I feel obligated to point out your prejudiced bullshit. This mischaracterization is deliberate deceit. It is simple name-calling.
Some people lack the inner resources to look at things objectively. Instead, they insist on demonizing their opponents in order to keep their little fantasy world safe from collisions with reality.
Your post is a slander and a lie.
Yes, and I suppose industriousness doesn’t sit well with black people.
Prejudice bullshit. Deliberate mischaracterization. A lie.
This is the worst kind of ignorance. You are deliberately slandering others.
**
Your words are disgusting. You speak the language of hate and bigotry. You are making things up and ascribing them to people to justify your own ability to grasp reality.
Your hate has made you blind. It sickens me.
**
There are other people at the other end of this message board. You don’t nothing about me. What I abhor, and what I don’t.
But now I know something about you. Your words cannot come from a compassionate person. They cannot come from a person interested in truth or understanding. It’s a lie designed to hurt another.
You lie, demonize, bear false witness, slander, spew hate and bigotry and you dare to speak of compassion?
No surprise that. Do you also bring rope to lynchings?
clearly demonstrated? How, exactly?
Do you claim to know what ideologies I espouse?
Do you claim to know what I believe?
Do you claim to know what my political views are on the various issues facing the nation?
How arrogant.
A clear definition of Conservative from a liberal opinion column? How very objective.
Excuse me? Apparently you do claim to know all my opinions and beliefs, since you feel compelled to slap a slanted definition on me that attempts to sum up an entire ideology. Perhaps you could exercise some intellectual honesty yourself and actually reply to the point I was making, rather than inventing new ones and ascribing them to me.
I’d better reiterate the point I was arguing, since you appear to have missed it:
Compassion is an individual trait. Compassion is not a trait that can or should be ascribed to a political party. Liberals do not have a monopoly on compassion.
In addition, I feel compelled to add one more point to this: There is not only one solution to a given problem that can be described as “compassionate”.
If you have some sort of argument to refute this, then by all means, make it. If you feel further compelled to make blanket statements about my beliefs or views, which you do not even know, then please simply read Scylla’s above post to Fear Itself, and substitute your own name in.
Well. boo-fucking-hoo, I guess Scylla doesn’t like me. You know, for one who whined about my post being “simple name-calling” you throw around epithets like liar and bigot very freely. Add hypocrisy to the list of conservative traits I find so appealing.
But where you find hatred in my words, I am mystified. I don’t hate conservatives, I just find little to respect about a political philosophy based on greed and self-interest. But then, that’s it, isn’t it Scylla? My lack of respect is what has you so angry; the values you defend are so lacking in moral direction, so ethically bankrupt, the slightest challenge to their veracity must be met with an overwhelming force of righteous indignation.
How dare I speak of compassion? It is your arrogant president who has co-opted the word and twisted it into selfish, mean-spirited shadow of its former intent. I will not stand by while the conservative cabal does to Compassion what they did to pervert concepts like Liberty, Patriotism, and Freedom.
Your hysterical reaction tells me my words struck closer to the truth than your brittle ideology can tolerate. Grow a skin, then come back when you are prepared to offer more than insults and abject denial.
This is in fact incorrect. Conservatism, like liberalism, is premised on the notion that the solutions it provides will lead to the best overall results for everyone. Just because you reach different conclusions in determining the best solutions for various social ills does not mean that those reaching opposite conclusions are evil or selfish.
Maybe college attendance has fallen because people are finding out that after 4 years of college, there are few jobs available, and you are left with a skill that is filled by companies outsourcing to India, and all you have is a huge college loan that is not discharged by bankruptcy.
Furhtermore, GWB is not a conservative.
Who ever said he was? Certainly no conservative would say bush is conservative. Bush is from the liberal wing of the republican party, he is a liberal, not a conservative.
Monstre - I will quote you once again: “The political view of a person primarily indicates what methods he/she thinks are best to solve the problems.” Clearly demonstrated means this statement is quite simply erroneous. Conservatism and Liberalism are ideologies, not methodologies.
