PDA

View Full Version : Left and Right Wing



ziggybabie
Dec 31, 2007, 9:31 AM
OK. I fully admit I'm not real up on politics or every issue. But just from the most casual observations, here and there, I do recognize that people on both left and right extremes in America can be annoying as hell, at times. Take the following link, first: http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson-jl/wilson-james29.html

Also, a while back, I had started making a list. Every time a "conservative" or a "liberal" did something to irritate me, I would add it to one side of the list. Stuff like the following is why I think the polarized stuff is so stupid.



left leaning/liberal

-double standards for racist minorities. Groups like NAACP and Al Sharpton are more than just pro civil rights. They are blatant bigots and only hardcore liberals would have a different level of tolerance for them than white racists.

-single out the South, as being more ignorant, when truthfully, the North is not really better, and ignorant people are fucking everywhere nowadays.

-Like to think of themselves as "free thinkers", but often just follow propaganda, just like any conservative minded individual they attack.

-anti-smoking nuts who, rather than choosing not to frequent pro-smoking places, try to get legislation passed to make sure everywhere is anti-smoking. Even in BARS. WTF?

-liberal pacifists who want to do away with our rights to bare arms

-liberals who attack "patriotism" when what they mean is conservatism. Liberal types like these are the reasons liberals are called unpatriotic.

-femi-Nazis: overblow everything men do out of proportion. Beating women is wrong. Selling sex...not so much. Hell, I'd be all for more male sexuality, personally. Even though many guys would say that's "gay". btw, there is a huge difference in my eyes between feminists and femi-nazis, so don't take my use of that term as an attack on feminists.

-pro-illegals who misuse and abuse the term "anti-immigrant" for people who support legal immigration. Even if you are for open borders, you have to be mature and make the distinction between people who are against immigration and diversity as a whole and people who just disagree with open borders and lawless chaos. No matter if our government or system is capitalist, communist, anarchist, or whatever, we cannot afford such a ridiculous amount of people simultaneously flooding one geographic location at once and draining our resources and special services (we got enough problems with certain citizens doing this, as is, much less inviting more). Calling every border control enthusiast "anti-immigrant", xenophobic or racist makes you seem like a child who simply ignores the other side's arguments, altogether, when he doesn't like them.

-vegan elitists who are intolerant of meateaters, and must attack them.

-people who are too easily offended by words and groups who try to censor speech they don't like. Of course, it only matters if you offend a minority group, with many liberals. Completely different set of rules. This arrogance and double standards shit puts many off.

-liberal pacifists who are the reason we let murderers, rapists and child molesters out of prison to do it again.

-exaggerating the effects of white privilege and selling victimization to black people. often mistake class and race issues.

-atheists or secular people who just want to act like children and act overly sensitive to any display of religion. Or act elitist, over religious people before even knowing them. You don't have to agree with organized religion (which BELIEVE ME...I don't) to respect people's rights to express it (so long as they are not trampling on others rights).

-liberals who trashtalk the troops. fucking tasteless. yes, there are a LOT of assholes, but there are a LOT of good decent people who just wanted to do their part to serve. And without any army of any sort, we would be taken over.....QUICK, and you wouldn't be typing this shit on these little websites. Just think about that.

-banning Christian kids from praying, but allowing Muslim kids a different set of rules.

-people who get offended when you attack ANY Muslims, as if you are attacking the entire religion. the extremists are a big problem.

-pro-illegals who make this nation's illegal immigration debate into a "White America" issue, ignoring all the non-white Americans including legal immigrants and their children who are against it. Also ignoring how most countries have laws concerning immigration, and Mexico's laws are MUCH harsher than ours. Singling out "White America" is racist.









right leaning/conservative

-racist statements like "I learned everything i need to know about Islam on 9/11" judging an entire group off certain extremists. (yes, there are a bunch of extremists, but not every Muslim supports terrorism. Do I think many are ignorant....well, I think many religious people in general are ignorant, including so called "Christians" in America)

-Christians who use their "faith" to be moral police: ban strip clubs, movies they don't approve of, etc.

