Liberals progress society, conservatives dont.

[nathanjizzle]

Look at all the people that have a big impact in modern society, young adults coming out of college are liberals, big cities like chicago, new york, miami, los angelos even austin texas that set the trend for our country are liberal cities. Billion dollar companies like microsoft and tesla, created by liberals. Think about this, as you reply to this post, what conservative has helped you get access to the internet and post your reply to my topic? bill gates or steve jobs, created the computer you are using. al gore help start the internet network that you are typing on. jeff is a liberal who created the interweb platform you are sharing your opinion on.

i mean its simple. liberals are free and progressive thinking people that want a better future, conservatives are just that, conservative, they want what they have currently, they believe in and are content with what they already know and are use to.

[fiddy]

Look at all the people that have a big impact in modern society, young adults coming out of college are liberals, big cities like chicago, new york, miami, los angelos that set the trend for our country are liberal cities. Billion dollar companies like microsoft and tesla, created by liberals. Think about this, as you reply to this post, what conservative has helped you get access to the internet and post your reply to my topic? bill gates or steve jobs, created the computer you are using. al gore help start the internet network that you are typing on. jeff is a liberal who created the interweb platform you are sharing your opinion on.

i mean its simple. liberals are free and progressive thinking people that want a better future, conservatives are just that, conservative, they want what they have currently, they believe in and are content with what they already know and are use to.
sure :facepalm

[nathanjizzle]

sure :facepalm

bulgaria

[nathanjizzle]

elon musk, helping our country rid itself of oil dependency, gets attacked by an idiot conservative.

http://www.inquisitr.com/609812/sarah-palin-angers-elon-musk-by-calling-his-companys-electric-car-a-loser/

shame. if it were up to conservatives, we would be using combustion engines for the next 1000 years until oil runs out.

[GimmeThat]

and Liberals often time lack a sense of direction, even that of progress.

[LilKateMoss]

I completely agree. You just need to look at OP: running the next billion dollar business, cardboard car spoilers, from his parent's garage. That's a successful liberal if I've ever seen one.

[Akrazotile]

OP is the gimmick account of a pathetic and deranged internet creep, and this is an obvious bait thread for the same discussion that happens here all the time, so all Ill say is this:

Society is more liberal than ever. The wealth gap is larger than ever. If youre not complaining about the first, dont complain about the second.

[Patrick Chewing]

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/106251/2879775-internet_troll.jpg

[DukeDelonte13]

OP is the gimmick account of a pathetic and deranged internet creep, and this is an obvious bait thread for the same discussion that happens here all the time, so all Ill say is this:

Society is more liberal than ever. The wealth gap is larger than ever. If youre not complaining about the first, dont complain about the second.


Not really depending on your definition of liberalism.

If you are talking about socialistic policies that's definitely not the case.

If you are talking about general popular opinion, i'd also say probably not. I think the 60's and 70's had an even more "liberal" public opinion then we do now.

Look around you. Almost half the country obsesses over things like allowing people to buy machine guns, outlawing abortion, and trying to bring religious teachings into science class.

Post 9/11 america is definitely not America's most liberal time.

[Akrazotile]

Not really depending on your definition of liberalism.

If you are talking about socialistic policies that's definitely not the case.

If you are talking about general popular opinion, i'd also say probably not. I think the 60's and 70's had an even more "liberal" public opinion then we do now.

Look around you. Almost half the country obsesses over things like allowing people to buy machine guns, outlawing abortion, and trying to bring religious teachings into science class.

Post 9/11 america is definitely not America's most liberal time.


The things permitted on TV today were not permitted on TV back then. The out of wedlock birth rate has skyrocketed. Immigration attitudes are more lax. Your point that guns and abortion are so hotly contested today proves my point - back then there was much less dissent toward tradition views on those things.

Hippies may be the lasting iconic image of that time but a very small percentage of Americans were at Woodstock bro. The things we shrug our shoulders at today would have caused huge public outcries amongst the general population of yesteryear.


Personally I wish we could just freeze time in the 90s. I think that's destined to be Americas overall peak. Our entertaintment, political opinions, technological obsessions etc have only jumped the shark since then. It's now just getting ludicrous.

[fiddy]

bulgaria
a place you know nothing about, poor attempt to insult, try again

[red1]

Our western society is f*cked. We're fighting all of the wrong battles. How many more rights do women and gays need. The younger generations are only becoming worse. No concept of discipline and hard-work, everything is instant gratification. None of the shit we show on tv teaches them anything positive. Even shit like sesame street hardly gets any play meanwhile they all worship athletes and celebrities instead of legitimately great people. It's all going downhill man.

[Dresta]

Not really depending on your definition of liberalism.

If you are talking about socialistic policies that's definitely not the case.

If you are talking about general popular opinion, i'd also say probably not. I think the 60's and 70's had an even more "liberal" public opinion then we do now.

Look around you. Almost half the country obsesses over things like allowing people to buy machine guns, outlawing abortion, and trying to bring religious teachings into science class.

Post 9/11 america is definitely not America's most liberal time.
Oh really?

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Federal-Outlays-Per-Capita-1000.jpg

Machine guns, abortion, and religious beliefs, have nothing to do with whether people are more socialist leaning or not: they are completely irrelevant, in fact, so it's strange for you to bring them up, almost as if you were falling prey to a political caricature and taking this to be representative of over 100 million individuals.

Not only have socialistic policies been dominant for over half a century now, the entirety of contemporary political discourse is framed using language that already favours the rhetoric of socialists. Example: the personification of 'society' and the belief it can 'think' 'will' 'act' 'reward' 'punish' 'allocate' 'control' etc. - this is a false constructivist interpretation of words that leads to illegitimate conclusions that society can be directed/controlled from above, and that this action constitutes an act of society or 'social will.' This also leads to the perpetual framing of political discourse around null and void concepts like 'social justice' that have no tangible definition or objective meaning, but are great rhetorical devices for manipulating caring but ignorant people into your corner. This solecistic mantra is adopted by all parties, right or left, because it sounds neat and honourable (yet means nothing), but it primes people into a socialistic (collectivist) mode of thinking regardless.

The annexation of the word 'liberal' by those who hate true liberalism is another example, as is the use of terms like 'positive liberty', 'progressive' income tax, 'social' security, 'progressive' in general, the constant conflating of democracy with egalitarianism, et cetera. In fact, these misapplications have become so engrained that even conservatives are happy to use them, and are frequently willing to defend things that are socialist simply because they are conservatives, and conservatives generally like to conserve things that have gained widespread societal acceptance, be they socialist or otherwise.

This thread is asinine anyway in that it doesn't bother to define the two terms it is using to make such a broad and sweeping generalisation.

[Relinquish]

a place you know nothing about, poor attempt to insult, try again

It's the fact that you are acting as though you have a say in American politics when you're from Bulgaria. :facepalm

[Godzuki]

I agree on a social issues level, and in terms of mentality, that liberals do further society. The problem with conservatives is they want things to stay the same forever.

30-40~ years ago they called ACDC the devils music. They outlawed video games in some conservative towns saying they were a bad influence. Through recent history very conservative Republicans have pushed for things we can laugh at now, but back in the day they held up progress. Obviously not all conservatives share those ideals but the ones that do are Republicans nonetheless.

Even today they remain staunchly conservative on all social issues. They still pretend marriage is some sacred institution. They still make up their own science that global warming doesn't exist, that being gay is a choice and they can be taught not to be gay, etc, etc.

And i think that mentality is why you rarely see them furthering progress, especially in the tech sector. Those tech type of people want to further science and are rooted in it. They can't wait for us to reach the next tech generation, or having just overall less of that conservative mentality of wanting to go backwards, or being reluctant for change.

Liberals have their issues tho. I'd say more fiscally but Republicans can be real retarded fiscally as well like sending us into a complete economic collapse by letting everything fail.

The bottom line is it all comes down to their mentalities where Republicans tend to be idealists, who are stubborn to a fault in their beliefs, where as liberals are more practical without that stubborn idealism attached to most of the issues.

[Dresta]

The bottom line is it all comes down to their mentalities where Republicans tend to be idealists, who are stubborn to a fault in their beliefs, where as liberals are more practical without that stubborn idealism attached to most of the issues.
:biggums:

You can't have a proper discussion with a self-designated liberal without them:

1. Getting offended.
2. Making the discussion emotive and basing their arguments largely on personal sentiment.
3. Thinking your political principles make you a scumbag who deserves to be shot.
4. Making a display about how much more they care about people than you do (while in their personal life doing nothing at all to help people).

From my personal experience.

[Derka]

Both sides are idiotic and destructive.

[BasedTom]

It's not that simple.

[fiddy]

It's the fact that you are acting as though you have a say in American politics when you're from Bulgaria. :facepalm
Liberal and conservative stand points in politics are more philosophical issues than country specific issues, so stfu you overproud fvckk



I agree on a social issues level, and in terms of mentality, that liberals do further society. The problem with conservatives is they want things to stay the same forever.

30-40~ years ago they called ACDC the devils music. They outlawed video games in some conservative towns saying they were a bad influence. Through recent history very conservative Republicans have pushed for things we can laugh at now, but back in the day they held up progress. Obviously not all conservatives share those ideals but the ones that do are Republicans nonetheless.

Even today they remain staunchly conservative on all social issues. They still pretend marriage is some sacred institution. They still make up their own science that global warming doesn't exist, that being gay is a choice and they can be taught not to be gay, etc, etc.

And i think that mentality is why you rarely see them furthering progress, especially in the tech sector. Those tech type of people want to further science and are rooted in it. They can't wait for us to reach the next tech generation, or having just overall less of that conservative mentality of wanting to go backwards, or being reluctant for change.

Liberals have their issues tho. I'd say more fiscally but Republicans can be real retarded fiscally as well like sending us into a complete economic collapse by letting everything fail.

The bottom line is it all comes down to their mentalities where Republicans tend to be idealists, who are stubborn to a fault in their beliefs, where as liberals are more practical without that stubborn idealism attached to most of the issues.
Rip common sense.

[East_Stone_Ya]

there is a extreme form of conservatism which is called libertarianism, so what OP is saying is not entirely true

[Godzuki]

:biggums:

You can't have a proper discussion with a self-designated liberal without them:

1. Getting offended.
2. Making the discussion emotive and basing their arguments largely on personal sentiment.
3. Thinking your political principles make you a scumbag who deserves to be shot.
4. Making a display about how much more they care about people than you do (while in their personal life doing nothing at all to help people).

From my personal experience.


well the one trait with most conservatives/Republicans i've noticed is they have these extremely stubborn belief systems. whether that is in religion, theory, or whatever, they ALWAYS have to take a side no matter how impractical based on those ideals with very little practical thinking.

for example, "you can't bail them out, that goes against Capitalism" despite letting everything fail would be a complete economic collapse of insurance, financial, real estate, and everything related to those at the same time. I mean nobody wants to bail out wall street but at least liberals recognized the necessity of it, while Republicans stuck to their belief systems.

Its the same with everything religious vs todays reality. they no matter what stick to their belief system, no matter how much society has changed, or keeps changing.

there is just a stubborness based on their ideals, no matter how unrealistic or impractical what they're proposing is, HAS TO BE DONE according to these belief systems they have.

and i do get some of your issues with liberals because we/they do play the "all you care about is yourselves" guilt trips while playing exaggerated WOE IS ME cards justifying handouts that encourage laziness. i mean i'm more sided with Republicans with general fiscal issues. liberals are very unrealistic when it comes to taking from businesses, environmental regulations, and things of that sort doing their best to rape the economic world for their social issue pushes.

and before someone says it, i think many in the middle are just as bad as both sides, if not worse :p i mean talk about unrealistic, i won't even get into some of the expectations of some independents who want to do away with all government and expect the communities to gather together and make up for them. even if some of the things they say sound good...there is a lot of ridiculous.

[rufuspaul]

there is just a stubborness based on their ideals, no matter how unrealistic or impractical what they're proposing is, HAS TO BE DONE according to these belief systems they have.




