NationStates Jolt Archive

First, the liberal imagines that the Conservative belief is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

Liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice. Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression.

Does it seem to you as though liberals feel entitled to govern? It does to me. This sense of entitlement has two sources. First, liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives. Do you want to be governed by a smart crowd or a dumb crowd? Second, liberals think they’re better (specifically, more compassionate) than conservatives. Governance, they suggest, is a matter of having sympathy for the disadvantaged. It’s about having your heart in the right place. Liberals loved it when Bill Clinton said he felt his interlocutors’ pain. It struck just the right note with them.

Both liberal beliefs are false. I can only point to the law of unintended consequences. Most liberals I know, and I know quite a few of them, having been one, are well-meaning and admirably motivated. They sincerely believe that their policy prescriptions, if implemented, will make the world a better place for all concerned. If only those dastardly conservatives would get out of the way, they seem to say, we would have heaven on earth.

But intentions are not outcomes. Most liberal programs have had bad outcomes, even by liberal standards. Programs designed to end poverty, for example, have entrenched it—and in the process created a class of bureaucrats who have a vested interest in continuing the very programs that have failed. Programs designed to create opportunities for African-Americans have generated resentment among whites and an insidious assumption that any African-American who “makes it” is unqualified. Imagine the effect this has on the self-respect of African-Americans. If you deprive a person of self-respect, you take away the most important thing he or she has.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.

When you think about it, it’s ironic that liberals believe they’re more intelligent than conservatives, because an intelligent person tempers idealism with reality. Liberals conveniently ignore certain unpleasant realities, such as the effect redistributive policies have on incentive. The more people are taxed, the less incentive they have to work or invest. Liberals think that if we sit down nicely with our enemies, we can bring them around. This may work with some enemies, but not all. In their zeal to ensure that everyone has a decent minimum of health care and other necessities, liberals ignore self-respect, self-esteem, and personal responsibility. When is the last time you heard a liberal talk about such things, much less emphasize them? And yet, aren’t they crucially important? Shouldn’t every policy take them into account?

It’s no accident that liberals are called do-gooders. They mean well, but they usually end up making things worse. Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help. It’s tempting to conclude that liberals are stupid, but I think it’s more complicated than that. They’re impatient. They want results now, not later. They’re shallow. They view humans as sentient beings, not as rational, autonomous agents. They’re impetuous. They don’t think through the implications of their policies.

With all due respect to my liberal friends, these are not the traits of the wise. They are the traits of children. Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they don’t deserve to govern. They need to grow up, develop a more holistic view of the person, develop a more realistic view of human nature, and cultivate a sense of patience. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for being benevolent, compassionate, caring, and sympathetic. Benevolence is neither necessary nor sufficient for acting rightly. Caring, far from being a synonym for justice, is often an impediment to it. It’s not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals prove it every day.

...

That actually had nothing in it that in any way related to liberalism as a political philosophy, it was just a rant at the behavour of liberals.

I think you should change the title for the sake of accuracy.

"They mean well, but they usually end up making things worse. Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help."
so we shouldnt try and help the disadvantaged

is it just me or are conservatives haertless bastards

they claim they are helping people by "letting" them help themselves then assisting the environment that causes the problem in the first place.

heheheh ... you obviously didn't read the whole thing and you both prove my points nicely. Thank You.

I think you should change the title for the sake of accuracy.

After further review, I agree. It should be "FLAWS", plural, not FLAW... thanks.

So, how do I change that?

heheheh ... you obviously didn't read the whole thing and you both prove my points nicely. Thank You.
Again, the title. Your "point" is about liberals and not liberalism. I think you should know this and make it clear.

The fatal flaw of liberals is the inability to let go of the ideas of government and capitalism. Instead, they stick to the false notion that these violent and greedy institutions can be made peaceful and generous.

Again, the title. Your "point" is about liberals and not liberalism. I think you should know this and make it clear.

It is crystal clear, if you read it all.

Hey, just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you have the right to say I have to change it...

wow, anyone else get the irony here? :rolleyes:

heheheh ... you obviously didn't read the whole thing and you both prove my points nicely. Thank You.
Well, yes, thats true, you do point out more than one flaw, but its still about liberals and not liberalism. If you wanted to criticise liberalism you could point out things like in a society where everyone has the maximum level of free will, they are unlikely to pull together in doing something unpleasant for the common good, or some other similar criticism. As it is, your title is misleading, it appears that you're talking about political philosophy and people will come to the thread expecting that, when in fact all you're doing is bitching about liberals.

It is crystal clear, if you read it all.

Hey, just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean you have the right to say I have to change it...

wow, anyone else get the irony here? :rolleyes:If I think that a title to a thread is misleading I don't have the right to say so?

The fatal flaw of liberals is the inability to let go of the ideas of government and capitalism. Instead, they stick to the false notion that these violent and greedy institutions can be made peaceful and generous.

The only reason socialists don't like capitalism is because they're too lazy to go out and get jobs. They want to be able to just sit around all day collecting government handouts.

If I think that a title to a thread is misleading I don't have the right to say so?

Spoffin, you obviously are fixated on the TITLE because you haven't read the whole post. It deals with everything you are bitching about, and then some.

Just let go of your odd fixation with the title, and read the whole post. In other words, cut the fat and get to the meat! ;)

The only reason socialists don't like capitalism is because they're too lazy to go out and get jobs. They want to be able to just sit around all day collecting government handouts.

And the only reason capitalists don't like communism is because they would rather live off the labor of workers rather than contribute to the community whose products they live off of.


Socialists are not lazy. They want capitalists to stop being able to get away with laziness.

Spoffin, you obviously are fixated on the TITLE because you haven't read the whole post. It deals with everything you are bitching about, and then some.

Just let go of your odd fixation with the title, and read the whole post. In other words, cut the fat and get to the meat! ;)
No, I did read the whole post. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have known that the title was misleading. It doesn't deal with anything that I'm bitching about. If it did, I wouldn't be bitching about it. I just think that when clearing things up, you should start right at the beginning. It'd be like me starting a thread entitled "Reasons why Kerry pwns Bush" with the post "I like pie" and a poll on the best kinds of pies.

And the only reason capitalists don't like communism is because they would rather live off the labor of workers rather than contribute to the community whose products they live off of.


Socialists are not lazy. They want capitalists to stop being able to get away with laziness.

One word ... "widgets"

It’s tempting to conclude that liberals are stupid, but I think it’s more complicated than that. They’re impatient. They want results now, not later. They’re shallow. They’re impetuous. They don’t think through the implications of their policies.



That part caught my eye. Sounds a lot like our current President, IMO.

The only reason socialists don't like capitalism is because they're too lazy to go out and get jobs. They want to be able to just sit around all day collecting government handouts.
and you just proved my point, thank you

And the only reason capitalists don't like communism is because they would rather live off the labor of workers rather than contribute to the community whose products they live off of.


Socialists are not lazy. They want capitalists to stop being able to get away with laziness.

Really? Did you know that Karl Marx never did an honest day's work in his entire life? He never even supported his family. Three of his children died and his wife worked her ass off. Two of his children committed suicide when they became adults. That says something about what kind of father he was, does it not? The only reason his fat ass didn't starve to death was because of Engels' support.

and you just proved my point, thank you

Proved what point?

It occurs to me that you may have been trying to paradoy Gymoor's (correction) thread "The Fatal Flaw of Conservatism (This Means You, Republicans)". This thread, unlike yours, did contain a lot more matter relating to the point than yours did. I include the first post, with the especially on topic sections bolded:

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

Firstly the two Presidents you mention are both neo-liberalist, secondly for the most part neither is/was conservative.

With regards to social policy, in my country we did have a Keynesian welfare state, we had virtually zero unemployment. We moved away from that notion to policies centred on the individual and markets (ie the kind of policy pushed by Republicans in the USA), we shortly afterwards experianced the worst unemployment since the 30's depression (for instance in 1960, and 1970 unemployment was so low it barely registered, it reads as zero on charts and graphs for instance, by 1989, registered unemployed was at approximately 150,000 - a huge increase that has far reaching social and fiscal costs). Our GDP per capita has dropped from being above the OECD average, to being less than 80% of the OECD.

Where we once had full employment and families easily able to live on one wage, we now have a longterm and consistent problem with unemployment, there are many more low paying part time jobs that require people to work 70 odd hours at three jobs just to earn less than a 40 hour job used to earn when we had a Keynesian welfare state. Few families can afford to live without two full time incomes (and even with 2 full time incomes home ownership has become unaffordable - only 15-20 years ago people were buying their first home in their 20's with only one wage in the family, now with 2 wages people in their 30s and 40's cannot afford even the lower quality smaller propertied homes that are the contemporary norm), the negative effect this increasing absence of parents in homes has had on our children is apparent in terms of youth crime, school performance etc.

Having de-regulated and sold off infrastructure in a privatisation drive (because governments providing services is contrary to free market policies), we regularly have to bail out the big businesses that brought the infrastructure, because we cant do without essential services. The 'owners' know that if they stuff up the government will write them a nice corporate welfare check. Service is non-existent in such industries, they have a captive client base, and are beholden to no governmental control, thus the tax payers pay for the services, then pay to bail the company out when things go wrong and we have absolutely no recourse when we get stuffed around. The result, we pay more than ever and have less control than ever.

Parents are working longer than ever while the same twits who promote the policies that force parents to spend less and less time raising their children, also bemoan the lack of parenting, the same people who insist that everything will work out if people just become more educated (evidently we are more qualified than ever before in our history, and yet still earning less) are the same people who insist on increasing levels of user-pays in education, the same people that bemoan the rising levels of the unwell needing hospital care when if they had been treated earlier, a GP would have been sufficient (and treatment would have cost less, and there would not have been the loss of productivity associated with long term illness) are the same people demanding more user-pays in primary health care.

