Ignorant? My dear gelding, have you paid no attention to political threads here that you so conveniently forget that virtually every left-winger here was falling over himself to absolve the poor oppressed members of al Qaeda who were driven to crash airplanes into skyscrapers out of sheer pique at the machinations of big, bad white male Amerikkka? Lefties
And agian, you show how little attention you pay. As anyone who reads my posts should know, I’m a right of center Democrat who loathes Dubya with every fiber of my being.
gobear, may I ask you to please consider moderating your claims of what “virtually every left-winger here” was writing post 9/11? Personally, I remember almost every left-leaning poster having to emphasize over and over how completely opposed and unforgiving of al Qaeda we were, just to counter the label of “blame America first” that was reflexively pasted on us whenever we brought up root causes of Arab dissatisfaction.
I know you’re passionate, but please do a hyperbole check once in a while; IMO you tend to obscure your own level-headed perspective when you falsely portray other perspectives.
Personally, I think that we should use hard-earned tax dollars to pay drug-crazed homosexual flag-burning felons to go into citizens’ homes to confiscate their guns and teach Satanism to their children. But that’s just my opinion. Some folks may disagree.*
Ah, well, I must be a liberal because I favor this new idea of school vouchers, rather than the tradition of funnelling more money into the teachers union… I mean, the public school system.
No, it all comes down to how ‘empathy’ [sub](come on, now - why don’t you just use the word ‘compassion’? you know that’s what you really want to say)[/sub] is shoehorned into society by government edict.
I weep for my country’s future when I hear otherwise intelligent-seeming people comparing our leadership system to an inconsequential physical contest, rather than seeing it as the arena for the public exchange of ideas, in which our nation’s ultimate direction will be determined.
Bah! Sounds like the petulant mewlings of a typically gutless, hand-wringing moderate to me…
Polycarp, if you hadn’t tossed that smiley in there (and I didn’t know you personally) I’d be converting all my personal assets to gold and holing myself up in a cave…
[sub](minty on the Supreme Court?!? shudderrrrrr - twitch)[/sub]
-Tygr, awaiting the ceremonial application of the “Vocal, Self-Righteous Twit” label… :rolleyes:
What the fuck are you talking about? Virtually every leftist on the SDMB is a traitorous al Qaeda sympathiser? Are you on drugs? Is your rectum blocking your vision? No, don’t answer that – just fuck off, you cheesy, obnoxious, lying, pile of puke.
While I do appreciate your position, I must reiterate that linking Arab dissatisfaction and Al Qaeda in any manner is still, at least IMO, somewhat exculpatory of the acts of 9/11. Al Qaeda, like Fred Phelps’s flock, are frothing, raving nutters and to associate their madness in any way with the legitimate gripes of the Arab world is both insulting to the Arabs and to the dead of 9/11.
But that brings me back to my point that there is a line–admittedly, a fine one–between an honest evaluation of our nation’s flaws and the Left’s baseline beliefs that any trouble that comes our way was provoked by our own actions.
“America is always wrong” is just as specious as “America is always right.”
<chuckles affectionately> They’re so adorable at that age.
Are you sure you don’t have that backwards? My understanding is that Conservatives believe in the power of the individual and the protection of his liberties, and Liberals believe in the power of the State to do the most for the collective good.
Oh, RIGHT!! :smack: I forgot — it’s not liberals OR conservatives that are evil…
“Rightie-tightie, Leftie-loosey”? And people wonder why were stuck with “Liberal” and Conservative" for ideological labels…
Look, for xenophon41, CTB, and others that still think it’s all about being tied to ideas from the past versus wanting to implement new ideas… Well, what about now that so many of history’s once-progressive ideas have become the status-quo? IOW, what do the anti-establishment types stand for now that they’ve become the establishment?
The major debates taking place in this country are not about “Keeping things as the good old days” OR “change for change’s sake”. Underneath all the mud-slinging and sound-bites, there really is a true debate taking place. It’s unfortunate that we, the citizenry, have to observe it through the window of the rhetoric, but that’s where our own laziness has deposited us.
“Backing social conventions” != “tied to ideas from the past”
Conservatives, when faced with a political situation and asked how gummint might deal with it, consider whether processes exist, and if so, whether they are expeditious. If so, then they follow their preferences and recommend utilization of existing processes. If not, they either try and tailor new processes as narrowly as possible to deal with the situation per conservative preference, or they advocate letting NGO’s handle it. Either way, though, being bound to existing convention does not preclude conservative construction of new ideas.
(The main difference in the liberal approach to existing processes is that liberals do not automatically presume those process are appropriate merely because they are established.)
Oh— good point Tygr about progressive movements of the past becoming status-quo; this is one reason liberal ideologues sometimes go completely against liberal philosophy (and are deservedly derided by some of their philosophical cousins).
In what way? If I join a debate about destruction of property or violence perpetrated by radical animal rights activists, is it somehow inappropriate to respond to someone painting all members of PETA with the radical brush by pointing out the legitimate concerns of the large majority of peaceful PETA participants?
[sub]Sorry; didn’t mean to spit on you with all that alliteration…[/sub]
If you do not like the definition provided by “Xenophon41, CTB, and others”, then please provide your own (though I understand this is not GD, and so a demand for reasoned debate may be misplaced). Without having a definition of liberal and conservative to go by, it is exceedingly difficult to attempt to answer the OP.
To answer your question, to continue the evolutionary analogy, I would guess that that occurs when the change has proven itself so superior to the previous status quo, that the prior state dies out all together or becomes sidelined (i.e. equal civil rights for all ethnicities can be considered the new status quo, though there are pockets of resistance still). To my knowledge there is no distinct moment when the change occurs (there goes that shades of grey thing), but rather a continuum.