-conservative fossils who are anti-sex ed in schools. Ignoring it because you think it's "inappropriate", won't make it go away. Kids are going to have sex. Educate them.

-complain about how homosexuality is "wrong", because the Bible says so, even when they are "sinners", too and don't follow the Bible that much. Especially rednecks. (The only people that think drunk rednecks are moral authorities are other dumb shit trashtalking hillbillies.) Hypocrites. Half of the guys don't care if it's lesbians on a Girls Gone Wild video. They really got no room to talk. PLUS, even if you are against it, making it out to be just an alternative perverted lifestyle is ignorant as fuck. They DO NOT LIKE THE OPPOSITE SEX, and never will. That goes beyond any sexual acts committed or being just a lifestyle. It's not as if they could just start liking the opposite sex tomorrow, at the drop of a hat, but choose not to.

-complain about all "Mexicans", and act racist about non-white languages and cultures. There are Hispanic-AMERICANS who are against illegal immigration, so lumping anyone who looks Hispanic into the same category or going off on someone whose talking to their grandmother in Spanish is ignorant. Also ignorant is thinking statements like "Si usted puede leer esto, usted está el país equivocado." are clever. I actually heard a guy use that. Hint: translated, it says "If you can read this, you are in the wrong country". I don't care if you're against illegal immigration. Hell, I support an official language, but I'm not an ass towards people who speak other tongues.

-overly willing to defend greedy consciousless big businesses and corporate interests who don't need to be defended. About the illegal immigration thing, for example: I'm fully for getting rid of NAFTA and WTO. Many people just want to "deport all the Mexicans" and don't care to look at our side. I fully support anything we can do to help build the Mexican economy or pressure their government to change.

-blame every poor person for their own conditions without knowing them or having been through what that person has been through. (speaking in psychological terms, usually Type A personalities--assholes- who don't know how to really stop and "smell the roses")

-racially profile all black people, because of the "niggers" and thugs and criminals. often mistake class and race.

-people that think animal abuse (dogfights) is not a problem

-people who complain about filesharers "stealing", but not the state of the music industry.

-defend our medical care system, arrogantly and don't understand that some hardworking people can't afford to pay the outlandish prices put on human lives. It's not that they don't want to pay, and they are purposely trying to take your tax dollars, you arrogant pieces of shit.

-people that try and convince you their religious views are right and the ONLY way and want to use politics to forcefeed these views to everybody. Then laughably claiming persecution when they are not allowed to bully their way into politics.

-conservatives who are so war hungry, that they could be sold on a war with ANY "Muslim" nation. (racist sacks of shit) And who act like they are too dumb to differentiate between people attacking our soldiers and people attacking the reasons and motives behind a certain war. We were built on freedom of speech, not nodding our heads along to everything our "superiors" do.

-conservatives who want to take evolution out of schools, completely, but want more "God" in schools. ("God" meaning their views on Christianity)

-anti-illegals who try and defend our ancestors takeover of Native American territory because there "weren't laws back then". Bottom line...what makes illegal aliens disrespect of our "laws" worse than the Pilgrims disrespect for the Native Americans claim to the land? Oh riiiight. We had paperwork and a "system". See where I'm going with this?

-pro-war conservatives who act like 9/11 was so much worse than any other genocide, because it happened to us, or are ignorant to how many innocents have died at OUR hands, overseas. Like American deaths are more important than other deaths or some stupid shit. Hell, most of these conservative types will even support an unnecessary war where more unnecessary innocents die overseas. Hypocritical.

-shit attitudes about environment and global warming

-(on why there aren't really many conservative musicians): "because most conservatives have jobs".....fuck, this guy is boring and well-trained. if we all thought like this sheep, we would have nothing WORTH working FOR or living for. No art, no music, no passion. Just "work, bubba." I know this isn't really political, but many conservatives need to lighten the hell up.....and TRY to think and go against the grain on occasion.