Furthermore, I agree with you that compassion is an individual characteristic and also agree that no ideology has a monopoly on compassion. Nothing I said contravenes your statement.
You are quite right to question anyone else’s true awareness of your ideas and opinions. I was not doing so. The reason I use the term “self-delusional” is that you argue from a belief (as best I can understand it from your aforementioned definition of conservatism as a methodology) that this whole debate is about engineering - what is the best process to yield a solution. What you and other conservatives on this board continually fail to grasp (again, I can only base this on what I read in black and white - I’m not a mind reader, so if people post what they don’t actually mean, not my problem) is that the debate is about ideas, not methods. If you can’t agree upon what the desired outcome is, how can you effectively devise a methodology? Formulating that outcome is a question of ideology, NOT methodology. In my opinion, continuing to bicker about apples, when clearly the problem is oranges, is either simple ignorance or wilfull obstruction so as to perpetuate the status quo.
So, after all that, we are left with complete agreement between us that no one can claim to know the mind of another - we can only guess by what they post. Given that, let us then look at the Bush administration’s equivalent of a post: the public policy choices they have made since assuming office. Based on that evidence, an objective observer is forced to conclude there is no “compassion” in the current conservative agenda - in more detailed terms, the outcomes resulting from the methodology are not those that are traditionally associated with compassion: job loss, unequal access to services, increased social polarization, armed international conflict, abdication of international civic responsibility, and wilfull degredation of the environment.
My words may come across as partisan because they appear so overwhelmingly stacked on the negative side of the ledger. But if you analyze the issues we’re all discussing in an empirical fashion, not trying to read in motivations or “spin”, the evidence points compellingly in a particular direction.
Susanann is exactly right - this Bush is like no “conservative” this world has ever seen.
I doubt that college attendance among the poor has stagnated to a large degree due to the inability to find a job after graduating. The overall rate of college attendance has actually risen steadily over the past few decades. College attendance rates of students from low income families, however, has not increased at the same rate. That implicates the rising cost of college as the prime suspect. College costs more than doubled between 1981 and 2000. Financial aid and median income also rose during that time period however the increase was not enough to offset skyrocketing education costs. This increase in real cost to postsecondary education is most strongly felt by low income families. This analysis of a number of studies shows how the rising costs of college have disproportionately affected attendance of low income students. This and this article compares the rising costs to family income. Although costs have increased this study indicates that provided low income students take the proper financial aid measures they are as likely to enroll as middle income families.
Large scale outsourcing of certain sectors to India is a relatively recent phenomenon that I don’t believe would measurably and disproportionately impact the college attendance rates of low income students. However, I’m certainly willing to examine any evidence you submit.
What definition of conservative and liberal are you using in this discussion? What characteristics does Bush possess which places him in the liberal camp in your opinion?
Big government (see Dept. of Homeland Security, Patriot Act)
Protectionism and subsidies (see imported steel tariffs, farm subsidies in protest of EU objections to genetically modified imports, bailout of major airlines)
Unchecked federal spending
Won’t go as far as Susanann as to call him a liberal. The point she’s making, however, is that he doesn’t even fit the profile of a real conservative. Sure, tax cuts and industry deregulation, but you gotta admit that the three examples above are real biggies that directly contravene the usual mantra of conservatism.
I will concede that upon re-reading my paragraph, I found this to be a poorly worded sentence, and I don’t think it clearly expresses the point I was stating, and I was trying to be brief. I wasn’t even particularly happy with the grammar when writing the post, but a better phrasing was not coming to mind at the time.
Thanks for taking it out of context, though, and failing to notice that in the next sentence I expressed that not everybody even agrees on what the important issues are (which would indicate differences in ideology as well).
Here is a clarification of that paragraph, in hopes that my points will read a bit more clearly.
Compassion is an individual trait, not a blanket quality of a political party or government agency. Clearly not everybody agrees even on the problems that need to be addressed, but I believe that there are many overall goals that the majority of the populace, conservative and liberal alike, have in common. I believe that both conservatives and liberals wish for peace, properity, and health for the people of our country. I believe that both conservatives and liberals would like to achieve a society in which its people do not have to go without the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing. I do not for a minute claim that all political ideologies have all of the same goals, but I do believe that there are some goals in common.
