Liberals vs. Conservatives

[giddyup]

Just an oversimplification for a simple question:

Why are Conservatives who don't change their mind on an issue debated here called demagogues while Liberals who don't change their mind on an issue debated here just called champions or something equivalent?

[aghast]

Clearly you are viewing this through a one-sided prison.

I could just as easily ask the same question, substituting "conservatives" with "liberals" and "liberals" with "conservatives."

Don't presume to believe that either side has the monopoly on civil discourse.

[Oski2005]

Why is the word liberal used to describe people negatively? It used to be, "we're different and here is why our way is better." Now, you turn on the tv and hear "So and so, (and in a deep menacing voice) is a LIBERAL" Dun dun duuuuuuuuun!!!! Did you not think at some point we'd fight back?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by aghast
Clearly you are viewing this through a one-sided prison.
I can tell you only have 150 or so posts.... :D

You're pretty new here.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by giddyup
Just an oversimplification for a simple question:

Why are Conservatives who don't change their mind on an issue debated here called demagogues while Liberals who don't change their mind on an issue debated here just called champions or something equivalent?
Good golly, giddy, where did this come from? I would think that Cohen's thread would keep you folks busy for awhile.

I would agree with aghast, except I don't think you're incarcerated... yet. ;) Hmm, prism is the word you're looking for, aghast. Seriously, you are most decidedly looking through a lens of your own construction, giddy, or, you could say, talking about an artificial construct.

I'm a Liberal Democrat. It's what I call myself, but there are several people here of a liberal bent who insist on calling themselves anything but a Democrat. And we come in all flavors. I'm conservative on things like national defense, funding the military, in a wise way, fully funding veterans benefits, and by that I mean to give them what they deserve and then actually pay for it. Increased pay, adequate housing for families, excellent health care... considering what they are asked to do, stand in harms way, whether politically doing so makes sense or not, is something you can't put a price on. Giving our people all the ammo and time they need to train as they should train, firing live in the most realistic environments that the devils in charge can conjure.

I'm for increasing the size of the armed forces, and Kerry's proposal for a 40,000 increase in service personnel is a start. Why the talking heads in the top brass, at least in public, say they don't want that is ridiculous. They say we can't afford to lock in an increased force structure. Hey, we're fighting two serious conflicts right now with inadequate personnel to do the job without straining our people and the Reserves to the breaking point. That breaking point will be reached if we have another conflict on top of the two we have, which, in today's climate, is certainly possible... hell, more than likely.

I could go on, but I just wanted to illustrate how ridiculous the pigeon-holing of people is around here. I've been called a "lunatic fringe, raving liberal leftist", and a traitor while I've been here. And it's a good thing we sit behind keyboards, or there would be more than typewritten words flying around here, back surgery or not. It gets tiresome, it's juvenile, but I still enjoy talking politics with people. That's why I'm still here.


edit: I was looking at my post, and I said I was conservative about national defense, but I shouldn't have put it that way... I'm a liberal who believes in a strong military, but with many differences from the approach of the Administration and the Republican Congress. My position isn't a "conservative" one, it's, in my opinion, one that makes sense, and dovetails with how Democrats in the past, like JFK, for example, viewed defense. With the way labels are thrown around today, freighted with implied political leanings and meanings, whether those exist in the individual or not, make me want to stick with this definition.

[aghast]

No, actually I meant prison, as a poor play on words. A prison in that that kind of outlook is intellectually shackled. Unfortunately, I tend to attempt bad puns quite often.

And giddyup, I've read this website intermittently for a good three to four years. There used to be a roughly equal number of conservatives and liberals. However, around the time of the Iraq War / WMD aftermath, the treemans/heaths of this BBS began to disappear.

That there are now fewer conservatives on the BBS, I prefer to think, is a function of the damage the GWB administration has wrought upon true conservatism. True conservatives gave up trying to explain away his administration's choices, and rather than admit he is a fraud as a compassionate conservative, simply stopped posting.

[nyrocket]

Originally posted by giddyup
Just an oversimplification for a simple question:

Why are Conservatives who don't change their mind on an issue debated here called demagogues...

You mean issues like the existence of stockpiles of WMD in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion or proof of a definite, meaningful link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Issues like those?

I have no idea.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by nyrocket
You mean issues like the existence of stockpiles of WMD in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion or proof of a definite, meaningful link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Issues like those?

I have no idea.
Okay guys... it's your game so I know you don't have to play...

I admitted upfront that the Libs vs Cons was an oversimplification yet you still want to beat me up about that. If we don't use some kind of labeling system, we can't talk about groups of people and general tendencies. Get over it.

My observation stretches way back before the War in Iraq, nyrocket. The point is not that minds or opinions don't change, it is the attitude about the unchanged mind to which I refer. When was the last time that someone called you a demagogue? Yet I have seen that word and its equivalents used in this place against those who represent the conservative POV.

