NationStates Jolt Archive

To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.

I am a rare person for these days,I do not think that name calling will get anyone to come to your side of view,only distance them from it.I believe in "civil politics" where you can argue the issues with a person,and then invite them to a drink or two.

I have been called a nazi,a "stupid redneck," a stupid republican,and all the other childish insults these liberals have thrown at me.

I know that both libs and conservatives have a nasty side to them,and we both will lash at a person after enough provocation.

I just want to know from you liberals,are there a few of you out there that are into civil debates,not a bunch of name calling? Or am I mistaken and is it that only a few of you are like that and the majority are civil?

*puts on flame retsrdent suit*

like it or not, unintentional flamebait

Well, I don't know...some people like pointless name-calling, but I have been in plenty of civil debates among friends, even if they were heated. My best friend is a staunch conservative and a Bush supporter; I am a staunch liberal and a Bush hater, but we don't call each other pointless names or anything like that.

Granted, I hardly think that pointless name calling knows any political ideology, but liberals have to put up with the word "liberal" practically being used as a slur against us...

I hate it when a debate turns into mudslinging and ad hominem attacks. The whole point of a debate is to get your point accross succinctly, cogently, and calmly. You can't do that with name calling; you can only do that with reasoning and facts. That's what a debate should be; unfortunately, it rarely is now a days. If you start slandering your opponent, all you do is give a bad name to your ideology and ideas.

Still, slandering, name calling, and mudslinging work well for some reason in modern debates; and I don't understand why.

It depends on how ignorant a person is being...like if you were being a Nazi (advocating White Superiority), you deserve it, but most of us aren't like that. At least the ones that know what they are talking about.

liberal and conservative,people shouldn't be hacked up into such catagories.

It depends on how ignorant a person is being...like if you were being a Nazi (advocating White Superiority), you deserve it, but most of us aren't like that. At least the ones that know what they are talking about.

All I said to that person was yes I support bush,then he yelled that at me

Anyione can resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Ideology doesn't really matter.

All I said to that person was yes I support bush,then he yelled that at me
I really hate it when people do that, it just gives the rest of us a bad name.

Well, if we're making sweeping generalisations:

Liberals hate only conservatives. Conservatives hate everyone.

Well, if we're making sweeping generalisations:

Liberals hate only conservatives. Conservatives hate everyone.

Liberals AND Conservatives hate Nimzonia

Liberals AND Conservatives hate Nimzonia

And yet Nimzonia is all-loving.

The vast majority of liberals I met are very respectful and respectable people.

Granted, I hardly think that pointless name calling knows any political ideology, but liberals have to put up with the word "liberal" practically being used as a slur against us...
Yes, I'm always sooo offended when the cognate for "freedom" is used against me...

Then again, CONSERVing the environment is "liberal" too, so now I'm very much confused.
---
I.e. I'd have to agree that moderates get a lot of flack from people because they are associated with conservatives, whereas liberals usually are associated with what they believe in:

"You tofu-eating, tree-hugging, money-spending, [minority]-loving, vegetarian [gay person]" is a lot less offensive than the four letter word "Nazi".

liberals and conservatives have equal populations of jackasses in their midst, but you get to decide which type of jackass ticks you off more. the one group tells you you're a horrible person for disagreeing with them, and seem to find extreme satisfaction in their own moral superiority; the other tells you that you will burn forever in a lake of sulfur if you disagree with them, and seem to find a great deal of pleasure in thinking about such torture being exacted on their enemies. personally i am less disturbed by the first group than the second, if only because i think the second is more likely to try to lynch me or feed me to their God or something.

And yet Nimzonia is all-loving.

hehehe,thats funny,much better than my joke.Made me laugh.

Roach Busters,the thing is that the opnions of "Liberals" vary from social group to social group,and whatnot.

To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.


Depends ... how old are they?

You've got to remember that the "righteous" anger that used to be sole provenenance of the social conservatives is now duly expressed by liberals.

Where conservatives used to fancy themselves holding the moral high ground because "liberals support baby murder," liberals now often have the honest conviction that conservatives are complicit in crimes themselves.

Recall that the war george bush lied to america and started has killed more than a thousand americans and more than fifteen thousand iraqis.

Note that Bush's #1 campaign donor is relaxing at a country club right now even though his criminal enterprise ruined the financial lives of a great many honest, decent americans.

It should come as no surprise to republicans (who, with their propaganda services like Fox and talk radio pioneered the concept of making personal attacks the center of political discourse) that democrats are beginning to lose patience and tempers.

I particularly like some of the material at ProtestWarrior.com.

To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.

I am a rare person for these days,I do not think that name calling will get anyone to come to your side of view,only distance them from it.I believe in "civil politics" where you can argue the issues with a person,and then invite them to a drink or two.

I have been called a nazi,a "stupid redneck," a stupid republican,and all the other childish insults these liberals have thrown at me.

I know that both libs and conservatives have a nasty side to them,and we both will lash at a person after enough provocation.