The exact same can be said for liberals. Even more so.

[Dresta]

there is a extreme form of conservatism which is called libertarianism, so what OP is saying is not entirely true
See, this is why definitions are important, and how the degradation of language has rendered clear thinking in the realm of politics harder than ever.

Conservatism, for it to maintain any tangible meaning whatsoever, has to mean resistance to change. Implementing a libertarian system would be the complete opposite of that, and would require the complete dissolution of our present mode of governance; so to call it an 'extreme form of conservatism' is a fallacy, because to propose libertarianism in modern America is far more radical than it is reactionary.

Moreover, what is now generally slandered as 'Libertarianism' is little different from the old 'Classical Liberalism' that dominated the 19th century (originally just called 'liberalism' - that is before some socialists decided they liked the moniker themselves, and so changed its meaning through incorrect usage). This way we've done a full circle, and what you described as 'extreme conservatism' i could just as easily call outspoken liberalism, and be far more accurate as well.

[Le Shaqtus]

Both sides are idiotic and destructive.

This

[BasedTom]

http://i.imgur.com/La8liLB.jpg

Oh but look at the great strides that have been made in our lifetime! The face of progress: http://i.imgur.com/T1HXOdr.jpg

I'm just kidding guys. don't take it so seriously

[Godzuki]

The exact same can be said for liberals. Even more so.


nope. not even close.

it'd be great if for once you explained a point you're making but i'm sure you won't/can't.

[cuad]

OP progresses feces through my colon.

[longtime lurker]

Look at all the people that have a big impact in modern society, young adults coming out of college are liberals, big cities like chicago, new york, miami, los angelos even austin texas that set the trend for our country are liberal cities. Billion dollar companies like microsoft and tesla, created by liberals. Think about this, as you reply to this post, what conservative has helped you get access to the internet and post your reply to my topic? bill gates or steve jobs, created the computer you are using. al gore help start the internet network that you are typing on. jeff is a liberal who created the interweb platform you are sharing your opinion on.

i mean its simple. liberals are free and progressive thinking people that want a better future, conservatives are just that, conservative, they want what they have currently, they believe in and are content with what they already know and are use to.

Translation: conservatives are fvcking idiots.

[rufuspaul]

This is somewhat off topic but consider the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened in liberal, post-enlightenment Europe. More than half the participants at the Wannsee Conference (where much of the "Final Solution" was planned) were either PHDs or medical practitioners educated in the modern, liberal academic institutions of the day.

How's that for progressing society?

[BasedTom]

This is somewhat off topic but consider the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened in liberal, post-enlightenment Europe. More than half the participants at the Wannsee Conference (where much of the "Final Solution" was planned) were either PHDs or medical practitioners educated in the modern, liberal academic institutions of the day.

How's that for progressing society?
No political group can truly claim that they have clean hands.

The fact that we are so eager to label ourselves as member of one faction against the other, and view the others as inherently inferior/stupid is another reason why those slaughters happen in the first place. It's not solely racism, nationalism, or religion that causes bloodshed.

[rufuspaul]

nope. not even close.



:oldlol: Case in point.

[Trollsmasher]

Dresta is by far my favorite OTC poster:bowdown:

[Godzuki]

:oldlol: Case in point.


lol knew it. you don't know much which is why you're always purposely obscure :sleeping

and i should add bitter as fukk lol

[rufuspaul]

No political group can truly claim that they have clean hands.


That's true. But to bluntly state that society can only progress through the liberal agenda is stubborn and short-sided, exactly what the idiot OP claims about conservatives.

[rufuspaul]

Rufus who is your favorite wrestler of all time?


You my man. and Ric Flair

[BasedTom]

damn very smart man

rufus is correct whatever he is saying

wooooo
macho man did you **** steph?

[KevinNYC]

This is somewhat off topic but consider the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened in liberal, post-enlightenment Europe. More than half the participants at the Wannsee Conference (where much of the "Final Solution" was planned) were either PHDs or medical practitioners educated in the modern, liberal academic institutions of the day.

How's that for progressing society?

Are you saying liberal ideas led to the Holocaust?

or that

Even doctors are capable of evil?

[Akrazotile]

Are you saying liberal ideas led to the Holocaust?

or that

Even doctors are capable of evil?


I think the point is fairly obvious, if liberalism has been continuously progressing western society positively since the 1400s, how is it that genocide was being pursued in the mid 1900s on the planet's most liberal continent?


The OP's point in general is retardedly broad and simple, and purposely so because this was obviously a bait/troll thread. "Liberal progresses society, conservatives don't." As Dresta alluded to earlier, to even begin to tackle that supposition takes an enormous laying-out of definitions and methods of measurement.

Rufuspaul's example is one of innumerable ways or examples with which to throw a wrench in the OP's assertion. If you're looking for that example to prove anything further, you're wasting your time, because, it would seem you're missing the point to begin with.

[rufuspaul]

Are you saying liberal ideas led to the Holocaust?

or that

Even doctors are capable of evil?


Neither is inherently good or evil. I'm saying that liberalism doesn't always lead to a progressive society. Some very radical and progressive agendas have also been conservative in nature. Some good, some bad.

And yes all doctors are evil.

[KevinNYC]

I think the point is fairly obvious, if liberalism has been continuously progressing western society positively since the 1400s, how is it that genocide was being pursued in the mid 1900s on the planet's most liberal continent?

Um, because it's not magic? Or it's not perfect?

Or maybe it works slowly? Or it's incomplete?

Or maybe not every European believed in liberal ideas? And that there were other competing ideas including reactions against liberalism? Or that the people in power weren't liberals.

I'm not even arguing the OP's point. But to argue that the Holocaust disproves the OP's point only seems to make sense if every European was liberal in 1933.

The point about genocide being surprising on the most liberal continent in the 1940's is only surprising if you ignore what Europeans were doing on other continents pretty recently and all the stuff that happened after WWI.

Also, was liberalism around in the 1400's? Rufus mentions the enlightenment which was a few centuries later and makes more sense as a liberal time.

[KevinNYC]

Neither is inherently good or evil. I'm saying that liberalism doesn't always lead to a progressive society. Some very radical and progressive agendas have also been conservative in nature. Some good, some bad.

And yes all doctors are evil.
I was going to write dentists, but that was self-evident.

Anyhow, I don't see German in the 1930's as a particularly liberal place or one that wholeheartedly embraced The Enlightment. It definitely embraced science and was a very technically advanced society.

Christopher Browning says that Germany found part of The Enlightenment too French. (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/int2004-02-11.htm)
You begin the book by reviewing the historical events that set up the conditions for the Holocaust in Germany. One of these was, as you put it, "a distorted and incomplete embrace of the Enlightenment." Can you elaborate on this?

In Germany, after the Napoleonic conquest, the values of the Enlightenment were spread in an uneven way. What I call the humanistic and individualistic side of the Enlightenment was generally associated with the French, and in order to break away from Napoleon, the Germans embraced the scientific and rational side of the Enlightenment. You have this kind of schizophrenia where Germany absorbed those aspects of the Enlightenment that gave them the power to drive the French out but shunned those parts that they considered contrary to German values.

So a certain strand of German culture rejected such aspects of the Enlightenment as individual rights and a more liberal, democratic political tradition, while embracing the notion of rational, bureaucratic management of society. That's what I mean by a kind of unequal or asymmetrical embrace of the Enlightenment, at least within one part of German culture.

[Akrazotile]

Um, because it's not magic? Or it's not perfect?

Or maybe it works slowly? Or it's incomplete?

Or maybe not every European believed in liberal ideas? And that there were other competing ideas including reactions against liberalism? Or that the people in power weren't liberals.

I'm not even arguing the OP's point. But to argue that the Holocaust disproves the OP's point only seems to make sense if every European was liberal in 1933.

Also the point about genocide being surprising on the most liberal continent in the 1940's is only surprising if you ignore what Europeans were doing on other continents pretty recently and all the stuff that happened after WWI.

Also, was liberalism around in the 1400's? Rufus mentions the enlightenment which was a few centuries later and makes more sense as a liberal time.


The Enlightenment was the flower that bloomed from the stem of the Rennaissance. Today we have gone farther still, and instead of burgeoning scientists and philosophers pioneering new ideas whose publications could get them imprisoned, exiled, or killed, those teachings are now every day cirriculum for school children.

That is the point. Society HAS continued to become more liberal in the modern american political sense over the last few hundred years. And yet the Holocaust happened less than a century ago, as have numerous other atrocities. Hell, what about the war Obama has us in now? He gets plenty of support from liberals. Gay marriage is enacted in many states, we have universal suffrage, social welfare system, the whole bit. Does that mean our middle eastern wars and growing wealth disparity are progressing things? You tell me.

[KevinNYC]

Hell, what about the war Obama has us in now?

Elaborate.

[Akrazotile]

Elaborate.

http://l.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/km3pfgdH7bnonVlHqRYAyQ--/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wME EzMDA7aD01NjM7dz00MDA-/http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2011/06/480459.jpg.cf.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Not really an elaboration is it?

Anyway, I was just trying to bait into explaining how the Taliban or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penisula should be embraced by all followers of the Enlightenment.

[Akrazotile]

Not really an elaboration is it?

Anyway, I was just trying to bait into explaining how the Taliban or Al Qaeda in the Arabian Penisula should be embraced by all followers of the Enlightenment.


Well for American liberals this would all be contingent upon whether Bush or Obama is in office.

If Bush is in office, then American liberals are uniformly against war in all forms and any sitting President who goes to war is a power-mad authoritarian following in the footsteps of Hitler.

If Obama is in office... then we absolutely have to do whatever possible to make sure homosexuals can marry each other. This whole "concern for the trillion dollar war that continues to claim thousands of lives" can wait until a Republican's back in office.

[Dresta]

I was going to write dentists, but that was self-evident.

Anyhow, I don't see German in the 1930's as a particularly liberal place or one that wholeheartedly embraced The Enlightment. It definitely embraced science and was a very technically advanced society.

Christopher Browning says that Germany found part of The Enlightenment too French. (http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/int2004-02-11.htm)
From that quote:

'So a certain strand of German culture rejected such aspects of the Enlightenment as individual rights and a more liberal, democratic political tradition, while embracing the notion of rational, bureaucratic management of society.'

Sounds a lot like contemporary 'liberalism' to me. Article is naive in thinking that the Enlightenment is some homogeneous blob of values: there were clear distinctions between the Continental and British philosophies that dominated the Enlightenment period; the fact that the former won out over the latter in the German intellegensia was one of things that allowed the nazis to gain power - they laid plenty of the groundwork pursuing their noble endeavours.

[KevinNYC]

Well for American liberals this would all be contingent upon whether Bush or Obama is in office.

If Bush is in office, then American liberals are uniformly against war in all forms and any sitting President who goes to war is a power-mad authoritarian following in the footsteps of Hitler.
You keep repeating this like it's true especially when you have one of your periodic meltdowns. Because this is certainly not true of Democrats. Are you only speaking of liberals? What's percent of the American public would be considered liberals? Anyone who voted for Obama? Cause that's 51% of voters. People who disapproved of Bush when he declared war on Afghanistan? Cause that's about 10% of Americans. Bush's approval ratings were at 92% two days after he declared war on the Taliban. Are liberals just 8-10% of the population?
George W. Bush Oct. 9, 2001 92% (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html)

Bush's approval ratings were near 90% for several months. Liberals broke with him when he became obvious Bush was going leverage this massive popular support into a War with Iraq. Liberals were right on this. The rest of the country caught up with them later particularly when it became clear that the premises the war was built on was false.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif


If Obama is in office... then we absolutely have to do whatever possible to make sure homosexuals can marry each other. This whole "concern for the trillion dollar war that continues to claim thousands of lives" can wait until a Republican's back in office.
Um, Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2008 and didn't support for the first three years in office. Liberals got there way before Obama did. Also, how do you go from the wars to gay marriage?