There are your side's own unrelenting support of abortion or welfare that I could point to with aplomb. That's not what I was wanting to do here.

This came up because somewhere in some post one of "you" referred to someone (not me) as a demagogue because of their position on an issue. The label struck me as inappropriate for the situation and then it struck me as being typical parlance for this place.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about it and would rather derail the thread.:D

[nyquil82]

Originally posted by giddyup
I can tell you only have 150 or so posts.... :D

You're pretty new here.

he may be relatively "new" but his posts have been well written, thought out, insightful and logical. better than many of those who have been here for a while and certainly better than my own.

i'm seriously convinced sometimes that you won't allow yourself to debate on the same level as others in this forum unless they agree with what you believe in.

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Why is the word liberal used to describe people negatively? It used to be, "we're different and here is why our way is better." Now, you turn on the tv and hear "So and so, (and in a deep menacing voice) is a LIBERAL" Dun dun duuuuuuuuun!!!! Did you not think at some point we'd fight back?


I have been wondering this myself for a few years now...

and I would love to hear an explanation from some of those that use the word liberal as a insult....

Why is being liberal a bad thing??

I am one of the few here that are middle of the road independent....but I admit that most of my leanings are toward the liberla side..Being a liberal used to mean that you were open minded and tried to do good by your fellow man, especially the ones that werent so well-off.

but I begane to notice that accusing someone of being a liberal has turned into the convinient way of insulting them in politics in the last 10-15 years....why is that?

I know that normally I dont get answered here....and I dont really mind that since I dont have a lot of time to really debate anything.....but since Oski is wondering also...and I imagine that a few others that dont speak up might also be interested in knowning the answer to this....

so...someone please see if they can give us a good answer to the question......

[Rockets2K]

and...to attempt to stay on topic....

a question for giddy...

dem·a·gogue also dem·a·gog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-gôg, -gg)
n.

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. A leader of the common people in ancient times.

am I just missing the reason why you use this specific word? the definition doesnt seem to fit as applied to posters here...

would you mind explaining what I am missing?
then I might be able to attempt to answer your main topic...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by nyquil82
he may be relatively "new" but his posts have been well written, thought out, insightful and logical. better than many of those who have been here for a while and certainly better than my own.

i'm seriously convinced sometimes that you won't allow yourself to debate on the same level as others in this forum unless they agree with what you believe in.
This is so typical! Did I <b>in any way</b> suggest that his posts were not "well written, thought out, insightful and logical?"

By citing his low post count I was pointing out that he probably was not familiar with well-established trends that have been observed here for some time.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by giddyup
By citing his low post count I was pointing out that he probably was not familiar with well-established trends that have been observed here for some time.

True. Otherwise, he would not have bothered responding to you.

Of course, I still don't understand the original question.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Rockets2K
am I just missing the reason why you use this specific word? the definition doesnt seem to fit as applied to posters here...

would you mind explaining what I am missing?
then I might be able to attempt to answer your main topic...
I used the word because just before I started this thread I had seen that word demagogue used against a conservative poster. It struck me as inappropriate use... as that kind of criticism has struck me here before.

I am regularly and roundly criticized for not changing my mnd about many/most/all of the issues discussed here. I can't say that the D word has been launched against me but similar words have.

On the other hand, I have seen the exact same relentlessness from the Liberal side of the aisle when sticking to their issue, yet I don't feel like I need to call them names based solely on their refusal to come to my side of an argument.

In sum, if I don't change my mind I get assigned some kind of unflattering label by the liberals. When they don't change their minds nothing happens.

Their is a prejudice here that Right is supposed to move to the Left but the Left need not budge one iota.

You see it in many forms here. One of the most obvious is the bandwagon affect where the left will exhort each other in their "attacks." You typically don't see that kind of pack mentality coming from the Right-- but you do from the Left.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rimbaud
True. Otherwise, he would not have bothered responding to you.
Just butt out if you don't have anything to add, please.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by giddyup
Just butt out if you don't have anything to add, please.

Yeah, it would be much better for me to start a thread about how I/my side is being mistreated on this bbs.

I was trying to help aghast just as you were by pointing out something he apparently doesn't know yet.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rimbaud
Yeah, it would be much better for me to start a thread about how I/my side is being mistreated on this bbs.

I was trying to help aghast just as you were by pointing out something he apparently doesn't know yet.
Go away. You're a real tiger behind that keyboard, aren't you? Why do you feel a need to insult and demean people? It's sad... always has been.

[arno_ed]

people relax. You both are insulting each other. Having a discusion is good, but try doing it without insulting each other.

on the other hand if you think i should keep my mouth shut and let you bash each other just say it and i wil get out of your way:D

[rimbaud]

Relax, giddy. Tiger behind the keyboard?

"My side good, your side bad" reverse, repeat, mix, match, repeat again.

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by arno_ed
You both are insulting each other.