I just want to know from you liberals,are there a few of you out there that are into civil debates,not a bunch of name calling? Or am I mistaken and is it that only a few of you are like that and the majority are civil?
How old are you? It could just be that you and your friends haven't risen to the level of civil discourse when it comes to politics. Conservatives and liberals run the gamut of human personality, from personable and easy to get along with to flaming asshole. Political persuasion generally has little to do with it.

You know, some conservatives ARE stupid, and you know what? Some liberals ARE stupid. Heck, I've long since stopped thinking that ideology is a function of intelligence. Rather I have begun to think that the execution of the ideology is the function of intelligence, and that ideology is therefore a fuction of a person's vision of a perfect world... ie. one that supports people of their general attitude and characteristics (or is encouraging of that set of characteristics).

However, around where I am people of the opposite ideology always seem to have the most STUPID reasons for beleiving their ideology. On the flip side, I've observed something. When I'm watching the news, the liberals always seem to be just as STUPID as the the conservatives... even though smart liberals are common enough. (see: dumbing down of television)

In the face of such a situation I can only assume this: having myself come up with better CONSERVATIVE agruements than are introduced, and despite being liberal myself (and quite the psycological figure of a non-liberal somehow) I am smarter than many people. (I also know I'm a lot more stupid than some people, but it always seems to be the stupid ones on display.

That said, I would like to think that I'm a bit more civil than most. I would also like to thank the poster of this thread for such an elegantly stated question. I'm sure that you have much civility yourself. *bows*

To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.

I am a rare person for these days,I do not think that name calling will get anyone to come to your side of view,only distance them from it.I believe in "civil politics" where you can argue the issues with a person,and then invite them to a drink or two.

I have been called a nazi,a "stupid redneck," a stupid republican,and all the other childish insults these liberals have thrown at me.

I know that both libs and conservatives have a nasty side to them,and we both will lash at a person after enough provocation.

I just want to know from you liberals,are there a few of you out there that are into civil debates,not a bunch of name calling? Or am I mistaken and is it that only a few of you are like that and the majority are civil?

They were abused children. Ignore them and eventually they'll get tired of being childish. Amazingly enough, even a few of the Vietnam era war "protestors" are now reasonably respectable business people. See? There's hope for everyone! :D

[QUOTE=New Granada]Recall that the war george bush lied to america and started has killed more than a thousand americans and more than fifteen thousand iraqis.QUOTE]

You guys need to get some new material. I get awfully tired of constantly trying to explain in easy to follow, step-by-step stages that even John ( "can-someone-remind-me-of-my-last-position" ) Kerry was outspokenly FOR the war in Iraq, basing his decision ( at that time ) on the same intelligence information as that which President Bush used to make the decision to invade Iraq. Now ... how can I make that clearer for you?

You guys need to get some new material. I get awfully tired of constantly trying to explain in easy to follow, step-by-step stages that even John ( "can-someone-remind-me-of-my-last-position" ) Kerry was outspokenly FOR the war in Iraq, basing his decision ( at that time ) on the same intelligence information as that which President Bush used to make the decision to invade Iraq. Now ... how can I make that clearer for you?
Well, you can start by admitting that the information Bush used to make his decision was not the same info that the Congress received. Congress received a much more limited set of data that was cherry-picked to make the strongest possible case for war. That's been backed up by people like Republican Senator Hagel for one, who was pissed about it, to be quite frank. If Bush didn't have more intel to go on, then his own administration deceived him, and if that's the case, why haven't any of them been fired?

Well, you can start by admitting that the information Bush used to make his decision was not the same info that the Congress received. Congress received a much more limited set of data that was cherry-picked to make the strongest possible case for war. That's been backed up by people like Republican Senator Hagel for one, who was pissed about it, to be quite frank. If Bush didn't have more intel to go on, then his own administration deceived him, and if that's the case, why haven't any of them been fired?

Sigh. Where's your proof of this allegation ( "cherry-picked to make the strongest possible case for war" )? I've been involved in Intel work before and it's not as clear-cut as you apparently seem to believe. Every decision made involving intelligence resources must be made with "incomplete" data. The reason this one was so crutial is that the consequences for all of us could have been devastating. Imagine a terrorist pouring botulism into the Chicago water supply. Get the picture?

Sigh. Where's your proof of this allegation ( "cherry-picked to make the strongest possible case for war" )? I've been involved in Intel work before and it's not as clear-cut as you apparently seem to believe. Every decision made involving intelligence resources must be made with "incomplete" data. The reason this one was so crutial is that the consequences for all of us could have been devastating. Imagine a terrorist pouring botulism into the Chicago water supply. Get the picture?
Well, there's all the reporting that Seymour Hersh did on the Office of Special Plans for the New Yorker. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact) They pretty much admitted that they stove-piped favorable intel to the Vice President's office without having it run through the usual channels in CIA or other intel agencies thereby causing discredited charges to get sent up the line, while dismissing intel that didn't fit their storyline. Why do you think Chalabi had such a high profile? He was telling them what they wanted to hear, and they ignored anything that didn't fit their preconceived notions.