The birds are coming home to roost and all the promoters of the policies that are causing the problem can do is bemoan the results of their handi-work and demand more of the same. :headbang:

Really? Did you know that Karl Marx never did an honest day's work in his entire life? He never even supported his family. Three of his children died and his wife worked her ass off. Two of his children committed suicide when they became adults. That says something about what kind of father he was, does it not? The only reason his fat ass didn't starve to death was because of Engels' support.Pop quiz: Karl Marx was a:

A.) A socialist.

B.) A communist.

Question 2:

Socialism is:

A.) The same as communism

B.) Not the same as communism


If you answered B both times, you get 2 points!!!

Proved what point?
the point that conservatives are heartless bastards who believe people who believe in communism and socialism only do so because htey are lazy and dont want to work and that if people are poor its their own fault and they should get a job, and then the conservatives go off anf fuel the problem that keep the working poor poor and the unemployed unemployed

Pop quiz: Karl Marx was a:

A.) A socialist.

B.) A communist.

Question 2:

Socialism is:

A.) The same as communism

B.) Not the same as communism


If you answered B both times, you get 2 points!!!

I never said they were, so please stop misquoting me. I simply gave an example of somebody who hated capitalist because they were too lazy and/or stupid to work.

the point that conservatives are heartless bastards who believe people who believe in communism and socialism only do so because htey are lazy and dont want to work and that if people are poor its their own fault and they should get a job, and then the conservatives go off anf fuel the problem that keep the working poor poor and the unemployed unemployed

:upyours:

I'll make something clear right now:


A)Supporting poor people=Very good thing

B)The government supporting poor people (or any people, for that matter)=Not good thing

I never said they were, so please stop misquoting me. I simply gave an example of somebody who hated capitalist because they were too lazy and/or stupid to work.
Letila said:

Socialists are not lazy. They want capitalists to stop being able to get away with laziness.
Then you said:
Really? Did you know that Karl Marx never did an honest day's work in his entire life? He never even supported his family. Three of his children died and his wife worked her ass off. Two of his children committed suicide when they became adults. That says something about what kind of father he was, does it not? The only reason his fat ass didn't starve to death was because of Engels' support.

Now, it looked to me like you were saying that Karl Marx was a socialist (Claim: socialists are not lazy, Counterclaim: Example: Karl Marx was lazy. Attempted conclusion: Socialists are lazy. Inferance and logic hole: Karl Marx =/= socialist.)

:upyours:

Look, he's pulling a Cheney.

:upyours:
same to you buddy, same to you

I'll make something clear right now:


A)Supporting poor people=Very good thing

B)The government supporting poor people (or any people, for that matter)=Not good thingSo, if the government won't do it, but you do think that it should be done, who do you think should do it?

So, if the government won't do it, but you do think that it should be done, who do you think should do it?

Citizens and private charities. I support poor people, I give homeless people spare change, etc., but I don't think the government should.

same to you buddy, same to you

(Listens closely) What's that? Does anyone else hear a toddler crying in the background?

I'll make something clear right now:


A)Supporting poor people=Very good thing

B)The government supporting poor people (or any people, for that matter)=Not good thing
i assume by support poor people you mean cutting welfare and telling their lazy asses to get a job, even if they already have one. and then writing articles about how liberalism is causing unemployment and people to be poor

(Listens closely) What's that? Does anyone else hear a toddler crying in the background?
wait whats that? first you decry ad hominem attacks then start calling me a baby and flicking me off?

*sticks a flag in the high ground*

i declare this land the property of chess squares

i assume by support poor people you mean cutting welfare and telling their lazy asses to get a job, even if they already have one. and then writing articles about how liberalism is causing unemployment and people to be poor

No, I mean donating clothes to charities, feeding the homeless, giving them a place to live if you have the money/space for them, voluntarily giving money to poor people and charities, etc.

Citizens and private charities. I support poor people, I give homeless people spare change, etc., but I don't think the government should.
Aha, so even though there is some welfare and there are churches and there are charities, people are still homeless. The fact is it's just a form of control. People are not entitled to charity, but get it only if their conduct meets the approval of organisations like the church. There's religious freedom for you, join a church or starve.....

Citizens and private charities. I support poor people, I give homeless people spare change, etc., but I don't think the government should.
And you think that if the government didn't charge taxes to provide welfare, people would just give that money charities and to homeless people?

No, I mean donating clothes to charities, feeding the homeless, giving them a place to live if you have the money/space for them, voluntarily giving money to poor people and charities, etc.
oh i bet you would like my "People against abortion" program then

Second, liberals think they’re better (specifically, more compassionate) than conservatives.

But intentions are not outcomes. Most liberal programs have had bad outcomes, even by liberal standards. Programs designed to end poverty, for example, have entrenched it—and in the process created a class of bureaucrats who have a vested interest in continuing the very programs that have failed. Programs designed to create opportunities for African-Americans have generated resentment among whites and an insidious assumption that any African-American who “makes it” is unqualified. Imagine the effect this has on the self-respect of African-Americans. If you deprive a person of self-respect, you take away the most important thing he or she has.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents.

Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they don’t deserve to govern.
I could equally say that conservatives think they have a monopoly on morality, patriotism and religious faith.

Many countries with socialist policies have turned out very well, namely Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Canada. I can't really think of any remotely just societies created by unbridled free market forces.

The argument about black Americans is pretty weak. We shouldn't help them get up out of the ghetto because a few white people might not have respect for them?

It's true that some wars are unavoidable, but we're disgusted by the current US government's "war as a first resort" approach to the terrorist problem.

As for that last point - are you sure Ann Coulter didn't write this article? Do you honestly think that a conserfvative one-party government is the answer? Get ready for tyranny, folks.

I find it funny that the "liberals" on this thread attack Meatopiaa's post but then trot out the lines he refers to in that post.

"Conservatives are heartless"
"Conservatives are greedy"
"Conservatives are stupid"

You all make his point for him. Good work.

Conservatives advocate people becoming self-sufficient and self-motivated. Therefore I would say conservatives would rather tackle the issues causing reduced levels of education in poorer areas rather than covering it up with Affirmative Action and its shameless discrimination and reverse-racism.
Encouraging people to achieve is far better than telling them they are failures and giving them hand outs. Wean people of welfare, don't institute it.

It occurs to me that you may have been trying to paradoy Labradors thread "The Fatal Flaw of Conservatism (This Means You, Republicans)". Now Labrador is someone I'm very fond of, but she isn't known for being the most... clearheaded of posters. However, her thread did contain a lot more matter relating to the point than yours did. I include the first post, with the especially on topic sections bolded:


Hey, it was ME that posted The Fatal Flaw of Conservatism (This Means You, Republicans) not this Labrador person (how did that name get into your quote?)

Also, I am a HE not a SHE. Hopefully you will be very fond of me too, but also not be convinced of my fuzzy thinking.

I find it funny that the "liberals" on this thread attack Meatopiaa's post but then trot out the lines he refers to in that post.

"Conservatives are heartless"
"Conservatives are greedy"
"Conservatives are stupid"

You all make his point for him. Good work.
So, if I say, "OMG, all you conservatives ever talk about is values and patriotism", do you prove my point the next time you mention values or patriotism? The fact that you can predict an arguement doesn't make it any less true.

Conservatives advocate people becoming self-sufficient and self-motivated. Therefore I would say conservatives would rather tackle the issues causing reduced levels of education in poorer areas rather than covering it up with Affirmative Action and its shameless discrimination and reverse-racism.
Encouraging people to achieve is far better than telling them they are failures and giving them hand outs. Wean people of welfare, don't institute it.Conservatives certainly used to support that kind of thing, but the stuff I most commonly see coming out are things like tax breaks for millionaires (like the estate tax repeal). As soon as I see a conservative actually tackling the isses that cause reduced levels of education in poorer areas, I'll vote for them.

I could equally say that conservatives think they have a monopoly on morality, patriotism and religious faith.

That is your opinion, I believe it to be the wrong opinion.

Many countries with socialist policies have turned out very well, namely Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Canada. I can't really think of any remotely just societies created by unbridled free market forces.

Depends on what you term just. A society where everyone has the same regardless of their work ethic or lackthereof is not just in my opinion but it may be just in yours.

The argument about black Americans is pretty weak. We shouldn't help them get up out of the ghetto because a few white people might not have respect for them?

How does telling them they are not good enough to succeed on their own helping them? Fixing the causes of the problems not patching them up is the solution. Affirmative Action is not the answer. Educating people in poorer communities that they can achieve and improving the education standards is the answer.

It's true that some wars are unavoidable, but we're disgusted by the current US government's "war as a first resort" approach to the terrorist problem.

So what was your answer? Appeasement? Surrender? Diplomatic talks with bin Laden?

Hey, it was ME that posted The Fatal Flaw of Conservatism (This Means You, Republicans) not this Labrador person (how did that name get into your quote?)

Also, I am a HE not a SHE. Hopefully you will be very fond of me too, but also not be convinced of my fuzzy thinking.I'm hugely sorry, that was incredibly stupid of me, I looked at the name that was the most recent post instead of the first post.

*embarassed*

I've edited that now.

I find it funny that the "liberals" on this thread attack Meatopiaa's post but then trot out the lines he refers to in that post.

"Conservatives are heartless"
"Conservatives are greedy"
"Conservatives are stupid"

You all make his point for him. Good work.

Conservatives advocate people becoming self-sufficient and self-motivated. Therefore I would say conservatives would rather tackle the issues causing reduced levels of education in poorer areas rather than covering it up with Affirmative Action and its shameless discrimination and reverse-racism.
Encouraging people to achieve is far better than telling them they are failures and giving them hand outs. Wean people of welfare, don't institute it.
oh please, lets point oit the conservative idea for replacing affirmative action and fixing schools:voucher

and what do vouchers do, the government pays families to go to a school of their choosing, this SUPPOSEDLY fixes the education probloem because everyoen will be going to "good" schools, what this causes is hundreds of thousands of schools to eventually close and other ones to become ludicrously over crowded, and whatever benefit is gotten from the government paying you to send your kid to another school is taken out of you in extra taxes or loss of tax breaks

and rofl, vouchers arnt a hand out?

affirmative action has become shit, but the republicans do not have a fix for the problem, they have a new band aid that will fix it just as much as affirmative action does with twice the consequences. the fix to this problem is the federal government taking up the funding for underfunded schools to bring them up to the levels of the best funded schools

So, if I say, "OMG, all you conservatives ever talk about is values and patriotism", do you prove my point the next time you mention values or patriotism? The fact that you can predict an arguement doesn't make it any less true.