I may or may not reply a whole lot to this. If I offend anyone, please be civil in explaining why. Like I said, I don't really keep up with every issue, nowadays. This is just based on observations, i started jotting down.

DiamondDog
Dec 31, 2007, 10:13 AM
The right is wrong. The left is crazy.

the mage
Dec 31, 2007, 10:32 AM
You are simply listing the worst aspects of each extreme as though it is all encompassing of all the members of each group.

You are being a bigot.

It is not wrong to hold an extreme view on any given subject, it is ill advised to reject all opinion that does not jive with your own.

Sadly you cannot teach new things to people with closed minds. Don't be one in assuming bad of all extreme opinion. They are often valid.
Check out Winston Churchill's personal history...

ziggybabie
Dec 31, 2007, 10:45 AM
You are simply listing the worst aspects of each extreme as though it is all encompassing of all the members of each group.

You are being a bigot.

It is not wrong to hold an extreme view on any given subject, it is ill advised to reject all opinion that does not jive with your own.

Sadly you cannot teach new things to people with closed minds. Don't be one in assuming bad of all extreme opinion. They are often valid.
Check out Winston Churchill's personal history...

I never said the extreme views encompassed all members of the group. If I implied that, I am sorry. It's more about what brings them to their views than the views they hold with me. A true liberal, for example, is not just a set of textbook beliefs. It is someone who can at least humor even his opponents side and filter the good and bad with everything. As opposed to just having faith in a particular ideology, and "taking sides" to such a large degree as MANY do. Which was my main point, i guess. I don't assume bad of all extreme opinion. My belief is that even Mother Teresa had some evil and even Hitler's evil ass had some good. Ying and yang.

12voltman59
Dec 31, 2007, 10:45 AM
The fact is--most things in life and the world are gray---people at the extremes of both side always think everything is "black and white" and that their way is the only way and those who don't feel their way are "evil," "sick," "demented," "deluded," "stupid," "foolish," "facists," "traitors," etc.---

Both sides are equally guility at having a hand in making things screwed up and in preventing any substantive and necessary change from taking place.

They both have a "scorched earth" way of looking at things and it seems would rather get a preceived "win" of their point rather than to roll up their sleeves, work with whomever to set things right that does the best thing for the greatest number of people--

It is not because we have these extremes per se, that make me get bummed at our current situation--it is because those on each side would rather hold on to their respective positions and such come hell or high water and irrespective of the negative consequences that befall us all because of their actions or worse--inactions!!!

Wyatt
Dec 31, 2007, 10:51 AM
Is it? Or is it? Makes you stop and wonder if it is.

the mage
Dec 31, 2007, 10:51 AM
The fact is--most things in life and the world are gray---people at the extremes of both side always think everything is "black and white" and that their way is the only way and those who don't feel their way are "evil," "sick," "demented," "deluded," "stupid," "foolish," "facists," "traitors," etc.---

Both sides are equally guility at having a hand in making things screwed up and in preventing any substantive and necessary change from taking place.

They both have a "scorched earth" way of looking at things and it seems would rather get a preceived "win" of their point rather than to roll up their sleeves, work with whomever to set things right that does the best thing for the greatest number of people--

It is not because we have these extremes per se, that make me get bummed at our current situation--it is because those on each side would rather hold on to their respective positions and such come hell or high water and irrespective of the negative consequences that befall us all because of their actions or worse--inactions!!!..

Ziggy and 12 volt .. ok I see both points.....Part of the problem is the rich mans adversarial component in our lame political system.
Extreme views make news....

ziggybabie
Dec 31, 2007, 10:59 AM
The fact is--most things in life and the world are gray---people at the extremes of both side always think everything is "black and white" and that their way is the only way and those who don't feel their way are "evil," "sick," "demented," "deluded," "stupid," "foolish," "facists," "traitors," etc.---

Both sides are equally guility at having a hand in making things screwed up and in preventing any substantive and necessary change from taking place.