So here's the problem. Congressmen--even Republican congressmen who favored the war strongly--have said that the intel reports they got were obviously faulty, and that if they'd had the whole story, they probably would have voted differently. Now if Bush went to war on faulty intel, then it stands to reason that someone lower down ought to swing for it--but so far no one has taken the fall. No one. Not Rumsfeld. Not Wolfowitz. Not Rice. Not Feith, who was in charge of the OSP. Not even Tenet--he left on his own terms. So why not? Were they all in it together? That's certainly a reasonable conclusion to draw.

I'm almost always civil, but some people, espcially conservatives, hold racist, discriminatory, and otehrwise morally reprehensible views that I feel should be attacked on a personal level. Like a friend said "People need to be offended sometimes."

*sigh* It's times like this that I absolutely love being a Canadian. We have four entire political parties to choose from, and each of them has a chance of getting some real power! Of course, we used to have five, but the two right wing choices merged, eliminating the choices of right wing voters (and apparently putting off enough of the moderate right that a whole mass of them voted for the centrist part).

The words "liberal" and "conservative" hold no negative conotations. We've got a liberal party (the slightly left centrists) and a conservative party (the right in general). That's what they're actually called! Liberal and conservative.

Yeah, I'm a left wing voter (NDP - the left in general) and sure I can't vote for the fourth party with a real chance (only available in Quebec) and I really would like to see proportional representation take over (living in BC means I would actually get more voting power that way) but it's really nice to have some choice (and not have the name of your ideology have a negative conotation).

Are there any viable third parties in the U.S.? The news does a great job of blasting your election news up here, but I never see a third party mentioned. Are they just too small? Is the U.S. a two party state with no other options?

this is why it's so much better to make fun of everyone on the political spectrum -- people get too angry over arguments like so due to loyalty to the left or right wing.

Neither liberals nor conservatives have amonopoly on intelligence. As Ice Hockey Players said, "I hardly think that pointless name calling knows any political ideology."

However, on this forum I see a hell of a lot more flaming coming from conservatives in this forum than from the liberals. This is an impressive feat given that most people here are liberal. Added to the flame attacks are constant attacks on the inherent demerits of "the left" - which seems to come into every debate.

Imagine a terrorist pouring botulism into the Chicago water supply. Get the picture?
What has the Iraq war got to do with terrorists?

That's funny. Here we are in a time where liberal is just a dirty word in general thanks to Carl Rove. It's been put forth that if you are liberal, you hate america, you're unpatriotic, you want saddam bin laden for president, and you're some kind of pacifist pussy. So to you I say, suck it up. You got a president who butchers the english language on a dailly basis. You have pundits like Rush, Ann Coulter and O'Reilley who can't seem to not lie about anything. The hypocrisy of
pro-life and death penalty doesn't lend itself to any intelligent debate, does it?
The roll backs on the enviroment, civil rights, workers rights, union busting and pre-emptive war does bring up some shades of the most frightening dictators the world has seen. But yet we have to treat this president like he came in 3rd place at the special olympics all the time. It's enough to make anyone on the left to want to take advantage of the lift on the assault weapons ban and do something about it. REVOLUTION!!!!

Conversley, you can say that many people associate conservative with "OMG FASCIST WAR MONGERERS DEVOID OF ANY INNATE HUMAN EMOTIONS*

Conversley, you can say that many people associate conservative with "OMG FASCIST WAR MONGERERS DEVOID OF ANY INNATE HUMAN EMOTIONS*

Aye. In the course of arguing with myself, I have made better arguements for conservative issues than many conservatives. I can easily swat down liberal arguements better than a lot of conservatives can. I've found this though.

It isn't the issue that's important, it's how you VIEW the issue.

Well, there's all the reporting that Seymour Hersh did on the Office of Special Plans for the New Yorker. (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact) They pretty much admitted that they stove-piped favorable intel to the Vice President's office without having it run through the usual channels in CIA or other intel agencies thereby causing discredited charges to get sent up the line, while dismissing intel that didn't fit their storyline. Why do you think Chalabi had such a high profile? He was telling them what they wanted to hear, and they ignored anything that didn't fit their preconceived notions.

So here's the problem. Congressmen--even Republican congressmen who favored the war strongly--have said that the intel reports they got were obviously faulty, and that if they'd had the whole story, they probably would have voted differently. Now if Bush went to war on faulty intel, then it stands to reason that someone lower down ought to swing for it--but so far no one has taken the fall. No one. Not Rumsfeld. Not Wolfowitz. Not Rice. Not Feith, who was in charge of the OSP. Not even Tenet--he left on his own terms. So why not? Were they all in it together? That's certainly a reasonable conclusion to draw.