No, but then again if someone said "OMG, all you conservatives ever talk about is values and patriotism" I wouldn't deny it by posting exactly what I was arguing was untrue.

Conservatives certainly used to support that kind of thing, but the stuff I most commonly see coming out are things like tax breaks for millionaires (like the estate tax repeal). As soon as I see a conservative actually tackling the isses that cause reduced levels of education in poorer areas, I'll vote for them.

Well I support these kinds of things. I strongly oppose Affirmative Action and the liberal solution to all the worlds problems..welfare dependency.

Repeals of taxes for real estate and corporates are usually made to encourage economic growth. If you stifle industry with taxes then where do jobs come from? If you give tax breaks it is across the board. As millionaires pay more tax they will of course save more money from tax breaks. It is all in proportion to your earnings.

I find it funny that the "liberals" on this thread attack Meatopiaa's post but then trot out the lines he refers to in that post.

"Conservatives are heartless"
"Conservatives are greedy"
"Conservatives are stupid"

You all make his point for him. Good work.

Conservatives advocate people becoming self-sufficient and self-motivated. Therefore I would say conservatives would rather tackle the issues causing reduced levels of education in poorer areas rather than covering it up with Affirmative Action and its shameless discrimination and reverse-racism.
Encouraging people to achieve is far better than telling them they are failures and giving them hand outs. Wean people of welfare, don't institute it.

You know, we humans are a social animal. Before life becames so easy for us, it was improtant for every member of a tribe to support every other member, otherwise you lost a valuable hunter, or a gatherer. No, I'm not saying it was idyllic, I'm just saying that there was a strong sense of interconnection. Now, in this day and age, our fellow man no longer has that importance. If someone a city away dies of hunger, why the hell should I care, right? If a smart, good kid gets shot because gangs roam the streets due to hunger, undereducation and social malise, what do I care? If a woman is beaten, raped and brutally murdered a state away, I shouldn't shed a tear, right? BULLSHIT! I find the thought of CEO's throwing $100,000 birthday parties after doing no real productive work of their own while people live in hell to be personally repugnant.

Yes, good intentions can lead to unintended consequences, but at least it's trying. And guess what? When something new is tried, and it doesn't work, at least we now have more information to go on to try something else that does work. It's called progress, and part of progress is the humble realization that NOTHING is an end product. Everything can be done better. People with a rational mind know that perfection is impossible, yet always worth reaching for.

What does keeping the status quo do? Well, by definition, nothing. It's also impossible. Change happens. Do we intelligently engineer change, or do we wait for it to overwhelm us?

Oh, and to say socialism reduces motivation...well, is money the only worthy motivation? Maybe for some it is, but I think those people are probably damaged beyond recovery. Also, I don't know anyone who suggests that all of someone's earnings be taken away. WHo is gonna work less hard because they are netting $300,000 rather than $400,000? Yet another example of conservative either/or, black and white thinking.

No, but then again if someone said "OMG, all you conservatives ever talk about is values and patriotism" I wouldn't deny it by posting exactly what I was arguing was untrue.



Well I support these kinds of things. I strongly oppose Affirmative Action and the liberal solution to all the worlds problems..welfare dependency.

Repeals of taxes for real estate and corporates are usually made to encourage economic growth. If you stifle industry with taxes then where do jobs come from? If you give tax breaks it is across the board. As millionaires pay more tax they will of course save more money from tax breaks. It is all in proportion to your earnings.
The repeal of the estate tax benefited nobody (that's literally nobody, not virtually nobody) who's estate was worth less than $1 million. That is, in the absolute most literal sense, a tax break for millionaires.

oh please, lets point oit the conservative idea for replacing affirmative action and fixing schools:voucher

and what do vouchers do, the government pays families to go to a school of their choosing, this SUPPOSEDLY fixes the education probloem because everyoen will be going to "good" schools, what this causes is hundreds of thousands of schools to eventually close and other ones to become ludicrously over crowded, and whatever benefit is gotten from the government paying you to send your kid to another school is taken out of you in extra taxes or loss of tax breaks

and rofl, vouchers arnt a hand out?

affirmative action has become shit, but the republicans do not have a fix for the problem, they have a new band aid that will fix it just as much as affirmative action does with twice the consequences. the fix to this problem is the federal government taking up the funding for underfunded schools to bring them up to the levels of the best funded schools


Thats a narrow view using only the US policy. I believe that policy you mention to be side-stepping the true issue also. As such, a voucher system you mention is not one I would support. Just because I have conservative views does not mean I blindly follow a political party's rhetoric or policy.

In Australia, the liberal state governments' answer to under performing schools was to cease literacy and numeracy testing. This was supported by left-wing groups and the teacher's unions. Hey, there is no problem if we just don't look for it, right?
Testing these areas and identifying children with difficulties was deemed "unfair" on the underachieving student and as such any competition by way of tests and pass and fail are frowned upon. How does that help the child? Oh, well we will push them through the system and help them out with a job and all is well. This type of thinking actually does the child a huge disservice. Early identification of any difficulties would have meant extra classes to assist the child to keep up. Refusing to acknowledge the difficulties or even refusing to look for them is dooming the child to a life of underachievement. But, at least he feels good about himself, right?

Depends on what you term just. A society where everyone has the same regardless of their work ethic or lackthereof is not just in my opinion but it may be just in yours.

How does telling them they are not good enough to succeed on their own helping them? Fixing the causes of the problems not patching them up is the solution. Affirmative Action is not the answer. Educating people in poorer communities that they can achieve and improving the education standards is the answer.

So what was your answer? Appeasement? Surrender? Diplomatic talks with bin Laden?
I'm not a communist like that, but when I was in Sweden recently I saw that, of course, not everyone had the same income. But I saw hardly any homeless people on the streets. People who work hard succeed, but homeless people are not all homeless because they're lazy.

So you are advocating increased education spending for poorer areas? This makes a marked difference from the usual right-wing line.

A good first step would be to stop treating it like World War 3 and start treating it like the international criminal problem that it is.

Thats a narrow view using only the US policy. I believe that policy you mention to be side-stepping the true issue also. As such, a voucher system you mention is not one I would support. Just because I have conservative views does not mean I blindly follow a political party's rhetoric or policy.

In Australia, the liberal state governments' answer to under performing schools was to cease literacy and numeracy testing. This was supported by left-wing groups and the teacher's unions. Hey, there is no problem if we just don't look for it, right?
Testing these areas and identifying children with difficulties was deemed "unfair" on the underachieving student and as such any competition by way of tests and pass and fail are frowned upon. How does that help the child? Oh, well we will push them through the system and help them out with a job and all is well. This type of thinking actually does the child a huge disservice. Early identification of any difficulties would have meant extra classes to assist the child to keep up. Refusing to acknowledge the difficulties or even refusing to look for them is dooming the child to a life of underachievement. But, at least he feels good about himself, right?
you dont even address your problem with my SOLUTION

the problem is that there are schools funded really well and schools funded not so well, the really well funded oens get better teachers, supplies, books, facilities, the poor ones get the worst. if the government takes up the funding slack without adding funding to the high level schools, the class problems are eliminated and if there are any furhter problems they can be seen and addressed udner that system

The repeal of the estate tax benefited nobody (that's literally nobody, not virtually nobody) who's estate was worth less than $1 million. That is, in the absolute most literal sense, a tax break for millionaires.

Well, not being American I am not up to speed on such a policy. Perhaps you can point me to a link?

Whether you like it or not, tax breaks are given to millioniares too sometimes. Just because they are rich does not mean they should pay excessive taxes. They should pay their share but should not be punished for their success.

you dont even address your problem with my SOLUTION

Huh? I think your solution (AA) does not solve any problem.
My solution is to make schools more accountable for their student's performances. Identifying underachieving schools and fixing the problems by removing poor teachers and upgrading facilities is the solution. Making excuses for the schools is not a solution. Covering up the problem with AA is not a solution.

the problem is that there are schools funded really well and schools funded not so well, the really well funded oens get better teachers, supplies, books, facilities, the poor ones get the worst. if the government takes up the funding slack without adding funding to the high level schools, the class problems are eliminated and if there are any furhter problems they can be seen and addressed udner that system

Ah, but that is not Affirmative Action which you say you preach. That is solving the problems at the source. I knew you'd come around.

Huh? I think your solution (AA) does not solve any problem.
My solution is to make schools more accountable for their student's performances. Identifying underachieving schools and fixing the problems by removing poor teachers and upgrading facilities is the solution. Making excuses for the schools is not a solution. Covering up the problem with AA is not a solution.



Ah, but that is not Affirmative Action which you say you preach. That is solving the problems at the source. I knew you'd come around.
ok listen up captain oblivious, read my posts, i have stated TWICE what my solution is, maybe you should learn to read, i assume you learned to do that by 3rd grade like the rest of us

Pure conservatism doesn't work, pure liberalism doesn't work. Just make your own damn decisions.

Pure conservatism doesn't work, pure liberalism doesn't work. Just make your own damn decisions.

I agree. Sometimes though, you need to take a stand to get your point across, and I am mad as hell at the term "liberal" being used as a dirty word and character assassination in American politics and the media. I have yet to see the term "conservative" used in a perjorative sense on television.

Yes, an overattachment to either liberal or conservative ideals is an evil thing, but so is the obvious imbalance that has invaded our national psyche.

I agree. Sometimes though, you need to take a stand to get your point across, and I am mad as hell at the term "liberal" being used as a dirty word and character assassination in American politics and the media.

