NationStates Jolt Archive

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

Conservatives do it too. If you don't support the war on terror, you're unpatriotic.

Hmm, I have to agree with you there, though you could (and probably) will have the same arguement coming from the left, it's a mutal namecalling game going around here in NS or anywhere (Though the vast majority of NS is pretty doesn't go around calling others names)

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.
Get some stats to back up this highly subjective claim. You notice it more because you're a conservative, and enough already. I'm sick of both sides claiming to be attacked more. I'd say the idiocy is fairly even on both sides.

While I am a liberal (more of a moderate actually), I agree with you on this. The left does do a lot of mudslinging, and for it they've paid by getting slaughtered in the last two U.S. elections.

One complaint I have is, whenever I say something bad about the government, why is it that more often than not it's my patriotism that comes into question rather than the reasons behind said statement?

Conservatives do it too. If you don't support the war on terror, you're unpatriotic.
Well that vast arguement is that if you don't support what the soldiers do you don't support the soldiers themselves, It's like saying I support the yankees but I don't want them to play baseball.

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

Oh, really? Now you've labeled liberals as more apt to resort to name calling. ;) Theres plenty of labeling on both sides. To a liberal like me, I might notice more conservatives name-calling than liberals. It's hard to judge fairly when you're biased like that.

Conservatives do it too. If you don't support the war on terror, you're unpatriotic.

I thought about that one, but you really don't see that very often at all. I heard it mostly shortly after 9/11 referencing those who were against invading Afghanistan, and even then I'd dismiss those saying that as juvenile.

Considering that a conservative labeled all liberals kid touchers on a thread yesterday I don't sympathize.

You forgot the part where if you're not liberal, you're automatically a *takes a breath*

Rabid fundamentalist fascist flag-waving nationalist extremist genocide-loving racist fanatical homophobic Christian xenophobic hypocritical poor-hating God-fearing backwater inbred redneck far right-wing Fox News-loving American hick.

Conservatives only assume liberals to be

Gay-loving God-hating pot-smoking tree-hugging unpatriotic America-hating hippies.

Who's the judgemental one now? Definitely the liberals.

Well that vast arguement is that if you don't support what the soldiers do you don't support the soldiers themselves, It's like saying I support the yankees but I don't want them to play baseball.

That's a ridiculous analogy. I don't support the mission they've been given. I don't support the war, as it has been directed.

I am grateful to the soldiers who have been willing to follow orders, who have given their time (and sometimes lives) and I support them personally. I think we should be paying them better, we should be providing them with better intelligence and supplies and we should be more outspoken in our gratitude.

See, you can be opposed to the war and still support the soldiers.

It doesn't matter who you are everyone starts name calling. It's not the proper way to argue at all. When you name call you are attacking the person and not the idea. Once you start name calling the other person gets defensive. You get nowhere. Thats called fighting, its not an argument at all. So remember attack the idea. :fluffle:

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a liberal thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that conservative apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more liberal people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with banning gay marriage, I am labeled sinner, and immoral. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. (liberals own guns too you know) If I support affirmative action, I'm called racist against whites. If I don't support the war, I'm accused of being a traitor. If I believe abortion should be allowed, I'm a baby-killer.

Why is that? Why are liberals not allowed to disagree with conservatives without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know liberals sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the right.

Changes in bold are mine. Doesn't this sound as silly coming from the other side? Liberals and conservatives love the game of pot versus kettle, but guess what, you're both black :D

Considering that a conservative labeled all liberals kid touchers on a thread yesterday I don't sympathize.

Was that on the "gay marriage" thread? I seem to remember that from somewhere.

Both extremes are bad and are only concerned with gaining power to force their views on others. That's why I tend towards libertarian thought in general.

Well that vast arguement is that if you don't support what the soldiers do you don't support the soldiers themselves, It's like saying I support the yankees but I don't want them to play baseball.
Actually, it's the opposite. If you do support the soldiers, you want them home and out of danger. It's like saying you support police officers, but don't support efforts to lower crime.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.
Of course you think this. You don't notice most of the the insults that come from your side.

PS... oppsing gay marriage but supporting the war? What kind of weirdo are you? We're supposed to be fighting for freedom, right?

That's a ridiculous analogy. I don't support the mission they've been given. I don't support the war, as it has been directed.

I am grateful to the soldiers who have been willing to follow orders, who have given their time (and sometimes lives) and I support them personally. I think we should be paying them better, we should be providing them with better intelligence and supplies and we should be more outspoken in our gratitude.

See, you can be opposed to the war and still support the soldiers.
I know that it's just that most of "conservative" brothers seem to use that arguement.

People who support affirmative action are racist. Anyone who favors preferential treatment for one race over another is a racist.

Changes in bold are mine. Doesn't this sound as silly coming from the other side? Liberals and conservatives love the game of pot versus kettle, but guess what, you're both black :D

I find that HIGHLY offensive and will now whine about the 200-year cultural oppression or some such.

I hate how leftists call anyone who doesn't worship Marxism a 'fascist.'

Of course you think this. You don't notice most of the the insults that come from your side.

PS... oppsing gay marriage but supporting the war? What kind of weirdo are you? We're supposed to be fighting for freedom, right?

Truth be told, I notice liberals attacking conservatives much more often and I'm neither.

I find that HIGHLY offensive and will now whine about the 200-year cultural oppression or some such.
I hoped someone would find offense with that :D

Changes in bold are mine. Doesn't this sound as silly coming from the other side? Liberals and conservatives love the game of pot versus kettle, but guess what, you're both black :D

Damn it! You beat me to it! :D

I hate how leftists call anyone who doesn't worship Marxism a 'fascist.'
I hate how rightists (heheheh) label every liberal a 'worshipper of Marx' :D

I hate how leftists call anyone who doesn't worship Marxism a 'fascist.'

And I hate how right-wingers label anyone who doesn't worship Consumerism a 'communist'.

Are we even?

Changes in bold are mine. Doesn't this sound as silly coming from the other side? Liberals and conservatives love the game of pot versus kettle, but guess what, you're both black :D
Damn, beat me to it.

People who support affirmative action are racist. Anyone who favors preferential treatment for one race over another is a racist.And, therefore, anyone who supports simply removing affirmative action is racist, because removing affirmative action results in preferential treatment of one race over another.

Well at least Sinner gets it right.

I know that it's just that most of "conservative" brothers seem to use that arguement.

Oh. /embarrassed

While I am a liberal (more of a moderate actually), I agree with you on this. The left does do a lot of mudslinging, and for it they've paid by getting slaughtered in the last two U.S. elections.


I would argue that the DFL has lost the majority of elections since 1988 because they don't mudsling. Is anybody old enough, or hasn't purged from their memory, a little ad called "Willie Horton?" I did some research, and the year that Willie Horton was given a "weekend pass" out of prison, Dukakis cut furloughs in Massachusetts by an average of over 36 hours. Deliberate lying. What about Swift Boat Veterans for truth Not Bush sponsored, but a very conservative group. Oh, and one of the men shown in the commercial decrying Senator Kerry campaigned for him for Senate in 1996. You know what they say: Politics make strange bedfellows.
Oh, and I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. The sooner people realise there are more than two politicalt parties, the better.

This whole thread just proved a point, when one side complains about being labeled so does the other side. Both sides see themselves as being called names and opressed, but in stead of rectifing(sp?) the matter they just sit complains and yell names at each other instead of solving the problem and reaching across party lines.

Changes in bold are mine. Doesn't this sound as silly coming from the other side? Liberals and conservatives love the game of pot versus kettle, but guess what, you're both black :D

All too true.

And, therefore, anyone who supports simply removing affirmative action is racist, because removing affirmative action results in preferential treatment of one race over another.

That's an assumption, and doesn't neccessarily happen. However affirmative action is preferential treatment anyway you put it.

I find that HIGHLY offensive and will now whine about the 200-year cultural oppression or some such.

Don't forget the reparations!

That's an assumption, and doesn't neccessarily happen. However affirmative action is preferential treatment anyway you put it.

People should be hired based upon their experience and education level. A business shouldn't have to have a certain level of "diversity". I'd feel pretty uncomfortable knowing I was hired solely to ensure "diversity". Hell, even considering someone of a different race as adding "diversity" seems racist in my opinion.

This whole thread just proved a point, when one side complains about being labeled so does the other side. Both sides see themselves as being called names and opressed, but in stead of rectifing(sp?) the matter they just sit complains and yell names at each other instead of solving the problem and reaching across party lines.


That point never needed to be proved. We all know that each side has it's labelers and name-callers. But to say one side does it more than the other? :rolleyes:

That's an assumption, and doesn't neccessarily happen. However affirmative action is preferential treatment anyway you put it.It does necessarily happen. I'm not suggesting that everyone is racist, or even nearly everyone, but quite frankly, there are racists in power whose racism affects their decisions.
And, yes, it's true that affirmative action is preferential treatment, have you got a better suggestion?

And, therefore, anyone who supports simply removing affirmative action is racist, because removing affirmative action results in preferential treatment of one race over another.

That's a load of shit. Affirmative action gives people jobs just for having a certain skin color, regardless of whether or not they're qualified. Without affirmative action, people could hire who's best qualified for the job, regardless of what race they are.

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

I think the main reason you see this is because of
A) A very young majority of participants involved here who tend to immitate the actions of the leadership of their choosen ideology.
B) A young majority of participants who are just demonstrating childish tendencies.
C) A great deal of frustration that they are no longer in power. Many believe in what they are expected to say, and when that doesn't get immediate approval as they expect, they say it louder and believe driving it home harder will make everyone understand their point more clearly.
D) The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Like it or not, there is a degree of truth to this, so, it is always an option.
E) The belief that if they can silence any opposition then it does not exist. It doesn't matter how this is accomplished, as it is not a reflection on an individual if you can get a bunch to gang up on one person.
F) They need a friend and will agree with anyone that will be their friend.
and finally
No one else matters as their opinion is in the best interest of all, so, it is the only one that should be given any credibility.

Conservatives do it too. If you don't support the war on terror, you're unpatriotic.

No, you're a pussy.

hehe j/k

While I am a liberal (more of a moderate actually), I agree with you on this. The left does do a lot of mudslinging, and for it they've paid by getting slaughtered in the last two U.S. elections.

One complaint I have is, whenever I say something bad about the government, why is it that more often than not it's my patriotism that comes into question rather than the reasons behind said statement?
I'm sorry, this is just completely out of line...slaughtered?? 2000 and 2004 were some of the closest elections in US history, if the Democrats had merely nominated someone with a firmer stance on some issues instead of playing middle of the road, we would've had it locked up. But we were by no means slaughtered, get it straight.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

I would say that the blame is equal all around. If a liberal dosn't agree with a consertive point of view they are called names. If you are supportive of saving the enviroment you are a tree hugger, if you are for abortion (which is a liberal thing by the way) then you are a baby killer, if your agenst big bussinesses then you are agenst progress (that can also be applied to out sourcing), if you are willing to help illeagal immigrants they you are for terrorists and the list continues. Putting the blame soly on the liberals is rediculous because there is equal blame to go around, and Im not even calling names.

That's a load of shit. Affirmative action gives people jobs just for having a certain skin color, regardless of whether or not they're qualified. Without affirmative action, people could hire people with a certain skin colour, regardless of whether or not they're qualified
In bold, my change.

Racist hiring practices traditionally favoured one skin colour. Affirmative action attempts to overcome than inherent colour bias with a less inherent colour bias. Still, I'll take the latter over the former, considering I never belonged to that traditionally favoured skin colour.

In bold, my change.

Racist hiring practices traditionally favoured one skin colour. Affirmative action attempts to overcome than inherent colour bias with a less inherent colour bias. Still, I'll take the latter over the former, considering I never belonged to that traditionally favoured skin colour.

Give me 5 modern examples where racists in power disappropriately hire one race over another to such an extent that intervention is needed.

In bold, my change.

Racist hiring practices traditionally favoured one skin colour. Affirmative action attempts to overcome than inherent colour bias with a less inherent colour bias. Still, I'll take the latter over the former, considering I never belonged to that traditionally favoured skin colour.Well said, I couldn't have said it better myself. Except that I do belong to that traditionally favored skin color.

As a Liberal, I take offense to the idea that liberals would label anyone! We're too politically correct for that. It's always conservatives are making the attacks, and anyone can see that easily.

You must be some kind of moron to think we'd label anyone, you stupid homophobe mudslinger!

In bold, my change.

Racist hiring practices traditionally favoured one skin colour. Affirmative action attempts to overcome than inherent colour bias with a less inherent colour bias. Still, I'll take the latter over the former, considering I never belonged to that traditionally favoured skin colour.

So you think people should be given a job just for having a certain skin color?

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.
I wish to ask you two questions.
You title this thread "Why I am not a liberal".
Combined with the post, this implies two things to me. I'd like to hope that I am wrong, so I will ask you about it.

Firstly, do you believe that being insulting is an intrinsic part of being a liberal? While your post says you don't have a problem with all liberals, your title seems to imply that becoming a liberal would entail doing what is listed in your post. The contradictory message confusess me.

Secondly, your title would seem to imply that the alleged name-calling from the left is the main reason you are not a liberal. I somehow doubt this, but I wish to clear this up.



As for the name-calling:
On NS, there may be more name-calling by liberals than conservatives. I won't claim either way. But you must take into account that much of NS, definately more than half, is populated by liberals or social liberals of some stripe. I would think that the actual ration of liberal insulters to the number of liberals would roughly match the ratio of conservative insulters to the number of conservatives.

In the real world, I have not seen this trend of which you speak. I have seen the trend you speak of on other websites, but I have also seen the trend reversed on different websites. I don't believe there is a hard-and-fast rule.

And, therefore, anyone who supports simply removing affirmative action is racist, because removing affirmative action results in preferential treatment of one race over another.

affirmative action is racist... removing affirmative action would be removing state-mandated racism.

we need to see each other as people, not colors. legislating racism cannot make it go away.

affirmative action is racist... removing affirmative action would be removing state-mandated racism.

we need to see each other as people, not colors. legislating racism cannot make it go away.

Well put.

It occurs to me that you might do better to determine your political stance by consideration of the issues involved, rather than the comments of impolite people on either side.

affirmative action is racist... removing affirmative action would be removing state-mandated racism.

we need to see each other as people, not colors. legislating racism cannot make it go away.
Removing affirmative action would legitimize societal-mandated racism.
Legislating racism can make it go away. While this may seem contradictory at first, the fact remains that many people are racist simply because they have only had unfavorable contact with members of a different race. However, if people are working together, there is a good chance that they will have favorable contact with one another, and therefore realize that their racist assumptions were wrong.

It occurs to me that you might do better to determine your political stance by consideration of the issues involved, rather than the comments of impolite people on either side.

You beat me to it.

Removing affirmative action would legitimize societal-mandated racism.
Legislating racism can make it go away. While this may seem contradictory at first, the fact remains that many people are racist simply because they have only had unfavorable contact with members of a different race. However, if people are working together, there is a good chance that they will have favorable contact with one another, and therefore realize that their racist assumptions were wrong.