They both have a "scorched earth" way of looking at things and it seems would rather get a preceived "win" of their point rather than to roll up their sleeves, work with whomever to set things right that does the best thing for the greatest number of people--

It is not because we have these extremes per se, that make me get bummed at our current situation--it is because those on each side would rather hold on to their respective positions and such come hell or high water and irrespective of the negative consequences that befall us all because of their actions or worse--inactions!!!

I know. I wish a third political party would rise. I really liked the views of the New American Independent Party. BUT, that 3rd party crap's just a pipe dream.

ziggybabie
Dec 31, 2007, 11:01 AM
..

Ziggy and 12 volt .. ok I see both points.....Part of the problem is the rich mans adversarial component in our lame political system.
Extreme views make news....

Exactly why the "news" is a major part of the problem.

TaylorMade
Dec 31, 2007, 11:26 AM
Zig... thanks for a list that includes both... makes for a pretty fair starting point for discussion.

:three:

*Taylor*

andy1964
Dec 31, 2007, 2:10 PM
The main stream media is way to conservative we need way more Liberal reporters.

TaylorMade
Dec 31, 2007, 2:27 PM
The main stream media is way to conservative we need way more Liberal reporters.

I think there are alot of liberal reporters. I've been around journalists at all levels, and know that it's probably 60/40 in favor of liberals.. the question is, are they liberal enough for YOU?

If they're not... you'll have to do what people on the right have done: read and participate in blogs and news co-operatives. . .being aware ain't for the lazy, that's for sure.

*Taylor*

shameless agitator
Dec 31, 2007, 4:03 PM
Great thread Ziggy. Being an uber lefty, I don't think anybody will be surprised that I agreed with all of the shit you said about the neo-cons. What might surprise some, is I think you were right about the libs too. I don't think there's anything wrong with having an extreme position, but it does need to be well reasoned and caricaturizing your opponents doesn't do anybody any good.

pasco_lol_cpl
Dec 31, 2007, 4:34 PM
Great list and it illustrates why I cant stand either set of the extremes. If I had to say Id put myself in the category of libertarian / moderate. I chose libertarian because I recognize that both parties want to control my life and both want to put in some sort of nanny state in place. I picked moderate in that I acknowledge that there is a compromise that can be reached in many instances.

the mage
Jan 2, 2008, 10:31 AM
A 3rd party can work, it does here in Canada, but it is no longer the issue.
The bigger issue is that your government is not in control.
It is the big corporations that mould opinion.
They own the "news" stations and like everything else, the news is on air to sell cereal and drugs to mom and dad.

softfruit
Jan 2, 2008, 3:55 PM
Mostly I think the list reflects that;

a) it needs a (US) tag on the topic line because in other countries even though some of the issues are the same, the political divide is very different; here in the UK for instance a lot of the things you tag as being "liberal" would not fit with liberal parties and politics at all, they're about socialism which is an authoritarian ideology with a whole different political direction from liberalism. The USA's one-and-a-half party system skews things hugely.

b) how right wing US politics is as a whole

Though the aspect which particularly strikes me from the list is on the "right to bare arms" (I guess you mean bear not bare - outlawing bare arms would take a fairly damn authoritarian / theist government!) It made sense at the time of revolution; now it's as dated as the religious instructions about not eating foods that spoiled readily which made sense in the Middle East before the refrigerator was invented: to pretty well everyone not raised in the US or not raised in those religions it's just daft.

TaylorMade
Jan 2, 2008, 8:52 PM
b) how right wing US politics is as a whole

Though the aspect which particularly strikes me from the list is on the "right to bare arms" (I guess you mean bear not bare - outlawing bare arms would take a fairly damn authoritarian / theist government!) It made sense at the time of revolution; now it's as dated as the religious instructions about not eating foods that spoiled readily which made sense in the Middle East before the refrigerator was invented: to pretty well everyone not raised in the US or not raised in those religions it's just daft.