Ha! And I wonder why that is, what with all the liberal minded media moguls and actors out there. Maybe because it might be true? I dunno... think about it.

I have yet to see the term "conservative" used in a perjorative sense on television.

That is a ludicrous statement. You should know better than for that to be true. The Conservative party is constantly lambasted and belittled, without mercy. Heck, popular liberals make movies and, allegedly, so called "documentarys" based exactly in a 'pejorative' means of delivery.

(also... no "r" after the "e" ... it's pe·jor·a·tive ...adj... 1.Tending to make or become worse. 2. Disparaging; belittling ... n. A disparaging or belittling word or expression ... at least spell it correctly if you're going to try to dazzle us with brilliance, or baffle us with bullshit, whichever the case may be)

I love most of these comments from the liberals or those siding with them. You surely prove my point, more than I could have hoped for.


...

Ha! And I wonder why that is, what with all the liberal minded media moguls and actors out there. Maybe because it might be true? I dunno... think about it.



That is a ludicrous statement. You should know better than for that to be true. The Conservative party is constantly lambasted and belittled, without mercy. Heck, popular liberals make movies and, allegedly, so called "documentarys" based exactly in a 'pejorative' means of delivery.

(also... no "r" after the "e" ... it's pe·jor·a·tive ...adj... 1.Tending to make or become worse. 2. Disparaging; belittling ... n. A disparaging or belittling word or expression ... at least spell it correctly if you're going to try to dazzle us with brilliance, or baffle us with bullshit, whichever the case may be)

I love most of these comments from the liberals or those siding with them. You surely prove my point, more than I could have hoped for.


...

Oh? Media Moguls are liberals? Who are these liberal media moguls you speak of? Rupert Murdoch? Eisner? Who exactly of the owners of the major networks and movie studio's is a liberal? Also, where, on the 24 hour news channels and on the broadcast news (where most people get their "news") are conservatives lambasted and belittled? Liberals are constantly blasted in the mainstream media (conservatives get to define "mainstream too.) Do you feel that way because you know conservative's policies cannot stand up to scrutiny?

Sorry for any spelling errors. I guess I'm not perfect like the conservatives are. Oh, and saying I prove you point doesn't make it so, it just makes you sound like a pompous ass.

In the end, liberalism will always win out. For no other reason then the burning desire for people to be free. The last civil cultural war in the US in the 60/70's proved that. The left won and they won because of an innate desire to be free.

Sorry for any spelling errors. I guess I'm not perfect like the conservatives are. Oh, and saying I prove you point doesn't make it so, it just makes you sound like a pompous ass.

Hmmm... let's see... pompous ass? You sure that it's not that I'm, unintelligent, stupid, a buffoon maybe? No, me saying you prove my point doesn't make it so, but you still do a damn fine job of proving it yourself.

And yes, there are both conservative and liberal media moguls and news channels. But conservatives take their fair share of hits, as do the liberals. The liberals are bound to take more hits though, it's just the way things are in this country right now, tough noogies. Hell, just ask Al Franken with his NATIONALLY SYNDICTAED coast-to-coast radio show. You sure liberals are the only ones being belittled? Okay, you can see things the way you want to, but you're still wrong just the same.

Hmmm... let's see... pompous ass. You sure that it's not that I'm, unintelligent, stupid, a buffoon maybe? No, me saying you prove my point doesn't make it so, but you still do a damn fine job of proving it yourself.

Hey, enough, knock off the flames, if you can't discuss without flaming go take a time-out!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

In the end, liberalism will always win out. For no other reason then the burning desire for people to be free. The last civil cultural war in the US in the 60/70's proved that. The left won and they won because of an innate desire to be free.

You really believe that?

You really believe that Liberalism are the salvation of those yearning & burning to be free? Since when does socialism/communism denote freedom? The "last civil cultural war in the US in the 60's/70's" was carried out by draft dodgers and stoned hippies. Other than the civil rights movement, which I fully agree with, the 60's and 70's was nothing more than a passing phase of angry pot-heads and acid freaks making a bunch of noise trying to stay out of a war (gosh... that sounds eerily familiar). It holds no water in the now, aside from a few liberal hippie hold-out politicians who now manage to continue to wreak havoc on our country. I seriously doubt what you're trying to say here is even remotely possible. The "left" has won nothing. You must be mad.

Hey, enough, knock off the flames, if you can't discuss without flaming go take a time-out!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Whoah... hold on a second there cowboy, I didn't flame anyone, I was the one who got called a pompous ass. And it's directly related to an earlier point I was making about Liberals and their behavior/thought process.

C'mon... If you allege I am being derogatory, and I'm not, I've certainly seen you post derogatory comments your self. Not to mention profanity. And locking threads AFTER you contribute to them, then don't like the responses.

Ease up on the reins there, Game Moderator.

Whoah... hold on a second there cowboy, I didn't flame anyone, I was the one who got called a pompous ass. And it's directly related to an earlier point I was making about Liberals and their behavior/thought process.

C'mon... If you allege I am being derogatory, and I'm not, I've certainly seen you post derogatory comments your self. Not to mention profanity. And locking threads AFTER you contribute to them, then don't like the responses.

Ease up on the reins there, Game Moderator.

Well I just seen it in your post.. if you didn't say it sorry, whoever did, knock it off.

You really believe that?

You really believe that Liberalism are the salvation of those yearning & burning to be free? Since when does socialism/communism denote freedom? The "last civil cultural war in the US in the 60's/70's" was carried out by draft dodgers and stoned hippies. Other than the civil rights movement, which I fully agree with, the 60's and 70's was nothing more than a passing phase of angry pot-heads and acid freaks making a bunch of noise trying to stay out of a war (gosh... that sounds eerily familiar). It holds no water in the now, aside from a few liberal hippie hold-out politicians who now manage to continue to wreak havoc on our country. I seriously doubt what you're trying to say here is even remotely possible. The "left" has won nothing. You must be mad.

I was alive then, were you?

Citizens and private charities. I support poor people, I give homeless people spare change, etc., but I don't think the government should.

Doesn't the fact that welfare exists show that that doesn't work? If it did, then it wouldn't be necessary to have welfare. Not to mention the fact that charity is a rather condescending act that doesn't really fix the problem of capitalist oppression. To be fair, the same is true of welfare, but charity isn't a better solution.

In addition, if you aren't willing to give money to the government, then why would you give it to the poor so readily? Conservatives love the government when it is enforcing laws against gays and demanding patriotism. It's only when it eats into capitalist profits that they complain.

Uhh, Meat, we might have a higher opinion of conservatives' intelligence when they blindly demonize 'liberalism' as 'some kind of elitist commie stoner thing.'

The terms are meaningless when our 'conservatives' in government have spent trillions on a foreign adventure and increased the size of government more than any other administration in history, all while trying to change the constitution to exclude people from civil rights... citing as a rationale that they don't approve of their private sex lives... fund religious institutions to take over social services, and other things that don't seem very 'conservative' to me.

Doesn't sound very conservative to a small number of conservatives that *do* seem pretty smart, either.


"Liberal" isn't the first word I'd use to describe myself. One of them, maybe, but not the first. "Progressive," definitely.

I was alive then, were you?
well i was and i dont agree with what you said

Id just like to jump in and say, regarding the media mogul issue, look at our major radio news station, NPR. Liberals claim that NPR is conservative-controlled, and conservatives claim its liberal controlled. To get to the point, how many conservative shows are on NPR? And for how long? Rush Limbaugh, for 1 hour. That's it. The rest is liberal media. Now I'm not saying Limbaugh is my hero, (I really disagree with the man) but he's the only conservative show on the air. And now the liberal shows are trying to get him thrown off entirely because he "creates an imbalance". Imbalance? 1 to 23. Well then, if that's your definition of an imbalance... Now ask yourselves, is the media really conservative-minded?

Turn the TV to CNN or something right now, (not FOX, they actually are conservative, and they admit it) and find something related to US foreign policy (Iraq, etc.) Is it good news? No. It NEVER is. EVER. While good things happen all around the world (along with the bad) our media chooses only those that side with liberal opinion (i.e. bad stuff). You may find 1 story out of 25 that actually deals with something that might be construed to help the conservative cause.

Oh and try to find me 25 conservative actors. it can't be done. The funny thing is, they live the same life you denounce! Funny how things work out huh?

You really believe that?

You really believe that Liberalism are the salvation of those yearning & burning to be free? Since when does socialism/communism denote freedom? The "last civil cultural war in the US in the 60's/70's" was carried out by draft dodgers and stoned hippies. Other than the civil rights movement, which I fully agree with, the 60's and 70's was nothing more than a passing phase of angry pot-heads and acid freaks making a bunch of noise trying to stay out of a war (gosh... that sounds eerily familiar). It holds no water in the now, aside from a few liberal hippie hold-out politicians who now manage to continue to wreak havoc on our country. I seriously doubt what you're trying to say here is even remotely possible. The "left" has won nothing. You must be mad.

It's better to be high on pot than high on power.

I think what ticks me off is how people equate liberal to mean socialist or commie.. maybe the far, far, far left.. but most liberals are not that way. Most liberals believe in far more freedoms then conservatives do. They just don't seem to understand it I think. Calling a liberal a socialist or commie is no different then calling a conservative a fascist. Neither is a true depiction.

Alright...

So I sat my ass here and read the five pages of this crap. First of all, let me just state that no one is going to agree on anything here. Fact it - its the way politics work...

Since the original point got lost somewhere along the way...and now it essentially feel down to bashing each other...lets put it this way.

I just want to state that Conservatives as a whole demoralize people. They make everyone else feel like crap - even if it is just by talking about their million dollar mansions. The fact that we have to argue over a tax about million dollar mansions while there are people living homeless is actually sickening.

Maybe those really nice rich people who have more bedrooms than they need can invite some of the homeless to room with them! Wouldn't that be a nice thought?