I wasn't insulting giddy, I was just using the logic of this thread to state that aghast, the heavenly liberal, cannot have a discussion with the demagogue giddy.

Serge doesn't get out of anyone's way.

[SamFisher]

Originally posted by giddyup
I used the word because just before I started this thread I had seen that word demagogue used against a conservative poster. It struck me as inappropriate use... as that kind of criticism has struck me here before.

I am regularly and roundly criticized for not changing my mnd about many/most/all of the issues discussed here. I can't say that the D word has been launched against me but similar words have.

On the other hand, I have seen the exact same relentlessness from the Liberal side of the aisle when sticking to their issue, yet I don't feel like I need to call them names based solely on their refusal to come to my side of an argument.

In sum, if I don't change my mind I get assigned some kind of unflattering label by the liberals. When they don't change their minds nothing happens.

Their is a prejudice here that Right is supposed to move to the Left but the Left need not budge one iota.

You see it in many forms here. One of the most obvious is the bandwagon affect where the left will exhort each other in their "attacks." You typically don't see that kind of pack mentality coming from the Right-- but you do from the Left.

Oh, come on; have you not seen a "pack" of posters repeatedly throw around the charge "liberal demagoguery" about once a day for the last year? See, jorge, trader and his alter ego texxx. basso likes to used the term or a variant thereof frequently as well, if i'm not mistaken.

Republicans = propagandists; liberals = demagogues.

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by giddyup
I used the word because just before I started this thread I had seen that word demagogue used against a conservative poster. It struck me as inappropriate use... as that kind of criticism has struck me here before.

I am regularly and roundly criticized for not changing my mnd about many/most/all of the issues discussed here. I can't say that the D word has been launched against me but similar words have.

On the other hand, I have seen the exact same relentlessness from the Liberal side of the aisle when sticking to their issue, yet I don't feel like I need to call them names based solely on their refusal to come to my side of an argument.

In sum, if I don't change my mind I get assigned some kind of unflattering label by the liberals. When they don't change their minds nothing happens.

Their is a prejudice here that Right is supposed to move to the Left but the Left need not budge one iota.

You see it in many forms here. One of the most obvious is the bandwagon affect where the left will exhort each other in their "attacks." You typically don't see that kind of pack mentality coming from the Right-- but you do from the Left.

If a conservative was called a demagogue, it was used in the wrong context from what I can tell...

if it was used to accuse said conservative of using arguments that appeal to the emotions and prejudices of people....then I could see why the word is used in that way..but it still doesnt seem like a insult....

now......what I have seen is that certain conservatives that just spout the Repub party line irregardless of being shown the true facts are called shills for the Republican party.....and I would agree with that..

I personally respect people much more if they can keep an open mind to other viewpoints, and not be so quick to spin every little thing that gets written to their viewpoint..
I think this applies to both sides of the aisle.....

Just like there are conservatives that are not open to learning new facts....there are liberals that are the same way....

no one viewpoint is immune to this.

I wonder sometimes if the representatives from both sides can see that those of us in the middle arent swayed by their extreme, closeminded rants and matter of fact, we are for the most part less likely to lean their way when the BS meter goes off the scale like it does on so many issues(or non-issues)...

ie....Kerry's wife and shove it...his daughter and her semi seethru dress...so what?...
Bushs' daughters acting up.....again...so what?

What most of us in the middle want to hear is Why Should We Vote For Your Guy?
Which of the real issues does he have an answer to?

I, and I imagine a lot of others dont givbe a rat's ass for thwe non-issues that gets brought up constantly to try to make one side or the other look bad.....we want REAL answers to REAL problems.

eek....geeze, what a rant...sorry gys...had to let it out after reading this forum day in and day out...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by rimbaud
I wasn't insulting giddy, I was just using the logic of this thread to state that aghast, the heavenly liberal, cannot have a discussion with the demagogue giddy.

Serge doesn't get out of anyone's way.
The thread is about expectations not about the ability or inability to have a discussion. The thread is about complacency. I am "expected" to change my mind about issues but those who typically argue for the other side feel no such compunction to change their own mind nor do I criticize them when they do not.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Rockets2K
If a conservative was called a demagogue, it was used in the wrong context from what I can tell...
I sure wish this whole discussion wouldn't get too hung up on the word demagogue. I've seen it used, but it is not abused. I picked it to use because it was recently used in a particular case.
It was only meant to describe a predicament-- not to be the focus.

[Preston27]

The posting on this forum is quite ridiculous, as are political debates in general. Both sides are equally responsible for this. If there's a thread about something Bush did, a certain group of people will back him every time, and a certain group of people will bash him. Vice versa with Kerry. There is some open-mindedness, but the majority that post here will not bother to open there ears for one second to listen to the other side of the debate, but search dilligently on parts of the post that can be discredited and used to start a war of words. It can be seen throughout politics. I watched the Moore-O'Reily interview for laughs, and found it oddly similar to what I would expect to happen if someone from each side of the issue on this board got together to talk about it.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Rockets2K
I personally respect people much more if they can keep an open mind to other viewpoints, and not be so quick to spin every little thing that gets written to their viewpoint..
I think this applies to both sides of the aisle.....