Not really - - being armed as a form of self-defense to me seems even MORE relevant, especially among the LBGT population. I do wonder how many fewer Transpeople would be assaulted if they had a weapon and training to use it.

"Armed Gays and Bi's don't get bashed!"

*Taylor*

darkeyes
Jan 2, 2008, 9:31 PM
The right is wrong. The left is crazy.

Doggie ya knows sod all..the rite r selfish arrogant bastards..the left r rite, but 2 divided 2 hav the effect it shud... crazy??? is me crazy?? seems 2 me me bout 1a the few peeps in ere that is ne thin but...mayb that makes me sound like a rite winger..arrogant...tho am not reely...jus hav a pasiion wich is so deep insida me that me has a belief in wer humanity shud b headed... a belief in that we will get betta...ur lil statement is the statement of despair an that nowt will eva change..... but then lots likeya... tf me aint 1... but jeez.. am prepared 2 admit the evidence is on ur side... don make me guilty tho...evidence has been rong before!!! An will b gain!!! Happy New Year DD...enjoy!

The Barefoot Contess
Jan 3, 2008, 12:12 AM
The right is wrong. The left is right.

TaylorMade
Jan 3, 2008, 12:16 AM
The right is wrong. The left is right.

Absolutist statements such as this do nothing but prove Ziggy's point that both sides have plenty to work on. If neither side admits it. . .it simply is arrogance reflecting back on arrogance.

And that makes those in middle say, "Fuck you both; I'm watching American Idol."

*Taylor*
(Being left handed makes you right brained and forces you to think from both sides)

pasco_lol_cpl
Jan 3, 2008, 12:21 AM
And that makes those in middle say, "Fuck you both; I'm watching American Idol."
Ok now thats going too far. I mean 'American Idol' of all things? :tong:

TaylorMade
Jan 3, 2008, 12:23 AM
Ok now thats going too far. I mean 'American Idol' of all things? :tong:

Damn!

*Taylor*

(In denouncing extremes, I went to extremes. Ain't that the way?)

The Barefoot Contess
Jan 3, 2008, 12:28 AM
Absolutist statements such as this do nothing but prove Ziggy's point that both sides have plenty to work on. If neither side admits it. . .it simply is arrogance reflecting back on arrogance.

And that makes those in middle say, "Fuck you both; I'm watching American Idol."

*Taylor*
(Being left handed makes you right brained and forces you to think from both sides)

Both the right and the left make mistakes and can be wrong.
We should not make the mistake, however, of thinking that mistakes made in the name of the right or the left actually reflect those ideologies' positions: for instance, when Chavez in Venezuela says he works for socialism, or when Le Pen in France calls himself conservative - we cannot equate totalitarian tendencies to socialism, or racism to conservatism. In other words, Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who had little to do with Marxism as the doctrine was intended, therefore we cannot blame the doctrine for its supposed practitioners' policies.

TaylorMade
Jan 3, 2008, 12:33 AM
Both the right and the left make mistakes and can be wrong.
We should not make the mistake, however, of thinking that mistakes made in the name of the right or the left actually reflect those ideologies' positions: for instance, when Chavez in Venezuela says he works for socialism, or when Le Pen in France calls himself conservative - we cannot equate totalitarian tendencies to socialism, or racism to conservatism. In other words, Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who had little to do with Marxism as the doctrine was intended, therefore we cannot blame the doctrine for its supposed practitioners' policies.