The fatal flaw of liberals is the inability to let go of the ideas of government and capitalism. Instead, they stick to the false notion that these violent and greedy institutions can be made peaceful and generous.
Sorry, but Communism does not and will not exist.

is it just me or are conservatives haertless bastards

It's just you.

Sorry, but Communism does not and will not exist.

I'll still fight for it. I am not ready to let the world be destroyed by either conservatives or transhumanists. I will do what ever I can to change things.

According to this and Letila, I'm nothing like a liberal.

And yet that is how I identify. Hmm?

First, the liberal imagines that the Conservative belief is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

Liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice. Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression.

Does it seem to you as though liberals feel entitled to govern? It does to me. This sense of entitlement has two sources. First, liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives. Do you want to be governed by a smart crowd or a dumb crowd? Second, liberals think they’re better (specifically, more compassionate) than conservatives. Governance, they suggest, is a matter of having sympathy for the disadvantaged. It’s about having your heart in the right place. Liberals loved it when Bill Clinton said he felt his interlocutors’ pain. It struck just the right note with them.

Both liberal beliefs are false. I can only point to the law of unintended consequences. Most liberals I know, and I know quite a few of them, having been one, are well-meaning and admirably motivated. They sincerely believe that their policy prescriptions, if implemented, will make the world a better place for all concerned. If only those dastardly conservatives would get out of the way, they seem to say, we would have heaven on earth.

But intentions are not outcomes. Most liberal programs have had bad outcomes, even by liberal standards. Programs designed to end poverty, for example, have entrenched it—and in the process created a class of bureaucrats who have a vested interest in continuing the very programs that have failed. Programs designed to create opportunities for African-Americans have generated resentment among whites and an insidious assumption that any African-American who “makes it” is unqualified. Imagine the effect this has on the self-respect of African-Americans. If you deprive a person of self-respect, you take away the most important thing he or she has.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.

When you think about it, it’s ironic that liberals believe they’re more intelligent than conservatives, because an intelligent person tempers idealism with reality. Liberals conveniently ignore certain unpleasant realities, such as the effect redistributive policies have on incentive. The more people are taxed, the less incentive they have to work or invest. Liberals think that if we sit down nicely with our enemies, we can bring them around. This may work with some enemies, but not all. In their zeal to ensure that everyone has a decent minimum of health care and other necessities, liberals ignore self-respect, self-esteem, and personal responsibility. When is the last time you heard a liberal talk about such things, much less emphasize them? And yet, aren’t they crucially important? Shouldn’t every policy take them into account?

It’s no accident that liberals are called do-gooders. They mean well, but they usually end up making things worse. Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help. It’s tempting to conclude that liberals are stupid, but I think it’s more complicated than that. They’re impatient. They want results now, not later. They’re shallow. They view humans as sentient beings, not as rational, autonomous agents. They’re impetuous. They don’t think through the implications of their policies.

With all due respect to my liberal friends, these are not the traits of the wise. They are the traits of children. Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they don’t deserve to govern. They need to grow up, develop a more holistic view of the person, develop a more realistic view of human nature, and cultivate a sense of patience. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for being benevolent, compassionate, caring, and sympathetic. Benevolence is neither necessary nor sufficient for acting rightly. Caring, far from being a synonym for justice, is often an impediment to it. It’s not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals prove it every day.

...

Wow, you should have a job!

First I'd like to congratulate you on your scathing piece that is purely partisan and one sided. It's always good to see another person make blatant stereotypical assertions about one side of the political spectrum.


First, the liberal imagines that the Conservative belief is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent. They're incapable of thinking clearly or carefully, even about important matters such as equality, justice, and fairness. This explains the liberal mantra that conservatives, such as Presidents Reagan and Bush, are stupid. Note that if conservatives are stupid, liberals, by contrast, are intelligent. It's all very self-serving.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall Reagan being called stupid by a bunch of people. Being hated for his polices yes, but stupid? No. Bush on the other hand, well yeah. Except for George HW Bush.

Liberals know that conservatives are no less intelligent than they are. It just makes them feel good to say as much. So they attribute the pervasive belief in responsibility and desert to greed. Opponents of the liberal program are greedy. They won't admit the truth because they don't want to share the wealth. They take the positions they do, on matters such as affirmative action and welfare, to solidify their social position. Greed is bad, of course, so if you reject the liberal program, you're evil. You put self-interest ahead of justice. Here, in one neat package, we have all the liberal platitudes. Conservatives are ignorant, stupid, and evil, or some combination of the three. Either they don't grasp the obvious truth or they're incapable of thinking clearly or they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. Liberals, of course, are the opposite of all these. They're knowledgeable, intelligent, and good. Note that if you believe your opponents to be stupid or evil, you don't try to reason with them. Stupid people, like animals and children, need guidance by their superiors. Evil people need suppression.

Again blatant stereotypes. There needs to be a balance between left and right, because too much on the left can possibly make the economy and business struggle, while too much on the right can make the workers struggle to keep up. Capitalism if left unchecked concentrates wealth and power, which is why some socialism is needed in the form of welfare. Private organizations are not enough.

Does it seem to you as though liberals feel entitled to govern? It does to me. This sense of entitlement has two sources. First, liberals think they’re more intelligent than conservatives. Do you want to be governed by a smart crowd or a dumb crowd? Second, liberals think they’re better (specifically, more compassionate) than conservatives. Governance, they suggest, is a matter of having sympathy for the disadvantaged. It’s about having your heart in the right place. Liberals loved it when Bill Clinton said he felt his interlocutors’ pain. It struck just the right note with them.

Ok, I'm tired of hearing the stupid remarks, because it's all untrue. Although each side may call the other stupid at times, it is just partisan bickering. Don't try to call the left assholes, while saying the right are even more moral and can do no wrong. It's more partisan crap.

Both liberal beliefs are false. I can only point to the law of unintended consequences. Most liberals I know, and I know quite a few of them, having been one, are well-meaning and admirably motivated. They sincerely believe that their policy prescriptions, if implemented, will make the world a better place for all concerned. If only those dastardly conservatives would get out of the way, they seem to say, we would have heaven on earth.

That's not true. Just like all the conservative ideals won't make a perfect world. It's all about balance. This isn't a perfect world, and no extreme side will make it one. Only a side that brings balance.

But intentions are not outcomes. Most liberal programs have had bad outcomes, even by liberal standards. Programs designed to end poverty, for example, have entrenched it—and in the process created a class of bureaucrats who have a vested interest in continuing the very programs that have failed. Programs designed to create opportunities for African-Americans have generated resentment among whites and an insidious assumption that any African-American who “makes it” is unqualified. Imagine the effect this has on the self-respect of African-Americans. If you deprive a person of self-respect, you take away the most important thing he or she has.

I'll give you Affirmative Action. I don't like it much myself. But all the programs such as welfare are a success. Well when the people don't know it's there and don't apply for it, then it's not good. Or when there aren't restrictions in place so that the welfare isn't taken advantage of.

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.

Oh you want to play this game, eh? Ok quick name the wartime presidents of the last decade and what parties they were in. FDR, Johnson, Wilson, Clinton, Truman, and Bush. Eh, I can't remember much after Wilson, but let's count up the score. Looks like a Democrat majority. I guess that shoots down your statement about liberals thinking the means to world peace is negotiation not war.

When you think about it, it’s ironic that liberals believe they’re more intelligent than conservatives, because an intelligent person tempers idealism with reality. Liberals conveniently ignore certain unpleasant realities, such as the effect redistributive policies have on incentive. The more people are taxed, the less incentive they have to work or invest. Liberals think that if we sit down nicely with our enemies, we can bring them around. This may work with some enemies, but not all. In their zeal to ensure that everyone has a decent minimum of health care and other necessities, liberals ignore self-respect, self-esteem, and personal responsibility. When is the last time you heard a liberal talk about such things, much less emphasize them? And yet, aren’t they crucially important? Shouldn’t every policy take them into account?

Oh, I dunno about that. If more money is taken out of your pay check, you will want to work more often so you can get more money. But with less money, then you don't have to work as much. Oh and just think about it, with welfare for the poor and middle class necessity theft would go down. Because the people stealing because they need to to survive wouldn't have to because they could afford what they would steal without the welfare. Thus the crime rate goes down. But the corporate crime rate might go up, which brings us back to the balance issue.

It’s no accident that liberals are called do-gooders. They mean well, but they usually end up making things worse. Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help. It’s tempting to conclude that liberals are stupid, but I think it’s more complicated than that. They’re impatient. They want results now, not later. They’re shallow. They view humans as sentient beings, not as rational, autonomous agents. They’re impetuous. They don’t think through the implications of their policies.

Any proof of this? Oh, and the dependencies, disincentives, and dysfuntions can be countered by regulation of welfare and the like.

With all due respect to my liberal friends, these are not the traits of the wise. They are the traits of children. Not only are liberals not entitled to govern; they don’t deserve to govern. They need to grow up, develop a more holistic view of the person, develop a more realistic view of human nature, and cultivate a sense of patience. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for being benevolent, compassionate, caring, and sympathetic. Benevolence is neither necessary nor sufficient for acting rightly. Caring, far from being a synonym for justice, is often an impediment to it. It’s not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Liberals prove it every day.

...

Oh? Children? Views of children? What about the black and white views of the right? There are no gray areas to them. When this is a world full of gray. And what about calling people unpatriotic and un-American for going about their Constitutional right to free speech? Oh and most of you that call these "Bush bashers" Anti-American, are hypocrites because you bashed Clinton when he was in office.

Wake up and smell the coffee, partisanship is a disease, and you are only feeding the disease with this horribly inaccurate rant. Now I'm not saying the left does the same, just that you seem to refuse to admit that the right can be wrong on occasion. I hate those kinds of people. They don't ever look at the gray area. They just don't think about things from other perspectives.

As a Liberal,
Let me address a couple of issues.

"Liberals think all Conservatives are stupid."

Not true.