And as a candidate, Obama made it quite clear, that he was opposed to the Iraq war because it took the focus off Al Qaeda and promised to wind down the Iraq war and refocus on Afghanistan. This was his big foreign policy speech in June 2008 (http://www.cfr.org/iraq/barack-obamas-remarks-iraq-national-security/p16791)

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

He did wind us down in Iraq and he did refocus on Afghanistan. You can argue to what effect, but if you say you couldn't see this coming it's because you weren't paying attention.

So let me ask the question what do you think would have been the correct policy starting in January 2009. What would have supported?

[Akrazotile]

You keep repeating this like it's true especially when you have one of your periodic meltdowns. Because this is certainly not true of Democrats. Are you only speaking of liberals? What's percent of the American public would be considered liberals? Anyone who voted for Obama? Cause that's 51% of voters. People who disapproved of Bush when he declared war on Afghanistan? Cause that's about 10% of Americans. Bush's approval ratings were at 92% two days after he declared war on the Taliban. Are liberals just 8-10% of the population?
George W. Bush Oct. 9, 2001 92% (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html)

Bush's approval ratings were near 90% for several months. Liberals broke with him when he became obvious Bush was going leverage this massive popular support into a War with Iraq. Liberals were right on this. The rest of the country caught up with them later particularly when it became clear that the premises the war was built on was false.
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/cvfspjk4hesmzts2bc0brg.gif


Um, Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2008 and didn't support for the first three years in office. Liberals got there way before Obama did. Also, how do you go from the wars to gay marriage?

And as a candidate, Obama made it quite clear, that he was opposed to the Iraq war because it took the focus off Al Qaeda and promised to wind down the Iraq war and refocus on Afghanistan. This was his big foreign policy speech in June 2008 (http://www.cfr.org/iraq/barack-obamas-remarks-iraq-national-security/p16791)


He did wind us down in Iraq and he did refocus on Afghanistan. You can argue to what effect, but if you say you couldn't see this coming it's because you weren't paying attention.

So let me ask the question what do you think would have been the correct policy starting in January 2009. What would have supported?



:facepalm


Bush and Obama are not each coming up with their own war strategies. They are puppets cut from the same cloth. If the controlling interests want our country to go into Iraq, it goes into Iraq. If they want us in Afghanistan, we go into Afghanistan. The entire course of action is decided by financial interests, the President is simply the face put on it because people want a single face put on things too complex for them to understand.

YOU are the fool nursing some fantasy that you're the Rachel Madlow of the internet with all your corny attempts to come off as a political pundit. Or pretending like you're the ringside announcer of the big fight between Republicans and Democrats.


I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people themselves who loudly opposed the same policies under W which they now silently accept on under Barry. Go ahead, post stats about the public's support for W a week after 9/11. How incredibly meaningful. You have no intelligent THOUGHT to contribute, you are literally just a parrot that is endlessly searching through google to find articles or polls done by others so that you can try and win the little Red vs. Blue tug of war. That's all it is to you, a game. A fantasy, that you can achieve some sort of victory for your fat ass by making the winning case for Blue against Red. Whereas myself and a small few other posters are actually trying to figure out real objective ANSWERS to this stuff, you're simply using it as a little game to occupy whatever time left you have in your worthless life before you literally eat yourself to death you fat pig.

[GimmeThat]

A liberal? A liberal ain't nothing more than someone who will take the money for the reason he/she accepts.

A conservative? A conservative ain't nothing more than someone who's still too focus on the why of their life and others' life

[KevinNYC]

:facepalm


Bush and Obama are not each coming up with their own war strategies. They are puppets cut from the same cloth. If the controlling interests want our country to go into Iraq, it goes into Iraq. If they want us in Afghanistan, we go into Afghanistan. The entire course of action is decided by financial interests, the President is simply the face put on it because people want a single face put on things too complex for them to understand.

YOU are the fool nursing some fantasy that you're the Rachel Madlow of the internet with all your corny attempts to come off as a political pundit. Or pretending like you're the ringside announcer of the big fight between Republicans and Democrats.


I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the people themselves who loudly opposed the same policies under W which they now silently accept on under Barry. Go ahead, post stats about the public's support for W a week after 9/11. How incredibly meaningful. You have no intelligent THOUGHT to contribute, you are literally just a parrot that is endlessly searching through google to find articles or polls done by others so that you can try and win the little Red vs. Blue tug of war. That's all it is to you, a game. A fantasy, that you can achieve some sort of victory for your fat ass by making the winning case for Blue against Red. Whereas myself and a small few other posters are actually trying to figure out real objective ANSWERS to this stuff, you're simply using it as a little game to occupy whatever time left you have in your worthless life before you literally eat yourself to death you fat pig.

You must have a lot of friends who love to have you around.

Also. Booogitty-Booooogitty-boo. It's the financial interests that pull the strings. Look at me, repackaging ancient anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for the 21st Century and calling it wisdom. Such perception!

[Dresta]

KevinNYC is really the biggest partisan bellend on here, and now he's using approval rating polling statistics to justify his inane arguments - what a joke :lol

He also somehow thinks that modern day liberalism is a promoter of Enlightenment values like the salience of liberty as a principle, and the need to cultivate and protect human individuality, as well as thinking it rejects the 'notion of rational, bureaucratic management of society' (could be the definition of contemporary liberalism actually). He is also an example of someone who reads a lot of bullshit from various media outlets, but remains incapable of thinking for himself; i'm not surprised really, as every well-informed individual knows that the national print media, if read regularly and by someone who takes them to be serious and valuable sources of information (something they very rarely are), is going to lose his ability to think as an individual human being, as he instead becomes more and more sheep-like.

I've also noticed his tendency to avoid arguments that he can't find a ready-made and pre-packed answer for with a quick google search, which shows his knowledge of the subject matter is superficial, and his ability to think as an individual almost non-existent.

[rufuspaul]

30-40~ years ago they called ACDC the devils music.


It was Al Gore's wife who championed music censorship you stupid ****. Try actually learning some history and quit being a blue party *** slurper for a change.

[DukeDelonte13]

Oh really?

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Federal-Outlays-Per-Capita-1000.jpg

Machine guns, abortion, and religious beliefs, have nothing to do with whether people are more socialist leaning or not: they are completely irrelevant, in fact, so it's strange for you to bring them up, almost as if you were falling prey to a political caricature and taking this to be representative of over 100 million individuals.

Not only have socialistic policies been dominant for over half a century now, the entirety of contemporary political discourse is framed using language that already favours the rhetoric of socialists. Example: the personification of 'society' and the belief it can 'think' 'will' 'act' 'reward' 'punish' 'allocate' 'control' etc. - this is a false constructivist interpretation of words that leads to illegitimate conclusions that society can be directed/controlled from above, and that this action constitutes an act of society or 'social will.' This also leads to the perpetual framing of political discourse around null and void concepts like 'social justice' that have no tangible definition or objective meaning, but are great rhetorical devices for manipulating caring but ignorant people into your corner. This solecistic mantra is adopted by all parties, right or left, because it sounds neat and honourable (yet means nothing), but it primes people into a socialistic (collectivist) mode of thinking regardless.

The annexation of the word 'liberal' by those who hate true liberalism is another example, as is the use of terms like 'positive liberty', 'progressive' income tax, 'social' security, 'progressive' in general, the constant conflating of democracy with egalitarianism, et cetera. In fact, these misapplications have become so engrained that even conservatives are happy to use them, and are frequently willing to defend things that are socialist simply because they are conservatives, and conservatives generally like to conserve things that have gained widespread societal acceptance, be they socialist or otherwise.

This thread is asinine anyway in that it doesn't bother to define the two terms it is using to make such a broad and sweeping generalisation.


i brought that up because what true liberalism and conservatism in the true political spectrum are different than what most people think of when they think "conservatives and liberals". An easy set of examples would be gun control, religious beliefs, and abortion. A true conservative would not want DOMA's or a pro-life society, but what most people view as "conservative" is the opposite.

I thought that was pretty clear in my post when i separated the two, but you are a pretty dense guy.

[longhornfan1234]

Liberal policies usually fail. LBJ's great society destroyed the black community.

[Akrazotile]

i brought that up because what true liberalism and conservatism in the true political spectrum are different than what most people think of when they think "conservatives and liberals". An easy set of examples would be gun control, religious beliefs, and abortion. A true conservative would not want DOMA's or a pro-life society, but what most people view as "conservative" is the opposite.

I thought that was pretty clear in my post when i separated the two, but you are a pretty dense guy.

'Traditionalism' is maybe the more apt phrase to describe the values associated with most Republicans today, rather than 'conservative' necessarily.

The problem for conservatives/republicans/traditionalists/'the right' or however you wanna brand it is that theyre very splintered. You have the hardcore religious evangelists, typically out in the bible belt. You have the more moderately religious and traditional Americans, usually suburban and middle/upper-middle class folks, similar to rufuspaul (not saying hes a republican i have no idea, just that he fits this example) and then you have the more libertarian crowd, which is big in texas and among a lot of the younger generation of conservatives. In other words you got some people who would prefer a Mike Huckabee, some who might favor a John McCain type, and others who support someone like Ron Paul.

The problem is that Democrats are basically all the same, and that solidarity gives them power at the polls. Is it something to be proud of that you think the exact same way as 150,000,000 other people? Well, I wouldnt personally hang my hat on that but I guess thats another issue. Israel is about the size of a single u.s. state and has about 12 major political parties, but again I guess thats another matter.

[Dresta]

i brought that up because what true liberalism and conservatism in the true political spectrum are different than what most people think of when they think "conservatives and liberals". An easy set of examples would be gun control, religious beliefs, and abortion. A true conservative would not want DOMA's or a pro-life society, but what most people view as "conservative" is the opposite.

I thought that was pretty clear in my post when i separated the two, but you are a pretty dense guy.I'm not sure what you're talking about now and i don't see how it relates to my post. I honestly don't think you're making any sense at all. But there is nothing stopping a person from being against gun-control, abortion, and with strong religious beliefs supporting mass wealth re-distributions directed by the central government (socialistic policies), in fact, many who call themselves conservatives openly support socialistic policies, because they support what has been established, and these have been established for more than half a century now. So there is a clear cross-party consensus in favour of socialist policies, and yet you say there is less socialism now than before? People will always be divided on social issues one way or another, because things are always changing, and some will always try to slow it, while others always try to embrace it, but state socialism has won out as an economic consensus due to how its policies have been broadly accepted by the majority of both camps.

The thing is, the contemporary liberals don't want to allow things to change and develop naturally (for society to direct itself), they want the state to enforce change from the top down, and they happily accept socialist tactics as a means of doing so. Before Conservatives would use the state to prevent change, now 'Liberals' have become socialists who want to use the state to enforce change of their own choosing.

[joe]

It seems we are in a dark age socially. There's a huge lack of 'enlightened' thought from most people. It seems people are more driven from their fears/anger than from anything else. There is a big selfishness aspect to society, people only out for themselves. And personally I have just stopped caring and become apathetic because it all seems too convoluted. I'm not really sure what my view of my fellow man is at this point. I have mixed views. They used to be a lot more positive.

If I had to say, I think the things that would mark social progress in America are..

-No war at all, unless we're attacked. More volunteer armies to help others being victimized.
-"Doctor" not being thought of as a glamor profession. More charity and volunteer work to help others. I think one way to start accomplishing this is to end degree requirements and student loans.
-People not caring as much about nudity/swearing, basically growing up and being mature about what we're offended by.
-No care about whether someone is gay or straight.
-Honest money/competing currencies. It's wrong to make competing currencies illegal, and then manipulate the currency we're allowed to use.

I think Animal Rights belongs in here somewhere but that's a very complicated thing.

[Godzuki]

It was Al Gore's wife who championed music censorship you stupid ****. Try actually learning some history and quit being a blue party *** slurper for a change.

:facepalm
'
stick to cooking and cleaning

better yet just keep talking in obscurities so people don't know how dumb you are.

[Godzuki]

'Traditionalism' is maybe the more apt phrase to describe the values associated with most Republicans today, rather than 'conservative' necessarily.