Thanks for the backtrack. :bigrin:

*Taylor*

Not2str8
Jan 3, 2008, 12:48 AM
I think that over the years since the founding of the U.S., the meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have become blurred, and certainly obscured by members of both camps. It strikes me as funny that so many so-called "conservatives" hold views that are quite traditionally "liberal" positions, particularly in areas of personal freedom, economic policy, and civil liberty. Let me point out a few things.
For almost all of recorded human history, a middle class is almost completely unheard of. The same can be said for "democracy". Throughout most of human history, an unregulated economy and a hierarchical social structure has always produced a small elite ruling class, and masses of impoverished citizens. Up until the founding of the United States, nearly all political philosophers and economists considered a middle class to be unnatural. As early as 1651, Thomas Hobbes, considered one of Conservatism's architects, believed that most people would be happy to exchange personal freedoms and economic opportunity for the ability to live in safety and security. (sound familiar ?)For the working class to have both freedom and security, he suggested, was impossible. This is the traditional "Conservative" viewpoint. That the masses are incapable of self governance, and that society functions best when power is ceded to an elite aristocracy, (today it is a corporatocracy) who will, it is supposed, act in the best interests of all. The founding fathers (the original radical liberals), proposed something that the conventional wisdom of the day held would never work. They proposed that ordinary citizens could govern themselves. But they knew that for democracy to survive, an educated populace was an absolute necessity. This is why Thomas Jefferson instituted a policy of free public education for all citizens, all the way through college, with the founding of the University of Virginia. (a "Liberal" policy) The state university system of free education to all was in place until Gov. Ronald Reagan ended enrollment at the last school to offer it, the University of California, in 1966. (a "Conservative" policy.) As it stands now, 80% of graduating high school seniors claim that they will never again voluntarily read another book. This suits our conservative leaders just fine. The biggest threat to their rule is an educated "rabble."
"Liberalism" at it's core believes that government works best when it serves the needs of "We the People" rather than a tiny minority of the hyper-wealthy and the corporate elite, as it does now, after the last 27 years of "conservative" leadership. Liberalism created the middle class in this country, by means of progressive taxation, Social Security, fair labor laws, enforcing anti-trust laws, and supporting American workers' right to join unions and collectively bargain for living wages and safe working conditions.
So I guess the bottom line is.....if you believe in a society reminiscent of Charles Dickens' Victorian London, where all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite, and the masses have to settle for whatever scraps the aristocrats deign to throw them, then you are probably a "Conservative".
If you believe that the best interests of the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) are served by making sure the populace is well educated, has health insurance, has job security, is well fed, and has financial security once we are too old to work, then you my friend, are probably a "Liberal". *gasp*
These opinions reflect what I believe are the core values of each system, and not necessarily how each group acts when it gains political power. I am well aware of the excesses, and misguided efforts that some of our "liberal" politicians have engaged in, despite good intentions. We need to learn from their mistakes. But liberalism is what made this country great, and it will not see greatness again until we return to it. Clearly, the "conservative" philosophy as it has been practiced recently, has failed us. (Sorry for the lengthy rant....sometimes I just can't help it.) :tongue:

ziggybabie
Jan 3, 2008, 1:39 PM
A 3rd party can work, it does here in Canada, but it is no longer the issue.
The bigger issue is that your government is not in control.
It is the big corporations that mould opinion.
They own the "news" stations and like everything else, the news is on air to sell cereal and drugs to mom and dad.

I just meant a 3rd party gaining power in America is a pipe dream. Not that it couldn't work. They have been around since my father's youth and before that, and aren't going anywhere, any time soon.


Mostly I think the list reflects that;

a) it needs a (US) tag on the topic line because in other countries even though some of the issues are the same, the political divide is very different; here in the UK for instance a lot of the things you tag as being "liberal" would not fit with liberal parties and politics at all, they're about socialism which is an authoritarian ideology with a whole different political direction from liberalism. The USA's one-and-a-half party system skews things hugely.

b) how right wing US politics is as a whole

Though the aspect which particularly strikes me from the list is on the "right to bare arms" (I guess you mean bear not bare - outlawing bare arms would take a fairly damn authoritarian / theist government!) It made sense at the time of revolution; now it's as dated as the religious instructions about not eating foods that spoiled readily which made sense in the Middle East before the refrigerator was invented: to pretty well everyone not raised in the US or not raised in those religions it's just daft.