Many of them, yes. All of them?
Certainly not.
Most of them are "ignorant", there is a difference.
Many Conservatives simply dont realize the kind of things that have been done under the Conservative banner, and thus the Republican party.
Take Bush's record for instance.
If those people actually knew what Bush is really doing, and why he is doing it, they would never support him.

The problem is, many Conservatives are willing to listen to whatever their president tells them, and believe every word of it.

2. "Liberals think all Conservatives are greedy."
Not true.
Just the ones at the top.
Bush/Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, .......all of them millionaires. (or much much higher)

So..while all Conservatives are not greedy, the ones at the top of the totem pole CERTAINLY are, and they are calling the shots right now.

Those Conservatives who dont apply to the above...
Meaning they know full well what Bush is doing, and has done and STILL approve......those are what we call..."Bastards".

They're usually the people mentioned above.

The rest of you...I believe you mean well, but supporting the man in office right now, is sodomizing those lofty ideals into the ground in your name.

Another thing, while Im ranting...

Conservatives...
Please do not believe what Fox News tells you about Liberals.
Being a Liberal does NOT mean you are any of the following:

Anti-American.
A Socialist.
A Communist.
A Supporter of Terrorism.
Evil.

Many of you say these things all the time on these boards, but when I call you out and say "Tell me what you think a Liberal IS then.."

None of you can do it.

So..what is it that you hate so much?
How can you hate something if you dont know what it is?


anyways....your original post in this thread is a super-basic stereo type that hardly applies to anyone, let alone the majority of Liberals in America.

You have misconceptions about US...






We know the truth about you.
HA!

I think what ticks me off is how people equate liberal to mean socialist or commie.. maybe the far, far, far left.. but most liberals are not that way. Most liberals believe in far more freedoms then conservatives do. They just don't seem to understand it I think. Calling a liberal a socialist or commie is no different then calling a conservative a fascist. Neither is a true depiction.

You could have fooled me. In all my years, I have never seen Liberalism as anything but socialism. I remember when Democrats were not considered Liberals, now the two are synonymous. Communism could be a stretch, for the most part. I suppose a small minority of liberals should be considered communists, although the foundation for both beliefs are very similar. I'll give you that. The rallying cry of the modern liberal is the cry of the socialist party. Why you can't see that, I do not know. And if you read these boards, which I'm sure you do, it perplexes me even further why you would suggest Liberalism is not tantamount to socialism. It fully is.

You could have fooled me. In all my years, I have never seen Liberalism as anything but socialism. I remember when Democrats were not considered Liberals, now the two are synonymous. Communism could be a stretch, for the most part. I suppose a small minority of liberals should be considered communists, although the foundation for both beliefs are very similar. I'll give you that. The rallying cry of the modern liberal is the cry of the socialist party. Why you can't see that, I do not know. And if you read these boards, which I'm sure you do, it perplexes me even further why you would suggest Liberalism is not tantamount to socialism. It fully is.

Yes, oh dear socialism... Soon we will have universal healthcare where even the poor will not have to die because they can not afford treatment and that truly would be terrible...

I was alive then, were you?

Yes, I was alive then, and am alive now ;) I remember the 'duck & cover' nuclear bomb drills in elementary school very well. I also remember the loud air-raid sirens that sounded the last Friday of every month. We lived about 3 miles from the nearest siren, which was about the size of a U-Haul truck. It was pretty freaky. I remember when MLK was shot down, and I cried, because my best friend was black and he cried when it happened.

I used to be a liberal, an ardent outspoken liberal at that. Then I got into it pretty hardcore, and learned that I really wasn't a liberal after all. During some soul searching just before the Reagan election, I experienced an epiphany of sorts. I'm glad for that change of heart, I firmly believe in it, and I've never looked back. Although, I don't vote strictly on party lines. I always vote for that, or whom, I feel is the best decision. That usually means voting alomng the party line, but not always.

You still have not said what is wrong with a National Health Service that will save the lives of the poor...

Alright...

So I sat my ass here and read the five pages of this crap. First of all, let me just state that no one is going to agree on anything here. Fact it - its the way politics work...

Since the original point got lost somewhere along the way...and now it essentially feel down to bashing each other...lets put it this way.

I just want to state that Conservatives as a whole demoralize people. They make everyone else feel like crap - even if it is just by talking about their million dollar mansions. The fact that we have to argue over a tax about million dollar mansions while there are people living homeless is actually sickening.

Maybe those really nice rich people who have more bedrooms than they need can invite some of the homeless to room with them! Wouldn't that be a nice thought?

*sigh*... utter B.S.

Do you think those "rich people" got that way simply because they had it given to them?

Yes, some were born with silver spoons in their mouths and come from old money, but each and every new successful business, and new millionaire (aside from Lottery winners... bastards! :p ), accomplished and achieved what they have from HARD WORK, DETERMINATION, INTELLIGENCE, and a little luck. SO, if ye be homeless, pull yourself up by your boot straps and find a damn job. Rich people didn't make anyone homeless, the homeless made themselves homeless, or they're the victim of circumstances. NO ONE has to remain homeless, if they choose not to be. I do have a problem with how little money is spent on Mental Health for those that are homeless because they can't function in society, but it's hardly the successful persons fault that not EVERYONE is rich and successful.

*sigh*... utter B.S.

Do you think those "rich people" got that way simply because they had it given to them?

Yes, some were born with silver spoons in their mouths and come from old money, but each and every new successful business, and new millionaire (aside from Lottery winners... bastards! :p ), accomplished and achieved what they have from HARD WORK, DETERMINATION, INTELLIGENCE, and a little luck. SO, if ye be homeless, pull yourself up by your boot straps and find a damn job. Rich people didn't make anyone homeless, the homeless made themselves homeless, or they're the victim of circumstances. NO ONE has to remain homeless, if they choose not to be. I do have a problem with how little money is spent on Mental Health for those that are homeless because they can't function in society, but it's hardly the successful persons fault that not EVERYONE is rich and successful.

No that is capitilisms fault. Lets get rid of it shall we. Oh, still waiting for your response to that SOCIALIST LIBERAL idea of not letting the poor die because they can not afford treatment by the way.

ok listen up captain oblivious, read my posts, i have stated TWICE what my solution is, maybe you should learn to read, i assume you learned to do that by 3rd grade like the rest of us

Hmm...and then we finish it off with the typical liberal insult. I think you have proved every point in Meatopiaa's original outline of liberals.

Now, to the point. If you agreed with my point with regards to fixing the system over handouts then why did you attack what I said with the assumption I am Republican and support all their ideas? News for you, I am not American, I am not Republican. But, instead of agreeing with what I said with regards to fixing schools, which you obviously do because you have said so, you try and attack me on Republican policy. Even when people agree with you try and make an argument out of it. :rolleyes:

Hmm...and then we finish it off with the typical liberal insult. I think you have proved every point in Meatopiaa's original outline of liberals.:

Pfff...So I am an idiot because he is? So I presume that you want me to be "flogged all the way to the gallows" for being bi like another conservative does then?

You still have not said what is wrong with a National Health Service that will save the lives of the poor...

Okay... here's 10 quick reasons. I'm too damn tired to debate this right now with lengthy reasoning why NO National/Universal Health Service should even be attempted right now. Besides... it's off topic, but I'll entertain your challenge:

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; if they can't run an office such as the DMV efficiently, how can we expect them to handle something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can.

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's a liberal entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What could would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it? Will the lazy no-good deadbeats who won't work ever have to contribute? Why should I pay for some deadbeats goiter or syphillis infection with more taxes taken out of my hard work?

3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

6. I just remembered this reason, and it's the most obvious of all; Ever hear of Medi-Care? Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is almost completely determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking coach potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.

10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors with qualifications and adequate intelligence from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.


There's so much more I could add, I'm just too tired. We can debate this in another thread maybe, someday, like next year or something.

It's an old issue, and it's being pushed on & on by liberals and their emotions, not by rational thinkers.


...

Pfff...So I am an idiot because he is? So I presume that you want me to be "flogged all the way to the gallows" for being bi like another conservative does then?

From the original post, in case you haven't read it:

First, the liberal imagines that the Conservative belief is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent.

This is what I was referring to as Chess Squares insinuated I was unintelligent. That he actually proved what Meatopiaa posted was true.

You will find that I have not called anyone an idiot so I have no idea what you are trying to prove with that meaningless rant. I can only hope it made you feell better.

No that is capitilisms fault. Lets get rid of it shall we. Oh, still waiting for your response to that SOCIALIST LIBERAL idea of not letting the poor die because they can not afford treatment by the way.

Well, wait no more my idealistic self-righteous friend, look above.

Well, wait no more my idealistic self-righteous friend, look above.

Your argument is void: If a man is run over in the UK who is homeless and penniless he will recieve treatment for free. If such an event occured in the US he would not get it if he could not afford it. So one saves lives the other lets them die for profit.

Your argument is void: If a man is run over in the UK who is homeless and penniless he will recieve treatment for free. If such an event occured in the US he would not get it if he could not afford it. So one saves lives the other lets them die for profit.

Well, shows how little you know about America then. Did you read #6?

"6. I just remembered this reason, and it's the most obvious of all; Ever hear of Medi-Care? Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant."

It's against the law to refuse a person emergency care and follow-up. People in circumstances as you have described are known as "Medically Indigent" here in the U.S., and are cared for very well. Try reading my post before you bad mouth it. My argument is valid and correct!

Dear Lord ... the people who hang here at NationStates... argh! :headbang:

Well, shows how little you know about America then. Did you read #6?

"6. I just remembered this reason, and it's the most obvious of all; Ever hear of Medi-Care? Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant."

It's against the law to refuse a person emergency care and follow-up. People in circumstances as you have described are known as "Medically Indigent" here in the U.S., and are cared for very well. Try reading my post before you bad mouth it. My argument is valid and correct!

Dear Lord ... the people who hang here at NationStates... argh! :headbang:


No, your arguement is only half right.
The man would recieve enough free medical care to save his immediate life.
If he required an exspensive procedure to survive beyond a small peroid of time....he would be denied, unless he could pay for it.