To not agree on our definitions of what exactly is is we are talking about is indeed to “observe it through the window of the rhetoric,” and I agree that is an unfortunate aspect of modern american political debate.
Wow! Don’t forget to stretch after all that back-pedaling! You say “reiterate,” and I’m just a dumb and naive Modern Liberal, so forgive my noticing that there was no first iteration – you’re making an entirely new point, wholly different from your bigoted slur of:
Again, why should any lefty bother talking to you, if you consider virtually all lefties were al Qaeda sympathizers?
Ace, I’m wondering in all seriousness, considering your methodology of confrontation, what do you think would ever make a conservative bother talking with you?
PETA is a radical organization, so your analogy doesn’t work because anyone joining PETA is signing on to their agenda–it’s like saying there are peaceful Al Qaeda members.
How about this–let’s say that a pack of gay activists vandalize a Catholic church. Would it be appropriate to respond by bringing up the legitimate concerns of gay people who have been oppressed by church teachings? My answer is no: however legitimate the grievances of gay people against the church may be, no grievance justifies the activists’ vandalism. What would you think of me if I said, “Well, gee, too bad about your church, but if you guys hadn’t discriminated against us, this wouldn’t have happened.”?
And as for Ace, no backpedaling was in any implied, and I’ll say it all again louder and hotter. You just need to improve your vocabulary, young Jedi.
Where do you draw the line as to when it appropriate to look for causation behind an act of violence? Is there ever an appropriate cause for violent action? If there are valid reasons behind violent acts, how does one discover what those reasons are and their validity without examining them in the first place? I am most empahtically not suggesting that there is any valid justification for the murder of thousands of civilians, I just wonder where you draw the line.
Also, I would submit that an investigation into causation, and even the finding of a direct link of causation does not necessarily exonerate those perpetuating an act. However, it might be a useful exercise on the victims part if they want to avoid such events in the future. I have every right to walk through central park at 2 in the morning with a shiny Rolex on my arm. I will most likely not have it if I make it out the other end. This is most definitely not my fault, but I would likely learn to be a bit more discrete and careful next time.
I’m certainly confrontational when an entire class is being called Naive, Stupid, and Terrorist sympathizers without evidence. Yes, I prefer to talk with political folks, on both sides of the aisle, whose thoughts stem logically from the facts presented, if and when that happens, you can expect at least equal levels of courtesy, respect, and discourse.
But you can’t always get that. If you start with an insipid, factually unfounded, and ill-considered “Most liberals are terrorist sympathizers,” or whatever bigoted statement Gobear wishes he made, and you’ll indeed get it with both barrels. Is it confrontational to insist on non-bigoted, thoughtful and logical individuals before commencing a normal conversation? I don’t think so.
I’d say there’s a simple rule: if you want intelligent and repectful discourse, start with intelligent and respectful discourse, and I, of course would and do demand clarification or retraction before continuing – simply as a matter of self-respect and respect for the board before treating ostensible liars and bigots as my equals. You are, of course, more than welcome to disagree with my standards of discourse.
I guess it depends on context, gobear. If the discussion about the vandalization prompted comments like “well, that’s because gays hate religion…” or “the city should cancel the next Gay Pride march” or “let’s make gay organizations pay the church for the damage”, wouldn’t it be appropriate for you to dispel ignorance about gays and religion by presenting a legitimate gay perspective on religious persecution, or to point out why gay organizations are not responsible for the individual actions of all their members?
Well, Ace, I just thought that since gobear had rephrased his opinion sans overstatement it might have been more productive to greet the restatement with a reasoned reply (see CTB above) instead of rekindling gobear’s ire by calling it “backpedalling”.
If you want to engage in actual dialogue with him, that is. If your aim is to promote leftist sensibilities, then by all means, fire away. I’m not suggesting you lie back and spread your legs. Just realize agression works to obfuscate communication both ways.
Some of you may also want to check how you fit on the American version of CTB’s political compass, the political baseball diamond. It’s a lot less detailed than the previous questionnaire, but it does touch upon some of the more contentious issues in the United States today.
In light of some of these wonderful, well thought out responses, I feel a little foolish trying to make this simplistic observation. But I’ll make it anyway because I’m an evil bastard (actually a left-leaning moderate according to Issues2000, but why split hairs?).
Though few of the conservative posters on this board are rude enough to admit it, one need only take a look at other Internet sites (cough Free Republic cough) to see that liberals are often cast in the warm glow of evil by some conservatives.
I think there is a very simple reason for that. Many American conservatives are actually social conservatives, and they adhere to a rather strict moral code that doesn’t permit a lot of wandering. Moreover, that moral code makes them want to prohibit you from wandering as well.
If I tell these folks to fuck off and keep their bibles out of my sock drawer, I am supporting the forces of evil, because by rebuffing them I am working to delay a social agenda derived from a higher power than that of mere government and politics. It’s a with-us-or-against-us roadmap, and liberals are squarely in the way of it.
I’m not saying that all Republicans are conservatives, or all conservatives are social conservatives. But like it or not, theseguysare in control of Congress, and their strong supporters are in control of the other two branches of government as well. I strongly suspect they think they have a mandate to pursue their moral agenda.
And I and others like me are the last thing standing in their way. No wonder the less tactful of them don’t mind saying they hate my guts.
Not backwards, just poorly expressed. It all focuses on how the two ideologies work. Conservatives put stress on individual responsibility… meaning “If you screw up, sucks to be you.” This puts much less responsibility on the State, meaning that it’s free to require people to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and put the Ten Commandments on classroom walls.
In contrast, Liberalism wants to put a lot of the responsibilities of the individual into the hands of the State, freeing people up from such concerns as, oh, worrying about hot coffee spilling into their lap.
The difference lies not in where they want to put the responsibility, but why they want to do it.