I should have made it clear that I meant the U.S. My knowledge is admittedly limited and more local to the U.S.


Not really - - being armed as a form of self-defense to me seems even MORE relevant, especially among the LBGT population. I do wonder how many fewer Transpeople would be assaulted if they had a weapon and training to use it.

"Armed Gays and Bi's don't get bashed!"

*Taylor*

To think the government and law enforcement can be trusted with guns, but we cannot has just always seemed incredibly naive, to me. I had an old friend who was talking about how the militias have been demonized to high hell, but were ORIGINALLY just meant as a safeguard in case the government got out of control.


Both the right and the left make mistakes and can be wrong.
We should not make the mistake, however, of thinking that mistakes made in the name of the right or the left actually reflect those ideologies' positions: for instance, when Chavez in Venezuela says he works for socialism, or when Le Pen in France calls himself conservative - we cannot equate totalitarian tendencies to socialism, or racism to conservatism. In other words, Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who had little to do with Marxism as the doctrine was intended, therefore we cannot blame the doctrine for its supposed practitioners' policies.

OK, well, you could say the same for Christianity, but the extremes are what people complain about and the most outspoken/visible. I never said they repped all of that ideology.

The Barefoot Contess
Jan 3, 2008, 3:04 PM
OK, well, you could say the same for Christianity.

I think I know what you mean, but how would you define Christianity and/or its doctrine? In other words, where do you draw the line between Christ and his followers? I mean, the Bible itself is pretty intolerant: is the Bible Jesus' doctrine or his followers'?

ziggybabie
Jan 3, 2008, 3:34 PM
I think I know what you mean, but how would you define Christianity and/or its doctrine? In other words, where do you draw the line between Christ and his followers? I mean, the Bible itself is pretty intolerant: is the Bible Jesus' doctrine or his followers'?

I mean, there are at least fifty different interpretations of the book. On one end, you have the people who focus mainly on the love part. They take it less as a strict rulebook, and more as a personal guideline for their own lives. On the other end, you have the people who take it literally and use it for self-gain and political power.

As with liberal politics, where you have people that just follow a textbook set of beliefs and you have those that question EVERYTHING, even from their "trusted sources". To the best of their ability. If you honestly, just think all the "textbook liberal" positions are correct, and that comes from looking at everything objectively, rather than just following the propaganda of a certain ideologie(s), that's fine. BUT, in my opinion, that is a small minority of people who use the term liberal. Much like the first group of Christians above.

However, I judge people on an individual basis. I TRY (key word here, since I think we all do it at times) not to blindly stereotype someone whom I do not know.

softfruit
Jan 3, 2008, 4:31 PM
Not really - - being armed as a form of self-defense to me seems even MORE relevant, especially among the LBGT population. I do wonder how many fewer Transpeople would be assaulted if they had a weapon and training to use it.

That'll be why the US is admired the world over as the violent-crime-free nation it is. :bigrin:

TaylorMade
Jan 3, 2008, 6:01 PM
That'll be why the US is admired the world over as the violent-crime-free nation it is. :bigrin:

And the UK isn't much safer, soft...let's not pretend that it is.

I'll take my chances where the law allows me to stand my ground instead of waiting for the police to come and collect my body.