No, your arguement is only half right.
The man would recieve enough free medical care to save his immediate life.
If he required an exspensive procedure to survive beyond a small peroid of time....he would be denied, unless he could pay for it.


Again, not true. Anyone in need of life saving emergency care cannot be denied... BY LAW. Whether it be today right after the unfortunate incident, or much later. The only people who must wait for LIFE-SAVING procedures are those who are in need of an organ transplant, due to the short supply of compatible organs that can be matched to any given recipient.

:headbang:

This is why i consider myself a moderate - being able to compromise with both sides makes things a lot easier for me

No, your arguement is only half right.
The man would recieve enough free medical care to save his immediate life.
If he required an exspensive procedure to survive beyond a small peroid of time....he would be denied, unless he could pay for it.

So he does die.

Again, not true. Anyone in need of life saving emergency care cannot be denied... BY LAW. Whether it be today right after the unfortunate incident, or much later. The only people who must wait for LIFE-SAVING procedures are those who are in need of an organ transplant, due to the short supply of compatible organs that can be matched to any given recipient.

:headbang:

So the rich get their organs and the poor have to die because they were not born with rich parents. What a great society you live in...

So the rich get their organs and the poor have to die because they were not born with rich parents. What a great society you live in...
That isn't quite true, it's a first come, first serve list. However, people have been bumped up for various reasons, such as celebrities.

First, the liberal imagines that the Conservative belief is rooted in ignorance. Opponents of the liberal program simply don't know the facts about responsibility and desert. But when liberals try to convey these "facts," they get no uptake. Indeed, they get denial. This leads to the stupidity hypothesis. Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent.

Okay first, ignorance doesn't mean stupid it just means uninformed. That describes more most americans than "liberals" so you don't get a point.
Hey now us DEmocrats know our dessert, apple pie, Lemon Morinque(spelled wrin I think), Cheesecake mmmm, and Cookie Dough Icecream. Trust me we know our Dessert. Did you mean desert? What does a desert have to do with ideas? I'm lost...
We convery facts and we are denial when we deny that you facts that don't work work? But isn't that the same since you don't agree either with us?

So now you are calling them stupid, but then you propbably think Ignorance is stupidity making you lose credibility.


Opponents of the liberal program aren't so much ignorant of facts as incapable of reasoning from and about them. In other words, they're stupid or unintelligent.
So Conservatives (ie oppoents of liberal programs) aren't so much ignorant as incapable of reasoning? In other words conservatives are unintelligent or stupid? Did you just call your party idiots?

Whose side are you on?

Conservatives are more capable of reasoning and making choices. Look at John Kerry he cant make up his damn mind want he is for and against.

The welfare-statist paradigm (what we call 'liberal' in the US when it is coupled with a certain degree of social libertarianism) is most certainly the best way to bolster capitalism and it has been most successful at doing so. It attempts to patch some of the most immediate social crisises caused by capitalism to keep enough of the working class content without doing anything to eliminate the great injustices and inequities inherent in the system.

If the American 'conservatives' (paradoxically Laissez Faire Jesus freaks who would install a camera in every bedroom so that they could have all of the ‘deviants’ jailed and use the footage to satisfy their own suppressed sexuality) like capitalism, then the 'liberals are their best buddies.

If it wasnt for god and capitalism then this country would have fallen long ago.

"It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant."
This wasteful and inefficient 'liberal' policy is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It clogs up emergency rooms and is arguably more expensive then universal healthcare would be. If these emergency cases are diagnosed and treated sooner, the cost of care and the burden placed on the system would be lessened.

May I also point out that hospitals are finding more new ways to weasel out of this wasteful arrangement made by politicians rather than medical professionals every day?

If it wasnt for god and capitalism then this country would have fallen long ago. Please do not confuse a country's ruling class with the country itself. I am sure that had it not been for the lie of Christianity and the enslavement of capitalism the Earth would still be under our feet as it is today though there would certainly be more freedom and justice in it.

That actually had nothing in it that in any way related to liberalism as a political philosophy, it was just a rant at the behavour of liberals.

I think you should change the title for the sake of accuracy.

More to the point, it's a ill-conceived rant about *some* liberals. Ironically, this person's rant makes the the same assumptions about liberals that some liberals make about conservatives. It is reminiscent of irrational arguments put forth by American "talk show/entertainment" hosts such as Sean Hannity, Michael "Savage" Weiner, and Bill O'Reilly.

In any event, after reading the initial post in this thread, this quote came to mind:

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill (also a librool)

More to the point, it's a ill-conceived rant about *some* liberals. Ironically, this person's rant makes the the same assumptions about liberals that some liberals make about conservatives. It is reminiscent of irrational arguments put forth by American "talk show/entertainment" hosts such as Sean Hannity, Michael "Savage" Weiner, and Bill O'Reilly.

In any event, after reading the initial post in this thread, this quote came to mind:

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
--John Stuart Mill (also a librool)

True, the thread is based around a stereotype.

The fatal flaw of liberals is the inability to let go of the ideas of government and capitalism. Instead, they stick to the false notion that these violent and greedy institutions can be made peaceful and generous.
Wow, I actually agree with Letila for once.

As a Liberal in Response:
For the record, I did read your post in it's entirety. Ironically, I found it every bit as based on illconceived and biased notions, as most of my liberal friend's opinions on conservatives. Your ignorance is remarkable precisely because you cannot see this. I am a sociology major, and IMHO, both liberals and conservatives are idealists of different types and both would do well to temper their ideals with realism to govern wisely. I do not believe that conservatives as a whole are at all ignorant, nor liberals. Both are simply tethered to opposing faiths on which they base their governance. Liberals have faith in change without fully considering all results, whereas conservatives, it seems to me, have a blind faith in the old ways. The old values being the best is every bit as much a position based on the blind faith of a few as harboring constant change. The right of ANY leader to rule should be based not on the bias of his party but on his ability to but the Nation's needs before his own blind faith when making choices. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush, NOT all conservatives but THIS ONE MAN, has proved in four years that is is completely incapable of this. With Kerry, this at least remains to be seen. I do not take offense to this post because the poster disagrees with me. Only because the poster is so self-righteous in pointing out my blind spots while being so, well, BLIND to his or her own.
The Founder of Loving Balance

The fatal flaw of liberals is the inability to let go of the ideas of government and capitalism. Instead, they stick to the false notion that these violent and greedy institutions can be made peaceful and generous.

No, they can't be fixed, but they can be improved. And until we unite and decide to fix the worst parts of our society we might as well try to clean them up a bit.

Otherwise we'd still be living in a situation like Charles Dickson's version of England.

Free Outer Eugenia
Forum Boredom


Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Only the dead know.
Posts: 1,812 Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldarana
If it wasnt for god and capitalism then this country would have fallen long ago.

Please do not confuse a country's ruling class with the country itself. I am sure that had it not been for the lie of Christianity and the enslavement of capitalism the Earth would still be under our feet as it is today though there would certainly be more freedom and justice in it.





Obviously you are not a student of history and do not realize that the U.S. should not have even won the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 or the Cilvil War WWII. I leave out World War I because that was more of a european war then a world war.

And yes, there are both conservative and liberal media moguls and news channels. But conservatives take their fair share of hits, as do the liberals. The liberals are bound to take more hits though, it's just the way things are in this country right now, tough noogies. Hell, just ask Al Franken with his NATIONALLY SYNDICTAED coast-to-coast radio show. You sure liberals are the only ones being belittled? Okay, you can see things the way you want to, but you're still wrong just the same.

You sidestepped my question. You still haven't named a single liberal media mogul or CEO. Also, in my post, I specifically mentioned that the term liberal has been demonized on televison, i.e. the 24 hour news and the broadcast news. These sources are where most of America gets their news.

Public Health is the jewel is Europe's Socialist Crown.

Obviously you are not a student of history and do not realize that the U.S. should not have even won the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 or the Cilvil War WWII. I leave out World War I because that was more of a european war then a world war.

The US didn't win the war of 1812..nor did the USA win WWII, it was an allied effort. I guess you're no student of history either.. ;)

Wow. Just wow. I forgot that liberals were animals that all have these generic characteristics.

Wow. Just wow. I forgot that liberals were animals that all have these generic characteristics.
No, what you and a couple of others appears to have forgotten is that generalisation does not mean 'absolutely everybody in the group'. Generalisation means 'the group as an average', or 'a dominating part of the group' or something similar, and it allows for the group to have a lot of exceptions from the general rule.

Meatopiaa:
Your posting is full of sweeping generalizations which unceacingly condescend to your opposition. Given this, I have to say there is no way I could possibly think you are stupid. It was meticulously crafted by someone of obvious intelligence and education. Any liberal rebuttal can only sound childish and whiny when defending the ideals you describe in somewhat unflattering terms. But not directly offensive. Which is why your method works so well. You can maintain your condescendingly superior tone in your replies because you at least did not lower yourself to their level by exchanging petty insults.

Nevertheless, you are entirely wrong. At least about me personally. I can't really speak knowledgably on the thoughts and motivations of other liberals, but many of them I think, or at least hope, resemble mine. My liberalism stems from compassion and idealism(both tempered by realism and cynicism), I admit it, but also from involved self interest.

I want the country where I reside to be on good terms with the rest of the world. The pre-emptive policy enacted by the current conservative administration does not facillitate this. I want to be able to get married when and if I feel the inclination. Conservative legislators, voters, and our commander in chief are apparently personally threatened by this and feel the need to legislate against it at both a federal and state level. Medicare is incredibly important to middle middle class families who don't qualify for financial aid but also can't afford everything(including insurance) straight out of their pocket. Yes it is illegal to refuse treatment, but that doesn't mean they won't make you spend the rest of your life paying for it. I also believe in a woman's right to choose. Dude, a persons body is their temple. And an embryo isn't conscious. My liberalism is cemented by my stances on what I believe to be important issues, not by some guilt complex driving me to be more-compassionate-than-thou.

