 

[RodISHI]

I had this friend of my daughter give me some advice concerning some issues we are dealing with locally. I'd be willing to pass that on for anyone looking at any politician that has done anything even slightly unethical, "f'm all". In nicer words get rid of them Dem or Rep makes no difference if they crooked in any manner they need to go!

Anyone willing to wait on these guys and give them a second chance after knowing that they have already pulled some shit deserves whatever comes to them. Forgive, but do not leave them in power.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

I can't defend the abuses of those you mention, but I can assure you that I regularly stand firm when the attacks lack logic, use vile language, use neg reps, and actually fabricate lies about me.

Yeah, me too I see that shit all the time too. It frankly is a big drag on this board in general that it is allowed or even encouraged.

So you have now acknowledged conservatives do this crap to. Have I used vile language, used neg reps, and actually fabricated lies about you? Has every other liberal on this board?

If not is it really fair to say "liberals" as opposed to conservative do this kind of thing as a blanket statement?

Perhaps just my perspective, but I find libs jump to vicious personal attack more quickly than the other side. On this board in particular, but officials as well:
October 2008 Paul Begala, on CNN, referred to President Bush as &#8220; a barely functioning moron.&#8221;

It is your perspective. Read thru a few threads I've been in.

"left-wing radio talk-show host Mike Malloy, who outrageously said of Bachmann: "She's a hatemonger. She's the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She's the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations. ... This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman."

Malvaux on Clarence Thomas: I hope his wife feeds him butter and eggs so he dies young.
Gore : Republicans, with that extra chromosome

Alex Baldwin on Henry Hyde: go to his house and kill his family

Huffington Post on Tony Snow- &#8220;The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!&#8221;

Bill Maher writer Chris Kelly took her column on the death and funeral of her father, John Vincent Coulter, and mocked her and the dead man relentlessly on The Huffington Post. He even compared her dead father to Hitler, 2009 " John Vincent Coulter was of the old school, a man of few words, the un-Oprah, no crying or wearing your heart on your sleeve, and reacting to moments of great sentiment with a joke. Or as we used to call them: Assholes"

I've never claimed that no liberal does this. Want be to fish a few conservative sites for similar statements?

Because one or a few do is it fair to tag the entire group with this attribute?

You cannot find any incidents of my posts using any of the above.

You cannot find any incidents of my posts using any of the above.

I have found more satifaction in avoiding the above, and that's all I can say. Was it Nietzsche, "that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

Good for you. If you've read my posts you'll see I'm the same way. The fact that you as a conservative and me as a liberal can discuss things in this manner without resorts to calling each other moron or fucking jerk is why I can even have this discussion with you. If you were Divecon, or Plubius, or Yurt or Newby or Willow it would be a complete waste of my time.

So maybe rather than stereotyping liberals in this way your post would be more accurate if you changed that lable to "assholes". Then it would be accurate. And instead of supporting someone because they are conservative vs liberal (or vice versa) maybe we should do it based on a person's ability to discuss and debate things like an adult without resort to that kind of childish behavior.

Pos rep for you.

 

[WillowTree]

 

[sealybobo]

I had this friend of my daughter give me some advice concerning some issues we are dealing with locally. I'd be willing to pass that on for anyone looking at any politician that has done anything even slightly unethical, "f'm all". In nicer words get rid of them Dem or Rep makes no difference if they crooked in any manner they need to go!

Anyone willing to wait on these guys and give them a second chance after knowing that they have already pulled some shit deserves whatever comes to them. Forgive, but do not leave them in power.

I agree, but they have all caved in on a couple of issues that you may feel are deal breakers, but I may not.

Is Dodd slipping in that AIG bonus a deal breaker? Close. But I wouldn't replace him with a Republican, because Republicans defend those obscene bonus'. So we'd have to take Dodd out in the Democratic primary. Easier said than done. And Dodd votes with Americans more times than not, so I'd rather threaten him that if he does it again, he might lose his next election.

Consider this. Consider if we were all as unforgiving as you, Obama wouldn't be President right now. Because he made a calculated political decision to give the telecom's retroactive immunity. Remember that? I was FURIOUS! But you got to pick and choose your battles.