The problem with Intel is that if you place a lot of pressure on the people delivering it they tend to retreat into providing material that could support either side of an argument, just so that when the shit hits the fan, no-one can say it's their fault.
Then, in the absence of a lead from intel, governments tend to believe what they want to believe. My opinion on Iraq is that the UK (at least) deluded themselves into believing that Iraq really did have WMD. As for the US, I don't know. My gut feeling is that Bush wanted to nail Saddam Hussein for personal reasons and took the first excuse he got, but that may be doing him a disservice (sorry and all, but I can't stand the guy).

Yeah, self delusion is a property of the fanatical. Those who refuse to give any weight to veiws other than their own.

Then again, it can be really hard to tell the difference between someone who is self deluded, and someone who is deluded from outside sources. I think that the latter however usually is calmer and less fanatical.

Usually that is.

I'm almost always civil, but some people, espcially conservatives, hold racist, discriminatory, and otehrwise morally reprehensible views that I feel should be attacked on a personal level. Like a friend said "People need to be offended sometimes."

:/

Racist?

[Rangoth #1]
To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.

I am a rare person for these days,I do not think that name calling will get anyone to come to your side of view,only distance them from it.I believe in "civil politics" where you can argue the issues with a person,and then invite them to a drink or two.

I have been called a nazi,a "stupid redneck," a stupid republican,and all the other childish insults these liberals have thrown at me.

I know that both libs and conservatives have a nasty side to them,and we both will lash at a person after enough provocation.

I just want to know from you liberals,are there a few of you out there that are into civil debates,not a bunch of name calling? Or am I mistaken and is it that only a few of you are like that and the majority are civil?

I'm a conservative, but I'll butt in with my opinions anyway..! :)

Liberals "care" so much, that they quickly degenerate into the kind of mudslinging that is of no use in airing their opinions of matters, or eliciting the opinions of others.

I myself am a notorious "mudslinger". I adore calling someone displaying what I consider an adolescent mindset an "adolescent", for example. But I also feed the discussion by telling them WHY I consider them to be "adolescent", for example.

They always retort that I've degenerated the discussion into "insults against them personally", when I've merely described in my opinion the person that they have represented to me in their writings.

Now,.. at this point one of two things happens. Either they spin out of control and get VERY emotional, or they ask me WHY I said what I said.

The first group are not worth discusssing anything with in a free forum, because they have nothing useful to listen to. They are those with very weak reasons for believing the way that they do, and their insecurity shows through as hostility.

The second group, on the other hand, may be honestly startled at my "insults" but, as they have actual self-understood reasons for their beliefs, contribute enormously to the discussion. And A LOT of interesting conversation ensues.

Unfortunately, most "liberals", coming from environments where the "air itself" is liberal in nature, are not well equipped to deal with someone with an opposing view that they can't "shout down" or simply will not go away.

Being initially "insulting" is my personal favorite tactic to weed out the morons from those with something to hear. :)

[Rangoth #1]
To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.

I am a rare person for these days,I do not think that name calling will get anyone to come to your side of view,only distance them from it.I believe in "civil politics" where you can argue the issues with a person,and then invite them to a drink or two.

I have been called a nazi,a "stupid redneck," a stupid republican,and all the other childish insults these liberals have thrown at me.

I know that both libs and conservatives have a nasty side to them,and we both will lash at a person after enough provocation.

I just want to know from you liberals,are there a few of you out there that are into civil debates,not a bunch of name calling? Or am I mistaken and is it that only a few of you are like that and the majority are civil?

I'm a conservative, but I'll butt in with my opinions anyway..! :)

Liberals "care" so much, that they quickly degenerate into the kind of mudslinging that is of no use in airing their opinions of matters, or eliciting the opinions of others.

I myself am a notorious "mudslinger". I adore calling someone displaying what I consider an adolescent mindset an "adolescent", for example. But I also feed the discussion by telling them WHY I consider them to be "adolescent", for example.

They always retort that I've degenerated the discussion into "insults against them personally", when I've merely described in my opinion the person that they have represented to me in their writings.

Now,.. at this point one of two things happens. Either they spin out of control and get VERY emotional, or they ask me WHY I said what I said.

The first group are not worth discusssing anything with in a free forum, because they have nothing useful to listen to. They are those with very weak reasons for believing the way that they do, and their insecurity shows through as hostility.

The second group, on the other hand, may be honestly startled at my "insults" but, as they have actual self-understood reasons for their beliefs, contribute enormously to the discussion. And A LOT of interesting conversation ensues.

Unfortunately, most "liberals", coming from environments where the "air itself" is liberal in nature, are not well equipped to deal with someone with an opposing view that they can't "shout down" or simply will not go away.

Being initially "insulting" is my personal favorite tactic to weed out the morons from those with something to hear. :)
You do know abusing others is poor tactics in a debate. But then again what you expect from NationState conservatives.
Also the first group are following the Golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated. You insult them so they do same.

An interesting tactic. The thing is, I tend to ignore insulting people outright, so you would actually get neither response from me (I also advise that plainly insulting people be ignored). Yet there you sound sensible and interesting. But meh, whatever.