The problem for conservatives/republicans/traditionalists/'the right' or however you wanna brand it is that theyre very splintered. You have the hardcore religious evangelists, typically out in the bible belt. You have the more moderately religious and traditional Americans, usually suburban and middle/upper-middle class folks, similar to rufuspaul (not saying hes a republican i have no idea, just that he fits this example) and then you have the more libertarian crowd, which is big in texas and among a lot of the younger generation of conservatives. In other words you got some people who would prefer a Mike Huckabee, some who might favor a John McCain type, and others who support someone like Ron Paul.

The problem is that Democrats are basically all the same, and that solidarity gives them power at the polls. Is it something to be proud of that you think the exact same way as 150,000,000 other people? Well, I wouldnt personally hang my hat on that but I guess thats another issue. Israel is about the size of a single u.s. state and has about 12 major political parties, but again I guess thats another matter.


2 out of the 3 Republican groups you just listed are generally pretty wacked tho. Between the Christian right and the Libertarians they are rather extreme in their views and pushes. the only faction of Republicans that are generally sensible are the fiscal conservatives. i really wish the fiscal Republicans could break away from the rest of that party since i know many of them don't believe in what the christian right or tea party believe in, but they need that voting power. the whole government shut down is a good example of the right wing moderates vs their extreme right segment.

As for Dem's, they have their extreme groups but they're much more harmless than the right generally speaking. they care more about animals, gay rights, etc. etc. they generally aren't trying to incorporate religious beliefs into laws or into schools like the right does. they aren't trying to push zero government either with a unrealistic reality. nor are all liberals as worried about animals, gay rights, etc. as those extreme groups.

there IS a lesser of evils in terms of political parties for practical people, and people trying to pretend they're all the same just aren't looking hard enough. not to say any party is perfect, but they're all not equally bad either.

[rufuspaul]

:facepalm
'
stick to cooking and cleaning

better yet just keep talking in obscurities so people don't know how dumb you are.


I'll keep cooking but cleaning is your job. What I type on here is only "obscure" to people like you who are too stupid to understand.

Being liberal, or in your case regurgitating liberal dogma you've been spoon fed, is great for someone like you who has no real life responsibilities and in actuality no real life. Your uncle gave you a "job" sweeping up his body shop out of sheer pity. You've got no girlfriend, no friends. You're an embarrassment to your family (a Korean underachiever, really?) and as a result you resort to posting anonymously on the internet thinking you're a modern day Keynes when in reality you're just a Democrat Chatty Cathy doll: pull your string and you say the same tired Pelosiisms over and over. You are Walter Mitty only much more pathetic.

[Godzuki]

I'll keep cooking but cleaning is your job. What I type on here is only "obscure" to people like you who are too stupid to understand.

Being liberal, or in your case regurgitating liberal dogma you've been spoon fed, is great for someone like you who has no real life responsibilities and in actuality no real life. Your uncle gave you a "job" sweeping up his body shop out of sheer pity. You've got no girlfriend, no friends. You're an embarrassment to your family (a Korean underachiever, really?) and as a result you resort to posting anonymously on the internet thinking you're a modern day Keynes when in reality you're just a Democrat Chatty Cathy doll: pull your string and you say the same tired Pelosiisms over and over. You are Walter Mitty only much more pathetic.


lool coming from a dentist that posts on a bball forum all day i don't really know what you do, but it surely can't be being a 'dentist'

at least with my proclaimed job even if a lot of you haters don't believe it i can afford to do this from a managerial standpoint.

either way when it comes to politics, current events, and news in general i always back up what i say at least with some rationale. you on the other hand are purposely vague, and that comment you just made to what i said about ACDC is laughable and extremely off in terms of time lines...but like i said you're not smart at all, but people tend to assume way too much based on job titles anyways.

like i said stay vague, and stick to the womanly chores and hobbies you're into :cheers:

[rufuspaul]

stick to the womanly chores and hobbies you're into :cheers:


My my, for someone so liberally and intellectually enlightened you have quite an archaic viewpoint of gender rolls in society. No wonder you've never kissed a girl.




what i said about ACDC is laughable

It's humorous no doubt. It's also true.

Tipper Gore Widens War On Rock ( http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/04/arts/tipper-gore-widens-war-on-rock.html)

Tipper vs Music (http://www.neatorama.com/2012/01/02/tipper-vs-music/)

Dee Snider vs Tipper Gore (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veoYcsH7Wrs)


Get back to work and quit being an internet moron.

[rufuspaul]

Godzuki has a point

being a simple janitor is a more honorable profession than a crook dentist


We all have our crosses to bear. :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

It seems we are in a dark age socially. There's a huge lack of 'enlightened' thought from most people. It seems people are more driven from their fears/anger than from anything else. There is a big selfishness aspect to society, people only out for themselves.

Hey Joe, whattyaknow?

Just to be clear, what you describe probably also occurred during the Enlightenment.

[MavsSuperFan]

Look at all the people that have a big impact in modern society, young adults coming out of college are liberals, big cities like chicago, new york, miami, los angelos even austin texas that set the trend for our country are liberal cities. Billion dollar companies like microsoft and tesla, created by liberals. Think about this, as you reply to this post, what conservative has helped you get access to the internet and post your reply to my topic? bill gates or steve jobs, created the computer you are using. al gore help start the internet network that you are typing on. jeff is a liberal who created the interweb platform you are sharing your opinion on.

i mean its simple. liberals are free and progressive thinking people that want a better future, conservatives are just that, conservative, they want what they have currently, they believe in and are content with what they already know and are use to.
Overall I agree.

The definition of liberal changes over time, but they are always the one that makes society freer, and more equal, as opposed to conservatives who defend those in charge and the status quo.

In general liberals try to change society and conservatives react to them and try to maintain the current social order.

Eg. the founding fathers were the liberals of their time, and they were opposed by the conservatives that prefered to stay under british control.

Eg. the abolitionists were the liberals of their time and they were opposed by conservatives who valued the status quo of race relations.

Eg. civil rights activists were the liberals of their time and they fought against jim crow and the conservatives who feared change.

Eg. the liberal scientists like Galileo who challenged the conservative dogma of the church.

Eg. womens rights activists were considered the liberals of their time, and they fought conservatives who believed women should be under the power of their father, and later their husband.

You will also find liberals responsible for most of our progress.
Eg. bill gates, elon musk, mark zuckerberg, larry paige, sergey brin, are all liberals.

Even historically, most innovators/revolutionaries were considered liberal at their time. (they might not be considered liberals in the modern american context)

In general all liberals are controversial during their time periods, but later in the vast majority of cases, their views are viewed by later societies as the correct view.

In 100 years, stuff like being pro gay marriage, progressive taxation, a woman's right to choose, etc, will be deemed the correct positions.
eg. interracial marriage at one time it was considered the most obscene thing imaginable. because of liberals pushing society almost no one today is willing to publically be against it.

[Godzuki]

My my, for someone so liberally and intellectually enlightened you have quite an archaic viewpoint of gender rolls in society. No wonder you've never kissed a girl.





It's humorous no doubt. It's also true.

Tipper Gore Widens War On Rock ( http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/04/arts/tipper-gore-widens-war-on-rock.html)

Tipper vs Music (http://www.neatorama.com/2012/01/02/tipper-vs-music/)

Dee Snider vs Tipper Gore (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veoYcsH7Wrs)


Get back to work and quit being an internet moron.

wow i'm surprised you didn't go hide in a corner like you used to do when i clowned you and would always get other old timers to fight for you :applause:

finally grown a ball or two, i was thinking your new found boldness of taking shots at me was more based on you knowing i wasn't really trying to fight these days...

i just know you're a very fem dude. thats all m'am, don't get mad.

where is ACDC in your links? for the record it was the Christian right that was against rock music back in those days. there was all kinds of backlash against hard rock bands where many Christians considered them the 'devils music'. same conservatives that outlawed video games in some towns, or dancing in others....

[Godzuki]

Godzuki has a point

being a simple janitor is a more honorable profession than a crook dentist


this is what i'm talking about old time ISH buddies fighting for weaklings like Rufus :lol

he always needs others to fight his battles here. the battles he starts and continuously asks to get into a fight with poking a stick at, then runs away and gets some juvy poster who only knows little kid stuff to fight for him,

funny thing is you clown me for my job but its rather obvious you're a kid who is probably still mowing lawns for money and doesn't know more than pro wrestling. don't hate me because i'm not 100% behind your minimum wage cries, or in your case the chore wages your parents pay you. the day you can actually talk about grown up stuff, or know what its like to pay taxes, is the day you can talk with us grown ups in these threads kid. until then stay in your tree house and keep watching Nickelodean with your parents.

[Godzuki]

Overall I agree.

The definition of liberal changes over time, but they are always the one that makes society freer, and more equal, as opposed to conservatives who defend those in charge and the status quo.

In general liberals try to change society and conservatives react to them and try to maintain the current social order.

Eg. the founding fathers were the liberals of their time, and they were opposed by the conservatives that prefered to stay under british control.

Eg. the abolitionists were the liberals of their time and they were opposed by conservatives who valued the status quo of race relations.

Eg. civil rights activists were the liberals of their time and they fought against jim crow and the conservatives who feared change.

Eg. the liberal scientists like Galileo who challenged the conservative dogma of the church.

Eg. womens rights activists were considered the liberals of their time, and they fought conservatives who believed women should be under the power of their father, and later their husband.

You will also find liberals responsible for most of our progress.
Eg. bill gates, elon musk, mark zuckerberg, larry paige, sergey brin, are all liberals.

Even historically, most innovators/revolutionaries were considered liberal at their time. (they might not be considered liberals in the modern american context)

In general all liberals are controversial during their time periods, but later in the vast majority of cases, their views are viewed by later societies as the correct view.

In 100 years, stuff like being pro gay marriage, progressive taxation, a woman's right to choose, etc, will be deemed the correct positions.
eg. interracial marriage at one time it was considered the most obscene thing imaginable. because of liberals pushing society almost no one today is willing to publically be against it.


good examples

[Cactus-Sack]

Overall I agree.

The definition of liberal changes over time, but they are always the one that makes society freer, and more equal, as opposed to conservatives who defend those in charge and the status quo.



Absolutely not. That's ridiculous.

[Akrazotile]

Overall I agree.

The definition of liberal changes over time, but they are always the one that makes society freer, and more equal, as opposed to conservatives who defend those in charge and the status quo.


"Make society freer, AND make society more equal." You don't see a contradiction there?



Eg. the founding fathers were the liberals of their time, and they were opposed by the conservatives that prefered to stay under british control.

The primary impetus to the revolution was taxation. The people had no representation in the government yet were being taxed at a rapidly increasing rate. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Where do you think Tea Partiers today get their name from?

Which group today is more stoutly opposed to taxes, (the primary issue which sparked the revolution)... Liberals or conservatives?




Eg. the abolitionists were the liberals of their time and they were opposed by conservatives who valued the status quo of race relations.

If you want to go down that road, fine, but just remember none of the abolitionists actually envisioned a multi-racial society. Including Lincoln. If you know any history you understand that abolitionists wanted slavery off their collective conscience (since they reaped little economic gain), but had no intention of actually having freed slaves living in the same towns as them. It was assumed they would be given reservations or sent back to Africa, both of which were actually attempted but proved to be too difficult. A lot of northern abolitionists who shouted anti-slavery slogans treated the actual freed slaves who showed up to their neighborhoods like shit. So to claim it was only conservatives who wanted to keep the status quo of "race relations" is extremely misleading. But again, I don't sense that history, political theory, philsophy et al are really your area of expertise.... or even competence.




You will also find liberals responsible for most of our progress.
Eg. bill gates, elon musk, mark zuckerberg, larry paige, sergey brin, are all liberals.


Many of these guys are just Machiavellian liberals, they put on an outward facing liberal front because they know rich people who are conservative get villified. Go behind the scenes and look at what many of these guys actually lobby for with their money. A lot of it isn't so liberal.