*Taylor*

the mage
Jan 3, 2008, 6:13 PM
I think that over the years since the founding of the U.S., the meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" have become blurred, and certainly obscured by members of both camps. It strikes me as funny that so many so-called "conservatives" hold views that are quite traditionally "liberal" positions, particularly in areas of personal freedom, economic policy, and civil liberty. Let me point out a few things.
For almost all of recorded human history, a middle class is almost completely unheard of. The same can be said for "democracy". Throughout most of human history, an unregulated economy and a hierarchical social structure has always produced a small elite ruling class, and masses of impoverished citizens. Up until the founding of the United States, nearly all political philosophers and economists considered a middle class to be unnatural. As early as 1651, Thomas Hobbes, considered one of Conservatism's architects, believed that most people would be happy to exchange personal freedoms and economic opportunity for the ability to live in safety and security. (sound familiar ?)For the working class to have both freedom and security, he suggested, was impossible. This is the traditional "Conservative" viewpoint. That the masses are incapable of self governance, and that society functions best when power is ceded to an elite aristocracy, (today it is a corporatocracy) who will, it is supposed, act in the best interests of all. The founding fathers (the original radical liberals), proposed something that the conventional wisdom of the day held would never work. They proposed that ordinary citizens could govern themselves. But they knew that for democracy to survive, an educated populace was an absolute necessity. This is why Thomas Jefferson instituted a policy of free public education for all citizens, all the way through college, with the founding of the University of Virginia. (a "Liberal" policy) The state university system of free education to all was in place until Gov. Ronald Reagan ended enrollment at the last school to offer it, the University of California, in 1966. (a "Conservative" policy.) As it stands now, 80% of graduating high school seniors claim that they will never again voluntarily read another book. This suits our conservative leaders just fine. The biggest threat to their rule is an educated "rabble."
"Liberalism" at it's core believes that government works best when it serves the needs of "We the People" rather than a tiny minority of the hyper-wealthy and the corporate elite, as it does now, after the last 27 years of "conservative" leadership. Liberalism created the middle class in this country, by means of progressive taxation, Social Security, fair labor laws, enforcing anti-trust laws, and supporting American workers' right to join unions and collectively bargain for living wages and safe working conditions.
So I guess the bottom line is.....if you believe in a society reminiscent of Charles Dickens' Victorian London, where all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy elite, and the masses have to settle for whatever scraps the aristocrats deign to throw them, then you are probably a "Conservative".
If you believe that the best interests of the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) are served by making sure the populace is well educated, has health insurance, has job security, is well fed, and has financial security once we are too old to work, then you my friend, are probably a "Liberal". *gasp*
These opinions reflect what I believe are the core values of each system, and not necessarily how each group acts when it gains political power. I am well aware of the excesses, and misguided efforts that some of our "liberal" politicians have engaged in, despite good intentions. We need to learn from their mistakes. But liberalism is what made this country great, and it will not see greatness again until we return to it. Clearly, the "conservative" philosophy as it has been practiced recently, has failed us. (Sorry for the lengthy rant....sometimes I just can't help it.) :tongue:

............Applause!!..................well said...........
The rarity of the middle class and the war being waged against it is not seen by the very middle class that so fleetingly existed..(he says in strange tense intentionally;)...

the mage
Jan 3, 2008, 6:21 PM
That'll be why the US is admired the world over as the violent-crime-free nation it is. :bigrin:


................Per capita we Canadians have more guns by far.... They are not banned here, as believed often. Violence is cultural, not in the weapons at hand.

pasco_lol_cpl
Jan 3, 2008, 6:26 PM
Damn!

*Taylor*

(In denouncing extremes, I went to extremes. Ain't that the way?)
Itsokay http://www.abcalc.biz/images/smilies/yousuckbutistillloveyou.gif


Not really - - being armed as a form of self-defense to me seems even MORE relevant, especially among the LBGT population. I do wonder how many fewer Transpeople would be assaulted if they had a weapon and training to use it.

"Armed Gays and Bi's don't get bashed!"

*Taylor*
www.pinkpistols.org

But I think were veering into another topic entirely. The fact is that extremism of any any flavor is a bad thing. It leaves no room for compromise or growth. Radical and rabid beliefs held to and employed with vigor is , IMO, the greatest threat to our planet as a whole. Unfortunately in the US at least the political parties are deathly afraid of a more moderate approach for fear that the extremists of both parties would then vote for what they perceive as a valid 3rd party candidate, thus draining support from one of the two major party candidates. Like wise its a fear held by the electorate as well. So they vote for the party which they have the most in common for fear of 'wasting' their votes. Its a sad, self fulfilling cycle.