[Diamond Mind #31]
Today, 3:33 PM #31
Diamond Mind


Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2

That's funny. Here we are in a time where liberal is just a dirty word in general thanks to Carl Rove. It's been put forth that if you are liberal, you hate america, you're unpatriotic, you want saddam bin laden for president, and you're some kind of pacifist pussy. So to you I say, suck it up. You got a president who butchers the english language on a dailly basis. You have pundits like Rush, Ann Coulter and O'Reilley who can't seem to not lie about anything. The hypocrisy of
pro-life and death penalty doesn't lend itself to any intelligent debate, does it?
The roll backs on the enviroment, civil rights, workers rights, union busting and pre-emptive war does bring up some shades of the most frightening dictators the world has seen. But yet we have to treat this president like he came in 3rd place at the special olympics all the time. It's enough to make anyone on the left to want to take advantage of the lift on the assault weapons ban and do something about it. REVOLUTION!!!!

Post #2...!!? :D

Yet more leftist juvenile sputum.

Please DO purchase your weapon of choice. And start blasting..!

Having the police obliterate your worthless existence would be "a good thing", and a perfect illustration of the leftist mind. :)

[Alaqria #39]
An interesting tactic. The thing is, I tend to ignore insulting people outright, so you would actually get neither response from me (I also advise that plainly insulting people be ignored). Yet there you sound sensible and interesting. But meh, whatever.

Then you're a gutless wonder, and unworthy of conversing with. :)

And your "tactic" of ignoring the "opinionated" is clearly counter-productive if your goal is to have interesting conversation.

This may actually hinge on what I mean by "insulting", as I am a firm believer that you cannot have insult "imposed" on you, you "allow" yourself to be insutled.

You simply can not insult me if I do not accept your words as insulting.

"Insults" are merely an interpretive description of the "personality" of a person.

You call me a "doo-doo head" for my views. I ask where my "doo-doo headedness" resides in my words..

And the conversation continues..

Now,.. how big a gutless wonder are you for "thinking it a vile decent into rudeness" (or some other clever "effete" phrase) that you don't wish to dirty your precious hands and deal with a plain speaker..?

:D

[Alaqria #39]
An interesting tactic. The thing is, I tend to ignore insulting people outright, so you would actually get neither response from me (I also advise that plainly insulting people be ignored). Yet there you sound sensible and interesting. But meh, whatever.

Then you're a gutless wonder, and unworthy of conversing with. :)

And your "tactic" of ignoring the "opinionated" is clearly counter-productive if your goal is to have interesting conversation.

This may actually hinge on what I mean by "insulting", as I am a firm believer that you cannot have insult "imposed" on you, you "allow" yourself to be insutled.

You simply can not insult me if I do not accept your words as insulting.

"Insults" are merely an interpretive description of the "personality" of a person.

You call me a "doo-doo head" for my views. I ask where my "doo-doo headedness" resides in my words..

And the conversation continues..

Now,.. how big a gutless wonder are you for "thinking it a vile decent into rudeness" (or some other clever "effete" phrase) that you don't wish to dirty your precious hands and deal with a plain speaker..?

:D
If the insults have no meaning to you Then aren't they pointless to use? So why doyou use them? Since we are talking, why aren't you a lady? lol

[BastardSword #38]
You do know abusing others is poor tactics in a debate. But then again what you expect from NationState conservatives.
Also the first group are following the Golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated. You insult them so they do same.

Nothing in these forums is A DEBATE..! :)

It is an airing of opinions. If you wish to "debate" set the rules, as per a debate, and have at it.

The "liberals" in NS (the vast majority population I would imagine) consider these forums their "home turf", and the arrogance that they show in playing "nice" with each other, and not playing at all with "others" borders on incest.

And as with most liberals, they'd rather fnook their mothers, brothers, and sisters than have intercourse with people from the outside world.

But,... that's just my opinion. :D

(( See,... I told you I was "direct"..!! Heh he he he... ))

[QUOTE=New Granada]Recall that the war george bush lied to america and started has killed more than a thousand americans and more than fifteen thousand iraqis.QUOTE]

You guys need to get some new material. I get awfully tired of constantly trying to explain in easy to follow, step-by-step stages that even John ( "can-someone-remind-me-of-my-last-position" ) Kerry was outspokenly FOR the war in Iraq, basing his decision ( at that time ) on the same intelligence information as that which President Bush used to make the decision to invade Iraq. Now ... how can I make that clearer for you?

I can accept the idea that bush and co didnt let kerry in on their plot.

I wont buy the idea that cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz didnt let George W in on it.