I mean, it's whatever. You're a pretty simple mind and so I'm probably not gonna convince you of anything because I would need you to have already read/studied/understood things you clearly haven't as a foundation, and that's just not gonna happen. Whatever man. It's all good. Cheers. :cheers:

[KevinNYC]

Eg. civil rights activists were the liberals of their time and they fought against jim crow and the conservatives who feared change.


There's been too big trends in politics over the last 40 years.

One is both parties have shifted ideologically. Before the Civil Rights era, both parties were much more ideologically mixed. Since then, there has a been a realignment, helped along by district maps that are drawn to protect incumbents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/04/Screen-Shot-2014-04-10-at-10.32.57-AM.png

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2014/04/Screen-Shot-2014-04-10-at-10.32.17-AM.png


The other trend is this shift is not equal: one side of the barbell is heavier than the other (http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/these-two-charts-show-the-incredible-disappearing-center-in-american-politics/). [QUOTE]Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker used a system called DW-NOMINATE, which measures how far from the center lawmakers

[Dresta]

Overall I agree.

The definition of liberal changes over time, but they are always the one that makes society freer, and more equal, as opposed to conservatives who defend those in charge and the status quo.

In general liberals try to change society and conservatives react to them and try to maintain the current social order.

Eg. the founding fathers were the liberals of their time, and they were opposed by the conservatives that prefered to stay under british control.

Eg. the abolitionists were the liberals of their time and they were opposed by conservatives who valued the status quo of race relations.

Eg. civil rights activists were the liberals of their time and they fought against jim crow and the conservatives who feared change.

Eg. the liberal scientists like Galileo who challenged the conservative dogma of the church.

Eg. womens rights activists were considered the liberals of their time, and they fought conservatives who believed women should be under the power of their father, and later their husband.

You will also find liberals responsible for most of our progress.
Eg. bill gates, elon musk, mark zuckerberg, larry paige, sergey brin, are all liberals.

Even historically, most innovators/revolutionaries were considered liberal at their time. (they might not be considered liberals in the modern american context)

In general all liberals are controversial during their time periods, but later in the vast majority of cases, their views are viewed by later societies as the correct view.

In 100 years, stuff like being pro gay marriage, progressive taxation, a woman's right to choose, etc, will be deemed the correct positions.
This is the biggest load of bullshit i've ever heard, seriously. How anybody could be so blindly partisan is beyond me :facepalm. By the definition you are using to define liberal in your post here are some other liberal/conservative combos, doing the opposite of what you did:

eg. Tolstoy and Dostoevski and Chekov were the conservatives of their time, Lenin, Bakunin, Nechayev, Stalin were the liberals.

eg. Hume, Burke, Smith were the conservatives of their time, Rousseau, Robespierre, Napoleon the liberals of theirs

eg. The liberal reformer Milosevic, after the death of the Conservative Tito.

eg. the liberal Hitler and his nazi party, who seized a pre-wrapped power base from the liberal socialist types that had preceded him.

That is what you are doing applied the opposite way, and as you can probably see now it is a pretty pointless and idiotic thing to do. In a hundred years people could be looking back and saying 'what on earth did western civilisation do to destroy itself so quickly' or perhaps the human race won't exist at all. You don't know, so get out of here with that 'in 100 years my views will all be proven right' bullshit.

Change is certainly not necessarily always a good thing, and if it is change forced by the state it is most frequently a very bad thing. There will also have been many great thinkers, scientists, writers etc. that were politically conservative, and were certainly far more impressive intellectual figures than Bill Gates and ****ing Mark Zuckerberg. Some principles and values are certainly worth preserving, and that's where conservatives can come in handy.

[rufuspaul]

where is ACDC in your links? for the record it was the Christian right that was against rock music back in those days. there was all kinds of backlash against hard rock bands where many Christians considered them the 'devils music'. same conservatives that outlawed video games in some towns, or dancing in others....


Where are your links to anything, anything at all you've spewed out here? You state as fact crap that you pull out of your ass. You've never backed up anything. As far as I know you aren't even a real person since you are too scared to post a pic. I think you really are just a Chatty Cathy doll, albeit a lonely, ugly, pathetic Korean one. :oldlol:


AC/DC is one of my fave bands btw. Back in Black is pure genius. Looks like they're done as a band though. R.I.P.

[nightprowler10]

AC/DC is one of my fave bands btw. Back in Black is pure genius. Looks like they're done as a band though. R.I.P.
Haven't you heard? They recruited Steve Young (their nephew who replaced Mal in Blow Up Your Video tour) for the next album. They're supposed to be in studio this month.

[MavsSuperFan]

"Make society freer, AND make society more equal." You don't see a contradiction there?




The primary impetus to the revolution was taxation. The people had no representation in the government yet were being taxed at a rapidly increasing rate. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Where do you think Tea Partiers today get their name from?

Which group today is more stoutly opposed to taxes, the primary issue which sparked the revolution. Liberals or conservatives?





If you want to go down that road, fine, but just remember none of the abolitionists actually envisioned a multi-racial society. Including Lincoln. If you know any history you understand that abolitionists wanted slavery off their collective conscience (since they reaped little economic gain), but had no intention of actually having freed slaves living in the same towns as them. It was assumed they would be given reservations or sent back to Africa, both of which were actually attempted but proved to be too difficult. A lot of northern abolitionists who shouted anti-slavery slogans treated the actual freed slaves who showed up to their neighborhoods like shit. So to claim it was only conservatives who wanted to keep the status quo of "race relations" is extremely misleading. But again, I don't sense that history, political theory, philsophy et al are really your area of expertise.... or even competence.

Eg. civil rights activists were the liberals of their time and they fought against jim crow and the conservatives who feared change.

Eg. womens rights activists were considered the liberals of their time, and they fought conservatives who believed women should be under the power of their father, and later their husband.



Many of these guys are just Machiavellian liberals, they put on an outward facing liberal front because they know rich people who are conservative get villified. Go behind the scenes and look at what many of these guys actually lobby for with their money. A lot of it isn't so liberal.






I mean, it's whatever. You're a pretty simple mind and so I'm probably not gonna convince you of anything because I would need you to have already read/studied/understood things you clearly haven't as a foundation, and that's just not gonna happen. Whatever man. It's all good. Cheers. :cheers:



"Make society freer, AND make society more equal." You don't see a contradiction there?


Well i guess if you define freedom as the right to discriminate than i sure, but I think its more important to protect the rights of the minority.


The primary impetus to the revolution was taxation. The people had no representation in the government yet were being taxed at a rapidly increasing rate. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? Where do you think Tea Partiers today get their name from?

Which group today is more stoutly opposed to taxes, the primary issue which sparked the revolution. Liberals or conservatives?
At most taxation was the straw that broke the camels back. much bigger issues related to self-governance and the right to elect your own leaders, rather than the arbitrary power of the british empire, were much bigger issues.

Also I said the founding fathers were liberals in their time period. I have never stated their political views would be liberal today. The definition of liberal changes over time. Liberals attempt to address what they see as unjust.

The founding fathers called themselves liberals. And yes for that time period a democratically elected government (even one with only property owing white males receiving the franchise) was radically liberal. Autocrat monarchies was the norm for this time period.



If you want to go down that road, fine, but just remember none of the abolitionists actually envisioned a multi-racial society. Including Lincoln. If you know any history you understand that abolitionists wanted slavery off their collective conscience (since they reaped little economic gain), but had no intention of actually having freed slaves living in the same towns as them. It was assumed they would be given reservations or sent back to Africa, both of which were actually attempted but proved to be too difficult. A lot of northern abolitionists who shouted anti-slavery slogans treated the actual freed slaves who showed up to their neighborhoods like shit. So to claim it was only conservatives who wanted to keep the status quo of "race relations" is extremely misleading. But again, I don't sense that history, political theory, philsophy et al are really your area of expertise.... or even competence.

Once again i said for their time period they were radically liberal. Reading comprehension bro. Anyone who knows anything, would know that lincoln would probably be considered david duke today. But that is unfair, for his time period he was remarkably sympathetic to the plight of african americans.

Eg. future generations might consider us monsters for our carbon emissions. But its unfair to judge us by that.


I mean, it's whatever. You're a pretty simple mind and so I'm probably not gonna convince you of anything because I would need you to have already read/studied/understood things you clearly haven't as a foundation, and that's just not gonna happen. Whatever man. It's all good. Cheers. :cheers:
have you ever been able to debate without ad hominem attacks?

[rufuspaul]

Haven't you heard? They recruited Steve Young (their nephew who replaced Mal in Blow Up Your Video tour) for the next album. They're supposed to be in studio this month.


That's awesome! :rockon:

[MavsSuperFan]

This is the biggest load of bullshit i've ever heard, seriously. How anybody could be so blindly partisan is beyond me :facepalm. By the definition you are using to define liberal in your post here are some other liberal/conservative combos, doing the opposite of what you did:

eg. Tolstoy and Dostoevski and Chekov were the conservatives of their time, Lenin, Bakunin, Nechayev, Stalin were the liberals.

eg. Hume, Burke, Smith were the conservatives of their time, Rousseau, Robespierre, Napoleon the liberals of theirs

eg. The liberal reformer Milosevic, after the death of the Conservative Tito.

eg. the liberal Hitler and his nazi party, who seized a pre-wrapped power base from the liberal socialist types that had preceded him.

That is what you are doing applied the opposite way, and as you can probably see now it is a pretty pointless and idiotic thing to do. In a hundred years people could be looking back and saying 'what on earth did western civilisation do to destroy itself so quickly' or perhaps the human race won't exist at all. You don't know, so get out of here with that 'in 100 years my views will all be proven right' bullshit.

Change is certainly not necessarily always a good thing, and if it is change forced by the state it is most frequently a very bad thing. There will also have been many great thinkers, scientists, writers etc. that were politically conservative, and were certainly far more impressive intellectual figures than Bill Gates and ****ing Mark Zuckerberg. Some principles and values are certainly worth preserving, and that's where conservatives can come in handy.

:lol why you mad though?

Upset that in a few generations most of what you believe will be considered bigoted:confusedshrug:


eg. Tolstoy and Dostoevski and Chekov were the conservatives of their time, Lenin, Bakunin, Nechayev, Stalin were the liberals.

Lenin, stalin, etc perverted what Marx actually wanted. I think you know that. They just wanted power.


eg. Hume, Burke, Smith were the conservatives of their time, Rousseau, Robespierre, Napoleon the liberals of theirs

True enough. I said liberals were right in the majority of cases, not all.
Besides I think Rousseau, Robespierre, and Napoleon did some good.
Eg. the napoleonic codes, and the ideals of the french revolution.


eg. The liberal reformer Milosevic, after the death of the Conservative Tito.

eg. the liberal Hitler and his nazi party, who seized a pre-wrapped power base from the liberal socialist types that had preceded him.
comparing fascism to liberals is much greater jump than comparing slave owners to conservatives.

If conservatives were the only people to have ever existed, we would all still be worshipping the church and pledging fealty to our feudal lord.


Some principles and values are certainly worth preserving, and that's where conservatives can come in handy.
And those will survive. Those that arent will die.


Change is certainly not necessarily always a good thing, and if it is change forced by the state it is most frequently a very bad thing.
Never said it was always a good thing. and when it isnt it usually doesn't last.

Are you denying that liberal ideology progresses society (overall) and that conservative ideology overall attempts to halt change?
Eg. that liberalism is responsible for:
Democracy, ending slavery, women's rights, public education, etc.

[Godzuki]

Where are your links to anything, anything at all you've spewed out here? You state as fact crap that you pull out of your ass. You've never backed up anything. As far as I know you aren't even a real person since you are too scared to post a pic. I think you really are just a Chatty Cathy doll, albeit a lonely, ugly, pathetic Korean one. :oldlol:


AC/DC is one of my fave bands btw. Back in Black is pure genius. Looks like they're done as a band though. R.I.P.


i link almost everything i need to cite. if you've noticed every news thread i start i give a link unless its something i heard on the radio.

I also explain and support every statement i make with examples or explanation.

you on the other hand just make these statements without any support or backing ever, that are wrong to begin with, and are afraid to commit yourself in fear of someone realizing you don't know much.