...then let's institute quotas in rural areas. hehe

Give me 5 modern examples where racists in power disappropriately hire one race over another to such an extent that intervention is needed.

Of course we can't; affirmative action has made it illegal.

"affirmitive Action" doesn't square with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's one thing to ban "...discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or ethnicity", it's another thing entirely to say "...must hire x% of a given race, religion, gender, or ethnicity."

The first doesn't give a weasel-guideline that allows min/maxing by racists to "Fill the quota" and get away with being scumbags. The second does. The first is consistent with CRA, the latter is consistent with the application of "Affirmitive Action."

In the early 1990's, I was in the Army. I had a friend who made Sgt, we drank together, chased tail, you know, hung out. He got sloppy drunk and asked me if I resented his promotion over me (His promotion points got a bonus for his being black.)

"no" I told him. Later, sober, I realized the reason he asked me that, and I haven't supported Affirmitive action since. It poisons the achievements by lowering the standard on the assumption that a minority can't achieve the standard without help.

THAT kind of "Help" is more damaging than struggling against an idiot-asshole-in-charge to get a promotion, because under AA, you don't know if you got the promotion because you're good, better than the other candidates, or if you got it to cover someone higher's ass.

Adherence to CRA doesn't require Affirmitive Action-at least, not as presently constituted. As presently structured, Affirmitive Action enables racists by giving them an easy scapegoat and a "limit". In other words, they can comply to the absolute minimum demanded by the law.

Give me 5 modern examples where racists in power disappropriately hire one race over another to such an extent that intervention is needed.
I'm assuming you want examples from the US or Canada, and not from other places in the world where racist practices are still very much the insitutional norm?

Affirmative action is about more than just hiring practices. It also 'saves' seats in post-secondary institutions for members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented there (including, I'd like to point out, mature students, those of any race over 30). You can point to overall numbers in many fields to show that it is clearly OVERrepresented by one particular group, but others will say, ah, this is because there aren't enough applicants, or other qualified people. Frankly, I don't think affirmative action is a great answer, but it's a stop gap measure right now, and I don't think it is 'stealing' jobs from anyone. But you wanted 5 modern examples. I'll list them, but point out...it is hard, if not almost impossible to prove 'racism', so I'll just have to go with those industries that are overrepresented with one group:

Teachers: white, middle class, and for the large part, female.

Administration (in Education): white, middle class, and for the large part, male.

Elected politicians: white, middle class, and for the large part, male

Janitorial services: lower class, and for the most part, minorities

Tradespeople (construction): middle class males

You'll notice some of these examples include people who are not white, or examples that favour women over men...the point is, inclusivity has been felt by some to be something that will not happen gradually, on its own. I don't necessarily support affirmative action's way of dealing with it, but I don't see it as a great, racist evil either.

Removing affirmative action would legitimize societal-mandated racism.
Legislating racism can make it go away. While this may seem contradictory at first, the fact remains that many people are racist simply because they have only had unfavorable contact with members of a different race. However, if people are working together, there is a good chance that they will have favorable contact with one another, and therefore realize that their racist assumptions were wrong.

Affirmative action places whites specifically at a disadvantage because they are a majority. Furthermore, it does not attempt to spread diversity by mandating a certain quota of white employment in a business predominantly minority-owned. This is unfair on all levels.

You argue that exposure to other races helps eliminate racism, which is true., but don't you think that the people who were unable to get a job because it was preferentially given to a minority would not be likely do develop racist ideas?

So you think people should be given a job just for having a certain skin color?

So you think people should not be given a job just for having a certain skin color?

Don't forget the attitudes of the era when AA started.

I'm assuming you want examples from the US or Canada, and not from other places in the world where racist practices are still very much the insitutional norm?

Teachers: white, middle class, and for the large part, female.

Administration (in Education): white, middle class, and for the large part, male.

Elected politicians: white, middle class, and for the large part, male

Janitorial services: lower class, and for the most part, minorities

Tradespeople (construction): middle class males



But how many people of different races go in to these fields? Just because there aren't a lot of people pf a certain race in a certain field doesn't indicate racism. It could just be that there are not a lot of people of that race going in to that field.

So you think people should be given a job just for having a certain skin color?
No, I think they SHOULDN'T. But, history shows us they did, and continue to do so. People get jobs because of their gender, their colour, their race, their religion and so on and so forth. It's hard to prove, but it clearly happens. That is because people are biased, and so are their hiring pracitices. Short of having resumes with no distinguishing features (like name) and interviews which are done with the applicant's identity masked and voice changed, we can't escape this.

Of traditional, biased hiring practices and affirmative action, I feel the latter is the lesser evil...but not the best solution either.

Removing affirmative action would legitimize societal-mandated racism.
Legislating racism can make it go away. While this may seem contradictory at first, the fact remains that many people are racist simply because they have only had unfavorable contact with members of a different race. However, if people are working together, there is a good chance that they will have favorable contact with one another, and therefore realize that their racist assumptions were wrong.
Tell me something. How many racists do you know? Personally, I've met maybe one in my 18 years on this planet. Affirmative Action was a good idea back in the day. It was a nice way to try and get rid of racism in the workplace. But that age is over. People are hired for their qualifications now. Name me one company that's just on the borderlines of filling their "Diversity quota." I guarantee you can't. Realistically, racism will always be around, there's no way to ever completely get rid of it. However, in the past 50 years think of the progress that's been made. It's time to get rid of Affirmative Action and start letting people earn things on their own. They're not going to benefit by us giving them gifts.
Now, I know what you're going to say, oh this must be some rich white guy who drives his dad's BMW to school. Wrong, I am white, but I'm by no means rich. My mom has been raising me alone for about 15 years along with my older brother and sister. However, I found the prospect frightening that a less qualified minority student might take my seat in college because they don't have enough diversity in this freshman class. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the racial and sexist biases in financial aid awards. Half of the scholarships and grants in my HS's monthly newsletter were limited to either women, "African Americans", or "Latin" students. (No, I don't enjoy all the political correct talk either, especially when under race on the SAT's there was African American, Native American, Latin American, Pacific Islander, and WHITE. Nobody ever talks about that racism.) I need to pay my full tuition and fees to Rutgers University because I'm a white male. I can't even dorm on campus because it would double the cost...How's that fair?

Tell me something. How many racists do you know?

I know you weren't asking me, but I'll answer this. Everyone likes to say, "oh racism is so dead", but oddly enough, I still encounter it with disturbing regularity. Directed against myself, against my husband, against my children, against my friends, all based on assumptions made because of our skin colour or accents. Racism is a little more hidden than it was even during my childhood...but it's still there. So is classism, sexism etc. etc.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue for or against affirmative action any more, since I don't really know all that much about it, and it's never been something I've come across, either as an applicant, or through someone who 'lost a job to a minority'.

Tell me something. How many racists do you know? Personally, I've met maybe one in my 18 years on this planet.

Where do you live? I'd like to live there. I encounter racists everyday. Racism isn't only a person who wants to harm someone because they're different; racism is the mere attitude that "they" aren't as good as "we" are. Do you know one white parent who wouldn't want his or her child to date a black student? I'd wager a bunch of money that you do. That's racism.

Fifty years ago, our country was so racist that I (a white woman) would not have been permitted to eat dinner in a restaurant with a black man. It would have been illegal; one of us would have been breaking the law.

Implicit racism still exists and will probably exist through one more generation; as long as people who remember the Jim Crow laws are alive, US racism will be alive and well.

Please read my entire post, I did acknowledge that racism is still around. I didn't say by any means that it was dead. I know it's still around. I know there are still hate crimes committed probably on a daily basis. But it's important to acknowledge that not all racism is against minorities. I can't even count all the times I've been called a cracker by a black guy (sorry, African American), yet if I turned around and called him a n***er I'd definitely get my ass kicked and possibly even taken to court for verbal harrassment or some such violation of his civil rights. Where are my Civil Rights? Where's my equal treatment?

Tell me something. How many racists do you know? Personally, I've met maybe one in my 18 years on this planet. Affirmative Action was a good idea back in the day. It was a nice way to try and get rid of racism in the workplace. But that age is over. People are hired for their qualifications now. Name me one company that's just on the borderlines of filling their "Diversity quota." I guarantee you can't. Realistically, racism will always be around, there's no way to ever completely get rid of it. However, in the past 50 years think of the progress that's been made. It's time to get rid of Affirmative Action and start letting people earn things on their own. They're not going to benefit by us giving them gifts.
Now, I know what you're going to say, oh this must be some rich white guy who drives his dad's BMW to school. Wrong, I am white, but I'm by no means rich. My mom has been raising me alone for about 15 years along with my older brother and sister. However, I found the prospect frightening that a less qualified minority student might take my seat in college because they don't have enough diversity in this freshman class. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the racial and sexist biases in financial aid awards. Half of the scholarships and grants in my HS's monthly newsletter were limited to either women, "African Americans", or "Latin" students. (No, I don't enjoy all the political correct talk either, especially when under race on the SAT's there was African American, Native American, Latin American, Pacific Islander, and WHITE. Nobody ever talks about that racism.) I need to pay my full tuition and fees to Rutgers University because I'm a white male. I can't even dorm on campus because it would double the cost...How's that fair?

I know several racists and I grew up in a predominantly minority area. Los Angeles. People in my family are racist (and I fight with them about it). I have friends that show signs of racism (and I fight with them about it). I see them almost daily posting on nationstates.

I for one didn't get a a few scholarships that I wanted because they were given to minorities with lower grades, but you know what? I didn't cry foul because having grown up around minorities I knew they had less advantages than I did, as I witnessed them firsthand. I also had disadvantages of being poor but being white has given me a bit of leverage in certain circumstances. I'm not whining about affirmative action. I think it's good for those who might otherwixse be discriminated against.

Yes I know that it's unfair to many white people who may be more qualified for whatever job in some cases. Boohoo - as a white guy I have always been able to find a job, even in areas where there was high competition for jobs. Partly I think the reason is because I am white because I knew for a fact that one of the minorities trying for the same job at one time was way more qualified than I was.

This one racist contractor I knew who is swimming in work had to give up one of his jobs to a black contractor and he was furious. I told him I thought he had more work than he coudl handle and he said that's true but it was the principle of the matter. He's a white christian conservative republican that calls black people "niggers". I laugh.

Affirmative action places whites specifically at a disadvantage because they are a majority. Furthermore, it does not attempt to spread diversity by mandating a certain quota of white employment in a business predominantly minority-owned. This is unfair on all levels.

You argue that exposure to other races helps eliminate racism, which is true., but don't you think that the people who were unable to get a job because it was preferentially given to a minority would not be likely do develop racist ideas?The majority race will be more likely to get a new job, as the majority race will be most likely to be the one doing the most hiring. Furthermore, only racists would assume that they didn't get the job because they weren't the right minority, (and therefore their resentment would be bolstered. However, I don't think we should be in the business of appeasing racists.) Someone who wasn't a racist would assume that they didn't get it because they weren't qualified.

Tell me, how many racists do you know?Quite a few. Simply because they don't preach the dogma of "kill them all" or "enslave them" doesn't mean they're not racist. For example, when my female cousin was dating a black guy, she was advised by her mother to not bring him to the family reunion, even though she had brought her boyfriends to reunions before then, and has done so since.

I can't even count all the times I've been called a cracker by a black guy (sorry, African American), yet if I turned around and called him a n***er I'd definitely get my ass kicked and possibly even taken to court for verbal harrassment or some such violation of his civil rights. Where are my Civil Rights? Where's my equal treatment?
Yeha, because "cracker" has 400+ years of institutional slavery and murder behind it. :roll eyes: The two slurs are hardly comparable. If the best they can do is "cracker", then clearly they aren't very serious about it. Call the guy a "graham cracker" instead.

Alright, here. Simple solution to the problem. You find me one person of a minority race who puts in all the hard work, gets the good grades in school, never misses a day of work and all that good stuff (I'm not calling minorities lazy, there are plenty of white people I know who never did a single page of homework and never got higher than a 50 on a test because they were a decent guesser and never studied. Read the rest of the post before you go off flaming me) AND then doesn't get a job or promotion in favor of a LESS qualified white person and I will completely 100% show total support of Affirmative Action.

By the way, just as a side note, isn't it amusing how everything always manages to come down to racism in America? I've always found it amusing how quickly people play the race card. Better solution than the one above, let's all stop seeing the world in color. I prefer gray to be quite honest...

Please read my entire post, I did acknowledge that racism is still around.

No you didn't, not really. You began your post by asking how many racists we know. While you did say, "Realistically, racism will always be around, there's no way to ever completely get rid of it," you seem to believe that that's okay. It's not. In a society that believes "All men are created equal", racism can never be tacitly approved. Until we live in a society in which the power mirrors the population, our society is racist and flawed. As long as hate crimes exist, our society is not ready for the lifting of Affirmative Action.

You finished your thought with "They're not going to benefit by us giving them gifts." That in and of itself is racism. The classic "Us vs. Them" and the very attitude Affirmative Action came into being to combat.



But it's important to acknowledge that not all racism is against minorities.
And nobody has said it is.


I can't even count all the times I've been called a cracker by a black guy (sorry, African American), yet if I turned around and called him a n***er I'd definitely get my ass kicked and possibly even taken to court for verbal harrassment or some such violation of his civil rights. Where are my Civil Rights? Where's my equal treatment?

And you could have kicked his ass, right? If you'd complained to a police officer s/he would have been required to charge the African American with a hate crime. Unless a police officer was standing there, witnessed this and ignored it, it's no more institutionalize racism than the fact that our flag is red, white and blue.

Please read my entire post, I did acknowledge that racism is still around. I didn't say by any means that it was dead. I know it's still around. I know there are still hate crimes committed probably on a daily basis. But it's important to acknowledge that not all racism is against minorities. I can't even count all the times I've been called a cracker by a black guy (sorry, African American), yet if I turned around and called him a n***er I'd definitely get my ass kicked and possibly even taken to court for verbal harrassment or some such violation of his civil rights. Where are my Civil Rights? Where's my equal treatment?

I have relatives that are rednecks. Need I say more. :rolleyes:

So what job have you lost to a minority?

I have seen AAs abuse. I used to tutor Computer Science. I tutored this viet nam kid. He just wasn't cut out for computer programming. I dragged him through several courses where he accomplished a C average. He worked very hard mind you.

I applied to Berkeley and I had a 3.75. Didn't get in. He applied the following year and got in.

Coincedence? I don't know. But I don't scream about my civil rights over it.

I used to work at an obscenely large aerospace company. We had a couple black employees that were for the most part useless. One even went as far to cold cock a female employee that was in his face about a tape backup.

He was back on the job in 2 weeks. I asked the Boss why we didn't fire him and he said "He is an old black man"

I don't know. It goes both ways I guess......

