BTW, am I the only one who read the thread title and expected the OP would be Pitting the killer?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
BTW, am I the only one who read the thread title and expected the OP would be Pitting the killer?
[/QUOTE]
You must not have read the name of the OP before opening the thread, then. Surely you have encountered him before?
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
The thing is, there’s a thin line between tough and callous. As a movement, American conservatism has turned mean-spirited and callous. The weak are not to be pitied or helped, they are to be laughed at and scorned.
[/QUOTE]
This is the second time you’ve said this, and I’m going to have to take issue with it. The conflict between conservative/liberal ideology is not one of compassionate liberals fighting off callous and mean conservatives, it’s simpler than that. Conservative and liberal ideology, as they exist today in America, often boils down to responsibility and consequences. Conservatives want every individual to accept responsibility for the actions and results, liberals try as hard as they can to shield people from the consequences of their poor decisions. You mentioned Katrina, it’s a good example. Someone fails to evacuate Nawlins, and is now sitting neck deep in polluted water in their living room. The conservative will say “What did you expect, he was told the storm was coming, he was told to evacuate, he did neither. He got want was coming to him.” This isn’t a callous attitude, saying that he deserved to be flooded out, but one based in simple recognition of the fact that the man is where he is because of the decisions he made. The liberal, on the other hand, will offer excuses “He couldn’t evacuate, he hasn’t a car/he’s black and Bush hates black people/we’ve got to help that poor man!”. The conservative looks at the liberal and sees an idiot trying to excuse the man’s poor decisions, and the liberal looks at the conservative and sees a cold hearted bastard looking to blame the victim. Neither side’s perception of the other is accurate.
The screamingly ironic thing rarely admitted by either side is that both of them will have the same reaction: Well, we better send help. Their motivations each has for sending help are about as far apart as possible, however, which is why each side rarely recognizes them in the other. The liberal wants to send help because the man needs help, regardless of why he’s in that position. The conservative sends help because he has the ability to do so, in spite of the reason the man needs that help. It’s the difference between entitlement and compassion. The liberal claims “He’s entitled to our help” while the conservative says “Bullshit, we don’t owe him shit, but we have the ability to help, so we should”. Once again each side sees the other as heartless or hopelessly soft, neither is the case, just two different motivations.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
The conflict between conservative/liberal ideology is not one of compassionate liberals fighting off callous and mean conservatives, it’s simpler than that.
[/QUOTE]
Based on the tortuous mental gymnastics in the remainder of the paragraph, “simpler” is definitely not the word you needed in that sentence. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Based on the tortuous mental gymnastics in the remainder of the paragraph, “simpler” is definitely not the word you needed in that sentence. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Care to elaborate, or is this simply another one of your pointless bon mots?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Care to elaborate, or is this simply another one of your pointless bon mots?
[/QUOTE]
The point is that positing a dichotomy between conservatives and liberals over “responsibility and consequences” is not by any means simpler than a dichotomy WRT “compassionate liberals fighting off callous and mean conservatives.”
Every bit of this is bullshit, and it’s made even more laughable by the extraordinary unaccountability of the current administration.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
Cervaise, this is against the forum rules, which explicitly state not to wish death on other posters.
[/QUOTE]
Even in the Pit? 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Every bit of this is bullshit, and it’s made even more laughable by the extraordinary unaccountability of the current administration.
[/QUOTE]
When someone as biased, dishonest and idiotic as you disagrees with something I’ve posted, I know I’m on the right track.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Even in the Pit?
[/QUOTE]
Yep. From the Pit Forum Rules:
[QUOTE=Pit Forum Rules]
Do not threaten harm or wish death on another poster
Do not threaten another poster with physical harm, or wish for their demise. This includes hypothetical statements like “it would make me happy if someone ran you over” or “I hope you say that to [someone prone to stabbing people] and they stab you”.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Really? I’m “political point scoring”? You find my observations about his comments on the stupidity and naivete of progressives to be almost as offensive as his OP?
Then your evaluation of what is right and wrong is completely fucked up, and I invite you to go fuck yourself in the hopes that you set it all right again.
Of course I know conservatives that wouldn’t wish harm on others. I also know many who would, and many who write stupid shit like this on the internet. I know many who call other people cowards and Saddamites and faggots because of their political views. This piece of shit is happy that a “progressive” got killed because of her “stupidity.” Don’t like it? Then put an end to it by cleaning up your party, so that Karl Rove doesn’t have to come up with bullshit slogans about how compassionate conservatives are.
Of course, you won’t because you’re as troubled by my “political point scoring” as you are of his gloating over the murder of a woman.
[/QUOTE]
Your previous post was piffle.
Nothing you have written in this post changes that fact.
Which really leaves little else to say.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
This is the second time you’ve said this, and I’m going to have to take issue with it. The conflict between conservative/liberal ideology is not one of compassionate liberals fighting off callous and mean conservatives, it’s simpler than that. Conservative and liberal ideology, as they exist today in America, often boils down to responsibility and consequences. Conservatives want every individual to accept responsibility for the actions and results, liberals try as hard as they can to shield people from the consequences of their poor decisions. You mentioned Katrina, it’s a good example. Someone fails to evacuate Nawlins, and is now sitting neck deep in polluted water in their living room. The conservative will say “What did you expect, he was told the storm was coming, he was told to evacuate, he did neither. He got want was coming to him.” This isn’t a callous attitude, saying that he deserved to be flooded out, but one based in simple recognition of the fact that the man is where he is because of the decisions he made. The liberal, on the other hand, will offer excuses “He couldn’t evacuate, he hasn’t a car/he’s black and Bush hates black people/we’ve got to help that poor man!”. The conservative looks at the liberal and sees an idiot trying to excuse the man’s poor decisions, and the liberal looks at the conservative and sees a cold hearted bastard looking to blame the victim. Neither side’s perception of the other is accurate.