If you like ACDC you should know what they and other hard rock bands went through from the Christian right back in the day. you can google it. its very known and obvious which is why i don't need to link it. you can even look up the video games or dancing bans by conservatives...in fact a video game ban in a small town JUST got lifted recently i think.

lets just say i've proven what i know and read to be knowledgeable much more than you have. i don't front like you, i'm not trying to hide my lack of knowledge like you are by always trying to be continuously vague.

whats funny to me is a lot of you know how much of a dikk i can be where it took a army of you to gang up to even fight me back in the day(other than millwad or nickyoung where we'd fight more even). i've grown up a little since then with no intention to go back to that but you kept asking for it taking random shots at me, and here we are. i'm sure that macho kid is like Dictator or someone from back in the day too, all i know is you're a weak MF'er that all of a sudden gets real bold now that i'm not trying to fight... thats how true sissy's are tbh. and i swear that is something very characteristic of your persona here to behave that way.

either way i'm not here to fight since i'm more interested in discussion of politics, current events, etc. just know you bring it on yourself, and its funny how you get the little kid posters to back you up with numbers to even fight me again, just like before. its the same lame sissies acting the same lame sissy ways, none of you seem to have changed much.

[Dresta]

:lol why you mad though?

Upset that in a few generations most of what you believe will be considered bigoted:confusedshrug:
No, more that people are becoming more and more alike (thus more and more boring) but then more and more intolerant of those who are different or who deviate from social norms and contemporary moral orthodoxy. Society actually remains very bigoted: it has just changed the aim of its bigotry to where it is socially acceptable. To call someone like me a bigot would require one truly bigoted mindset.

Not surprised to get such a childish response from such a child-like mind either tbh. :rolleyes:

[MavsSuperFan]

No, more that people are becoming more and more alike (thus more and more boring) but then more and more intolerant of those who are different or who deviate from social norms and contemporary moral orthodoxy. Society actually remains very bigoted: it has just changed the aim of its bigotry to where it is socially acceptable. To call someone like me a bigot would require one truly bigoted mindset.

Not surprised to get such a childish response from such a child-like mind either tbh. :rolleyes:
Good point, why is that society today looks down upon people that lynched black guys for looking at white women. Society is so bigoted against those guys.

I mean I just want to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Why is that looked down upon today? ****ing society always conforming and being hateful towards my beliefs. Goddamn liberal bigots, what about my right to live in a country without gay marriage?

You know whats real bigotry? the current bigotry against slave owners. Some slave owners were very nice to their slaves. Goddamn liberal bigots.

[rufuspaul]

If you like ACDC you should know what they and other hard rock bands went through from the Christian right back in the day. you can google it. its very known and obvious which is why i don't need to link it. you can even look up the video games or dancing bans by conservatives...in fact a video game ban in a small town JUST got lifted recently i think.


Link? No one is here to defend the Christian right btw.


You say you like to discuss issues but all you do is spew the same shit over and over. You obviously don't possess the brain power to fully understand what you are reading, much less comprehend any viewpoint that differs from your own, even though your viewpoint is just a regurgitation of other's.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg


You're a sad, lonely, stupid, Korean virgin with no career and no friends. At least Chatty Cathy probably had actual physical contact with a female. :oldlol:

[GimmeThat]

Progressive is the conservative who recognizes the new good, the liberal who eliminates the old bad.

because you know, if you need history to help you define a term. you may as well say you don't know what the term means, because you would never be able to describe one even when you saw it.

[rufuspaul]

Progressive is the conservative who recognizes the new good, the liberal who eliminates the old bad.

because you know, if you need history to help you define a term. you may as well say you don't know what the term means, because you would never be able to describe one even when you saw it.



I like the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean with the second statement. Are you saying that we should ignore history?

[joe]

Hey Joe, whattyaknow?

Just to be clear, what you describe probably also occurred during the Enlightenment.

I don't remember much about the enlightenment period necessarily, so ya you may be right. I was using enlightened more for its dictionary definition. And yes, whattyaknow. Lol

[Jailblazers7]

Been reading A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and in it he speculates on the origins/motivations of the liberal/conservative two-party divide. It pretty much lines up with starface's (and others') rants about a united foreign policy and split domestic policy along a controlled, moderate line. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance built into the American psyche through the political system that causes most of the problems.

The book also made me disillusioned with all elections because shitty gossip has dominated election season since Grover Cleveland. There was quote about his election where the journalists of his time were complaining that too much time was being spent on the coverage of his mistresses and potential illegitimate children.

[Cactus-Sack]

Good point, why is that society today looks down upon people that lynched black guys for looking at white women. Society is so bigoted against those guys.

I mean I just want to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Why is that looked down upon today? ****ing society always conforming and being hateful towards my beliefs. Goddamn liberal bigots, what about my right to live in a country without gay marriage?

You know whats real bigotry? the current bigotry against slave owners. Some slave owners were very nice to their slaves. Goddamn liberal bigots.



:biggums:

You can't have a proper discussion with a self-designated liberal without them:

1. Getting offended.
2. Making the discussion emotive and basing their arguments largely on personal sentiment.
3. Thinking your political principles make you a scumbag who deserves to be shot.
4. Making a display about how much more they care about people than you do (while in their personal life doing nothing at all to help people).

From my personal experience.



:applause: :bowdown: :applause:

[Dresta]

Lenin, stalin, etc perverted what Marx actually wanted. I think you know that. They just wanted power.
What does that have to do with anything? Lenin still tried to enforce his view of what the world should be onto the world, which fits with your idea of liberals desiring to force change and repair injustice. All liberals who want to use the state to mould society want power (over people) more than anything, it is what they have in common.


True enough. I said liberals were right in the majority of cases, not all.
Besides I think Rousseau, Robespierre, and Napoleon did some good.
Eg. the napoleonic codes, and the ideals of the french revolution.
:facepalm

The ideals of the French revolution, taken partly from Rousseau, were pursued to their logical conclusion by Robespierre. He killed 10s of thousands of people to impose his will on the world, and to mould France to his liking. Napoleon was a fantastic military innovator, but i certainly wouldn't want to live in a country governed by him. Much prefer an old conservative like Frederick the Great tbh.


comparing fascism to liberals is much greater jump than comparing slave owners to conservatives.

No it isn't. The actions of 'liberals' in the build up to Hitler's ascendency laid the groundwork necessary for him to complete his atrocities, and their intellectual incompetence should bear some of the responsibility for that.


And those will survive. Those that arent will die.
Nope. Not if they are being dictated and controlled from on high by a liberal ideology (socialist collectivism really) that dominates in school, in academia, and in government. Controlling things like this from the top down prevents the organic growth of society and the selection of principles through the process of trial and error. People are already forgetting the value of things like liberty in exchange for practical 'liberal' solutions to various problems.


Are you denying that liberal ideology progresses society (overall) and that conservative ideology overall attempts to halt change?
Eg. that liberalism is responsible for:
Democracy, ending slavery, women's rights, public education, etc.
You still have to be more specific in your definitions. Did contemporary liberal ideology create those things? No, it did not. Economic liberalism (opposite to modern 'liberalism' in many ways) brought about the rise in the artisan class and development of local communities that the seed of democracy grew from. The growth of democratic principles led to the growth in the belief that human beings are equal, spurring calls for blacks and women to be treated equally. This was a natural development, and was not created or directed by 'liberals.' Some Conservatives would have resisted it, and some liberals would have supported it, but the trends were inevitable and unstoppable, and certainly not spawned by any contemporary idea of liberalism. Slavery was abolished far earlier in a more conservative England, but it was kept on in the South here because the Southern economy was so dependant on slavery. And it created a fundamental economic divide that could only be rectified through war - this has nothing to do with 'liberalism.'

Liberals may have been largely responsible for calamity that is called public education, but it is also responsible for the gross deterioration of education standards that has been the consequence of its vastly extended scope of influence. More public education than ever and yet people are dumber than ever. Success for 'liberalism' :applause:

[GimmeThat]

I like the first sentence. I'm not sure what you mean with the second statement. Are you saying that we should ignore history?

That NO ONE is ever completely 100% liberal or 100% conservative. Therefore not every single decision made by a "liberal" nessecarily garnishes it as a liberal decision. Just as not every single decision made by a conservative is "conservative".

Or the House of Representative might just be the biggest fail idea ever.

[Dresta]

Good point, why is that society today looks down upon people that lynched black guys for looking at white women. Society is so bigoted against those guys.

I mean I just want to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Why is that looked down upon today? ****ing society always conforming and being hateful towards my beliefs. Goddamn liberal bigots, what about my right to live in a country without gay marriage?

You know whats real bigotry? the current bigotry against slave owners. Some slave owners were very nice to their slaves. Goddamn liberal bigots.
Another childish and hysterical straw-man. You seriously need to grow up. Many people are bigoted with their political opinions, where if you believe different to them, you not only disagree, but are some kind of moral cretin to be looked down on and sneered at. Your post is a reasonable example of this actually. What i was referring to had nothing to do with race or sexual orientation, and yet here you are bringing up slavery, bringing up gay marriage, and acting all morally superior about it.

:facepalm

[Godzuki]

Link? No one is here to defend the Christian right btw.


You say you like to discuss issues but all you do is spew the same shit over and over. You obviously don't possess the brain power to fully understand what you are reading, much less comprehend any viewpoint that differs from your own, even though your viewpoint is just a regurgitation of other's.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg


You're a sad, lonely, stupid, Korean virgin with no career and no friends. At least Chatty Cathy probably had actual physical contact with a female. :oldlol:


lol Christian right are Republicans(conservatives) stupid ass.

like i said you're a 'dentist' that posts on a forum all day every week...people can figure that out since i can't.

at least managers and owners can sit in their office and post on forums if they want to.

you are into very fem things which is fine but it seems to be all you're into. you hide behind others. you take shots at people who can wreck you knowing they aren't trying to fight. thats called being a coward fyi, especially when you rely on little kids who live in tree houses and watch wrestling to back you up lol.

gotta love race being thrown into this now that you're more angry :lol

lets just say Rufus, you can't possibly have a girl unless she is a lesbian since you sure don't have much in terms of balls, knowledge of anything but cooking, and always rely on others to fight your battles for you. in my book you reek of being a pooosey, and i'd swear that personifies you. you and your army of ISH boy toys can make whatever you want up about me, it still doesn't take away from the knowledge and arguments i back up with what i say here. You on the other hand are too insecure about what you know to be as forthcoming.

you wanted to fight? you got it.... good luck m'am :cheers:

[MavsSuperFan]

Another childish and hysterical straw-man. You seriously need to grow up. Many people are bigoted with their political opinions, where if you believe different to them, you not only disagree, but are some kind of moral cretin to be looked down on and sneered at. Your post is a reasonable example of this actually. What i was referring to had nothing to do with race or sexual orientation, and yet here you are bringing up slavery, bringing up gay marriage, and acting all morally superior about it.

:facepalm
fine than what ideas do you hold that you feel are looked down upon?

Do you agree that the views of my straw-man argument should be looked down upon?

[rufuspaul]

That NO ONE is ever completely 100% liberal or 100% conservative. Therefore not every single decision made by a "liberal" nessecarily garnishes it as a liberal decision. Just as not every single decision made by a conservative is "conservative".

Or the House of Representative might just be the biggest fail idea ever.


Gotcha. :cheers:

[Dresta]

fine than what ideas do you hold that you feel are looked down upon?

Do you agree that the views of my straw-man argument should be looked down upon?
What world do you live in?

You can't expound any kind economic precept that contravenes people's naive beliefs without being called a vermin who hates the poor and wants others to suffer, someone in the pocket of 'corporations' or some other bs. You can't defend an individuals right to smoke without being an ally and defender of the evil 'tobacco' lobby, you can't acknowledge that war is often necessary and justified without being deemed a 'war-mongering psychopath.' You can't mention a black hole pension system without hating old people etc. etc.