I know that guy. THe hard working Thai guy that got top grades and worked extreemely hard for everything he has. WE were good friends. I was trying to get the same job as him and didn't come close to having the same credentials as he did - but they hired me instead. NOw do you support affirmative action 100%. No I didn't think so because this is the internet and what you are asking me to prove is impossible short of flyign you out to meet him

I know that guy. THe hard working Thai guy that got top grades and worked extreemely hard for everything he has. WE were good friends. I was trying to get the same job as him and didn't come close to having the same credentials as he did - but they hired me instead. NOw do you support affirmative action 100%. No I didn't think so because this is the internet and what you are asking me to prove is impossible short of flyign you out to meet him
Exactly. Short of someone taking it to a human rights tribunal, somehow proving racism and winning the case, it's almost impossible to PROVE racist hiring practices. There are so many 'legitimate' reasons to not hire someone, "he wouldn't fit in, his English isn't clear enough for this job, he seemed like a hostile person' etc etc.

But how many people of different races go in to these fields? Just because there aren't a lot of people pf a certain race in a certain field doesn't indicate racism. It could just be that there are not a lot of people of that race going in to that field.

exactly... you can't just arbitrarily assign X number of jobs for minorities, females, certain ages, whatever... because they might not be applying for such jobs.

Merit-based hiring should be the ideal we're striving for.

I know that guy. THe hard working Thai guy that got top grades and worked extreemely hard for everything he has. WE were good friends. I was trying to get the same job as him and didn't come close to having the same credentials as he did - but they hired me instead. NOw do you support affirmative action 100%. No I didn't think so because this is the internet and what you are asking me to prove is impossible short of flyign you out to meet him

If you are talking to me. He was from Viet Nam and not Thailand.

Don't get me wrong. I am not tossing venom his way. He was a decent kid. I just thought he wasn't programmer material. Don't know what happened to him.....

You finished your thought with "They're not going to benefit by us giving them gifts." That in and of itself is racism. The classic "Us vs. Them" and the very attitude Affirmative Action came into being to combat.
Don't start twisting my words around to make it look like I'm saying I'm on a higher level than someone of another race. That's not what I'm saying at all, and that's what's unfair is trying to show racism where there is none. There is no malice in what I was saying, merely trying to prove a point. I'm better than some people who are minorities, I'm better than some people who are white. However, I also know many people who are minorities that are better than me at many aspects including school, public speaking, and sports. Don't start playing word games with me. You won't win.
And you could have kicked his ass, right? If you'd complained to a police officer s/he would have been required to charge the African American with a hate crime. Unless a police officer was standing there, witnessed this and ignored it, it's no more institutionalize racism than the fact that our flag is red, white and blue.
And if I kicked his ass, I'm once again taken to court except for hate crimes instead of verbal harrassment. And the jury decides in favor of the "poor black man stuck on the outskirts of society who had no choice" instead of my self defense plea (once again, using this stereotype merely to prove a point, I DO NOT SUPPORT OR BELIEVE IN THIS STEREOTYPE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM).
Yeha, because "cracker" has 400+ years of institutional slavery and murder behind it. :roll eyes: The two slurs are hardly comparable. If the best they can do is "cracker", then clearly they aren't very serious about it. Call the guy a "graham cracker" instead.
Honestly, can we drop the slavery talk already? It's been outlawed in the United States for over 100 years, so check that back to 300 Jello, if that. I'd say closer to 200, around the early 1600's when serious slave trading began. And I doubt that the term began as soon as slavery started. Check out this site: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/DIASPORA/SLAVE.HTM. Learn something and then come back. Please, Africans enslaved eachother long before the Europeans came over. Talk about tacit approval of racial slurs...

"affirmitive Action" doesn't square with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's one thing to ban "...discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or ethnicity", it's another thing entirely to say "...must hire x% of a given race, religion, gender, or ethnicity."

The first doesn't give a weasel-guideline that allows min/maxing by racists to "Fill the quota" and get away with being scumbags. The second does. The first is consistent with CRA, the latter is consistent with the application of "Affirmitive Action."

In the early 1990's, I was in the Army. I had a friend who made Sgt, we drank together, chased tail, you know, hung out. He got sloppy drunk and asked me if I resented his promotion over me (His promotion points got a bonus for his being black.)

"no" I told him. Later, sober, I realized the reason he asked me that, and I haven't supported Affirmitive action since. It poisons the achievements by lowering the standard on the assumption that a minority can't achieve the standard without help.

THAT kind of "Help" is more damaging than struggling against an idiot-asshole-in-charge to get a promotion, because under AA, you don't know if you got the promotion because you're good, better than the other candidates, or if you got it to cover someone higher's ass.

Adherence to CRA doesn't require Affirmitive Action-at least, not as presently constituted. As presently structured, Affirmitive Action enables racists by giving them an easy scapegoat and a "limit". In other words, they can comply to the absolute minimum demanded by the law.

I agree with this, particularly your last sentence.

The same tired arguments pro and con AA have worn thin, it's time to reconsider what the purpose of AA was in the first place - and to review whether it's been helpful. Not to throw bones to the dog and let people fulfill minimum hiring quotas. People shouldn't be given such an easy way out.

Don't start twisting my words around to make it look like I'm saying I'm on a higher level than someone of another race.
The mere employment of "Us vs Them" is racism. Until society sees the black man as just a man and not a black man, or the Muslim woman as just a woman not a Muslim woman, racism is socially enforced. You used the "Us vs Them," not me. (Again, the very reason AA exists.) And before you jump all over me, I know I'm racist. Nearly everyone is. When I catch myself, I try to learn the lesson and not think racist thoughts again, but I'd be lying to say I never think of a "them."

And if I kicked his ass, I'm once again taken to court except for hate crimes instead of verbal harrassment. And the jury decides in favor of the "poor black man stuck on the outskirts of society who had no choice" instead of my self defense plea (once again, using this stereotype merely to prove a point, I DO NOT SUPPORT OR BELIEVE IN THIS STEREOTYPE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM).

I wasn't seriously advocating you kicking his ass. I was advocating you either pressing charges or getting over it. As a white man in this society you've had advantages and power you refuse to accept. Your refusal to accept doesn't discount that truth.



Please, Africans enslaved eachother long before the Europeans came over. Talk about tacit approval of racial slurs...

Again with the "them." Besides, does the fact that it was done before the Europeans sold slaves to the US make it right? Maybe I'm just confused, but I'm under the impression that it does not.

*******
Oh, and from your link:
Surprisingly, though, slavery was not racially based in most of human history; racial slavery, that is, slavery that is predicated on race as a way of separating slave from free, is an invention of the seventeenth century.

To me this implies that we corrupted (to a greater degree) an already corrupt system, we dehumanized people based on their appearance, and taught a society that not only was slavery okay, but that the slaves were "them."

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.
Uh huh, from America: the Book "Here's a list of some pre-vetted favorites [of labels to use on opponents]:

Draft-dodger
Flip-flopper
Liberal
East Coast liberal
West Coast liberal
Tax-and-spender
Womanizer
Soft on defense
Soft on crime
Soft on fabric

(Note: All the above phrases are typically used by Repubicans to define Democrats. This is because Republicans are superior to Democrats with this political technique.)"

Geez, if you're not liberal just become libertarian!

If you don't support the war on terror, you're unpatriotic.

More like: If yout don't support the war on terror, I'll shoot you.

The majority race will be more likely to get a new job, as the majority race will be most likely to be the one doing the most hiring. Furthermore, only racists would assume that they didn't get the job because they weren't the right minority, (and therefore their resentment would be bolstered. However, I don't think we should be in the business of appeasing racists.) Someone who wasn't a racist would assume that they didn't get it because they weren't qualified.

We definitely should not appease racists, I agree. However:

Generally, racist ideas are developed over time. However, it is also likely that there will be people who become racist due to the feelings of anger and disappointment that come from seeing someone less qualified be hired or promoted over you; it is also possible that this would awaken latent racist feelings and reinforce them.

I would say that it is generally true that a non-racist would not chalk up not being hired to AA, but there are times where it is obvious, especially in higher profile positions for PR reasons.

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

Do you really "pick sides" in matters of political philosophy and national policy based on your perception that some representatives of a view use more name-calling than some representatives of another view?

Why not decide issues on the merits? Is that too liberal?

Racism disgusts me. Affirmative Action is racism. There is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. If someone else is more qualified for me, that's fine. I don't care they're half-black half-Vietnemse with one eye, confined to a wheelchair, and lesbian. If they can do the job better than I can, more power to them. But believe me, if I can do a job better than someone else, but they get it because of their skin color, that's a big problem. Unless, of course, it's alright for employers to hire whites over blacks based on skin color?

Also, AA causes resentment and from there, racism. Now I'm smart enough to look at it and go 'Stupid system', I don't for a moment hold a grudge against any individuals who made out well from it, because they're just playing a dumb system well (Or even just luckily.). But I'm pretty certain a lot of people will simply blame whoever got the job before them; ie they will blame black people or Hispanics or whoever, and that will cause more racism in the end.

Do you really "pick sides" in matters of political philosophy and national policy based on your perception that some representatives of a view use more name-calling than some representatives of another view?

Why not decide issues on the merits? Is that too liberal?

Makes sense to me to decide an issue based on the opinions of a group who you believe to be well-informed and capable of debating it instead of a group you believe to be hysterical mudslingers.

Edit: I'm quite certain, of course, that simply saying anything other than 'Affirmative Action gooooood' will have me branded as racist.

Racism disgusts me. Affirmative Action is racism. There is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. If someone else is more qualified for me, that's fine. I don't care they're half-black half-Vietnemse with one eye, confined to a wheelchair, and lesbian. If they can do the job better than I can, more power to them. But believe me, if I can do a job better than someone else, but they get it because of their skin color, that's a big problem. Unless, of course, it's alright for employers to hire whites over blacks based on skin color?
And that last line shoots the rest of the paragraph in the foot. It's wrong for whites to discriminate, right? Good. Documented statistics say that in a world without affirmative action, prejudice would cause substantial discrmination against minorities - in fact, that was precisely the situation before affirmative action was put into place. The minorities you label as "less qualified" would to many employers and admission officers be disqualified because of the color of their skin. Affirmative action levels the playing field. That being said, I think affirmative action should be more class based than it is right now. A poor white kid has a much harder time getting into college than a rich black one. But this system is better than nothing.

Also, AA causes resentment and from there, racism. Now I'm smart enough to look at it and go 'Stupid system', I don't for a moment hold a grudge against any individuals who made out well from it, because they're just playing a dumb system well (Or even just luckily.). But I'm pretty certain a lot of people will simply blame whoever got the job before them; ie they will blame black people or Hispanics or whoever, and that will cause more racism in the end.
People who think that way are already going to be prone to prejudice. Anyone who blames individual people of color for something that's clearly not their fault is someone who's already formed prejudices about the group that's being discriminated against. Affirmative action corrects those prejudices.

Makes sense to me to decide an issue based on the opinions of a group who you believe to be well-informed and capable of debating it instead of a group you believe to be hysterical mudslingers.
I evaluate issues on substance, not style. I don't care who's on my side if I think the facts are.

Edit: I'm quite certain, of course, that simply saying anything other than 'Affirmative Action gooooood' will have me branded as racist.
Actually, if you look at posting history here, the majority of people on this site are against affirmative action. There's one specific thread that Euroslavia started, something about nation descriptions.

Racism disgusts me. Affirmative Action is racism. There is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. If someone else is more qualified for me, that's fine. I don't care they're half-black half-Vietnemse with one eye, confined to a wheelchair, and lesbian. If they can do the job better than I can, more power to them. But believe me, if I can do a job better than someone else, but they get it because of their skin color, that's a big problem. Unless, of course, it's alright for employers to hire whites over blacks based on skin color?

You clearly have no idea what affirmative action is.

In the United States, it is illegal to hire anyone simply based on skin color. It is illegal to hire a less qualified person over a more qualified person because of their skin color (or because they are half-Vietnamese, have one eye, or are confined to a wheelchair -- sexuality is a banned criteria in only some states).

Affirmative action is simply not what you say it is. You are pummeling a strawman.

Also, AA causes resentment and from there, racism. Now I'm smart enough to look at it and go 'Stupid system', I don't for a moment hold a grudge against any individuals who made out well from it, because they're just playing a dumb system well (Or even just luckily.). But I'm pretty certain a lot of people will simply blame whoever got the job before them; ie they will blame black people or Hispanics or whoever, and that will cause more racism in the end.

There wasn't racism before AA? :rolleyes:

AA shouldn't cause resentment, let alone racism. Ignorance and fear-mongering about AA may cause or be caused by resentment or racism.

Makes sense to me to decide an issue based on the opinions of a group who you believe to be well-informed and capable of debating it instead of a group you believe to be hysterical mudslingers.

Um. Not what Koldoria said.

And still is absurd. How do you judge which is "well-informed" and which is "hysterical" without considering the merits of the issue? Why would you even try?

Edit: I'm quite certain, of course, that simply saying anything other than 'Affirmative Action gooooood' will have me branded as racist.

Nice try. You may or may not be racist. You are ignorant and/or spreading misinformation about affirmative action.

And that last line shoots the rest of the paragraph in the foot. It's wrong for whites to discriminate, right? Good. Documented statistics say that in a world without affirmative action, prejudice would cause substantial discrmination against minorities - in fact, that was precisely the situation before affirmative action was put into place. The minorities you label as "less qualified" would to many employers and admission officers be disqualified because of the color of their skin. Affirmative action levels the playing field. That being said, I think affirmative action should be more class based than it is right now. A poor white kid has a much harder time getting into college than a rich black one. But this system is better than nothing.

I'm not labelling any minorities as less qualified, and that alone proves you've judged me as a racist - or at the least severely misread what I said - besides which it should be quite plain that now, after whatever measures have been taken in the last half-century, most companies just plain don't give a damn. In addition, if a company is making discriminations based on race, far more effective would be for the public to raise awareness of this issue and boycott the store. A loss of profits and a gain of noteriety > petty fines every time. (Ideally, incidentally, I would try and have some sort of system where nothing other than the qualifications were known to the employer until after they made a decision to employ someone, and interviews and such were conducted through IMs or something with generic usernames.)

People who think that way are already going to be prone to prejudice. Anyone who blames individual people of color for something that's clearly not their fault is someone who's already formed prejudices about the group that's being discriminated against. Affirmative action corrects those prejudices.

No, it really doesn't. I've got several friends who've made noises to the effect I described, and I know one in particular has been best friends with a black guy for about eight years now. They still are friends, and my friend doesn't hold the black guy personally responsible, but his view of Affirmative Action is that it's simply payback for something my friend never had anything to do with and would have fought against as hard as he could if he did. So you can see where this resentment comes from.

Also, 'corrects those prejudices' is a very scary term. ;_;

I evaluate issues on substance, not style. I don't care who's on my side if I think the facts are.

Me, too, but it still sounds reasonable to listen to the people with arguments before the people with insults.

Actually, if you look at posting history here, the majority of people on this site are against affirmative action. There's one specific thread that Euroslavia started, something about nation descriptions.

Fair enough, I'm still new obviously, so I don't know the history.

At any rate, gender is a much more serious concern to me than race is. If we're going to have AA for any group, give it to women.