Yes, the individual is important. Liberals acknowledge this by being compassionate instead of going around massaging egos. Conservatives call for a regimen of "tough love" that only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Damn, see, your post worked even though I thought I was being analytical. You got me on the defensive and I started generalizing about both factions.
You are an arrogant son of a bitch, but you're my kind of arrogant son of a bitch. Even if you are conservative.
Peace out.

If you want to be technical Steph tell me as in the War of 1812 when in history has a country stayed alive after its capital had been raised to the ground. Seondly World War II if Admiral Yamamoto attacked the Pearl Harbour Dec 8 instead of the 7th we would have lost the Pacific war because are carriers would have been sitting ducks.

The US didn't win the war of 1812..nor did the USA win WWII, it was an allied effort. I guess you're no student of history either.. ;)

I think what he meant was that without the USA, those wars could not have been won... on behalf of the allied side.

I think...

First, the liberal imagines that the Conservative belief is rooted in ignorance.
In general, people consider that the beliefs of their political opponents are rooted in ignorance and/or evil intent. This happens with everyone, not just liberals. Do you have any idea how many conservatives think liberals are ignorant, for example?

Does it seem to you as though liberals feel entitled to govern? It does to me.
Funny. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but conservatives are the ones who believe that some people are inherently better than others, and that those who are "better" deserve more power and wealth, while the "inferiors" deserve to starve and die.

Most liberal programs have had bad outcomes, even by liberal standards.
Uh, no. I can't speak for the USA, seeing how I'm not American, but in most of the world liberal programs have been a smashing success - so much so that many liberal ideas have been adopted by the conservatives themselves.

Programs designed to end poverty, for example, have entrenched it—and in the process created a class of bureaucrats who have a vested interest in continuing the very programs that have failed.
Funny. The countries with the least poverty are those who have adopted the most left-wing programs. The USA is the most conservative country in the industrialized world, and it also has the greatest rich-poor divide, the most poverty and the most homelessness.

If you deprive a person of self-respect, you take away the most important thing he or she has.
Self-respect is an entirely subjective matter which differs from person to person. Furthermore, I can think of over a dozen things far more important than self-respect. How about one's Life, for example?

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation...
Uh, what? I've got 3 words for you: World War Two. And another 3 words: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The most liberal president in American history.

When you think about it, it’s ironic that liberals believe they’re more intelligent than conservatives, because an intelligent person tempers idealism with reality.
Without idealism, we'd still be living in the stone age - and thinking that living in caves and hunting deer is "human nature".

Liberals conveniently ignore certain unpleasant realities, such as the effect redistributive policies have on incentive. The more people are taxed, the less incentive they have to work or invest.
Right, so if a super-rich guy has 900 thousand dollars instead of a million dollars, he'll think it ain't worth it? :rolleyes:

Anything short of a 100% tax has no significant effect on incentives. How many more failed tax cut schemes do you need before you understand this? Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

Furthermore, America already has the lowest taxes in the First World. And yet countries with higher taxes have much better living standards for the majority of the population.

Liberals think that if we sit down nicely with our enemies, we can bring them around.
Last time I checked, liberals didn't "sit down nicely" with Hitler. In fact, they kicked his ass.

In their zeal to ensure that everyone has a decent minimum of health care and other necessities, liberals ignore self-respect, self-esteem, and personal responsibility.
Let me get this straight: You put immaterial subjective FEELINGS before a person's PHYSICAL WELL-BEING??

God, talk about touchy-feely bleeding heart conservatives!

When is the last time you heard a liberal talk about such things, much less emphasize them? And yet, aren’t they crucially important? Shouldn’t every policy take them into account?
Sorry, we have this weird idea that letting a man starve to death won't improve his "self-esteem". Go figure.

Their hearts bleed for the disadvantaged, but, by helping them, liberals create unhealthy dependencies, disincentives, and dysfunctions that end up harming the very people and communities they intend to help.
First of all, that is quite simply false. Second of all, are you suggesting it would be better to let them live in poverty, starve, and die?

They’re impatient. They want results now, not later. They’re shallow.
Right, so taking action against injustice is "shallow"? Perhaps we should just wait for things to get better all by themselves? :rolleyes:

It’s not for nothing that we say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

...then again, so is the road to heaven.

My point exactly Meatopiaa.

As a Liberal in Response:
For the record, I did read your post in it's entirety. Ironically, I found it every bit as based on illconceived and biased notions, as most of my liberal friend's opinions on conservatives. Your ignorance is remarkable precisely because you cannot see this. I am a sociology major, and IMHO, both liberals and conservatives are idealists of different types and both would do well to temper their ideals with realism to govern wisely. I do not believe that conservatives as a whole are at all ignorant, nor liberals. Both are simply tethered to opposing faiths on which they base their governance. Liberals have faith in change without fully considering all results, whereas conservatives, it seems to me, have a blind faith in the old ways. The old values being the best is every bit as much a position based on the blind faith of a few as harboring constant change. The right of ANY leader to rule should be based not on the bias of his party but on his ability to but the Nation's needs before his own blind faith when making choices. As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush, NOT all conservatives but THIS ONE MAN, has proved in four years that is is completely incapable of this. With Kerry, this at least remains to be seen. I do not take offense to this post because the poster disagrees with me. Only because the poster is so self-righteous in pointing out my blind spots while being so, well, BLIND to his or her own.
The Founder of Loving Balance

Do you expect someone to undermine their own argument through an attempt to please everyone with a tell all about their own flaws. Anyone with a sense for debate knows that you do not make a compelling argument by standing by one POV and then jumping over and either trying to "be real" or taking the opposition's side for brief moment before going back to your own. Oh how easy it is to ride the fence and shoot at the birds on both sides while barking about how much higher you are then the birds falling by your side. More self-serving, "more intelligent than thou" and higher understanding nonsense from your friendly neighborhood run of the mill, liberal college student. Bred in the colleges of the USA.

College students do not get to here arguements and views from both side they only get to hear the liberals side becasue college staff are overwhelmingly liberal. I was angered about some of my professors no also providing the view form the other side.

So the fact that educational staff tend to be liberal is the liberals' fault?
Why is it not the fault of the conservatives who don't teach?

Why try to teach when you will probably get fired.

Do you expect someone to undermine their own argument through an attempt to please everyone with a tell all about their own flaws. Anyone with a sense for debate knows that you do not make a compelling argument by standing by one POV and then jumping over and either trying to "be real" or taking the opposition's side for brief moment before going back to your own. Oh how easy it is to ride the fence and shoot at the birds on both sides while barking about how much higher you are then the birds falling by your side. More self-serving, "more intelligent than thou" and higher understanding nonsense from your friendly neighborhood run of the mill, liberal college student. Bred in the colleges of the USA.
That's absurd! You appear to be arguing against the ability and/or inclination to see and perhaps understand opposing points of view. By saying this you are effectively espousing dogma, factionalism and fanaticism.

Incidentally, any argumanet against liberalism ought to include a critique of capitalism, ie economic liberalism. I wish people would be more careful with their terminology.

Why try to teach when you will probably get fired.
Well, if you have a good union behind you then there's less danger of this...

Liberals think that the means to world peace is negotiation (conciliation, compromise). No conservative opposes world peace. But not all conflicts are resolvable through negotiation, for that requires rational, self-interested agents. Our enemies today—radical Muslims—are irrational, at least by Western standards. They value destruction of their enemies more than their own lives or the lives of their loved ones. How do you negotiate with someone who is suicidal? How do you negotiate with someone who wants your death more than anything else? You have no leverage. The only way to deal with implacable, irrational enemies is through force. Conservatives, to their credit, understand this. Liberals do not.


As I understand it, they are your ennemies today because conservatives authorised the deployment of troops in Saudia Arabia. Which is seen as an insult to muslims, as no non-muslim troops are allowed on the holy land.
(could be wrong, if so please correct)

Hi.
Am not american, so just to check republicans to the right, liberals to the left?

Correct Daroth

Well, if you have a good union behind you then there's less danger of this...

A conservative in a union right.

A conservative in a union right.
Isn't irony great?

And the only reason capitalists don't like communism is because they would rather live off the labor of workers rather than contribute to the community whose products they live off of.


Socialists are not lazy. They want capitalists to stop being able to get away with laziness.

Lelita when are you going to realise that if you want something done right, the owners are going to have to be able to make profit. It does not matter whether we're talking about one authoritarian boss or a syndicate.

I was alive then, were you?

I know I was not there, but I agree with that post.

Public Health is the jewel is Europe's Socialist Crown.

Hate to say this, but its becoming a bit of a decrepid crown isn't?

what's that expression...
give a man a fish a feed him for a day
teach the man to fish and feed him for life.

we'll something like that anyway. Same thing with welfare. You need to give him the fish to stop from starving, but he should have to learn to fish so that he can feed himself

what's that expression...
give a man a fish a feed him for a day
teach the man to fish and feed him for life.

we'll something like that anyway. Same thing with welfare. You need to give him the fish to stop from starving, but he should have to learn to fish so that he can feed himself

Exactly

what's that expression...
give a man a fish a feed him for a day
teach the man to fish and feed him for life.

we'll something like that anyway. Same thing with welfare. You need to give him the fish to stop from starving, but he should have to learn to fish so that he can feed himself
I agree, which is why there should be things like job training along with welfare.

I agree, which is why there should be things like job training along with welfare.

And the welfare should be cut of after a length of time, OR they must prove that they have been looking for a job.

Todays Liberal is tomorrows Conservative.

Boring thread....Yawn!!! Funny at times though.

Isn't irony great?

sometimes

College students do not get to here arguements and views from both side they only get to hear the liberals side becasue college staff are overwhelmingly liberal. I was angered about some of my professors no also providing the view form the other side.


Depends on what you take. Finance profs and engineers tend to be more conservative. English teachers and their ilk tend to be more liberal.