For these common goals, there are clearly differences in opinion on how they should be achieved (i.e. these would certainly be differences in metholodology, which certainly also exist, as do the differences in ideologies). And when there is a common overall goal involving complex issues, it is pretty dishonest for a person to say, ‘My solution is the only “compassionate” one’.
Frankly, I have no interest in quibbling over the semantics of the words ideologies, methodologies, astrologies, or philologies. My apologies if my poorly phrased sentence caused you to assume I was saying something totally different. But you have made a few overly broad assumptions from a single sentence.
No, I do not. I fully agree that there are plenty of goals and outcomes that differ among people all over the political spectrum. I also have not attempted to define conservatism at all. Nor do I intend to do so. (Likewise, I have not, and will not attempt to define liberalism).
I’m not interested in trying to define these terms, as I feel it’s a total waste of time. I would have to argue that the range of political beliefs and views are so widespread that they come much closer to being a continuous spectrum, rather than a set of two equivalence classes that can be given the names “conservative” and “liberal”. So to define each as a core set of beliefs, and then to try to lump everybody into one or the other, would be a pointless exercise. (I’m sure that folks like Libertarian would agree with me on this.)
For this reason, and others I’ve already presented, I find it completely dishonest for somebody to come along and attempt to say “Liberals are inherently compassionate, conservatives are not”. Likewise, it would be just as dishonest to say, “Conservatives are compassionate, and liberals are not”.
I see you also ignored another of my statements:
This would be their ideals, no? Their personal ideology. That compassion is indicated more by what a person wishes to accomplish, not by their methodologies. Looks like you are arguing in favor of a point I already made.
If you feel the need to dispute one of my actual points, go right ahead. But if you wish to present arguments about topics that I am not arguing, I must kindly request that you, sir/madam/other, please leave my name out of it.
More specifically, please leave your personal attacks on me out of it.
Which personal attacks? Well, I do believe there was an accusation of intellectual dishonesty, along with a snide parinthetical remark “yeah, right”. By placing my name in that sentence along with December, there was also the implication that you are lumping me and him (and perhaps others) into an equivalence category, all sharing the same beliefs, opinions, and positions. I’m willing to accept that this may not have been your intent, but the insinuation is still there. However, the implication is still there.
(And in this, I mean no offense to December – I’m sure that there are some issues that I would agree with him on and others that I wouldn’t, as with anybody. But I couldn’t list them all, as I have certainly never had the time to read all his posts)
Since you appear to be relatively new to this board, let me point your attention to the top right of the window, where you will find a button marked “Search”. Next time you feel like lumping me into a broad category with other posters’ opinions and views, do a little research and search for my posting history to verify your information. I’ll save you a little trouble this time and point out that if you searched now, you would find a very noticeable difference between December and myself. He has made many posts detailing his specific views on a large gamut of political issues here (which is his right to express his opinions, as is everybody else’s) – I have not. So while you may feel that you have a good idea of what his views are, you have no idea what mine are. I can only assume that you attempt to categorize me based on my statement earlier in this thread that I was a “Registered Republican”, which simply indicates my voter registration status.
Nowhere in this thread have I specifically argued for or against specific conservative ideals, liberal ideals, libertarian ideals, or penguin ideals – or even attempted to define what these ideals are. I believe my points have been actually rather balanced – indicating that neither conservatives, liberals, nor any other such “large grouping” can claim to own “compassion”.
Yet some people continue to do exactly this. (And I don’t mean just this board or this thread).
Susanann, I’d like you to meet the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.
Are there specific areas where George W. Bush has pissed conservatives off? Sure. I’m pretty annoyed about the steel tariffs and the farm bill, for example. But he’s still pretty damned conservative on the vast majority of issues, and certainly stands to the right of most of the political establishment.