I'm not labelling any minorities as less qualified, and that alone proves you've judged me as a racist - or at the least severely misread what I said - besides which it should be quite plain that now, after whatever measures have been taken in the last half-century, most companies just plain don't give a damn. In addition, if a company is making discriminations based on race, far more effective would be for the public to raise awareness of this issue and boycott the store. A loss of profits and a gain of noteriety > petty fines every time. (Ideally, incidentally, I would try and have some sort of system where nothing other than the qualifications were known to the employer until after they made a decision to employ someone, and interviews and such were conducted through IMs or something with generic usernames.)
You're quite quick to take offense. I was taking you up on your hypothetical of a less qualified minority versus a more qualified white person. It's also not demonstrable that "most companies don't give a damn." Minorities are on average paid less and occupy less high-level jobs. That mountain of discrimination suits? Mostly not frivolous. People are still racist, believe it or not. Also, given socio-economic imperatives, it's much more difficult for minorities to get the specialized prep needed to get into elite schools that lead to high paying jobs nowadays, even if they're smart as hell.

Boycotts also won't do enough on their own. The problem can be "fixed," a few people can be "scapegoated," and then the underlying problems will continue to go on. Making class more a part of affirmative action, I think, would make the program infinitely better, as the people of color who really need the help from affirmative action tend to be poor as well. I'll repeat: a rich black person has a better chance of success than a poor white one, but a poor white one has a better chance of succcess than a poor black one. Also, read Cat-Tribe's last post. It supplements this one nicely.

No, it really doesn't. I've got several friends who've made noises to the effect I described, and I know one in particular has been best friends with a black guy for about eight years now. They still are friends, and my friend doesn't hold the black guy personally responsible, but his view of Affirmative Action is that it's simply payback for something my friend never had anything to do with and would have fought against as hard as he could if he did. So you can see where this resentment comes from.
That's resentment of the program, not of minorities. He's not blaming his friend or black people; the program is just pissing him off. Show me someone who otherwise wouldn't be racist but hates blacks or another minority because of affirmative action. I doubt any such people exist.

Also, 'corrects those prejudices' is a very scary term. ;_;
I was trying to be inflammatory ;)

Me, too, but it still sounds reasonable to listen to the people with arguments before the people with insults.
That's because they tend to be providing more persuasive facts and reasoning on their side. I don't agree with the original poster that liberals are more affected by this than conservatives, but that's neither here nor there.

Fair enough, I'm still new obviously, so I don't know the history.
You'll get used to it :D.

At any rate, gender is a much more serious concern to me than race is. If we're going to have AA for any group, give it to women.
Not to me. At most major universities (the site of most affirmative action battles and its most extensive use), there are a higher percentage of women than men in the student body.

I think that affirmative action based primarily on class and secondarily on race (and perhaps sexual orientation, and in certain situations, gender) makes the most sense.

I'm not going to go through all the BS posts about affirmative action in this thread. Some of you are repeating things you've said before and I have proven aren't true.

I'd love to see some of you try to show a U.S. law that requires quotas. You love to burn that strawman.

Here are some links and information about what affirmative action actually is and why it should exist and/or debunking some of the canards you have fallen for/perpetuate:

US Dept. of Labor: Facts on Executive Order 11246 -- Affirmative Action (http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm)

This part is particularly enlightening:

The numerical goals are established based on the availability of qualified applicants in the job market or qualified candidates in the employer’s work force. Executive Order numerical goals do not create set-asides for specific groups, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. Rather, the goal-setting process in affirmative action planning is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eradicate and prevent discrimination. The Executive Order and its supporting regulations do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited.

These are good sources of information. The first is short and summarizes some of the relevant law. The second is extremely detailed.

ABA Talking Points: Affirmative Action (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/talking/equal_aa.html)
Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa-index.html)

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)
Ten Myths About Affirmative Action (http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm)
Reverse Discrimination Quiz (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=794&item_id=7812&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)
Whites Swim in Racial Preference (http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=789&item_id=7807&newsletter_id=67&header=Race+%2F+Racism)

Some definitions of affirmative action:

Here is the U.S. Department of Labor's official definition(s):
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm

http://www.usd.edu/equalopp/definitions.cfm
Affirmative Action: Proactively hiring and promoting qualified individuals in protected groups such as minorities, disabled veterans, Vietnam-era veterans and women

http://www.unmc.edu/ethics/words.html
Affirmative action*. Positive steps to enhance the diversity of some group, often to remedy the cumulative effect of subtle as well as gross expressions of prejudice. When numerical goals are set, they are set according to the group's representation in the applicant pool rather than the group's representation in the general population. For example, a medical school with an affirmative action program would seek to admit members of an underrepresented group in proportion to their representation in the population of those who had completed pre-medical requirements and wished to attend medical school. Affirmative action should be distinguished from reparations.

http://www.wwnorton.com/stiglitzwalsh/economics/glossary.htm
affirmative action
actions by employers to seek out actively minorities and women for jobs and to provide them with training and other opportunities for promotion

http://www.kumc.edu/eoo/glossary.html
Affirmative Action: Good faith efforts to ensure equal employment opportunity and correct the effects of past discrimination against affected groups. Where appropriate, affirmative action includes goals to correct underutilization and development of results-oriented programs to address problem areas.

http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/GovAA/definitions.shtml
Affirmative Action: procedures by which racial/ethnic minorities, women, persons in the protected age category, persons with disabilities, Vietnam era veterans, and disabled veterans are provided with increased employment opportunities. This will also include programs for monitoring progress and problem identification. It shall not mean any sort of quota system.

http://www.malyconsulting.com/Resources/terms.html#AffirmativeAction
Affirmative Action (AA) top ^
Actions, policies, and procedures to which a contractor commits itself that are designed to achieve equal employment opportunity. The affirmative action obligation entails: (1) thorough, systematic efforts to prevent discrimination from occurring or to detect it and eliminate it as promptly as possible, and (2) recruitment and outreach measures.

Everything The Cat-Tribe links to, at least all that I've looked through, indicates that AA is actually completely unworkable, because there's no way to prove someone has or has not been discriminated against. Essentially, all that can happen is a member of a minority (You know, it occurs to me that government-sanctioned disctinctions between people probably ain't helping, but y'know, whatever.) can feel discriminated against by someone who they wanted to work for, and take it to court.

It's probable that many people assume it's all about quotas because it's the only halfway sensible way to ensure people aren't being marginalized or passed over; the obvious flaws in such a quota system lead to many complaints about AA.

For instance, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky, 1991).

Quite plainly a failure already. Why is it assumed that all white people will instantly only ever move to protect white people? Oh, well, if we're in the business of making governmental policy based on Avenue Q songs, sure... Besides which, this means two things; Companies will be hiring based on fear of being sued, not based on individual's merits. Also, if a worker claims discrimination, how's that gonna look to his next employer? Yeah, I don't think he'll be getting an interview either.

Well, my friend just showed up, so I'm gonna get going. Don't have time to continue dissecting flaws, but eh, whatever. Suffice it to say, I won't be surprised should white males start bringing lawsuits about discrimination up.

How fun. A thread on why somebody doesn't like liberalism descends into an AA bashfeset (I'm too tired to be bashing AA right now).
:D And then Cat will prly see my post and make some comment about me and the Civil War

Everything The Cat-Tribe links to, at least all that I've looked through, indicates that AA is actually completely unworkable, because there's no way to prove someone has or has not been discriminated against. Essentially, all that can happen is a member of a minority (You know, it occurs to me that government-sanctioned disctinctions between people probably ain't helping, but y'know, whatever.) can feel discriminated against by someone who they wanted to work for, and take it to court.

1. I love the sweeping generalization to lump all the sources together and avoid actually dealing with them or the content.

2. You are now making an argument against civil rights laws, rather than just affirmative action. You are saying all anti-discrimination laws are unworkable because discrimination can never be proven. :headbang: Nice. Let's just roll back the clock to ... 1963? 1868? Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unworkable? Is the 14th Amendment?

3. You do realize that anyone -- not just members of a minority -- can sue if they are discriminated against based on race, skin color, ethnicity, etc?

4. Discrimination is proven all the time in lawsuits. And sometimes it isn't proven. Courts sort through difficult facts all the time. That is at least half of what courts are for.

It's probable that many people assume it's all about quotas because it's the only halfway sensible way to ensure people aren't being marginalized or passed over; the obvious flaws in such a quota system lead to many complaints about AA.

1. There are many reasons why people think AA is about quotas. Some of it is that people opposed to AA lie about it and say it is about quotas.

2. Again, nice debate trick. Even though I proved AA is not about quotas and that quotas are illegal, you still manage to claim AA is bad because quotas are bad.

3. There are many ways to prevent discrimination and to encourage equal opportunity without quotas. Whether you mean to or not, you are now arguing that without quotas there will be discrimination. :eek: Good argument for quotas. Luckily, we have AA, which is a preferable alternative.

Quite plainly a failure already. Why is it assumed that all white people will instantly only ever move to protect white people?

1. Um, I don't know what you mean by "plainly a failure already" unless you are referring to your next sentence.

2. Again, nice trick. Take a single sentence out-of-context about why AA is necessary, act like it says something it doesn't, and then attribute that bad thing to AA. :rolleyes:

3. No such assumption is made in the statement. The statement says as an empirical fact that (a) color-blind senority systems tend to protect more senior workers from layoffs, (b) these more senior workers tend to be white*, and, thus (c) senority systems tend to protect white workers from layoffs. *More senior workers tend to be white because of past discrimination. Again, an empirical fact. You might note the citation to a study at the end of the statement. Not assumptions. Simply statements about how so-called color-blind systems can perpetuate majority-group advantages.

Oh, well, if we're in the business of making governmental policy based on Avenue Q songs, sure...

:rolleyes:

BTW, which government policy are you talking about?

The one that allows private affirmative action?

The internal government hiring policies?

Surely you aren't perpetuating the myth of a law that requires private companies or universities to practice affirmative action?

Besides which, this means two things; Companies will be hiring based on fear of being sued, not based on individual's merits.

Um, basic flaw in your logic. A black applicant or a white applicant (or anyone of any race, color, or ethnicity) that isn't hired could sue. Everyone could sue. That doesn't differentiate between applicants. So, fear of a suit cannot be a hiring criteria.

Hiring based on merit is the best way to avoid suit (or to at least win if a meritless suit is brought anyway) -- that would be the wisest course.

Also, if a worker claims discrimination, how's that gonna look to his next employer? Yeah, I don't think he'll be getting an interview either.

This argument helps you how?

First you claim applicants or employees will never be able to prove discrimination and sue.

Then you claim employers will all be afraid of being sued.

Now you claim applicants or employees will be afraid of suing.

All are false assertions -- but care to at least pick a bogus theory?

Regardless, would you put such a claim of discrimination on your resume?

And it would be illegal either for the company you complained about to retaliate against you or for the company you are interviewing with to refuse to hire you based on your prior complaint.

Well, my friend just showed up, so I'm gonna get going. Don't have time to continue dissecting flaws, but eh, whatever.

Feel free to come back and try again. So far, no cigar.

Suffice it to say, I won't be surprised should white males start bringing lawsuits about discrimination up.

Um. Surprise! White males have been bringing lawsuits since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was first passed. :eek: Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

So, let me get this straight:

"Why I am not a liberal"- Because Liberals are name callers.

According to your title and statements you are not a liberal because you have valid disagreements with their ideals but instead you perceive them to be big meanies (All of them in general, the nice ones are few and far between). You see liberals as bad people, obviously, and conservitives as good ones.

Let me dissect conservitive stances on certain key issues:

Gay marriage (I am gay by the way): If gays marry they will destroy society. Marriage needs to be protected from them. Marriage should be reserved for those worthy of it, straight people. (Yes, I couldn't possibly be offended)

Minority rights: We are a democracy, too bad for them.

Gun control: We like guns, keep 'em. The second amendment is sacred! (The one about the seperation of church and state shouldn't be taken too literally here) By the way, I am on their side when it comes to guns.

Abortion: Kill abortion doctors!!!!! Lets all harrass and put to shame those going in for this legal practice and threaten anyone involved! (Now, most do not kill, however there are large numbers of conservitives harrassing people...so much in fact that racketeering laws may soon be applied and protestors charged.)

During the presidential debates it was bush who put lawyers down and insulted their profession, kerry I have yet heard one real insult from.

Do I need to mention Ann Coulter?
Do I need to mention concerned women for america?
Do I need to mention the family research council?

Conservitives do not need to hurl insults, their very principles can be insulting enough.

Look, conservitives have some okay ideas...liberals have some okay ideas, both engage in slander, but the liberals are on the side of peace, justice, and the little guy while the conservitives are mainly concerned with helping the vast majority, the big leagers, and BOTH sides' politicians are there mainly for money and power. As for moderates, they need to make up their minds...(I am none of the three, I'm a communist.)

Firstly, do you believe that being insulting is an intrinsic part of being a liberal? While your post says you don't have a problem with all liberals, your title seems to imply that becoming a liberal would entail doing what is listed in your post. The contradictory message confusess me.

Secondly, your title would seem to imply that the alleged name-calling from the left is the main reason you are not a liberal. I somehow doubt this, but I wish to clear this up.[/
I'd be happy to clarify. I have an answer that I believe will answer both questions. It's not that I believe that being insulting is an inherent part of liberal thought. It's that as my political identity was forming in my younger years, I noticed that as I looked at both sides, it appeared, from my perspective, that the liberal side had a tendency to try and dominate arguments by villainizing their conservative opponents by using harsh labels and being unwilling to hear the opposing side. On the other hand, I noticed that the conservatives, in general, tended to present agruments that dind't require them to resort to name-calling, and were generally more willing to listen to the opposing viewpoint, even though they disagreed. (Perhaps to give their debate opponents rope to hang themselves with... I don't know)

At any rate, thsi impressed upon me that conservative thought appeared to be more reasonable and less emotion-driven. Thus, I became a conservative thinker.

I know that there are plenty of perfectly reasonable people who are to the left in politics, and that's perfectly fine with me. It is with such people that debating is enjoyable, since it stays generally friendly and avoids childish attacks.

It occurs to me that you might do better to determine your political stance by consideration of the issues involved, rather than the comments of impolite people on either side.

I do, but by definition, the word politics means "the study of human behavior." For better or for worse, when yuo debate politics, your conduct reflects upon the credibility of your arguments, even if they came originally from someone else. If you see two people debating an issue of which you might know very little, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the more reasonable debater, who keeps his arguments impersonal and calm, is likely to have a stronger understanding of the issues. A person who becomes personal in their arguments or who resorts to labels that don't even reasonably apply is much less likely to be presenting a rational argument.

Originally Posted by The Cat-Tribe
Do you really "pick sides" in matters of political philosophy and national policy based on your perception that some representatives of a view use more name-calling than some representatives of another view?

Why not decide issues on the merits? Is that too liberal?

Yeah...I'm gonna have to agree with The Cat-Tribe here. If you're going to pick a political view you should do it based on their values, ethics, plans for the future, that kind of thing. Not name-calling.

I personally am liberal in a school practically overflowing with conservatives and trust me, you do NOT want to be me in my government class. Arguing my point with one fellow student? Not too bad. A whole class? Yikes. I've been called a fag for supporting gay marriage and even if I was homosexual, using the word "fag" is NOT something I am ready to tolerate.