These are only a few examples... i should think you get the point. From my personal experience, a lot of the people who purport to have the most caring political views are frequently the biggest assholes in their actual lives, and use their politics as a means of feeling morally superior.

[rufuspaul]

lol Christian right are Republicans(conservatives) stupid ass.



You said yourself that the Christian right is a subset of the Republican Party. We're talking liberal and conservative here. No one is defending the Christian right. You don't even understand your own post. :oldlol:

You can rag on my profession all you want. I like having time to peruse the internet between patients and hygiene checks, waiting for anesthesia, etc. It makes for a nice leisurely day with plenty of unintentional comedy from dumbasses like you. $ is damn good too.

I know it's hard for you not to hold a grudge on people that are successful and actually contribute to the betterment of society instead of just taking up space. I'd be resentful too if I were in your shoes. It must be hard to be total failure.

But look on the bright side. You're quite good at regurgitating the same shit over and over. So you got that.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg

[rufuspaul]

From my personal experience, a lot of the people who purport to have the most caring political views are frequently the biggest assholes in their actual lives, and use their politics as a means of feeling morally superior.


Ain't that the truth. Same with the holier than thou crowd.

[MavsSuperFan]

What world do you live in?

You can't expound any kind economic precept that contravenes people's naive beliefs without being called a vermin who hates the poor and wants others to suffer, someone in the pocket of 'corporations' or some other bs. You can't defend an individuals right to smoke without being an ally and defender of the evil 'tobacco' lobby, you can't acknowledge that war is often necessary and justified without being deemed a 'war-mongering psychopath.' You can't mention a black hole pension system without hating old people etc. etc.

These are only a few examples... i should think you get the point. From my personal experience, a lot of the people who purport to have the most caring political views are frequently the biggest assholes in their actual lives, and use their politics as a means of feeling morally superior.
none of those things are particularly looked down upon. There are tons of people that advocate for stuff like that, and experience zero actual negative consequences.
Eg, the GOP.

Have you ever lost anything from holding those beliefs? No you havent.

The only ideas that would cause some to lose a job or something are the ideas i used in my strawman example.
Eg. sterling's racist diatribe.

Sterling's beliefs on the right to smoke, would not affect him one way or the other.

There is really no reason for anyone to hide the fact that they believe anything you listed. The stuff I listed, is actually looked down upon (to the extent that it would affect someone) and discriminated against, and if you held those ideas (eg. are a racist, homophobe, sexist, etc) it would actually negatively impact your life, for it to get out. But nothing you listed would affect you if it got out

[Godzuki]

You said yourself that the Christian right is a subset of the Republican Party. We're talking liberal and conservative here. No one is defending the Christian right. You don't even understand your own post. :oldlol:

You can rag on my profession all you want. I like having time to peruse the internet between patients and hygiene checks, waiting for anesthesia, etc. It makes for a nice leisurely day with plenty of unintentional comedy from dumbasses like you. $ is damn good too.

I know it's hard for you not to hold a grudge on people that are successful and actually contribute to the betterment of society instead of just taking up space. I'd be resentful too if I were in your shoes. It must be hard to be total failure.

But look on the bright side. You're quite good at regurgitating the same shit over and over. So you got that.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg


you must have a Ipad on your patients laps while they're under anesthesia for how much you post here while working. either that or do like 1 patient a day...all i know is when i go to the dentist they're rather busy on my teeth to have the time to post as much as you do here. something definitely doesn't add up.

Do you even know what party a liberal is associated with, much less a conservative? this is like A,B,C's of politics....

If only you could talk about the betterment of society with backing and support in these discussion threads instead of always being so insecure cryptic.

someone who has stalked me and taken revenge shots ever since i came back shouldn't really be talking about grudges....

nor should someone who posts the same lame pic twice should be talking about regurgitation.....

like i said Rufus, you got what you wanted and its on now. how's it feel when you get hit back? pretty soon you'll be doing what you did back in the day when i clowned you...go hiding, and hoping the rest of ISH will come to fight me for you. you have to be one of the biggest poosies i've ever come across on the internet lol with how you roll here. i swear, and this isn't even me hating on you, just truth, i've never come across someone who is as weak as you but bold only because you know i wasn't trying to fight. i can't emphasize what that says about you.

[rufuspaul]

.all i know is when i go to the dentist they're rather busy on my teeth to have the time to post as much as you do here. something definitely doesn't add up.


Your dentist spends 8 hrs on your teeth? What the **** is wrong with you? I suppose you follow him/her into their private office and see what's on their laptops too. How long does it take for you to post anyway? You must be a hunt and peck idiot because it literally takes me seconds.

The most successful posters here (rezznor, primetime) find time to post. It isn't that hard. I can give you a breakdown of my day if you'd like since you're so obsessed with me. I usually see around 15 operative patients in a given day combined with about 20 hygiene exams. My primary focus is esthetics and crown and bridge which involves a lot of assistant time (taking impressions, shades, bite registrations, making temporaries, etc.) Other than diagnosis, my time consists mostly of numbing the patient, waiting for the anesthetic to take full effect (usually around 6 minutes, plenty of time to post), prepping the tooth and then leaving and letting my assistants do the rest. It's a great job. I highly recommend it.

Other than your creepy obsession with me the rest of your post is the same old same old.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg

[Dresta]

none of those things are particularly looked down upon. There are tons of people that advocate for stuff like that, and experience zero actual negative consequences.
Eg, the GOP.

Have you ever lost anything from holding those beliefs? No you havent.

The only ideas that would cause some to lose a job or something are the ideas i used in my strawman example.
Eg. sterling's racist diatribe.

Sterling's beliefs on the right to smoke, would not affect him one way or the other.

There is really no reason for anyone to hide the fact that they believe anything you listed. The stuff I listed, is actually looked down upon (to the extent that it would affect someone) and discriminated against, and if you held those ideas (eg. are a racist, homophobe, sexist, etc) it would actually negatively impact your life, for it to get out. But nothing you listed would affect you if it got out
Wrong. I haven't personally, but plenty of people actually faced very real consequences from defending tobacco or endorsing studies that deviated from the accepted consensus (funding cuts, slander, etc.). David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust, various European countries are making certain thinking potentially very dangerous for your reputation and career (recent EU legislation of making jokes about minority groups illegal, including 'feminists' :wtf:). You don't think being slandered in the press as being 'in the pocket of tobacco companies' hurts someone's reputation? You don't think the way things are portrayed by the media influence people's opinions of others?

Anyway, why does this have to be measured in tangible consequence. It is the line of argument that is used repeatedly in the media, in journalism, in public discourse of all kinds in fact, to malign opponents by claiming the moral high ground, and is a typical tactic of liberals and conservatives alike (though liberal morality is now predominant, they pursue it like rabid conservatives).

[Godzuki]

Your dentist spends 8 hrs on your teeth? What the **** is wrong with you? I suppose you follow him/her into their private office and see what's on their laptops too. How long does it take for you to post anyway? You must be a hunt and peck idiot because it literally takes me seconds.

The most successful posters here (rezznor, primetime) find time to post. It isn't that hard. I can give you a breakdown of my day if you'd like since you're so obsessed with me. I usually see around 15 operative patients in a given day combined with about 20 hygiene exams. My primary focus is esthetics and crown and bridge which involves a lot of assistant time (taking impressions, shades, bite registrations, making temporaries, etc.) Other than diagnosis, my time consists mostly of numbing the patient, waiting for the anesthetic to take full effect (usually around 6 minutes, plenty of time to post), prepping the tooth and then leaving and letting my assistants do the rest. It's a great job. I highly recommend it.

Other than your creepy obsession with me the rest of your post is the same old same old.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg


oh i know dentist is a great job. a family doctor's brother is a dentist and she highly recommended that route for a future saying it was easy to become one and easy life....

i have just never seen a dentist who isn't with their patient most of the time. nor have i really seen the assistants do much other than prep, but i guess you could have it better than some others. who knows, just can't imagine my dentist doing what you do...

your obsession is with me mind you. i'm not the one following your posts around and taking revenge shots because you're still bitter at me from back in the day. in fact you're a nobody to me, well other than fem coward, that can't really handle getting hit back.... and always relying on others to fight your battles for you here.

outside of the not knowing much and being purposely vague aspects of your postings here as well.

you should start owning up to your actions and take some responsibility, maybe even stand up to me by yourself, altho thats probably expecting too much of being a man from a cowardly woman hiding behind little kids :oldlol:

[rufuspaul]

:blah


Yeah, keep chatting bitch. As if anyone, real or in the ether cares about what you have to say, or anything about you for that matter.


http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg

[Godzuki]

Yeah, keep chatting bitch. As if anyone, real or in the ether cares about what you have to say, or anything about you for that matter.


http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130110010732/warehouse13/images/e/e7/Chatty_Cathy_Doll_and_Box_Mattel_1969.jpg
\

now i figure its Rufus hiding time...just like the old days once i clowned you.

you shouldn't beef with people when you're weak and used to hiding behind others, especially people who aren't even trying to beef. hopefully this lesson will prevent you from getting your ass kicked in the future :cheers:

[rufuspaul]

\

now i figure its Rufus hiding time...just like the old days once i clowned you.

you shouldn't beef with people when you're weak and used to hiding behind others, especially people who aren't even trying to beef. hopefully this lesson will prevent you from getting your ass kicked in the future :cheers:


Hmmm

[Godzuki]

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Hmmm

[rufuspaul]

lemme guess, you're off to Charleston to post on ISH every 20 minutes again, like you do at 'work', but for 'vacation' this time?



Yes, just let the jealous butthurt flow through. Here's a challenge for you: since you'll be on here all weekend, keep track of how many posts I make. In fact try it on any given evening or weekend. I rarely, rarely post on an evening or weekend and never when vacationing. That's family time.

[Godzuki]

Yes, just let the jealous butthurt flow through. Here's a challenge for you: since you'll be on here all weekend, keep track of how many posts I make. In fact try it on any given evening or weekend. I rarely, rarely post on an evening or weekend and never when vacationing. That's family time.


you don't need to explain yourself to me since i would've sworn you just said

Yeah, keep chatting bitch. As if anyone, real or in the ether cares about what you have to say, or anything about you for that matter.

i guess you DO care!!

i swear if only weak people could accept they are weak when starting beefs with others the world would be a lot less frictional. i guess taking shots at someone who isn't trying to fight is too good of a opportunity for a coward to pass up. i get it.

[MavsSuperFan]

Wrong. I haven't personally, but plenty of people actually faced very real consequences from defending tobacco or endorsing studies that deviated from the accepted consensus (funding cuts, slander, etc.). David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust, various European countries are making certain thinking potentially very dangerous for your reputation and career (recent EU legislation of making jokes about minority groups illegal, including 'feminists' :wtf:). You don't think being slandered in the press as being 'in the pocket of tobacco companies' hurts someone's reputation? You don't think the way things are portrayed by the media influence people's opinions of others?

Anyway, why does this have to be measured in tangible consequence. It is the line of argument that is used repeatedly in the media, in journalism, in public discourse of all kinds in fact, to malign opponents by claiming the moral high ground, and is a typical tactic of liberals and conservatives alike (though liberal morality is now predominant, they pursue it like rabid conservatives).

I dont think he should be arrested, but in america that is a legit reason to fire someone imo.

You are conflating what you originally said with forms of discrimination. I already acknowledged believing in discrimination or bigoted ideas is looked down upon nowadays, and has real costs. As i have argued, yes society is bigoted against bigots.

Being an economic conservative does not have any real costs, nor does being anti regulation.

Eg. Any GOP politician would proudly claim to be an economic conservative or be against regulations (eg smoking bans). Because contrary to what you have said there are no costs to holding these beliefs.

All of them would deny being a racist, sexist, homophobe, anti semitic, etc. Because there are costs to holding these beliefs.

