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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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....
obviously...you are a different kind of Repub....a real rare one in my experience......A Republican musician...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. 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... I agree. True. Good point. 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.