I have NEVER resorted to name-calling (I think hehe) and I PRIDE myself but also feel kinda sad that anytime I want to discuss an issue (most often, homosexuality) all I get from other students is name-calling towards me or a reference to the Bible.

So, don't let a few (hundred) bad apples spoil the bunch of liberal apples. They're just as delicious, and they're green!

i think it depends on the particular person.. whether he/she is a conservatives or a liberal.. however free-thinkers judge their thoughts and they are rare in the world..

p.s. even a free-thinker sometimes does the name-calling or stuff.. i suppose that's human nature..

Well that vast arguement is that if you don't support what the soldiers do you don't support the soldiers themselves, It's like saying I support the yankees but I don't want them to play baseball.

I'm sorry, this may be slightly off topic, but I really don't agree with this. Although armies are required for war, I think it's extremely cynical to conclude that if you have an army, then you have to go to war to justify them.

I find that HIGHLY offensive and will now whine about the 200-year cultural oppression or some such.

And we know they had absolutely nothing to whine about.

Anyways, this is a ridiculus argument seeing as the media is owned mostly by Republicans, thus more geared toward they agendas. Furthermore, both sides insult each other and label they other, none of which exceed the others amount.

Childishness. :rolleyes:

I am so glad you posted.

So, let me get this straight:

"Why I am not a liberal"- Because Liberals are name callers.


By oversimplifying my statement you've invalidated it, demonstrating that you probably didn't read the content too closely. You are helping me prove my point.

According to your title and statements you are not a liberal because you have valid disagreements with their ideals but instead you perceive them to be big meanies (All of them in general, the nice ones are few and far between). You see liberals as bad people, obviously, and conservitives as good ones.

At no time have I made character judgements against or for anybody on either side. That would be resporting to personal attacks, which is exactly what I believe kills a rational argument.


Let me dissect conservitive stances on certain key issues:

Gay marriage
Ok if you must...
(I am gay by the way)

I don't care. Why does it matter? Does being gay somehow confer upon you a clearer understanding of both sides of the issues? Are the readers of this thread supposed to pat you on the back for coming out? Do you believe this will incite conservatives to get ugly?


: If gays marry they will destroy society. Marriage needs to be protected from them. Marriage should be reserved for those worthy of it, straight people. (Yes, I couldn't possibly be offended)

Hm. Never heard the "worthy" argument coming from any conservative. I acknowledge that this may be your PERCEPTION of the right-wing belief, but you must be careful to to confuse your perceptions with the actual arguments. If some conservative debater DID say that, I invite you to notice that they do not represent the majority of conservatives in making that argument. If I were going to engage you in a debate over this issue, that isn't a tactic I'd employ.

Minority rights: We are a democracy, too bad for them.

...not the standard conservative opinion. That may be the point of view of an extremist, but we're not talking about extremes here. Please re-read your debate opponents' arguments on this one.

Gun control: We like guns, keep 'em. The second amendment is sacred! (The one about the seperation of church and state shouldn't be taken too literally here) By the way, I am on their side when it comes to guns.

I like to think both liberals and conservatives hold the Second Ammendment, along with ALL of the Bill of Rights as sacred. This issue is based upon interpretation.

Abortion: Kill abortion doctors!!!!! Lets all harrass and put to shame those going in for this legal practice and threaten anyone involved! (Now, most do not kill, however there are large numbers of conservitives harrassing people...so much in fact that racketeering laws may soon be applied and protestors charged.)

That's a fairly inflammatory statement. If you acknowledge that the majority of conservatives do not advocate killing abortion providers (the VAST majority) then why did you begin the argument in that way? Distortion is not a good debate tactic.

During the presidential debates it was bush who put lawyers down and insulted their profession, kerry I have yet heard one real insult from.

Both Kerry and Edwards WERE lawyers. What are you trying to prove here?

Do I need to mention Ann Coulter?
Do I need to mention concerned women for america?
Do I need to mention the family research council?

I don't know. Do you?

Conservitives do not need to hurl insults, their very principles can be insulting enough.

This, to you, is a rational and well-formed argument? It's a very wide-reaching personal attack.

Look, conservitives have some okay ideas...liberals have some okay ideas, both engage in slander, but the liberals are on the side of peace, justice, and the little guy while the conservitives are mainly concerned with helping the vast majority, the big leagers, and BOTH sides' politicians are there mainly for money and power. As for moderates, they need to make up their minds...(I am none of the three, I'm a communist.)
I'm a conservative, and I believe in peace, justice and the little guy. You did contradict yourself though... How can you be for BOTH the vast majority AND the big leaguers? Personally, I am for the vast majority, since that is the principle upon which democracy is based.

I do agree with you on what you say about the politicians, though.

Get some stats to back up this highly subjective claim. You notice it more because you're a conservative, and enough already. I'm sick of both sides claiming to be attacked more. I'd say the idiocy is fairly even on both sides.

sensitivity too

though a higher percentage of liberals are pussies.

hehe

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

I think a lot of the name calling is coming from a severe case of frustration on our part. You can't really seem to negotiate or reason with conservatives. After all, God is on their side, and we're not. (note the faint sarcasm)

I am so glad you posted.

I'm a conservative, and I believe in peace, justice and the little guy. You did contradict yourself though... How can you be for BOTH the vast majority AND the big leaguers? Personally, I am for the vast majority, since that is the principle upon which democracy is based.

I do agree with you on what you say about the politicians, though.

And as for you, majority rule does not equate to majority right. The minority has to be protected as well.

it works on both sides:

If i agree with gay marriage, i'm labeled gay.
If i don't want somebody to own a gun, i'm labeled a hippie
if i support affirmative action, i'm called reverse-racist (or in finland, unpatriotic, betrayor of the nation)
if i don't support war, i'm called a pacifist tree hugger hippie
if i believe abortion is right, i'm called a child killer.

feeble-minded people insult each other.
and they can be found from every side.

And as for you, majority rule does not equate to majority right. The minority has to be protected as well.
I never suggested otherwise.

I did say I was also for the little guy. To clarify, that means that while I do believe in majority rule, it should not be at the expense of the little guy.

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.


I think this is ridiculous. Why you ask? Because I would've bet money that conservatives are more prone to personal attacks! Look at what they did to John Kerry, they managed to take a guy who served in Vietnam, won several awards for bravery, and make him look less patriotic then W, who never saw one minute of combat in his life(ie chickenhawk)!

On a less presidential level, I find the problem I usually have with conservatives is their inability to honestly answer questions. The answer could be right there in fromt of them, but if it requires admitting their side is wrong, then they'll dance around it, tell you something was 'taken out of context', or resort to insults.

Btw, I've been called a 'baby killer' many times for supporting the ability for a woman to choose what to do with her own body, and of course i've been called anti-american, or arab appeasers many times as well. I myself try as hard as I can to steer clear of getting personal, but if you note what I said is my first issue, you'll see why even my attempts at political discourse go by the waistside.

I think this is ridiculous. Why you ask? Because I would've bet money that conservatives are more prone to personal attacks! Look at what they did to John Kerry, they managed to take a guy who served in Vietnam, won several awards for bravery, and make him look less patriotic then W, who never saw one minute of combat in his life(ie chickenhawk)!

You proved my point before you even made it through your first paragraph.

You proved my point before you even made it through your first paragraph.

Care to elaborate?

It's either the word ridiculous, or chickenhawk, and both have reasonable explanations for thier use.

Not to mention their low-level of offensity.

Care to elaborate?

It's either the word ridiculous, or chickenhawk, and both have reasonable explanations for thier use.

Not to mention their low-level of offensity.
What I had in mind was chickenhawk, really. You'd object if I called Kerry a coward, even if I claimed I could back that up with a reasonable explanation.

You see, my point is that there are *NEVER* reasonable instances of namecalling. If you have a valid point, then you ought to be able to make it without applying labels or reorting to 5th grade standards. I don't call Kerry a coward in debate because if he was one then I should be able to demonstrate it with facts and let the audience or my opponent draw their own conclusions.

Facts can be debated, evaluated or discredited. That's what intellectual discussion is all about.

Let’s just look at some book titles of some of the most popular conservatives :

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage
How to Talk to a Liberal (IF You Must) by Ann Coulter
A Deficit of Decency by Zell Miller
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism by Sean Hannity .

Yeah, there’s name-calling from the left...but not enough yet !

Let’s just look at some book titles of some of the most popular conservatives :

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage
How to Talk to a Liberal (IF You Must) by Ann Coulter
A Deficit of Decency by Zell Miller
Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism by Sean Hannity .

Yeah, there’s name-calling from the left...but not enough yet !

Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them by Al Franken

What I had in mind was chickenhawk, really. You'd object if I called Kerry a coward, even if I claimed I could back that up with a reasonable explanation.

You see, my point is that there are *NEVER* reasonable instances of namecalling. If you have a valid point, then you ought to be able to make it without applying labels or reorting to 5th grade standards. I don't call Kerry a coward in debate because if he was one then I should be able to demonstrate it with facts and let the audience or my opponent draw their own conclusions.

Facts can be debated, evaluated or discredited. That's what intellectual discussion is all about.

If you called Kerry a coward, and gave me factual evidence to back that up, who am I to disagree? Facts are irrefutable, like the fact that W is a politician, who, regardless of if he purposely avoided Nam or not, has sent many young men and women to thier deaths, without fully understanding the ramifications of it all(no, I don't need a list of other presidents who've done the same, it's irrelevant).

As far as your point, I agree with you. I tend to put it more along the lines of personal attacks, towards the person you're talking to. If I flipped out everytime a conservative made fun of Ted Kennedy because he's overweight, I'd probably be serving time.

But as I said, when I'm faced with a person who can be intellectualy honest with me, and I've exhausted my options, than I may throw a subtle insult in their. But I'd really rather just debate.

Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them by Al Franken

Comedian who only recently became a radio commentator. The title is a joke.

The others are serious titles by supposed spokespeople of the right.

But nice try. :rolleyes:

EDIT: BTW, if calling a group liars is name-calling, does calling a group a bunch of name-callers count as name-calling?

Comedian who only recently became a radio commentator. The title is a joke.

The others are serious titles by supposed spokespeople of the right.

But nice try. :rolleyes:

Al Franken certainly considers himself a serious spokesman for the left...

Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them by Al Franken

Are you saying that Bill O'Reilly has never lied or been a bit misleading on his show?

There's numerous examples of it. Same goes for Hannity.

Are you saying that Bill O'Reilly has never lied or been a bit misleading on his show?

Actually, O'Reilly is an independent that goes to one side or the other depending on the issue.

There's numerous examples of it. Same goes for Hannity.

Hannity? Yes! O'Reilly? Not as bad.

Actually, O'Reilly is an independent that goes to one side or the other depending on the issue.



Hannity? Yes! O'Reilly? Not as bad.

I have to disagree about O'Reilly. What makes you think he's an independent?

Comedian who only recently became a radio commentator. The title is a joke.

The others are serious titles by supposed spokespeople of the right.

But nice try. :rolleyes:

BTW, does calling a group a bunch of name-callers count as name-calling?

Aye, but this comedian is also the standard bearer for the flagship Liberal radio network. The title is not a joke. I watched interviews with him when the boko came out. He's not trying to be funny for its own sake. He is passionate about what he believes. I think he's wrong, but I must respect his drive.

Al Franken certainly considers himself a serious spokesman for the left...

More recently, yes.

But his roots are in comedy. He only became "serious" more recently.

That title was a clear joke. Part of a spoof of Fox News.

I have to disagree about O'Reilly. What makes you think he's an independent?

Because he's on public record stating that he's an independent. :rolleyes:

I have to disagree about O'Reilly. What makes you think he's an independent?
O'Reilley will not hesitate to drop the hammer on the President or any other Republican/Conservative whom he disagrees with, and he does frequently.

O'Reilley will not hesitate to drop the hammer on the President or any other Republican/Conservative whom he disagrees with, and he does frequently.

Rock on Koldoria!

Aye, but this comedian is also the standard bearer for the flagship Liberal radio network. The title is not a joke. I watched interviews with him when the boko came out. He's not trying to be funny for its own sake. He is passionate about what he believes. I think he's wrong, but I must respect his drive.

The real question is, can you prove what he says as wrong? You might not like the title, but if the title is accurate when looking at who he's talking about, then you should reconsider your political affiliation.

Did anyone notice the fact that the conservative books specifically mentioned 'liberals'? Where Al's book isn't specifiic at all? Not to mention that the negatively titled conservative books outnumber the liberals 4 to 1.

O'Reilley will not hesitate to drop the hammer on the President or any other Republican/Conservative whom he disagrees with, and he does frequently.

I gotta be honest. I've never heard him say one bad thing about this administration. Maybe this is a recent thing, I haven't watched/listened to him in a few months. I've heard Micheal Savage rip into the pRes, for his fiscal irresponsibility, but other than that.....

Bill O'Reilly - Independent?

I'm sorry, this comes as a bit of a shock to me.

The real question is, can you prove what he says as wrong? You might not like the title, but if the title is accurate when looking at who he's talking about, then you should reconsider your political affiliation.

Did anyone notice the fact that the conservative books specifically mentioned 'liberals'? Where Al's book isn't specifiic at all? Not to mention that the negatively titled conservative books outnumber the liberals 4 to 1.

Now I find it hilarious that you demand proof of me that Franken is wrong, merely because I stated that I think he is wrong, and then you assert that negatively titled conservative books outnumber liberal ones 4 to 1 based purely on the fact that one person used 4 examples and I used 1.

Seriously... these books are out there by the dozens if not hundreds. Are you really going to go with that statistic?

I gotta be honest. I've never heard him say one bad thing about this administration. Maybe this is a recent thing, I haven't watched/listened to him in a few months. I've heard Micheal Savage rip into the pRes, for his fiscal irresponsibility, but other than that.....

Bill O'Reilly - Independent?

I'm sorry, this comes as a bit of a shock to me.

I've heard him do it several times. Of Course, I watch it daily so I hear it more :D

As for Bill being independent, no need to be shocked. It is true that he is an independent.

I gotta be honest. I've never heard him say one bad thing about this administration. ...I'm sorry, this comes as a bit of a shock to me.
Are you a watcher of his show?

Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them by Al Franken

There's one from the left to the four from the right. I don't want the left to quit until there's 4 from the the left to every one from the right.

Aye, but this comedian is also the standard bearer for the flagship Liberal radio network.

He is now. I said that. It is relative recent isn't it. He wasn't when the book was written or published.

The title is not a joke. I watched interviews with him when the boko came out. He's not trying to be funny for its own sake. He is passionate about what he believes. I think he's wrong, but I must respect his drive.

Sheesh. I can't believe I have to argue this. :headbang:

I own the frickin' book. *walks downstairs and gets copy*

Here is the first paragraph of the book (start of author's note) and the first part of the introduction:

Although I wrote this book in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry, I cannot expect my critics to respond in kind. My right-wing detractors will undoubtedly tell you that I'm an "obnoxious prick," a "smug asshole," and a "clear and present threat to our national security." I will not stoop to dignify such calumny with a response, except to say that Condoleezza Rice should watch her mouth.