To me, i consider a true republican, the teddy roosevelts, the abraham lincolns, etc., or those who meet the definition of the what the republican party is supposed to stand for, as true liberals, and the word is a good word. the filthiest name i can think of to call someone is leftist. the problem in the US is simple....the parties have been hijacked by the ideologues. classic liberals AND conservatives were ok....this new age right wing and left wing is reprehensible....provide examples

a modern conservative says no abortion, no temporary financial assistance, no condoms, no sex education, no education investment, no progressive tax code, no to anything considered social welfare, no to TRUE fre market capitalism (wow, are lobbyists paid well in this "democracy", eh?) yes to freedom of religion as long is it practiced correctly, my kind of freedom is worth fighting for

a classic conservative says limit the spending on social welfare to temporary assistance, control what sorts of education is done locally, a progressive but low tax code, an aggressively oversighted free market, separation on church and state, and the state can;t mess with the church either, personal responsibility and hard work is worthy of respect, trade is good, but look out for yourself first, everyone's freedom is worth fighting for, econmoic freedom is as important as all other freedoms

classic liberal says social welfare can be permanent, federal and local control of education, a progreassive and high tax code, a heavilt regulated economy regardless of its' inherent inefficiencies, separation of church and state but state gets a free pass on the church sometimes, personal responsibility and hard work is well and good, but everyione needs to be "taken care of", trade is bad if our unskilled can;t keep up with their unskilled, some people's freedom are worth more attention than others if we deem them "oppressed", civil liberties are more important than economic freedoms

a modern leftists says abortion on demand, a fixed lowest standard iof living at the expense of anyone doing or acheiving more, condoms and needles for everyone, society should pay the consequences for everyone's decisions, social welfare and the government teat is the local place of worship, a few elite know better than anyone else, regardless of performance, freedom of religion as long as you keep that god stuff in your basement...we worship at the government altar here, you can never do too little but you can always do too much for yourself income wise, succesful and intelligent or especially wealthy people are to be punished for offending these dumb and lazy people's self esteem, nothing is worth fighting for, always negotiate and appease.......


the classic liberal can be reasoned with to find a reasonable middle ground on most things, as can the clasic conservative...the other two.....though i admit my greatest distaste, bnoth personally and intellectually, is the modern leftist, especially the modern European left, they refuse to admit their own crumbling societies right before their eyes(see france/germany on economy, affordability of soial programs, birth rates, etc, etc. etc.)

the problem is, in the US and Europe, is the art of negotiation and remembering that like it or not, the middle ground is where we have to go because we both want what is best for our own country, and our people to "how can i cram my ideology down their throats?" and the leftist, in my opinion, is the worst of it, both in results of their ideology and their means of enforcing it....

and i consider myself a true liberal, which tro me is a social libertarian and fiscal reasonable conservative.....

anyone add or critique my opinion/clasifications? love to hear intelligent input.....

[BastardSword #42]
If the insults have no meaning to you Then aren't they pointless to use? So why doyou use them? Since we are talking, why aren't you a lady? lol

Now,.. if you thought about it for a second, it might make sense.

The "insults" create energy. They create controversy. They "get the blood up".

And those who can repeatedly respond to my "insults", which I quit using once they realize that I'm not being insulting in reality, are the people I want to converse with.

It's called "culling the weak". A notorious "conservative" principle. :)

liberal and conservative,people shouldn't be hacked up into such catagories.

People shouldn't be pigeonholed into only two categories regarding politics, it's far to wide a brush for such a complex issue.

Neither side has a monopoly on hateful rhetoric, but I DO believe the ABB crowd has taken a lead in recent history, surpassing even the Clinton impeachment melodrama. Politics is inherently a vehement subject matter, and election years only make it worse. Harsh posts beget harsh responses and on it goes. Particularly useless, since no-one's mind is ever really changed on the subject of politics. It's more a reflex than a thought process once your mind is made up and logic rarely rules, unfortunately.

People shouldn't be pigeonholed into only two categories regarding politics, it's far to wide a brush for such a complex issue.




Wrong. There are two political parties in the US. Anyone with a practical or relevent interest in politics must either be a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican.

[Theweakperish #44]
To me, i consider a true republican, the teddy roosevelts, the abraham lincolns, etc., or those who meet the definition of the what the republican party is supposed to stand for, as true liberals, and the word is a good word. the filthiest name i can think of to call someone is leftist. the problem in the US is simple....the parties have been hijacked by the ideologues. classic liberals AND conservatives were ok....this new age right wing and left wing is reprehensible....provide examples

a modern conservative says no abortion, no temporary financial assistance, no condoms, no sex education, no education investment, no progressive tax code, no to anything considered social welfare, no to TRUE fre market capitalism (wow, are lobbyists paid well in this "democracy", eh?) yes to freedom of religion as long is it practiced correctly, my kind of freedom is worth fighting for

a classic conservative says limit the spending on social welfare to temporary assistance, control what sorts of education is done locally, a progressive but low tax code, an aggressively oversighted free market, separation on church and state, and the state can;t mess with the church either, personal responsibility and hard work is worthy of respect, trade is good, but look out for yourself first, everyone's freedom is worth fighting for, econmoic freedom is as important as all other freedoms

classic liberal says social welfare can be permanent, federal and local control of education, a progreassive and high tax code, a heavilt regulated economy regardless of its' inherent inefficiencies, separation of church and state but state gets a free pass on the church sometimes, personal responsibility and hard work is well and good, but everyione needs to be "taken care of", trade is bad if our unskilled can;t keep up with their unskilled, some people's freedom are worth more attention than others if we deem them "oppressed", civil liberties are more important than economic freedoms

a modern leftists says abortion on demand, a fixed lowest standard iof living at the expense of anyone doing or acheiving more, condoms and needles for everyone, society should pay the consequences for everyone's decisions, social welfare and the government teat is the local place of worship, a few elite know better than anyone else, regardless of performance, freedom of religion as long as you keep that god stuff in your basement...we worship at the government altar here, you can never do too little but you can always do too much for yourself income wise, succesful and intelligent or especially wealthy people are to be punished for offending these dumb and lazy people's self esteem, nothing is worth fighting for, always negotiate and appease.......