Just like there are conservatives that are not open to learning new facts....there are liberals that are the same way....

no one viewpoint is immune to this.


Thats the thing I find peculiar. Each is holding to their views for personal reasons (what's best for them). But, IMO, the Conservatives will always be behind the eight-ball due to the nature of their thinking: They are Traditionalist! That doesn't bode well for other view points or new ways of thinking.

You can see this throughout history. The Church was always against any type of thinking that challenged tradition; science, medicine and sociology.

What do todays Conservatives have a problem with....?

American Conservatives have a real big problem with sex (unlike Europe; much older; more mature about it; extension of life). American Conservatives cringe at the thought...I also think the US has old roots of a "puritan" society; especially in the east. We are also a young country; we act like a bunch of immature teenagers regarding sex. It's no wonder why teenagers of conservative families go wild when they get in college (Girls Gone Wild). I mean, where else are they going to learn? Their parents? Get real! They blush at the thought to sex education. It's an extension of their own insecurities and how they were taught; not much.

This is why extremes occur. Repress anyone, and sooner or later they will go "wild!"

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by giddyup
I sure wish this whole discussion wouldn't get too hung up on the word demagogue. I've seen it used, but it is not abused. I picked it to use because it was recently used in a particular case.
It was only meant to describe a predicament-- not to be the focus.

well...ya should have just said that straight out...Im not bright enough to be able to glean that from your original post..;)

as for expecting you to change your position while not holding others to the same standard(I take it that is basically the focus you wanted, si?), I actually expect both sides to remain open to alternative input..

and am dissapointed more often than not.

It is fine to have a position on issues...the problem I have is not being open to facts that prove said position is wrong or misguided...

That is the advantage I feel I have over many others here, I am open to both sides' arguments....I am not afraid to use my own mind to decide if something I read is BS or not...and I dont feel the need to denigrate others positions to try to make my position stronger.....

call me naive....

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by DavidS
American Conservatives have a real big problem with sex
Uh, not this one...

[Rockets2K]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Uh, not this one...

obviously...you are a different kind of Repub....a real rare one in my experience......A Republican musician...:D

[StupidMoniker]

giddy,
I think it is just a numbers issue. There are a lot more liberals around here than there are conservatives (odd considering it is a board for a Texas sports team), so their voice is a bit more dominant. Think of this board as a New York Times or CNN. The liberal viewpoint is going to be better represented, so the labels you see the most will reflect that viewpoint.

[NJRocket]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Why is the word liberal used to describe people negatively?

because they are almost always wrong

[mc mark]

Originally posted by NJRocket
because they are almost always wrong

That's right!

They were wrong about civil rights
They were wrong about women's rights
They were wrong about the Vietnam war.
They were wrong about gay rights.
They were wrong about a whole bunch of things!

[Rocketman95]

Originally posted by mc mark
That's right!

They were wrong about civil rights
They were wrong about women's rights
They were wrong about the Vietnam war.
They were wrong about gay rights.
They were wrong about a whole bunch of things!

I think he'd actually agree with you, minus the sarcasm.

[aghast]

Originally posted by Rocketman95
I think he'd actually agree with you, minus the sarcasm.

Thanks nyquil and rimbaud (homage to the poet, or the Bande a part namesake?). Even though it was used in jest, can I quote you on the "heavenly liberal" part?

Why do I expect conservatives, or anyone for that matter, to be malleable? On the issues you brought up, abortion and welfare, there hasn't been any changes in science/political theory in the last few years, or at least any quantifiable way to expect change (discarding for the moment the possibilities of stem cell research, and the pure numbers of the mid-90s welfare reforms run up against the emotional harms possibly inflicted by them). On issues that are pretty much judgment/moral calls, I don't expect I will be able to change many minds, unless I can get us to a bar and each get particularly sloshed, nor do I expect "my side," liberals to be changed all that much by discussion.

However, on the two issues that loomed largest recently, I think the numbers do support the liberal side. Whether or not WMD stockpiles were in Iraq is a matter of verifiable truth. As it was the primary justification for war, one can make the determination whether the war as then argued was right or wrong. Similarly, the tax cuts combined with massive spending (against true conservatism, btw) have led to quantifiable, record budget deficits, which threaten the existence of current social programs and longterm national stability.

So the proof, in this case, is in a pudding, not a value judgment. There is evidence, not just sophistry on both sides, that should help one make up, or dare even to change, one's mind about the rightness of administration/conservative policy.

If you notice, many of the more liberal posters started writing here only in the last year or so, I would guess, as a result of the outcomes of GWB, Republican policy in action. Just as conservative voices multiplied in condemning Clinton when he was in power, the current voice of opposition is against the Republicans in power. Clinton helped to usher in the era of Limbaugh/Fox News/Hannity/O'Reilly et al., the current administration has pushed the Michael Moores and Craig Ungers into the spotlight.