I disagree with kwildcat’s other two points of contention. Conservatives have always been willing to expand the government on critical national security issues – in the past it was the Cold War; today it’s the war on terror. And “unchecked federal spending” in the broadest sense has been a structural problem since even the days of FDR – even Reagan left Washington with a bigger federal budget than when he arrived.
Go back to what I said earlier… when a conservative loses, he becomes a liberal. That is, when his preferred policies become overturned by other policies, he will want to go back to the traditional policies… which requires change, and change and reform is, technically, a “liberal” idea.
Frankly, I think splitting hairs over who is and isn’t a “conservative” or “liberal” to be so silly that it’s not even worth discussing.
I think your definition of “liberal” is a little overbroad there, SPOOFE. By your reasoning, the Republican Revolution of 1994 was a liberal undertaking, because it sought to change the social policies of the Clinton administration. Just because a party seeks change does not make it liberal, especially when the changes are a reversion to traditional, regressive policies.
Well, yeah, which I why I said “technically”. I like to draw a distinction between lower-case “conservative/liberal” and upper-case “Conservative/Liberal”. The former is simple dictionary definition, while the latter refers more to how the terms have evolved in more recent times.
Good point, SPOOFE – I don’t think the dictionary definition can be taken too literally or at face value. Perhaps it’s time to make up new terms for the major political parties. After all, Whigs and Tories didn’t last forever.
It’s not namecalling. It’s an observation of your behavior, and one that I’m happy to defend.
You see this is why you’re a bigot. If I’m a hypocrite it was nothing to do with my being a conservative.
Your’re a bigot because you think it does.
No. It’s not your lack of respect. What would respect mean from you?
This is just a straight out deliberate falsehood. People have taken the time in good faith to explain it to you. You have not taken exception to the explanation. You have simply ignored it, and repeated your lies.
You are deliberately and willfully ignorant. You are propagating falsehoods and eschewing reason.
This is the language of hate that you spew.
It really doesn’t matter whether you’re going on about blacks gays jews or conservatives. It’s the same tactics, the same lies, the same deceit.
You have deliberately mischaractized a group you don’t like with gross generalizations.
What angers me are your lies. There is plenty enough that a person of goodwill can disagree with conservatism without making up lies.
Entangling us in a senseless middle east war. Increasing the federal budget and bigger and bigger government. Homeland security and invasion of privacy. Instead of getting us out of the UN he wants to use it more. He supports gun control and he wanted to extend the assault weapon bill. He has not tried to repeal any existing federal gun controls. He changed our budget surpluses into big deficits in both our federal budget and balance of trade, he is destroying the dollar and our social security system. He is totally fiscally irresponsible. He has not eliminated one single government agency nor department, and he cant think of a single one to eliminate. He has done nothing for conservation and increasing the wild lands in america. He is not protecting our national borders. He has done nothing to build an anti-missle system. He has given nothing to the Christian voters. He not only is doing nothing to stop illegal immigration, but he wants to make citizens of the ten million illegals that snuck into here. He has not made any effort with the INS to deport all the illegals in this country. He has done nothing to stop or slow down legal immigration. He is in favor of H1-B visas and L-1 visas, and outsourcing of american jobs to foreigners. He has not done anything to restore any individual liberties taken away or restricted over the years. He has not proposed anything to help american companies to hire amerians thru tax breaks, etc.
This is just for starters. This is a partial list. I dont know of any conservatives who want him, wanted him, or like him.
I really cant think of anything he has done for the conservatives.
I really cant think of anything that he did better(more conservative) than Gore would have done.
At least if Gore had been elected, the republicans in the house and senate would not have passed the Homeland security bill, and would have fought, resisted and lowered all the government spending that Gore would have and that bush has proposed in his budgets, and would have questioned whether or not the US should have begun a brand new policy of starting wars with a country that had not struck at us first.
this is where the flat note is. Per Susanann’s post one can see all the ways in which GWB isn’t toeing the ‘conservative’ (i.e. Christian Coalition) line, where he would most definitely appear more compassionate than other self-described conservatives. What can you do when other people hijack the core principes and redefine a political ideology…? You have to differentiate yourself somehow, if you retain at all some fundamental conservative beliefs.