So in my original straw man argument, my basic point is that only bigots are adversely affected by the new PC society.


various European countries are making certain thinking potentially very dangerous for your reputation and career
its happening in this country too.
Goddamn liberals, why cant i hate dem minorities


You don't think being slandered in the press as being 'in the pocket of tobacco companies' hurts someone's reputation?
Name one person hurt by this

and also many politician strive to be "business friendly", they brag about endorsements from the chamber of commerce, club for growth, etc.
John Boehner used to hand out checks from the big tobacco companies on the floor of the house

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-john-boehner-really-pass-out-tobacco-bribe-checks-on-the-house-floor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAC2xeT2yOg

Boehner (the current speaker of the house) admitting to handing out campaign donations (bribes) on the floor of the house. That is how little cost there is to being in the pocket of big tobacco

[MadeFromDust]

Lieberals just love to twist the meaning of words, i.e. using "progress" instead of "denigrate" or "devalue". It's like spraying cologne on a week old tub o shiite. Ewe can't alter reality that way

[Dresta]

I dont think he should be arrested, but in america that is a legit reason to fire someone imo.

You are conflating what you originally said with forms of discrimination. I already acknowledged believing in discrimination or bigoted ideas is looked down upon nowadays, and has real costs. As i have argued, yes society is bigoted against bigots.

Being an economic conservative does not have any real costs, nor does being anti regulation.

Eg. Any GOP politician would proudly claim to be an economic conservative or be against regulations (eg smoking bans). Because contrary to what you have said there are no costs to holding these beliefs.

All of them would deny being a racist, sexist, homophobe, anti semitic, etc. Because there are costs to holding these beliefs.

So in my original straw man argument, my basic point is that only bigots are adversely affected by the new PC society.


its happening in this country too.
Goddamn liberals, why cant i hate dem minorities


Name one person hurt by this

and also many politician strive to be "business friendly", they brag about endorsements from the chamber of commerce, club for growth, etc.
John Boehner used to hand out checks from the big tobacco companies on the floor of the house

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-john-boehner-really-pass-out-tobacco-bribe-checks-on-the-house-floor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAC2xeT2yOg

Boehner (the current speaker of the house) admitting to handing out campaign donations (bribes) on the floor of the house. That is how little cost there is to being in the pocket of big tobacco
Once again you are talking about politics when i've been clearly been referring to personal perceptions and how people's everyday lives are influenced, not whether they lost their job.

One person? Here is an example:

http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/7641#.U2wEi61dWCg

One of many. It's prevalent and common and yet you are so blinded by your ideology that you remain incapable of seeing it. I mean, come on: your 'liberals do all good things, conservatives do bad things' is the type of inanity to be expected in a discussion of children, not adults. It is in fact a fine display of the kind of liberal bigotry i was referring to, which you deny (while practicing it, no less), and that has become commonplace.

I applaud you for your archetypical nature :applause:. It takes real skill to so perfectly represent a caricature.

[MavsSuperFan]

Once again you are talking about politics when i've been clearly been referring to personal perceptions and how people's everyday lives are influenced, not whether they lost their job.

One person? Here is an example:

http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/7641#.U2wEi61dWCg

One of many. It's prevalent and common and yet you are so blinded by your ideology that you remain incapable of seeing it. I mean, come on: your 'liberals do all good things, conservatives do bad things' is the type of inanity to be expected in a discussion of children, not adults. It is in fact a fine display of the kind of liberal bigotry i was referring to, which you deny (while practicing it, no less), and that has become commonplace.

I applaud you for your archetypical nature :applause:. It takes real skill to so perfectly represent a caricature.
You still havent given one example of someone hurt by being pro tobacco.

Such as losing a job.


'liberals do all good things, conservatives do bad things' i
educate me, i have give a bunch of positives that liberals have contributed.
give me your list of positives conservatives have contributed.


It is in fact a fine display of the kind of liberal bigotry i was referring to, which you deny (while practicing it, no less), and that has become commonplace.


Maybe i haven't been clear, but i dont deny that there is liberal intolerance/bigotry towards certain ideas. I just don't buy your examples. Eg. society is against corporatists/big tobacco supporters.

I have clearly said there are costs to being racist, anti semitic, anti woman, homophobic, etc. As I have admitted, you could argue liberals are bigoted against bigots. These costs are due to liberals pushing society in a direction where being bigoted against these groups is looked down upon, and personally I am fine with that.


Once again you are talking about politics when i've been clearly been referring to personal perceptions and how people's everyday lives are influenced, not whether they lost their job.
My point was the fact that boehner is the speaker of the house indicates that most people don't hold it against him that he is a shill for big tobacco.

Whereas if there was a tape of him making sterling's comments he would be forced out. Proving that you claiming that economic ideas are discriminated against to be wrong. The ideas that are discriminated against nowadays are the bigoted ones like David Irving who was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust

So yes I do agree with you it is hard today for bigots. I just disagree with you that it is a bad thing.

Were you using the David Irving example to show how it was wrong to discriminate against a bigot like him?

Also for the record there are many issues where I am opposed to the liberal standpoint.

Eg. I am pro death penalty, I am pro raising the age for social security, I am pro free trade, I am pro second amendment, I support the castle doctrine, etc.

Also i think men should be given the chance to opt out of the rights and obligations of parenthood, through an adoption like process where they forfeit their rights and obligations to the child.

[MavsSuperFan]

. It is in fact a fine display of the kind of liberal bigotry i was referring to, which you deny (while practicing it, no less), and that has become commonplace.


Just to be clear, you have misunderstood me. Liberals are intolerant of the right of bigots to be intolerant. I fully acknowledge that it is hard today for bigots. And that bigots are discriminated against.

Eg. people do get fired for homophobic or racist statements. That happens in real life

You are wrong though that economic conservatism/proponents of deregulation/corporate shills is discriminated against.

Eg. Many people proudly claim to be economic conservatives/proponents of deregulation/corporate shills.

[longtime lurker]

How is this even a question? Conservatives are the defenders of ignorance and exclusion. Who needs medicine when you can just pray to Jesus to cure everything! No rights for minorities, women,immigrants, homosexuals.

[FillJackson]

Wrong. I haven't personally, but plenty of people actually faced very real consequences from defending tobacco or endorsing studies that deviated from the accepted consensus (funding cuts, slander, etc.). David Irving was arrested in Austria for denying the Holocaust, various European countries are making certain thinking potentially very dangerous for your reputation and career (recent EU legislation of making jokes about minority groups illegal, including 'feminists' :wtf:). You don't think being slandered in the press as being 'in the pocket of tobacco companies' hurts someone's reputation? You don't think the way things are portrayed by the media influence people's opinions of others?

Anyway, why does this have to be measured in tangible consequence. It is the line of argument that is used repeatedly in the media, in journalism, in public discourse of all kinds in fact, to malign opponents by claiming the moral high ground, and is a typical tactic of liberals and conservatives alike (though liberal morality is now predominant, they pursue it like rabid conservatives).

:wtf: So now we're supposed to shed a tear for Holocaust deniers?

[MavsSuperFan]

One of many. It's prevalent and common and yet you are so blinded by your ideology that you remain incapable of seeing it. I mean, come on: your 'liberals do all good things, conservatives do bad things' is the type of inanity to be expected in a discussion of children, not adults.

Please give me a list of good things conservatives have done.

Here is some of the great things liberals have done.

Overall I agree.

The definition of liberal changes over time, but they are always the one that makes society freer, and more equal, as opposed to conservatives who defend those in charge and the status quo.

In general liberals try to change society and conservatives react to them and try to maintain the current social order.

Eg. the founding fathers were the liberals of their time, and they were opposed by the conservatives that prefered to stay under british control.

Eg. the abolitionists were the liberals of their time and they were opposed by conservatives who valued the status quo of race relations.

Eg. civil rights activists were the liberals of their time and they fought against jim crow and the conservatives who feared change.

Eg. the liberal scientists like Galileo who challenged the conservative dogma of the church.

Eg. womens rights activists were considered the liberals of their time, and they fought conservatives who believed women should be under the power of their father, and later their husband.

You will also find liberals responsible for most of our progress.
Eg. bill gates, elon musk, mark zuckerberg, larry paige, sergey brin, are all liberals.

Even historically, most innovators/revolutionaries were considered liberal at their time. (they might not be considered liberals in the modern american context)

In general all liberals are controversial during their time periods, but later in the vast majority of cases, their views are viewed by later societies as the correct view.

In 100 years, stuff like being pro gay marriage, progressive taxation, a woman's right to choose, etc, will be deemed the correct positions.
eg. interracial marriage at one time it was considered the most obscene thing imaginable. because of liberals pushing society almost no one today is willing to publically be against it.

[nathanjizzle]

conservatives
http://susiemadrak.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/grandpa-simpson.jpg

[Dresta]

Please give me a list of good things conservatives have done.

Here is some of the great things liberals have done.
If you actually think these things then there is no need to discuss anything with you because you are deluded beyond repair. It really must be a nice and secure feeling to feel such surety for your convictions, to be capable of thinking everyone who did good things in the past shared your political mindset, and that everyone who didn't shared the mindset you oppose. Quite remarkable.

I will just say this: few of those people you mention share any principles with the modern liberal, and many of their political views were in fact completely the opposite (the founding fathers, for example). Moreover, referring to the founding fathers as being a homogeneous group of liberals is idiotic to the extreme: just because some people wanted to be free from British rule and taxes does not mean they cannot be conservative. There was an ideological divide among the founders (Adams, Washington, Hamilton against Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) so to call them all 'liberal' simply because they agreed they were better off not under British rule is idiotic, especially when each and every one of them would consider the contemporary liberal to be a complete joke and walking contradiction, an inevitable product of decadence and decay.

You even take scientists like Galileo about who's political views you probably know next to nothing about and claim him as your own on the basis of him being an innovator alone. Louis Pasteur was a catholic, so i'll claim him as a conservative then. Darwin was a bit of a conservative too, and Malthus (who was a seminal influence in his theory of natural selection was a raging conservative. Churchill = conservative, Dr. Johnson (first great lexicographer) = raging conservative, Edmund Burke (predicted consequences of French revolution) = conservative, Tolstoy & Dostoevski (latter in particular warned repeatedly about what would and did happen in 20th century Russia) = conservatives, j.s Bach = conservative. Then there are of course many scientists, artists and innovators who have no interest in political matters whatsoever, but these are probably 'liberals' in your eyes too :facepalm .

Perhaps one day you will learn that your pathetic labels and classifications have very little relevance in the real world, and don't come close to representing reality. Most intelligent individuals (and so most who achieve the 'good' things you speak of) will have their own idiosyncratic political beliefs, that they have thought through and decided on themselves. So whether conservative or liberal leaning, neither are going to want to have these titles foisted on them without justification as you are doing.


:wtf: So now we're supposed to shed a tear for Holocaust deniers?
Standard tribal group-think: 'that guy's an asshole who disagrees with society so why should i give a shit?' - why can people like you only think in teams? Stand up for free expression and deplore the fact a man has been imprisoned for expressing a controversial opinion, and you are 'shedding a tear for Holocaust deniers' - smh, this is exactly the type of argumentation i was talking about and that MavsSuperFan thinks doesn't exist (note: Christopher Hitchens had his reputation tarnished for defending the man, called anti-semite etc. - you'd have to be a blind fool not to see and acknowledge this).

Whenever someone is imprisoned for simply expressing a different opinion there is reason 'to shed a tear' - for the loss of principle, not the injustice towards an individual. Who has a right to be so certain in their views that they deem it ok to imprison those who take the opposite line?

[FillJackson]

Here's a protip. If it's illegal in Austria to deny the Holocaust, don't go to Austria and give a speech denying the Holocaust.

Problem solved.

[nathanjizzle]

bump

[ThePhantomCreep]

OP is the gimmick account of a pathetic and deranged internet creep, and this is an obvious bait thread for the same discussion that happens here all the time, so all Ill say is this:

Society is more liberal than ever. The wealth gap is larger than ever. If youre not complaining about the first, dont complain about the second.

The wealth gap is larger because of conservative policies. Supply side economics = biggest scam in US history.

[NumberSix]

The wealth gap is larger because of conservative policies. Supply side economics = biggest scam in US history.
No, because of corrupt policies. It's not a free market, it's a rigged market.