the classic liberal can be reasoned with to find a reasonable middle ground on most things, as can the clasic conservative...the other two.....though i admit my greatest distaste, bnoth personally and intellectually, is the modern leftist, especially the modern European left, they refuse to admit their own crumbling societies right before their eyes(see france/germany on economy, affordability of soial programs, birth rates, etc, etc. etc.)

the problem is, in the US and Europe, is the art of negotiation and remembering that like it or not, the middle ground is where we have to go because we both want what is best for our own country, and our people to "how can i cram my ideology down their throats?" and the leftist, in my opinion, is the worst of it, both in results of their ideology and their means of enforcing it....

and i consider myself a true liberal, which tro me is a social libertarian and fiscal reasonable conservative.....

anyone add or critique my opinion/clasifications? love to hear intelligent input.....

I think your classifications are very good. And of your own making, which makes you an extremely rare and good thinker.

And where would I put myself on this mapping..?

I have no idea. But I do know what I believe in, and I simply put the word "conservative" to it. It's merely a convenient classification and very rough description of the kinds of people I know of that use the same description and whom I share a "like mind" with, to some degree.

But I do agree with your views on leftists, and their anal retentive adolescent developmentally arrested pschitzoid ways.

:)

People shouldn't be pigeonholed into only two categories regarding politics, it's far to wide a brush for such a complex issue.

Neither side has a monopoly on hateful rhetoric, but I DO believe the ABB crowd has taken a lead in recent history, surpassing even the Clinton impeachment melodrama. Politics is inherently a vehement subject matter, and election years only make it worse. Harsh posts beget harsh responses and on it goes. Particularly useless, since no-one's mind is ever really changed on the subject of politics. It's more a reflex than a thought process once your mind is made up and logic rarely rules, unfortunately.

Wrong. There are two political parties in the US. Anyone with a practical or relevent interest in politics must either be a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican.

See what I mean?

A conservative is not nescessarily a Republican nor is a Liberal nescessary a Democrat. To say that there are only 2 lines of political thought in a country with over 250 million people is just silly. To say there is only "left" or "right" political thought, to the exclusion of any other possibilities is ridiculous.
I can be argued that with only 2 (unfortunately) viable political parties in America, you must choose between left and right, but that does not mean that there are only 2 schools of thought. The much fought over swing vote shows that there are innumerable lines of political thought. If there were only 2, there would never be a question of who to vote for.
You don't have to "be" a democrat to vote for a democrat.
(But being willing to use the voting booth as a slot machine helps some.)

I said a "practical or relevent" interest in politics.

You can be a libetarian or a communist or a nazi or whatever, but unless you vote for the republican party agenda or the democratic party agenda you are unrepresented in the government. Your vote genuinely does not count.

See what I mean?

A conservative is not nescessarily a Republican nor is a Liberal nescessary a Democrat. To say that there are only 2 lines of political thought in a country with over 250 million people is just silly. To say there is only "left" or "right" political thought, to the exclusion of any other possibilities is ridiculous.
I can be argued that with only 2 (unfortunately) viable political parties in America, you must choose between left and right, but that does not mean that there are only 2 schools of thought. The much fought over swing vote shows that there are innumerable lines of political thought. If there were only 2, there would never be a question of who to vote for.
You don't have to "be" a democrat to vote for a democrat.
(But being willing to use the voting booth as a slot machine helps some.)

You mean you gamble every time you vote? Could that mean Christians can't vote?
Or do you mean you can win money when you vote?

I said a "practical or relevent" interest in politics.

You can be a libetarian or a communist or a nazi or whatever, but unless you vote for the republican party agenda or the democratic party agenda you are unrepresented in the government. Your vote genuinely does not count.

Practical and relevant as defined by yourself? Therefore people who don't hold your views are impractical and irrelevant? Humans naturally disagree about what is practical and relevant. And the biggest idiot out there can cancel your vote.

Look, I bemoan the 2 party system as much as anyone, but every vote counts to seat the person who will steer this ship for the next four years. Election 2000 showed that. But the decision by which even someone who votes the same as you is arrived at via a different & personal path. I think we're talking apples and oranges here.
As I understand your position, you're saying that if you pull the "D" lever in the booth, you are "practically and relevantly" a democrat. I guess you're saying that this is all that really matters in the end. I can see your point there. But you cannot actually be saying that I am "wrong" about there being multitudinous political thought processes involved?