So I see the “compassionate conservate” term in that light. It is necessary to differentiate my political view (smaller gov’t is better gov’t, for example) from the standard party line - not to prove myself a more caring or compassionate individual than this one or that one. It’s a handy terminology at the most, and there is a need for such a thing nowadays.
“Entangling us in a senseless middle east war” is a LIBERAL thing to do!?
Maybe I just haven’t read the news right, but regardless of my opinion, I seem to recall most of those that opposed the war being on the Left side of the fence. You may be thinking of all those Democrats that supported the war, but a true liberal Democrat is all but impossible to find these days.
This Conservative v. Liberal game can be fun. Can I try? Oh boy, let’s get started!
Let’s see, first of all, the idea of a social safety net that functions “as a state of permanent repose” isn’t something I see on my Liberal Agenda checklist. Welfare, et al, are in desperate need of reform; as has been said, they need to be efficient, effective, and to encourage results. Whoops! Does that make me conservative?
Stating that the recipients of benefits are often less needy than those who pay into the program may be true in some cases. I don’t know. But it’s patently ridiculous to assert that “the elderly” as a group are needier than working class citizens. Some may be. Some may not be. That’s a touchy subject anyway, because someone who is no longer working has to be a lot more careful about husbanding their resources, and the prices that so many elderly individuals pay on their prescription drugs and medical care come to heinous totals. So clearly, Medicare is in desperate need of reform in order to address this. Whoops! Liberal again!
Actually, speaking of healthcare, I hardly see how guaranteed health care is a handout, and I’m even more mystified by the assertion that providing everyone, particularly those working low-skills, minimum-wage jobs, would have negative effects. Let’s face it. There are 31 million “chronically uninsured” Americans (Cite). At any given time, there are about ten million that are temporarily uninsured for various reasons. That does not exactly sum up to a successful private insurance industry. This industry is literally raking in the money from millions of us, but those who can’t afford or don’t qualify for coverage get completely screwed. This is one of several reasons I support a universal single-payer health care system for all Americans. Whew. Still liberal.
Of course, it wouldn’t be worth jack if we just set up some government agency and say “All right, get to it!.” Clearly, we have a obscenely bloated monster of a government in this nation. In order to make the entire system work, it needs to be trimmed, it needs to be cleaned up, the beast that is the US Tax Code needs reform, the accounting and finance operations need to be brought under control, and the government needs a general reduction of bureacracy and paper trails across the board. Does that make me conservative now?
Well, not exactly, because “smaller government,” if you want it to really work, takes a lot more than tax cuts, budget slashing, and downsizing departments. At this point, in order to truly reform and shrink the goverment, a massive, and I mean really, really huge process of reform, reorganization, reordering, and restructuring of all departments would have to take place. This amounts to four things: First, this would cause a good deal of confusion until things got settled again. Second, heads will roll; jobs will disappear, dirty secrets will be uncovered, skeletons will be found in closets, and there will be general unpleasantness. Third, this will take a long time and will be difficult to implement. Fourth, and most important (to some), it will be Very Expensive.
The combination of all these factors basically means that no one is willing to really undertake the kind of project that a “small government” really entails. The entire government is a big tangle of knots, or perhaps an enormous pile of pick-up sticks. So many different things are connected in such arcane and esoteric ways that if you pull on too many nots, the thing just can’t come apart. Or if you pull out too many sticks, it just collapses. So instead politicians make lip-service to these ideals by slashing social programs, education, what have you. So what does this make me? Liberal? Conservative? Just depressed?
There is no “Liberal Agenda.” There is no “Conservative Agenda.” There is a Bush agenda, just as there was a Clinton Agenda, and a Reagan Agenda, etc. Hell, I may be a liberal, but at least Republicans come right out and tell us they’re going to screw us over. I despise Democrats (that is, most of the party, not the Wellstones and Kucinichs that are out there) for coming to us in the name of the common good and the benefit of mankind, then shove the proverbial splintered broomstick up our asses when we turn around. What it comes down to is, forget all of this; I’d just like it if we could all think for ourselves.