The screamingly ironic thing rarely admitted by either side is that both of them will have the same reaction: Well, we better send help. Their motivations each has for sending help are about as far apart as possible, however, which is why each side rarely recognizes them in the other. The liberal wants to send help because the man needs help, regardless of why he’s in that position. The conservative sends help because he has the ability to do so, in spite of the reason the man needs that help. It’s the difference between entitlement and compassion. The liberal claims “He’s entitled to our help” while the conservative says “Bullshit, we don’t owe him shit, but we have the ability to help, so we should”. Once again each side sees the other as heartless or hopelessly soft, neither is the case, just two different motivations.
[/QUOTE]
As a general stereotype, I agree mostly with this, with the caveat to Diogenes and crew that once again, this administration is not truly conservative.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Conservatives want every individual to accept responsibility for the actions and results
[/QUOTE]
Clearly evidenced by The National Review’s relentess crusade to impeach the current President and Vice President.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
This is the second time you’ve said this, and I’m going to have to take issue with it. The conflict between conservative/liberal ideology is not one of compassionate liberals fighting off callous and mean conservatives, it’s simpler than that. Conservative and liberal ideology, as they exist today in America, often boils down to responsibility and consequences. Conservatives want every individual to accept responsibility for the actions and results, liberals try as hard as they can to shield people from the consequences of their poor decisions. You mentioned Katrina, it’s a good example. Someone fails to evacuate Nawlins, and is now sitting neck deep in polluted water in their living room. The conservative will say “What did you expect, he was told the storm was coming, he was told to evacuate, he did neither. He got want was coming to him.” This isn’t a callous attitude, saying that he deserved to be flooded out, but one based in simple recognition of the fact that the man is where he is because of the decisions he made. The liberal, on the other hand, will offer excuses “He couldn’t evacuate, he hasn’t a car/he’s black and Bush hates black people/we’ve got to help that poor man!”. The conservative looks at the liberal and sees an idiot trying to excuse the man’s poor decisions, and the liberal looks at the conservative and sees a cold hearted bastard looking to blame the victim. Neither side’s perception of the other is accurate.
The screamingly ironic thing rarely admitted by either side is that both of them will have the same reaction: Well, we better send help. Their motivations each has for sending help are about as far apart as possible, however, which is why each side rarely recognizes them in the other. The liberal wants to send help because the man needs help, regardless of why he’s in that position. The conservative sends help because he has the ability to do so, in spite of the reason the man needs that help. It’s the difference between entitlement and compassion. The liberal claims “He’s entitled to our help” while the conservative says “Bullshit, we don’t owe him shit, but we have the ability to help, so we should”. Once again each side sees the other as heartless or hopelessly soft, neither is the case, just two different motivations.
[/QUOTE]
Well put, and thought-provoking.
For my part, I have no idea whether I’m a liberal or conservative. It seems somewhat situational, and offen in oposition to whatever the prevailing view is - here on this Board I tend to lean conservative; in other places, I’m liberal. 
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
Your previous post was piffle.
Nothing you have written in this post changes that fact.
Which really leaves little else to say.
[/QUOTE]
Then thanks for saying so little, and remember to go fuck yourself.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
As a general stereotype, I agree mostly with this, with the caveat to Diogenes and crew that once again, this administration is not truly conservative.
[/QUOTE]
Are they truly Scotsmen?
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
As a general stereotype, I agree mostly with this, with the caveat to Diogenes and crew that once again, this administration is not truly conservative.
[/QUOTE]
It is, I should think, by at least one of the various current definitions.
Look, can’t we just agree that both liberals AND conservatives can be dicks at time? Dave, Dio, I’m looking in YOUR directions. Neither side has got a monopoly on assholery.
And then get back to the OP, which has nothing to do with political leanings, and everything to do with being a fucked up sociopath?
[QUOTE=Malthus]
For my part, I have no idea whether I’m a liberal or conservative. It seems somewhat situational, and offen in oposition to whatever the prevailing view is - here on this Board I tend to lean conservative; in other places, I’m liberal.
[/QUOTE]
I recall reading in a bio of Clarence Darrow: He would be invited to address a labor union conference or a Socialist Party do, and he would speak in praise of free-market capitalism; then a couple of hours later he would be on the other side of town to speak to a high-society event or industrialists’ conclave, and his topic would be “Down with the rich!”
Kept his wits sharp, I suppose.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
For my part, I have no idea whether I’m a liberal or conservative. It seems somewhat situational, and offen in oposition to whatever the prevailing view is - here on this Board I tend to lean conservative; in other places, I’m liberal.
[/QUOTE]
At this point in time, I feel unrepresented by either side because of bullshit fingerpointing from both sides; nationally as well as here on this board. Not sure if you’re feeling the same way as I do, but there it is.
But my over all view in this thread is why the hell are we squabbling in this thread over American political ideologies when it should be about the ultimate betrayal of an over-trusting Italian woman in the hands an alleged long-time criminal in the country of Turkey?