I, for instance, am a Republican, <surprise> in that I believe in decentralized government with sovereign states. I believe that it's OK for Oklahoma to have laws that differ from Massachusetts. I believe it's NOT OK for Federal Judges to legislate from the bench and change laws toward nationwide uniformity. I believe the Oklahomans should set the laws that rules their lives, not Massachusettans. (nor Washington DC'eans)

I also personally believe that abortion is wrong, but know that it is not my right to enforce my view on the matter onto the rest of the nation. I realize that abortion laws will never be changed and choose not to die on that hill.
I am not a christian, nor religious in any way, although I wouldn't say I'm an atheist either. I could go on about how I am definately a Republican but not actually a conservative, as these schools of thought have come to be defined. Most "conservatives" I know would like to stone me for some of my beliefs. I wish there were a party that were closer to my actual beliefs, but then if we all had that, there would be 250 million parties and nothing would get done.

As a Republican, I'm not happy with Bush at all. Conservatives are probably happier with him. I am the quintessential "single issue" voter, but not for the usual reason. My issue is socialism. I'm against it. Hence, I will hold my nose and vote for Bush, since his opponent is a socialist. That is my personal political path to the voting booth. I'm not a "supporter" of Bush, but I will be a voter for Bush.

Edit: proofread 3 times and still misspelled :(

You mean you gamble every time you vote? Could that mean Christians can't vote?
Or do you mean you can win money when you vote?

The latter.

There was an English Lord (whose name I don't recall) who said upon hearing that America had chosen independence and democracy:
[paraphrasing]
Democracy is a noble ideal which is doomed to failure as soon as the people find out that they can vote themselves money

Sounds like present-day America to me.

Edit: inserted quote

Well Rangoth, I hope this has helped you with your question. It's been four pages, and already you've seen a wide variety. You've seen examples of true idiots from the left and the right, and I hope that I have provided an example of one of the more classy members of the left (though I claim nothing with certainty, as always). You yourself have, with this question, shown yourself as a more respectable member of the right, and for that I commend you.

-The Primary Authority of Alaqria
Me.

Wrong. There are two political parties in the US. Anyone with a practical or relevent interest in politics must either be a liberal or a conservative, a democrat or a republican.
absolutely not the case. i may vote for a candidate who is Republican, but that doesn't mean that i am a Republican; in the next election i may vote for the Democrat, or the Independent, or anybody else.

personally, i vote for the candidate based on the issues; i don't vote for whoever belongs to "my" political party. i don't have a political party affiliation, because i have equally serious disagreements with both the Democratic party and the Republican party. fortunately, each party fields candidates of varrying "strengths" on the issues, so in each election i can choose based on the particular chap or chappess who is running...sometimes the Democrat in question is far better than the Republican, and sometimes the opposite is true.

in my opinion, anybody who breaks down politics the way you have done should be denied the right to vote until they have been educated about the real nature of American politics. *sigh* i can dream.

Well Rangoth, I hope this has helped you with your question. It's been four pages, and already you've seen a wide variety. You've seen examples of true idiots from the left and the right, and I hope that I have provided an example of one of the more classy members of the left (though I claim nothing with certainty, as always). You yourself have, with this question, shown yourself as a more respectable member of the right, and for that I commend you.

-The Primary Authority of Alaqria
Me.
yup, when it all comes down to it, I"d say it isn't the liberals or conservatives who are hateful, it's the politically charged in general.

I said a "practical or relevent" interest in politics.

You can be a libetarian or a communist or a nazi or whatever, but unless you vote for the republican party agenda or the democratic party agenda you are unrepresented in the government. Your vote genuinely does not count.
so what? if i vote for a Democrat in one election that doesn't mean i am a Democrat, or a liberal. hell, i am a CLASSICAL liberal, which means i am totally at odds with both conservatives and liberals in America, and i feel (obviously) that my political beliefs are more practical than either of those parties. fortunately, varying candidates from each party may come closer to my views than others, so i can support those candidates even when i think their party is out to lunch.

To anyone all of you liberals I have a question.

I have a friend whos friends constantly attack me on a personal level for my political views.I am a strong conservative,and they are liberals.

I am a rare person for these days,I do not think that name calling will get anyone to come to your side of view,only distance them from it.I believe in "civil politics" where you can argue the issues with a person,and then invite them to a drink or two.

I have been called a nazi,a "stupid redneck," a stupid republican,and all the other childish insults these liberals have thrown at me.

I know that both libs and conservatives have a nasty side to them,and we both will lash at a person after enough provocation.

I just want to know from you liberals,are there a few of you out there that are into civil debates,not a bunch of name calling? Or am I mistaken and is it that only a few of you are like that and the majority are civil?

Name-calling and irrational poltiical debates are a great way to relieve stress! I also believe that your post itself is your own venting of stress. You can tell by its negative generalizations... conservatives are so stupid. :D