...

God chose me to write this book.

Just the fact that you are reading this is proof not just of God's existence, but also of His/Her/Its beneficence. That's right. I am not certain of God's precise gender. But I am certain that He/She. It chose me to write this book.

[Goes on to describe instructions from God]

Sorry, my bad. He is totally serious.

And Why Not Me? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385334540/103-0345811-1703011?v=glance) really is "The Inside Story of the Making and Unmaking of the Franken Presidency."

By the way, yes, he's not trying to be "funny for its own sake" and he is "passionate about what he believes."

Isn't/wasn't that also true of most comedians?

Because he's on public record stating that he's an independent. :rolleyes:

I could be on public record stating that I'm a Conservative. It wouldn't make it so.

And based on my signature, you all know that it's not.

There's one from the left to the four from the right. I don't want the left to quit until there's 4 from the the left to every one from the right.

Shlarg, go to your friendly neighborhood bookstore. Count up the books done by the right then count them from the left. The left has way more books than the right.

Actually, it's the opposite. If you do support the soldiers, you want them home and out of danger. It's like saying you support police officers, but don't support efforts to lower crime.

That resulted in great troop morale during Vietnam... we need to support their efforts in the field so that they can better finish the job and then come home. If they don't win this, what was all their effort worth?

There's one from the left to the four from the right. I don't want the left to quit until there's 4 from the the left to every one from the right.
Oh this is so great how you folks prove my point. One person cites 4 examples. I cite 1 to make a point, and now you want to advance the idea that this somehow accurately represents the ratio of conservative:liberal attack books out there in the world.

This is not a rational or logical debate approach.

Because he's on public record stating that he's an independent. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

And granny's big eyes were all the better to see Lil' Red with.

Now I find it hilarious that you demand proof of me that Franken is wrong, merely because I stated that I think he is wrong, and then you assert that negatively titled conservative books outnumber liberal ones 4 to 1 based purely on the fact that one person used 4 examples and I used 1.

Seriously... these books are out there by the dozens if not hundreds. Are you really going to go with that statistic?

No, I feel that you asking me is an insult to my intelligence. I'm sure my post didn't include a statement about the books mentioned as being the only ones out in copy! You made you're point(that liberals insult more than anyone), someone posted 4 counterpoints, and you came back with only one. Doesn't say much for your initial point.

Now I find it hilarious that you demand proof of me that Franken is wrong, merely because I stated that I think he is wrong

Isn't debate all about backing up what you say with facts? If you're gonna completely shoot someone down, shouldn't factual evidence be readily available for those who disagree? Why should I take your word for it? You think the majority of people who I politically align with do nothing but shoot insults.

We both know what a chickenhawk is(democrat or republican), and I feel I explained that enough for you to understand how I came to that conclusion. I'm just wondering what Al Franken did that keeps him from gaining your respect.

Now I find it hilarious that you demand proof of me that Franken is wrong, merely because I stated that I think he is wrong, and then you assert that negatively titled conservative books outnumber liberal ones 4 to 1 based purely on the fact that one person used 4 examples and I used 1.

Seriously... these books are out there by the dozens if not hundreds. Are you really going to go with that statistic?

Fine. Name some of these hundreds of books by liberals that call conservatives names in the title. Should be easy. :p

Your the one who started the whole "liberals do more name-calling" crap and now you are quibbling over whether we have sound statistics to rebut your assertion? Meh. :rolleyes:

Shlarg, go to your friendly neighborhood bookstore. Count up the books done by the right then count them from the left. The left has way more books than the right.

The question is which ones have more titles that resemble insults to the differing political party.....

The question is which ones have more titles that resemble insults to the differing political party.....

Here's a hint. All of those books do in one way or another. Both parties attack eachother in their books.

Shlarg, go to your friendly neighborhood bookstore. Count up the books done by the right then count them from the left. The left has way more books than the right.

Gosh ! I was in a Barnes & Noble just yesterday and counted 322.7 books by the left to 1290.1 books by the right. SO THERE !

Gosh ! I was in a Barnes & Noble just yesterday and counted 322.7 books by the left to 1290.1 books by the right. SO THERE !

*chuckles*

Nice made up number Shlarg. Very nice made up number.

Here's a hint. All of those books do in one way or another. Both parties attack eachother in their books.

Don't tell me. Tell the initiator of the thread....

That resulted in great troop morale during Vietnam... we need to support their efforts in the field so that they can better finish the job and then come home. If they don't win this, what was all their effort worth?

The actual war and the conditions in Vietnam might have had a tad bit to do with the morale. :rolleyes:

And, to the extent it is true, isn't that a damn good reason to be absolutely sure the efforts in the field will be worthy of support before going to war?

And are you saying if we don't win a war, the service of the troops are worthless? Isn't that the kind of crap that has helped make things so miserable for 'Nam Veterans? Isn't that the kind of thing that, if a liberal says, is undermining morale? ;)

No, I feel that you asking me is an insult to my intelligence. I'm sure my post didn't include a statement about the books mentioned as being the only ones out in copy! You made you're point(that liberals insult more than anyone), someone posted 4 counterpoints, and you came back with only one. Doesn't say much for your initial point.

I was not attempting to generate an all-inclusinve list of liberally aligned attack books any more than the other person was trying to compile a list of conservative ones. I was simply using that example to show that books could be found on both sides.

I mean, what WAS your point by saying 4 to 1 then?


Isn't debate all about backing up what you say with facts? If you're gonna completely shoot someone down, shouldn't factual evidence be readily available for those who disagree? Why should I take your word for it? You think the majority of people who I politically align with do nothing but shoot insults.

I didn't completely shoot down anyone. I simply stated that I believe Al Franken to be wrong. The reasons behind that opinion are outside the scope of this discussion, but I certainly didn't say it with the expectation of you taking my word for it.

We both know what a chickenhawk is(democrat or republican), and I feel I explained that enough for you to understand how I came to that conclusion. I'm just wondering what Al Franken did that keeps him from gaining your respect.
I disagree. You made passing references to Bush not having been at war and his ordering troops into battle, but that's it. I am sure you could elaborate on those and explain your reasoning, but even if you did that doesn't, in my opinion, justify labels. If your points are good ones, you wouldn't NEED to use a label like that.

Fine. Name some of these hundreds of books by liberals that call conservatives names in the title. Should be easy. :p

I referred to books from both sides when I said that.

Your the one who started the whole "liberals do more name-calling" crap and now you are quibbling over whether we have sound statistics to rebut your assertion? Meh. :rolleyes:
I didn't ask for statistics to prove that. I brought up statistics to illustrate how the 4 to 1 thing was being twisted.

*chuckles*

Nice made up number Shlarg. Very nice made up number.

Even though the right and left have become more polarized than at any other time since the civil war we can still laugh at the absurdities of some of our arguments.

Even though the right and left have become more polarized than at any other time since the civil war we can still laugh at the absurdities of some of our arguments.

Here I agree Shlarg.

Even though the right and left have become more polarized than at any other time since the civil war we can still laugh at the absurdities of some of our arguments.
Wouldn't it be awesome if we could get Senators and Representatives to be that way? Suddenly watching CSPAN might even be entertaining...

I was not attempting to generate an all-inclusinve list of liberally aligned attack books any more than the other person was trying to compile a list of conservative ones. I was simply using that example to show that books could be found on both sides.

I mean, what WAS your point by saying 4 to 1 then?

Er.... ok everyone knows they're on both sides. The evidence supplied was 4 to 1. Say what you will, my on-line requirements for discussion are to back up statements with facts. You're initial post was about how liberals are far worse with the insults than conservatives, yet, you'd think you could name at least twice as many liberal books with negative connotations, but only one comes to mind(and it is comical). Methinks that's more comparable to a chink in your armor(ie a point against your argument).


I didn't completely shoot down anyone. I simply stated that I believe Al Franken to be wrong. The reasons behind that opinion are outside the scope of this discussion, but I certainly didn't say it with the expectation of you taking my word for it.

Why do you believe Al Franken is wrong? How can the reasons be outside the scope of discussion? This makes absolutely no sense.(btw, I'm a regular on Al's blog, so I'll be sticking up for him until you can prove to me why he's wrong.)

I disagree. You made passing references to Bush not having been at war and his ordering troops into battle, but that's it. I am sure you could elaborate on those and explain your reasoning, but even if you did that doesn't, in my opinion, justify labels. If your points are good ones, you wouldn't NEED to use a label like that.

JEEEZ! If you spent as much time researching some facts, as you do worrying about who tries to insult who, you wouldn't need to make threads like these.

You could actually have discussions/debates on issues......that matter!

I seem to remember many, many, many decades of conservative red-baiting. Doesn't that count as name-calling?

And I repeat: If calling some people liars is name-calling, does calling a group of people name-callers count as name-calling?

Er.... ok everyone knows they're on both sides. The evidence supplied was 4 to 1. Say what you will, my on-line requirements for discussion are to back up statements with facts. You're initial post was about how liberals are far worse with the insults than conservatives, yet, you'd think you could name at least twice as many liberal books with negative connotations, but only one comes to mind(and it is comical). Methinks that's more comparable to a chink in your armor(ie a point against your argument).

Alright, since we're going to get mired in the minutia... My initial post said nothing about books. My point was that in debates it was the liberal debater that was generally more likely to use labels to discredit their opponent rather than strength of argument.
Why do you believe Al Franken is wrong? How can the reasons be outside the scope of discussion? This makes absolutely no sense.(btw, I'm a regular on Al's blog, so I'll be sticking up for him until you can prove to me why he's wrong.)

I don't care if you're Al Franken's personal valet. This isn't the "Why Al Franken is Wrong" thread. If you really want to get into a debate over Franken that's fine, but it's beyond the scope of this thread, just like that whole Affirmative Action thing was.


JEEEZ! If you spent as much time researching some facts, as you do worrying about who tries to insult who, you wouldn't need to make threads like these.

You could actually have discussions/debates on issues......that matter!
You're assuming I haven't done any research simply because I refuse to engage you on the Al Franken issue within this thread. You assume therefore that I'm not capable of such a debate. I advise you not to assume this.

Why I am not a Conservitive;

(1) They usually beleive in an omnipresent being that actually cares if you pray before you eat, and if you eat pig meat, then you should be shot. (old testiment), they also beleive the world flooded, and that insest is normal. i.e adam and eve.
(2) Hitler as a right-winger, (stalin was a leftist, but the point remains)
(3) It was liberals, who headed civil rights, (Abe was gay, not very republican)
(4) They tend to push their faith on "non-beleivers"
(5) they are quick to label none-war ppl, as un-patriotic, when it is the antithisis of that.
(6) Repulicainss, are usually clean-shaven, and smeel good, :*( not like me
(7) I dislike christians
(8) Bush is a republican, I hate Karl Rove, i hate almost everyone in his addminastration
(9) i hate the fact that they used the fact that the Atterny genreal is hispanic to push him in office, no liberal would dare care to think himself rascist for denying a poor little mixicino a job.
(10) And the final reason is that I am an atheist, with Jewish heritage.

Alright, since we're going to get mired in the minutia... My initial post said nothing about books. My point was that in debates it was the liberal debater that was generally more likely to use labels to discredit their opponent rather than strength of argument.

I could come up with hundreds of quotes from conservatives using labels against any number of liberals. I'd even bet that if we had a contest, you'd find more done by conservatives.

I don't care if you're Al Franken's personal valet. This isn't the "Why Al Franken is Wrong" thread. If you really want to get into a debate over Franken that's fine, but it's beyond the scope of this thread, just like that whole Affirmative Action thing was.

It's called backing up your fairly strong opinion with those who think you're wrong. It shouldn't be very difficult to supply an iota of a reason as to why you came to your conclusion other than that just being the way you think.

You're assuming I haven't done any research simply because I refuse to engage you on the Al Franken issue within this thread. You assume therefore that I'm not capable of such a debate. I advise you not to assume this.

The proof is in the pudding, instead of just shutting me up by proving yourself right, you'll just type away about what I assume your debating skills are, or how it's not the thread topic(even though there has been scant mention of it for at least 3 pages).

Please read my very first post on this thread. It discusses why it's hard to talk to conservatives. They never answer questions.

This is another excellent example. When I stated why I'm not a liberal I tried to keep the tone mild and relatively nonconfrontational. Now look at this:

Why I am not a Conservitive;

(1) They usually beleive in an omnipresent being that actually cares if you pray before you eat, and if you eat pig meat, then you should be shot. (old testiment), they also beleive the world flooded, and that insest is normal. i.e adam and eve.

Actually, most liberals also believe in that omnipresent being.
Jewish and Muslim people avoid pork for religious reasons, but again, there are plenty of liberals of those faiths. The same goes for the flood, and I suspect none will support incest. If you want to talk about the implications of Adam and Eve that's a religious debate for another place, but suffice to say none of those attributes apply to conservatives exclusively.

(2) Hitler as a right-winger, (stalin was a leftist, but the point remains)
No it doesn't. You cite a very extreme example and then negate it yourself. Thank yuo for saving me the trouble.

(3) It was liberals, who headed civil rights, (Abe was gay, not very republican)
No, he wasn't. He was conservative. He also wasn't gay, not that it would be relevant anyway. It's a mistake to assume someone is liberal just because they are gay. Granted, gay people tend to be liberal, but not all are.

(4) They tend to push their faith on "non-beleivers"
Some religious extremists may do this, but it is not logical to apply that issue to conservatives generally, since religious extremists exist on both sides of the political spectrum as well.

(5) they are quick to label none-war ppl, as un-patriotic, when it is the antithisis of that.
None that I know of are, although I ackowledge that some have. This is the only assertion you've made that's actually related to this thread.

(6) Repulicainss, are usually clean-shaven, and smeel good, :*( not like me.
I don't need to even touch that.

(7) I dislike christians
Irrelevant, since not all Christians are conservative and not all conservatives are Christian.

(8) Bush is a republican, I hate Karl Rove, i hate almost everyone in his addminastration
Hatred is hardly a rational basis for an intellectual argument.

(9) i hate the fact that they used the fact that the Atterny genreal is hispanic to push him in office, no liberal would dare care to think himself rascist for denying a poor little mixicino a job.
The assumption that he didn't get the job based on his merit smacks of racism as well.

(10) And the final reason is that I am an atheist, with Jewish heritage.I don't care.

It's called backing up your fairly strong opinion with those who think you're wrong. It shouldn't be very difficult to supply an iota of a reason as to why you came to your conclusion other than that just being the way you think.
I don't think that stating that I think Al Franken is wrong is a fairly strong opinion. Especially when I only mentioned it as part of making a completely separate point. If you want to debate Franken then start up a thread or let's take it backchannel.

Why are you taking it personally that I disagree with Franken?

Please read my very first post on this thread. It discusses why it's hard to talk to conservatives. They never answer questions.

He's doing a great job of not answering mine. :p

He's been name-calling against liberals throughout his whole thread. :D

I don't think that stating that I think Al Franken is wrong is a fairly strong opinion. Especially when I only mentioned it as part of making a completely separate point. If you want to debate Franken then start up a thread or let's take it backchannel.