Also, it doesn't help your "side" that the most intractable member, and non-coincidentally the loudest, of this BBS is on your side. That can't help your recruiting drives. (Did I already mention sophistry?) As the moderates have shifted in opposition to the administration's policy, right or wrongly conflating it with true conservatism, that has left (on this BBS as a microcosm) only the most diehard/extreme as willing conservative apologists/ spokespersons.

[giddyup]

Why would it take advances in science to advocate change about the abortion issue? My primary argument has been to err on the side of caution. That lump of cells IS human. Given time and nutrition it will enter the world as it started out, human, unless a natural mishap occurs or someone orders an abortion.

Are you really waiting for science to measure the human soul? It will be a long wait.

If you want to wait on science, you wait on it to prove YOUR point that that lump of cells growing in some woman's body is NOT a human being. You've jumped the gun and now you want to put the burden of scientific proof on the pro-Life side? It is your side that is potentially taking an innocent life.

---------------------------

The pattern that I'm talking about precedes Trader_Jorge. I remember his arrival. Yes, perhaps, he intensified the situation. I'm quite sure he is getting a good laugh about all the hubub he creates.

In the end, I think all I've done is identify the political prejudice of this BBS. It has been said that power corrupts. The complete denial, by those who have participated, of what I'm identifying is very confirming for me. There are blind spots all around.

[IROC it]

Originally posted by DavidS
American Conservatives have a real big problem with sex

My wife and I don't. At all.

Sorry your conservative parents didn't teach the birds and bees, but it's not the reason you're liberal.

That's entirely unrelated.

That's like saying, "Conservatives have a problem with soccer, because the rest of the world calls it football. God forbid any of their kids play soccer... it's communist. So I am a forward on my high school soccer team in rebellion."

The two are not related, unless you're relating a personal rebellion to us inadvertantly... and your parents failed to educate you.

Sorry being you, I guess. :(

I think StupidMoniker's reply nailed it on the head, btw.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by IROC it
My wife and I don't. At all.

Sorry your conservative parents didn't teach the birds and bees, but it's not the reason you're liberal.

That's entirely unrelated.

That's like saying, "Conservatives have a problem with soccer, because the rest of the world calls it football. God forbid any of their kids play soccer... it's communist. So I am a forward on my high school soccer team in rebellion."

The two are not related, unless you're relating a personal rebellion to us inadvertantly... and your parents failed to educate you.

Sorry being you, I guess. :(



The "personal rebellion" is amied at THIS administration (I being an independent did NOT feel this way during the Reagan era) and the base that they preach to. The broader issue is the American Conservative, which may be on the extreme side (which is a whole other topic). We're seeing a lot more of these Evangelicals today more than ever. If you don't belong to this group, then it doesn't apply to you. So be it.

I mean, tell me. Were you appalled by the Janet Jackson tit thing? Shocked?

I mean, go to Spain, Italy or France for a while. You'll see a difference that's not apparent until you've lived there awhile. And you'll notice that casual nudity is not viewed as "immoral" or "pornographic." The ideas are just different; it tends to blend into everyday life. The conservative american view is way different; like it's dirty and indecent (remember, I'm talkiing about the conservatives evangelist). Althought this perception does get help from our fervent capitalist ways (push the product at all cost).

BTW, my parents were nether conservative nor liberal (best described as moderates; a bit of libertarian; turned-off by politics in general). They thought for themselves. They didn't, and still don't, blindly follow any party. Unlike YOU! (Yes, it would shock me if you ever voted Democrat).

The reason that I brought it up is because the gay marriage issue is something that needs to be discussed (sex related). It can't be swept under the rug by a few people in this administration. It's not going to go away. Calling them "sinners" or "evil doers" wont cut it.

The bad part is that gays don't like to be studied; i.e. guinea pigs? I say, give science a chance. You never know what could be found out.

Anyone remember the Salem Witch trails? Religious hysteria? That did happen in America, right? Just seems that *black and white* religiosity tends to prevent progress; promotes narrow-mindedness.

[Sishir Chang]

For those who think liberals never change I'm here to say I'm a reformed liberal.

When I first went to college I was against free trade, against tax cuts, against the military, and for big government. Since then my opinion all of those have greatly changed.

What I've come to realize is that IMO the real danger to government and society isn't from liberal or conservative, or even Democrat or Republican, but really is extremism. Looking at history it seems to me that when extremists run government things tend to go badly whether they are liberals or conservatives. So while Goldwater's dictum, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" sounds good it rarely is that way in practice. The further one goes to carry out a liberal or conservative agenda the worse things seem to go for most of the population. Tyranny by the proletariot or tyranny by the capitalist is still tyranny in either case.

