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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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......
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...
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.
True. Otherwise, he would not have bothered responding to you. Of course, I still don't understand the original question.
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.
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.
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
Relax, giddy. Tiger behind the keyboard? "My side good, your side bad" reverse, repeat, mix, match, repeat again.
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.