Why are you taking it personally that I disagree with Franken?


At first I didn't, and merely wanted a little reasoning from you on it, because I believe you to be wrong.

I took it personally when you repeatedly ducked the question.

And what exactly do you mean by "wrong"?

He's doing a great job of not answering mine. :p

He's been name-calling against liberals throughout his whole thread. :D
An example, please.

At first I didn't, and merely wanted a little reasoning from you on it, because I believe you to be wrong.

I took it personally when you repeatedly ducked the question.

And what exactly do you mean by "wrong"?
:rolleyes: I've made my reasoning quite clear on why I won't go off on that tangent. I used Al Franken's name in 2 examples. One was to illustrate that he had published an attack book against conservatism. The other was to mention that I think he's wrong within the context of another argument. Please remember I also gave credit where credit was due for his passion on issues, even though I disagree with his point of view.

I haven't demanded of you that you justify disgareeing with the President or anybody else. It's not relevant to the thread. Why is that not good enough?

All "Bleeding Heart" Liberals and "Gun Nut" Conservative are name callers.

All Liberals and Conservatives are "Bleeding Hearts" and "Gun Nuts".

They are also both prone to sweeping generalisations without exception.

Unlike Communists.

An example, please.

Answer my questions, please.

I seem to remember many, many, many decades of conservative red-baiting. Doesn't that count as name-calling?

And I repeat: If calling some people liars is name-calling, does calling a group of people name-callers count as name-calling?

:rolleyes: I've made my reasoning quite clear on why I won't go off on that tangent. I used Al Franken's name in 2 examples. One was to illustrate that he had published an attack book against conservatism. The other was to mention that I think he's wrong within the context of another argument. Please remember I also gave credit where credit was due for his passion on issues, even though I disagree with his point of view.

I haven't demanded of you that you justify disgareeing with the President or anybody else. It's not relevant to the thread. Why is that not good enough?

OMG! Why does it always have to be this way?

OK! Let's go to the thread topic(which by the way, is purely based on your indivindual reference point): Why You're not a liberal.

You're not a liberal because you've noticed that liberals are easily swayed to use insults and/or labels.

I think you're wrong.

Now what?

Answer my questions, please.


You mean that wasn't a joke?

By the way... now who's dodging? :)

OMG! Why does it always have to be this way?

OK! Let's go to the thread topic(which by the way, is purely based on your indivindual reference point): Why You're not a liberal.

You're not a liberal because you've noticed that liberals are easily swayed to use insults and/or labels.

I think you're wrong.

Now what?
What am I supposed to say? You think I'm wrong. Okay. Am I supposed to be insulted by that? I'm not. You have your opinion. Thank you for sharing it.

Why I am not a Conservitive;

(1) They usually beleive in an omnipresent being that actually cares if you pray before you eat, and if you eat pig meat, then you should be shot. (old testiment), they also beleive the world flooded, and that insest is normal. i.e adam and eve.
(2) Hitler as a right-winger, (stalin was a leftist, but the point remains)
(3) It was liberals, who headed civil rights, (Abe was gay, not very republican)
(4) They tend to push their faith on "non-beleivers"
(5) they are quick to label none-war ppl, as un-patriotic, when it is the antithisis of that.
(6) Repulicainss, are usually clean-shaven, and smeel good, :*( not like me
(7) I dislike christians
(8) Bush is a republican, I hate Karl Rove, i hate almost everyone in his addminastration
(9) i hate the fact that they used the fact that the Atterny genreal is hispanic to push him in office, no liberal would dare care to think himself rascist for denying a poor little mixicino a job.
(10) And the final reason is that I am an atheist, with Jewish heritage.

Well #10 is a great reason!

As point of fact, the abolitionists back then were almost exclusively republicans... Abe's main thing was to save the union, but the fact is that he DID sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

And finally, I am not too clean-shaven today. hehe

You mean that wasn't a joke?

By the way... now who's dodging? :)

Um, still you.

Are you a fairy prince? Must I ask thrice to compel thee to answer?


I seem to remember many, many, many decades of conservative red-baiting. Doesn't that count as name-calling?

And I repeat: If calling some people liars is name-calling, does calling a group of people name-callers count as name-calling?

Conservatives have made "liberal" into a bad word here in the U.S. When speaking against opposition, all the president has to do is call them liberal. Liberal itself has become a bad term. Where is the justice there?

What am I supposed to say? You think I'm wrong. Okay. Am I supposed to be insulted by that? I'm not. You have your opinion. Thank you for sharing it.

Yeah, you're missing my point.

Btw, you forgot to put this in the thread title: debate not possible

Cause what's the point? Why don't you just keep a journal?

And another tip, if you didn't want liberals to come here and tell you that you're wrong, try calling the thread 'Why i'm a conservative".

The other way sounds condescending.

Um, still you.

Are you a fairy prince? Must I ask thrice to compel thee to answer?

That last sentence is awesome. Good writing.

Conservatives have made "liberal" into a bad word here in the U.S. When speaking against opposition, all the president has to do is call them liberal. Liberal itself has become a bad term. Where is the justice there?

Justice?!?!?

You got tax cuts, didn't you?

Just think, it could've been Al Gore or John Kerry!

There probably wouldn't have been tax cuts, but just think of all the money we would've saved by not going to Iraq!

Um, still you.

Are you a fairy prince? Must I ask thrice to compel thee to answer?
Sure, ask me once more ;)

Just kidding. I don't know the answer to your question. I can say that in making my argument, I've stated simply that the labeling seemed to come from the left. I haven't actually called anybody a name-caller.

If you're asking your question philosophically, I guess the answer would be yes, but it hardly fits the spirit of this discussion.

And by the way, I really did think you were just being playful when you asked that.

Yeah, you're missing my point.

Btw, you forgot to put this in the thread title: debate not possible

Cause what's the point? Why don't you just keep a journal?

And another tip, if you didn't want liberals to come here and tell you that you're wrong, try calling the thread 'Why i'm a conservative".

The other way sounds condescending.
I see. So what you're saying is that unless I'm willing to go off on an unrelated tangent, or take your baiting to talk about things that are o utside the point of this thread, I'm stifling debate.

That, to you, is reasonable?

I see. So what you're saying is that unless I'm willing to go off on an unrelated tangent, or take your baiting to talk about things that are o utside the point of this thread, I'm stifling debate.

That, to you, is reasonable?

You're starting to get boring.

Listen, I'll say this one more time:

OK! Let's go to the thread topic(which by the way, is purely based on your indivindual reference point): Why You're not a liberal.

You're not a liberal because you've noticed that liberals are easily swayed to use insults and/or labels.

I think you're wrong.

Now what?

This was me trying to get to the topic, which is really based on the opinion of you. Since there isn't an easy way to prove this to anyone that may question it(aside from collecting all possible quotes from our respective political ideaology, and tallying them up, which i already suggested), there is no real chance for debate. It was proven when I said I think you're wrong, and you replied by saying that you don't agree.

That's where it ends, so since there is no chance to debate the topic beyond two posts, I'd say it's stifling debate a little. I hope this is now clear to you.

So as I said, you should've warned people beforehand that this thread isn't for debating. Had you done that, and changed the name to something other than 'why you're not a liberal'(which implies that being a liberal is a bad thing), you probably wouldn't have half of the pages that you do now.

But i'm just about outta here......

You're starting to get boring.

Listen, I'll say this one more time:

.

I think I know what's happened here.

For whatever reason you took it personally that I disagree with your school of thought, your idol, and felt insulted that I wouldsn't debate Franken in this thread.

Of course this is a dabate thread, if you can't discuss it without going off on a tangent then I dont know what to tell you. Plenty of others were quite capable of doing so.

Though I do appreciate you taking a personal shot at me on your way out. You make my point stronger when you do that.

I think I know what's happened here.

For whatever reason you took it personally that I disagree with your school of thought, your idol, and felt insulted that I wouldsn't debate Franken in this thread.

Of course this is a dabate thread, if you can't discuss it without going off on a tangent then I dont know what to tell you. Plenty of others were quite capable of doing so.

Though I do appreciate you taking a personal shot at me on your way out. You make my point stronger when you do that.

:headbang:

You are exactly like nearly every other conservative i've engaged, I fully and logically explained my point about your thread, and you didn't even quote it. You quoted what you coined as an insult:

Originally Posted by Collumland
You're starting to get boring.

Listen, I'll say this one more time:

You're boring me, why is that an insult? I tend to view it as a fact.

Why didn't you respond to the meat of my post?

Here it is again, feel free to specifically tell me where i'm wrong. If you can't do that, don't respond to me please.

This was me trying to get to the topic, which is really based on the opinion of you. Since there isn't an easy way to prove this to anyone that may question it(aside from collecting all possible quotes from our respective political ideaology, and tallying them up, which i already suggested), there is no real chance for debate. It was proven when I said I think you're wrong, and you replied by saying that you don't agree.

That's where it ends, so since there is no chance to debate the topic beyond two posts, I'd say it's stifling debate a little. I hope this is now clear to you.

So as I said, you should've warned people beforehand that this thread isn't for debating. Had you done that, and changed the name to something other than 'why you're not a liberal'(which implies that being a liberal is a bad thing), you probably wouldn't have half of the pages that you do now.

I think I know what's happened here.

For whatever reason you took it personally that I disagree with your school of thought, your idol, and felt insulted that I wouldsn't debate Franken in this thread.

Of course this is a dabate thread, if you can't discuss it without going off on a tangent then I dont know what to tell you. Plenty of others were quite capable of doing so.

Though I do appreciate you taking a personal shot at me on your way out. You make my point stronger when you do that.

Which was the point of this thread. It is not a debate. It is a tar-baby.

You say lots of unkind things about liberals. Your opinion is liberals do more name-calling, which means they are less knowledgeable and more irrational. (As I exposed, this is itself name-calling of the kind you claim to abhor.)

If asked for proof, you offer none. If given counter-examples, you say they are unscientific.

If challenged logically, you refuse to respond or engage.

So, the "debate" as to liberals being name-callers comes down to: "Is so." "Is not."

But dare anyone criticize conservatives as you have liberals and they "prove your point."

Dare anyone rise to your bait, they "prove your point."

Dare anyone get frustrated with you, they "prove your point."

Tricking people into "prov[ing] your point" for you was your only point.

A well-laid trap, my friend. But some of us saw it all along. ;)

Justice?!?!?

You got tax cuts, didn't you?

Just think, it could've been Al Gore or John Kerry!

There probably wouldn't have been tax cuts, but just think of all the money we would've saved by not going to Iraq!

no, no, no...

You know Gore would have given the go-ahead for Iraq, because you know he wanted to be able to put Saddam in his lock box as a souvenir.

Hmmm......

21 minutes, no response.

Victory! :mp5:

Can't just admit a liberal was right.....

Hmmm......

21 minutes, no response.

Victory! :mp5:

Can't just admit a liberal was right.....

Actually, I went to go have lunch.

I don't know how to respond since you and I are not going to see this the same way to even have enough common ground to start from. I don't agree with you, nor do I see things the way you see them, and so you keep saying that I don't understand your point.

You say you fully and logically answered my question, I don't think you did. Several pages back someone said it was a very subjective topic. I know that. Of course it is. I just wanted some input from the other side on how they feel about it. I got the input I wanted. It seems to me that you accuse me of stifling debate for refusing to play ball your way. We're just starting from two different places in this, not just ideologically.

That last remark was petty, by the way.

Actually, most liberals also believe in that omnipresent being.
Yes, however those liberals who do at least most, dont take the bible literally, if taken so one would have to beleive in one of the most hate filled doctrine know to man.
Jewish and Muslim people avoid pork for religious reasons, but again, there are plenty of liberals of those faiths. The same goes for the flood, and I suspect none will support incest. If you want to talk about the implications of Adam and Eve that's a religious debate for another place, but suffice to say none of those attributes apply to conservatives exclusively. Jews, musliums, and crazy christians avoid eating pork b/c if they do they might get shot, or eternal damnation. Lots of liberals are jews and musliums, but they are not the extreme faith followers, as conservitives who beleive in god, meaning that a christian conservitive takes his/her beleifs to a hole new level, they are like a figgin' cult. Evangelical liberals in number could be counted on one hand. Evangelicals are people who worship salt runoffs b/c it looks like Mary the jew.

No it doesn't. You cite a very extreme example and then negate it yourself. Thank yuo for saving me the trouble. Thats fine and dandy, but there have been more Crazy religous conservitives then there have been liberals, and socialisum is undeniably a good idea, nazism is not however.
No, he wasn't. He was conservative. He also wasn't gay, not that it would be relevant anyway. It's a mistake to assume someone is liberal just because they are gay. Granted, gay people tend to be liberal, but not all are.Abe was Gay, atleast alot of ppl,think he was, http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/49/news-ireland.php, also republicans then are not what they are now. And Abe was the most left leaning republican our nation has ever had.

religious extremists may do this, but it is not logical to apply that issue to conservatives generally, since religious extremists exist on both sides of the political spectrum as well. Then, Bush, kerry, the US airforce acadamy, my schools track team, well some, the army, majority leader of the senate, and the house are all relegoius extemeists.

None that I know of are, although I ackowledge that some have. This is the only assertion you've made that's actually related to this thread. Humm, ever watch Fox news?

I don't need to even touch that.
hahahahahhahah, fine, it was a joke, but i dont smell that bad!

Irrelevant, since not all Christians are conservative and not all conservatives are Christian.Most are, and those who are are the crazy ones, case in point Terry Shivo nuts

Hatred is hardly a rational basis for an intellectual argument.
The assumption that he didn't get the job based on his merit smacks of racism as well.Yes, you have a valid point, infavct that is the only valid point you make. Karl Rove is just plain evil, www.bushsbrain.com, His merit, ha, he was a crazy conservitive who will not hold the countrys best intrests in hand. Plus, Bush wanted him, he must be bad, jk.
I don't care.Thats nice

Could anyone enlighten me as to how such a subjective topic as this one garnered a full twelve pages of replies? It's obvious that both sides don't have the statistics needed to back up their arguments, so why all the back-and-forth? It seems that people come to these forums just to raise their blood pressure.

Could anyone enlighten me as to how such a subjective topic as this one garnered a full twelve pages of replies? It's obvious that both sides don't have the statistics needed to back up their arguments, so why all the back-and-forth? It seems that people come to these forums just to raise their blood pressure.
150/90 and rising, lol
actually i think its like 115/60 or something like that

Conservatives have made "liberal" into a bad word here in the U.S. When speaking against opposition, all the president has to do is call them liberal. Liberal itself has become a bad term. Where is the justice there?

How about the way that liberals have made "neocon" and "right-winger" slurs? Both sides give as good as they get.

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

If you don't support the war, you're a traitor.

If you support abortion, you're a babykiller and a satanist.

If you support gay marriage, you're gay.

you think that only Liberals name-call? you're either blind or ignorant.