That is one reason why I don't support the current Admin. but more the reason why I support divided government. This is also where I think the greatness and genius of the Framers of the Constitution lies in creating a system that allows for division and checks and balances to force compromise and moderation to govern.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
What I've come to realize is that IMO the real danger to government and society isn't from liberal or conservative, or even Democrat or Republican, but really is extremism. Looking at history it seems to me that when extremists run government things tend to go badly whether they are liberals or conservatives. So while Goldwater's dictum, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" sounds good it rarely is that way in practice. The further one goes to carry out a liberal or conservative agenda the worse things seem to go for most of the population. Tyranny by the proletariot or tyranny by the capitalist is still tyranny in either case.

Bingo! That's what I see in today's Administration.

In relation to their extreme foreign policy (both neo-liberal and neo-conservative).

"They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

[IROC it]

Originally posted by DavidS
I mean, tell me. Where you appalled by the Janet Jackson tit thing? Shocked?

Not really. I would have rather it not happen when my kids could have been watching, but I can't really say it was the "ultimate evil" as some seemed to think.



Originally posted by DavidS
BTW, my parents were nether conservative nor liberal (best described as moderates; a bit of libertarian). They thought for themselves. They didn't, and still don't, blindly follow any party. Unlike YOU! (Yes, it would shock me if you ever voted Democrat).

Not in the general election, so far... but I have helped put democrats, and libertarians (ironically the party to whose newsletter I subscribe "Gulf Coast Liberty - July 2004" currently -yellow paper, first story "BADNARIK-CAMPAGNA TO HQ IN AUSTIN" for those that may doubt) in office. Sen. Ron Paul is a family friend of ours.... blah, blah...

Originally posted by DavidS
The reason that I brought it up is because the gay marriage issue is something that needs to be discussed (sex related). It can't be swept under the rug by a few people in this administration. It's not going to go away. Calling them "sinners" or "evil doers" wont cut it.

I agree.

Originally posted by DavidS
The bad part is that gays don't like to be studied; i.e. guinea pigs. I say, give science a chance. You never know what could be found out.

True. Good point.

Originally posted by DavidS
Anyone remember the Salem Witch trails? Religious hysteria? That did happen in America, right?

They do say, learn from history. Or you'll repeat it...

Part of why I blow whistles on Kerry (Benedict) and others on Bush (Hitler).... I think we all go extreme with comparisons, if only to gain attention... albeit self destructive in part, and it clouds the real issues. ;)

[rimbaud]

Originally posted by aghast
Thanks nyquil and rimbaud (homage to the poet, or the Bande a part namesake?). Even though it was used in jest, can I quote you on the "heavenly liberal" part?

Indirectly the poet, but more directly it is a reference to a dream I had where I was the PG for the Rockets but the back of my jersey said RIMBAUD. There was performance art and spoken word involved as well but that is another matter. Pilfer whatever you wish.

giddy, in the end you answered your own question to which you already knew the answer. Me good, you bad.

[Sishir Chang]

This is a side topic but one I've been wondering about.

Why would it take advances in science to advocate change about the abortion issue? My primary argument has been to err on the side of caution. That lump of cells IS human. Given time and nutrition it will enter the world as it started out, human, unless a natural mishap occurs or someone orders an abortion.

I think you're missing the point here about the extent of the impact science has on the abortion issue. The whole basis for the argument about whether life begins at conception or birth has to do with viability. Prior to modern neo-natal medicine there was no chance a fetus could live beyond the womb. Birth was easily the demarcation point for life because prior to that point there was no way to actually prove that a fetus was really an independent distinct life since it couldn't live outside of its mother. Thanks to modern science that definition has gone out the window because you can prove that a fetus actually is an independent separate life because it is viable outside of the womb. With artificial fertilization you can even concieve a new genetically distinct embryo and even store in definately. You could create an embryo from in the lab freeze it and even after the parents have died implant it into someone elses womb and give birth a brand new baby. Heck you could probably take one of the embryos from the cell lines that GW Bush has OK'ed for experimentation and implant them and get a viable baby from them. Reproductive science is what actually proves the faith argument that that lump of cells is a human being.

On the other hand though science also causes a huge problem for the argument that a lump of cells is a human being. Cloning means that it will soon be possible to take any cells from your body and create a new human life. So potentially every cell in your body is a new human and anytime you kill those cells, exfoliating, donating blood, popping a pimble and so on you're commiting abortion. Finally if you're going to argue that this is still ridiculous since say they cells on your toe can't develop independently that's comes back to the same argument

[Sishir Chang]

to continue my last point..

that comes back to the same argument that a fetus really isn't viable outside of the womb so its not really a distinct life until its born just like the cells on your toes can't be considered a separate life unless they undergo a cloning process.

[aghast]

Originally posted by giddyup
Why would it take advances in science to advocate change about the abortion issue? My primary argument has been to err on the side of caution. That lump of cells IS human. Given time and nutrition it will enter the world as it started out, human, unless a natural mishap occurs or someone orders an abortion.