150/90 and rising, lol
actually i think its like 115/60 or something like that

Homer: I don't have an anger problem!
Marge: Homer, you're punching the cat right now.
Homer: Oh my God, I'm a rageaholic! I just can't get enough rageahol...

If you think that only Liberals name-call, you're either blind or ignorant.

I take it you didn't read his PS? "P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that."

I take it you didn't read his PS? "P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that."

But he pretty much knocked down his whole "Name-calling liberals" argument when he said that. He might as well have not written the thing at all.

If you don't support the war, you're a traitor.

Guess it depends on which war you're talking about and the degree to which you don't support it. People who think it might have been a mistake are exercising their rights to question the government and form independent opinions. Jane Fonda was a traitor. Anyone who thinks of soldiers as "baby-killers" is a traitor.

This isn't meant as an attack thread, but more like an effort to explain the motivations behind a conservative thinker when choosing sides on issues that are sometimes hard to decide on.

If you read over these threads, you'll notice that liberal apologists are, i general, much quicker to start the labeling and name-calling than the more conservative people. When I was younger I noticed that in any given argument or debate, whichever side resorted to name-calling first tended to be the more irrational and less likely to be making a valid argument.

Examples, if I disagree with gay marriage, I am labeled a homophobe. If I want to own a gun, I'm a gun nut. If I don't support affirmative action, I'm called racist. If I support the war, I'm accused of favoring genocide. If I believe abortion is wrong, I'm sexist.

Why is that? Why are conservatives not allowed to disagree with liberals without being labeled and dismissed? Please, only reply if you have something constructive and useful to say. If you want to flame me, you will only be proving my point. Thank you.

P.S. I know conservatives sometimes do it too, and I'm not defending that. I'm only saying that in the vast majority of cases, the name calling comes from the left.

Actually, conservatives are just as guilty in that regard as "liberals". Being a Libertarian, I've been called quite some names by both sides.

But he pretty much knocked down his whole "Name-calling liberals" argument when he said that. He might as well have not written the thing at all.

Jeez, not everything is black-and-white for conservatives, you know. :) He wasn't taking the absolute (and easily disproven) position that only liberals name-call, he was saying that liberals generally start it, and are more prone to it.

Actually, conservatives are just as guilty in that regard as "liberals". Being a Libertarian, I've been called quite some names by both sides.

Conservatives don't like Libertarians? Damn, I had no idea. I and my conservative friends think of you as fellow-travellers and natural allies.

Jeez, not everything is black-and-white for conservatives, you know. :) He wasn't taking the absolute (and easily disproven) position that only liberals name-call, he was saying that liberals generally start it, and are more prone to it.

those vicious, godless, amoral heathens!

hehe

Conservatives don't like Libertarians? Damn, I had no idea. I and my conservative friends think of you as fellow-travellers and natural allies.

I thought the same thing, especially the anarcho-capitalists like myself.

Actually, conservatives are just as guilty in that regard as "liberals". Being a Libertarian, I've been called quite some names by both sides.

Meh.

Don't listen to 'em. Those Libertarians are loony. ;) :D

those vicious, godless, amoral heathens!

hehe

Oh, and don't forget backstabbing hippie feminazi reverse-racist bolsheviks. :D

If you don't support the war, you're a traitor.
No, if you support the enemy in wartime You're a traitor.


If you support abortion, you're a babykiller and a satanist.

As a Satanist (and a conservative), I find this ridiculous.

If you support gay marriage, you're gay.

Huh??? Soft-headed maybe, silly, politically-correct to a point of nausea, sure, but Gay??? nope. Don't think that either.


you think that only Liberals name-call? you're either blind or ignorant.

he didn't say "Only" libs Name-call, you guys just resort to it earlier, more vehemently, and with less support than the majority of your conservative opponents. I usually find that a Lib who's losing the debate will resort to attacking his opponent with dirty names more often. Libs tend to be more aggressive about it than Falwellites do (although three out of four of your accusations are Fallwellite positions. "Conservative" is a BIG general-catagory.)
On this forum, I find that few Liberals don't do this-among the ones that argue half-way reasonably (and more-than-half effectively), are Cat-Tribe, and Sinuhue. One's a Lawyer, who argues civilly for a living, and the other is a Canadian with a less-bracketed worldview.

Conservatives don't like Libertarians? Damn, I had no idea. I and my conservative friends think of you as fellow-travellers and natural allies.

I'm not sure why; Libertarians and Conservatives have little in common. So as soon as issues come up; I tend to get "grouped" with "Liberals" by "Conservatives"; which should be of little surprise; since Libertarians would be classified as "Classic" or "Traditional" liberals (as opposed to leftist).

I'm likely to oppose state-marriages (or any state control of marriage); which favors homosexual marriage (under Common Law); which places me at odds with the bulk of conservatism.

I'm likely to be against banning abortions....

I dislike using our military as a world police force...

I think income tax is bad, for everyone.

I don't think the government should bail out companies (in this I am consistent between both corporate and social welfare concerns... I oppose both...)

I dislike using the general government for matters of personal religion or spirituality....

___

On the flip side... "Liberals" tend not to like me either:

I oppose social welfare (see above about corporate welfare as well).

I oppose affirmative action...

I dislike public schools (mostly from their heavy mismanagement). And prefer voucher programs (as long as tax is levied indiscrimately; if it weren't; it would not be an issue).

I don't like graduated tax (in fact, I dislike income tax in general) And would rather see the US return to a more "traditional" historic point of using tariffs to support itself).

I don't think the government should "regulate" so much; especially at the federal level (I'd rather see it done at the state; than federal levels).

___

All in all, either side will consider us "Brother's in arms"- that is, till we open our mouths and start talking pertinent issues.

If the US was libertarian controled; you'ld see:
1. Legalized Prostitution
2. Legalized Recreational Drugs
3. No gun laws.
4. Very little federal regulation
5. No or little income tax
6. A very small and efficient government
7. No standing military force
8. Gay-marriages would occur (merely because we would remove government involvement in marrital contracts).

And to be blunt; neither side would be happy with us...

If you don't support the war, you're a traitor.

If you support abortion, you're a babykiller and a satanist.

If you support gay marriage, you're gay.

you think that only Liberals name-call? you're either blind or ignorant.

Cool! a 2-for-1!

Actually, Tekania, a lot of the conservatives I know claim to be heirs to the Classical Liberal tradition, and they absolutely hate government. By their standards, GWB is at best a backslider and at worst a phony conservative. For myself, I recognize that the gov't is usually the least efficient way of getting something done, but I'm not doctrinaire about it. I'm more in the mould of an Edmund Burke kind of conservative.

The legalizing prostitution thingy will get a lot of backs up, but legalizing soft drugs -- the conservatives I know all say the sooner, the better.


I think income tax is bad, for everyone.

By the way, this was the deal-breaker for me. I'll argue Libertarians into the ground from now on because I'm the one person who likes income tax. Just kiddint! ;) :p

I'm likely to oppose state-marriages (or any state control of marriage); which favors homosexual marriage (under Common Law); which places me at odds with the bulk of conservatism.

I'm likely to be against banning abortions....

I dislike using our military as a world police force...

I think income tax is bad, for everyone.

I don't think the government should bail out companies (in this I am consistent between both corporate and social welfare concerns... I oppose both...)

I dislike using the general government for matters of personal religion or spirituality....

Interesting; of these, only the first two are really controversial. Conservatives generally support or don't care about the rest.



If the US was libertarian controled; you'ld see:
1. Legalized Prostitution
2. Legalized Recreational Drugs
3. No gun laws.
4. Very little federal regulation
5. No or little income tax
6. A very small and efficient government
7. No standing military force
8. Gay-marriages would occur (merely because we would remove government involvement in marrital contracts).

And to be blunt; neither side would be happy with us...


Nos. 2,3,4,5 and 6 are all just dandy for most conservatives. #7 is something many conservatives secretly wish for (it's more in accordance with the Constitution), but realize that the days of isolationism are long gone and pretending otherwise is just pie-in-the-sky idealism.

You forgot the part where if you're not liberal, you're automatically a *takes a breath*

Rabid fundamentalist fascist flag-waving nationalist extremist genocide-loving racist fanatical homophobic Christian xenophobic hypocritical poor-hating God-fearing backwater inbred redneck far right-wing Fox News-loving American hick.

Conservatives only assume liberals to be

Gay-loving God-hating pot-smoking tree-hugging unpatriotic America-hating hippies.

Who's the judgemental one now? Definitely the liberals.

Well, thats only because the "Rabid fundamentalist fascist flag-waving nationalist extremist genocide-loving racist fanatical homophobic Christian xenophobic hypocritical poor-hating God-fearing backwater inbred redneck far right-wing Fox News-loving American hicks" are just unimaginative and simple.

You forgot the part where if you're not liberal, you're automatically a *takes a breath*

Rabid fundamentalist fascist flag-waving nationalist extremist genocide-loving racist fanatical homophobic Christian xenophobic hypocritical poor-hating God-fearing backwater inbred redneck far right-wing Fox News-loving American hick.

Conservatives only assume liberals to be

Gay-loving God-hating pot-smoking tree-hugging unpatriotic America-hating hippies.

Who's the judgemental one now? Definitely the liberals.
Wrong again. Liberals just have more imagination ;)

I think the conservatives resort to namecalling much more often, and they usually do it whith things that almost makes me proud. Being Un-Patriotic is a compliment to me, if said by an American (it isn't if others call me that).

Add to that, when conservatives start calling people names, they usually throw a fit and start babbling. Effectively ending any kind of debate.

The best way to counter name calling I've so far discovered, is an immediate physical attack or a super-über polite request to stop. Charm and decency goes a long way. Ceasing the moral high ground is even better. I prefer force in real life, but that's just because it's more fun.

Anyway... I'm completely biased, because like the original poster, I prolly either don't notice the name calling from my side, or think it's warrented/fun

No, he wasn't. He was conservative.
Are you serious? Lincoln was one of the most interventionist presidents in US history; a virtual dictator. There was nothing conservative about him.

Are you serious? Lincoln was one of the most interventionist presidents in US history; a virtual dictator. There was nothing conservative about him.

He declared a state of emergency when the Civil War broke out. He had full reason to do what he did. May not be right but what he did was technically within his power to do.

I think that was probably the only reason he wasn't impeached because if tried that today, he would've been.

Actually, I went to go have lunch.

I don't know how to respond since you and I are not going to see this the same way to even have enough common ground to start from. I don't agree with you, nor do I see things the way you see them, and so you keep saying that I don't understand your point.

You say you fully and logically answered my question, I don't think you did. Several pages back someone said it was a very subjective topic. I know that. Of course it is. I just wanted some input from the other side on how they feel about it. I got the input I wanted. It seems to me that you accuse me of stifling debate for refusing to play ball your way. We're just starting from two different places in this, not just ideologically.

That last remark was petty, by the way.


Are you're eyes brown? Cause you're pretty full of poo.

Listen, it takes some guts to admit you're wrong, unfortunately, you lack those innards. If you repost my views on this thread vs yours, it would be obvious to all that your talking out of your arse. You don't answer questions, you twist things around to change the focal point when you don't want to convey the truth. You're a typical 'blinded by patriotism' conservative. All full of accusations, but nothing to back it up but you're own opinion(which won't convince anyone but yourself, in which case, you should just get a journal).

I'm done with you and you're ridiculous thread, just wanted to show you how wrong you are........you should see what would happen if we actually discussed something other than what you think liberals do. :sniper:

And to be blunt; neither side would be happy with us...

But we'd be happy and the common working person would be treated fairly.

He declared a state of emergency when the Civil War broke out. He had full reason to do what he did. May not be right but what he did was technically within his power to do.

I didn't say that anything Lincoln did was wrong. I was just challenging the assertion that he was conservative. Lucky Roach-Busters is no longer here; he would freak out if he saw that!

By the way, this was the deal-breaker for me. I'll argue Libertarians into the ground from now on because I'm the one person who likes income tax. Just kiddint! ;) :p

Well, what needs to be understood is that the LP doesn't see removing income tax as a vacuum; it's only part of it; another part is removing government overspending, and useless programs; the other is bulking up through other tax schemes (such as tariff's or sales tax)... so it's not as if they advocate no tax what-so-ever.

Even if the LP were ever to gain power; I doubt income tax would go away. LP'ers differ on an individual basis on what is better... I tend to like the tariff policy to be heavier; though some disagree with that... So I think that contention would still leave the need for some income tax still, even though I don't like it.

About Lincoln; he most certainly would have been impeached if he were around doing what he did today.

I would also freely argue that all that he did was not within his power. Unless we are to assume the Supreme Court decision regardant to his imprisonment of media personnel; and imprisonment of state legislators was legal (considering the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln on the issue; and Lincoln merely ignored them....)

All in all; there was no real reason for Lincoln to declare a state of emergency; His declaration caused more problems than it solved.

Lincoln was neither a Liberal nor a Conservative; he was a Federalist; for all intensive purposes...

About Lincoln; he most certainly would have been impeached if he were around doing what he did today.

I would also freely argue that all that he did was not within his power. Unless we are to assume the Supreme Court decision regardant to his imprisonment of media personnel; and imprisonment of state legislators was legal (considering the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln on the issue; and Lincoln merely ignored them....)

You also have to remember though that we were in a state of emergency. Thus the Constitution was literally suspended for the duration of the war. So what he did was technically legal. We have to put ourselves in his shoes to understand why he did what he did. I don't agree with everything he did but we were in a state of emergency therefore, the extreme measures he took to ensure a successful conclusion.

All in all; there was no real reason for Lincoln to declare a state of emergency; His declaration caused more problems than it solved.

So you don't consider a civil war to be a reason for a state of emergency? Thank God we didn't have you for president back then. We would've all been in trouble.

Lincoln was neither a Liberal nor a Conservative; he was a Federalist; for all intensive purposes...

I can agree with this statement.

I've seen a good deal of both sides namecalling, thank you. As it appears, many have posted, both sides do their fair share of namecalling. The entire political field has pretty much broken down to see how many insulting names you can tack onto the other side.

I noticed several people mention that abortion and gay marriage are the two items that conservatives would fight over, yet most other conservative views would be rolled over with little to no concern. I believe that is due to conservatives making themselves out as the "moral" group. They're looking straight at the real problems and then someone dangles gay marriage or abortion off to the left and they instantly zoom in on those. It seems to me that they're looking for a fight. They're hot and contested topics, and we Americans love getting confrontational.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll bring it up again here. Maybe we should stop arguing so much. I think the whole idea of liberal vs conservative (or us vs them, for that matter) should be dropped completely. Instead, think of things this way: Liberals = Conservatives = Americans. In other words, the liberals and conservatives who are fighting should look at each other not as the other side but as Americans just like them. We still live in this country. The decisions made by either side are lived with by all. So, liberals need to actually listen to conservatives as conservatives must sit down and listen to liberals. Then, after both sides know what each other want, compromise. (Yes, I've just said a terrible word for those on the extreme of either side.) Now, I don't mean compromise as in one side gets one issue their way and the other side gets it their way. I mean real compromise where both sides get split down the middle. As I see it, the country wasn't made by liberals or conservatives. It was made by Americans.