Are you really waiting for science to measure the human soul? It will be a long wait.

If you want to wait on science, you wait on it to prove YOUR point that that lump of cells growing in some woman's body is NOT a human being. You've jumped the gun and now you want to put the burden of scientific proof on the pro-Life side? It is your side that is potentially taking an innocent life.

You are completely misreading my previous post. The above, per the previous definition, is an appeal to blind emotion. I will gladly discuss abortion with you in another thread, but this is absolutely not the point I was attempting to articulate. (And S. Chang makes an apt observation: you are very much using past scientific discovery as the basis for that particular judgment.)

My point, restated: the evidence that you and I share to formulate our moral opinions on the merits of, as you brought up, abortion and welfare, have not changed in many a year. Again, there hasn’t been any great scientific advance recently to, say: know the exact day in its development when a fetus first feels pain as an independent organism, or the moment in its development when it has its first thought. Similarly, there hasn’t been any recent economic unified theorem breakthrough to verify exactly how much a society should give to its poorest or least able. Thus, I don’t expect to change your mind on these issues, nor do I expect my mind to be changed, because there is no actual evidence on which to base those changes.

However, the administration in power has used its power to implement many of its theories. It argued for a preemptive (actually preventative) war based upon the assertion that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons, was a threat to the United States. We now have evidence that Iraq did not. Upon this evidence, one can conclude that the administration was wrong. The administration passed rounds of tax cuts, first to ‘give something back’ to Americans for helping make a great economy, then when the economy tanked, to start off stimulus programs to reinvigorate it. When one compares the administration’s job predictions or budget projections versus the actual numbers, one has evidence to conclude that the GWB programs have failed to meet their lofty marks. I could go on: into health care costs, the percentage of Americans insured, the evidence of climate change, pollution levels, fuel costs, etc.

My point: these issues aren’t mere judgment calls. Morality isn’t necessarily at issue. These are issues in which there is evidence, readily available, which one should use to base one’s calls. One can make the distinction between true conservatism and the GWB brand of Republican conservative, but the GWB type has certainly sullied the name of the conservative movement.

To be intractable on the abortion issue, fine, go ahead. There are legitimate, ethical, dilemmas as to when life, and more importantly humanity, actually begins. But to be intractable on the initial Iraq war justification, or argue for more tax cuts to improve the economy, when all evidence points to the contrary opinion, is I believe the height of stupidity, or at the very least intellectual rigidity.

Originally posted by giddyup
[b]The pattern that I'm talking about precedes Trader_Jorge. I remember his arrival. Yes, perhaps, he intensified the situation. I'm quite sure he is getting a good laugh about all the hubub he creates.

Yeah, I also get the very real sense that TJ is someone’s idea of a lark. He plays the character, it seems to me, as a satire of a conservative, for his own sense of mirth, with no actual concern for the issues involved. However, what I was attempting to write was that reading his drivel day after day would not want to make an impressionable moderate into a conservative. If anything, reading Jorge day after day could turn one into a, gasp, liberal.

Originally posted by giddyup
In the end, I think all I've done is identify the political prejudice of this BBS. It has been said that power corrupts. The complete denial, by those who have participated, of what I'm identifying is very confirming for me. There are blind spots all around.
See, it’s easy to count up the number of impassioned posters, both liberal and conservative. If that’s all you were trying to do, why not get out your slide rule, a pencil and paper? Why start a thread about it? I thought you were trying to ask why that was the case.

I give you my take: that the increase in the number of liberal posters and the decrease in conservatives, on something as innocuous as a basketball BBS, is a direct result of the current administration’s many failings.

But absolute power corrupts absolutely? On a sports fansite? That’s patently ridiculous. Republican president, Republican Congress, Republican Supreme Court. There’s your power.

[giddyup]

I did ask why; no one wanted to consider the reasons. I guess they are too horrible to fathom. :D

I know that threads develop a life of their own-- kind of like kids. As the thread-starter you set them on some kind of path but they end up where their experience and the circumstances take them.

My views on abortion are based on logic not science. That lump of cells will be born human. S/he doesn't become human upon exposure to light. S/he is human. If anything, science has gone on to support this position with DNA studies et al. I don't think that further scientific study is going to reverse that. It can only confirm it further, I think. I understand why you perceive it a dilemna. Do you understand why I don't?

Have there been many victories in the War on Poverty?

You have over-simplified the arguments for the War in Iraq? Yes, the WMD issue was over-stated, but from Clinton's Administration forward, the intel indicated that he had some capacity for WMD; indeed he had used them before-- not nuclear, of course. And I don't think it wise to say that issue is ready to put to bed.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
to continue my last point..

that comes back to the same argument that a fetus really isn't viable outside of the womb so its not really a distinct life until its born just like the cells on your toes can't be considered a separate life unless they undergo a cloning process.

So when your parents get to the point when they can't live on their own, do they lose status as a distinct life?

My father couldn't feed himself or get himself to the toilet in the last couple years of his life, but his mind was razor sharp and we could talk about any manner of things past, present, and future.

Without our help and professional help, he would have been dead much, much sooner than he managed to live.

Shove a few toe scrapings into someone's womb and I have no problem with removing it unceremoniously. The mass of cells to which I refer is whole, complete, integrated and is a human being who will arrive in the world if left to survivie.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
So when your parents get to the point when they can't live on their own, do they lose status as a distinct life?

My father couldn't feed himself or get himself to the toilet in the last couple years of his life, but his mind was razor sharp and we could talk about any manner of things past, present, and future.

Without our help and professional help, he would have been dead much, much sooner than he managed to live.


That's a far different thing from being in the womb or as a direct physical part of one's body.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
That's a far different thing from being in the womb or as a direct physical part of one's body.
Your wording was "isn't viable."

Why is the attachment through an umbilical chord the difference between life and death? Doesn't that seem rather arbitrary?

[TraJ]

Originally posted by Oski2005
Why is the word liberal used to describe people negatively? It used to be, "we're different and here is why our way is better." Now, you turn on the tv and hear "So and so, (and in a deep menacing voice) is a LIBERAL" Dun dun duuuuuuuuun!!!! Did you not think at some point we'd fight back?

Thankfully, no one ever uses the word conservative in a derogatory manner.

[bnb]

Actually....Liberal seems to have been selected as the counter to the NeoCon label. We all know how important labels are -- and NeoCon just sounds creepy. So we need an equally 'insulting' label for the other side.

And thus the word Liberal lost its innocence.

[thadeus]

Back on topic, a bit:

This board does have a noticeably greater number of "liberals" who actively post than "conservatives."

Maybe someone else has noticed this - doesn't this imbalance seem to be echoed on most internet bulletin boards? I've seen it quite frequently: A number of "liberals" who post on a regular basis, with far fewer "conservatives" who participate (and, oddly enough, the small "conservative" contigency on BBSes is usually represented by a handful of very outspoken Bush supporters).

Assuming I'm not the only one who has noticed this, why would bulletin boards have this characteristically lop-sided population? By the polls, it seems apparent that the U.S. is rather evenly split - so why don't internet bulletin boards reflect that equal distribution?

Something I've been wondering about.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
Your wording was "isn't viable."

Why is the attachment through an umbilical chord the difference between life and death? Doesn't that seem rather arbitrary?

You're (perhaps deliberately) confusing a biological standard of viability with a social standard of viability. If you consider that feeding and caring for someone is no different than a umbilical cord then you have a far greater attachment to tropical fish you raise who have no chance at life without your care than your children who more than likely will lead a life not relying on your care.

[rimrocker]

Originally posted by thadeus
Back on topic, a bit:

This board does have a noticeably greater number of "liberals" who actively post than "conservatives."



Regarding this particular board, on average, people who play basketball have a higher innate intelligence. In some of us, this leads to a more intelligent political philosophy.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
You're (perhaps deliberately) confusing a biological standard of viability with a social standard of viability. If you consider that feeding and caring for someone is no different than a umbilical cord then you have a far greater attachment to tropical fish you raise who have no chance at life without your care than your children who more than likely will lead a life not relying on your care.
Yes, I was deliberate because you were arabitrary. My father was biologically dependent on help with feeding and other matters. If feeding and caring for someone is no different than an umbilical chord then that raises the sacredness of the umbilical chord.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by giddyup
Yes, I was deliberate because you were arabitrary. My father was biologically dependent on help with feeding and other matters. If feeding and caring for someone is no different than an umbilical chord then that raises the sacredness of the umbilical chord.

Its not arbitrary at all, its the difference between a social vs a biological standard. Anyone can provide care for another human, or animal for that matter, but (so far) only one particular human female can incubate any particular fetus from embryo to birth.

But as I said since you don't see any difference between feeding and caring for someone vs a umbilical chord then the bond between you and your pets are greater than the bond with your children. Since your kids have a far greater probabilty for life without your care than your pets.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by rimrocker
Regarding this particular board, on average, people who play basketball have a higher innate intelligence. In some of us, this leads to a more intelligent political philosophy.

Considering some of the boneheaded plays, both on and off court, by many NBA players, including several Rockets, I don't know about that.:(

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
Its not arbitrary at all, its the difference between a social vs a biological standard. Anyone can provide care for another human, or animal for that matter, but (so far) only one particular human female can incubate any particular fetus from embryo to birth.

But as I said since you don't see any difference between feeding and caring for someone vs a umbilical chord then the bond between you and your pets are greater than the bond with your children. Since your kids have a far greater probabilty for life without your care than your pets.
Two points:

1. I would sell my pets but not my children

2. Pets could survive on their own-- except for my fish.

It is but a strained logic that turns a pro-Life argument into a PETA plank.