Just a thought I've been pondering lately... Why do some of you guys on the forum even bother arguing with people like Lumpy, Restless, M. Quebec, etc. when they're just a bunch typical naive idealist liberals? Think about who these people really are... At the heart of any given liberal is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook. A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing them. The very use of the word "evil" disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces. My point is, liberal idealists simply aren't emotionally capable of dealing with certain types of reality. Case in point, why do some of you guys even bother giving them the time of day? They're just never going to "get it"...
I'm liberal, and I vote for the liberal party here in CAnada just because I loath the conservative party sooo much, especialy Bernard Lord. I also very much doubt that all liberals believe that everyone is good and that all problems can be resolved through negotiations of some sort. I don't that's for sure - in fact I'm all for violence and chaos.
As far as AMerica goes concerning liberal and conservative views I really have no opinion, since I don't follow US politics. I do think George "dubya" Bush is somewhat of a moron at times though. Some of the stuff he says makes me wonder if he ever graduated from high school. Here's a couple quotes from dubya that'll leave you thinking WTF?:
"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." -George W. Bush, May 14
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' -George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001
"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well." -George W. Bush, June 4, 2001
JRC: Its because they are lost in their own idealistic conservative views.
It's fun to argue. Especially when you can imagine Lumpy or MQ slobbering all over their keyboards.
I used to be a liberal (in college, before I had kids), so I know that there is some hope of conversion.
Josher, George Bush seems more stupid than he is because of a difficulty with extemporaneous expression (a necessary skill for a politician). He's not a total idiot though, but he is not as smart as say...Arnold Shwarzenegger.
they argue because they want to. No political thread on here has any merit towards changing anyone's mind. It's ridiculous how much BOTH sides think they will make the other bow.
You might just as well ask why there are debate clubs. I will never change the minds of the ones you mentioned, but if that is all the thought you hear, you might actually believe it is the whole truth.
If a person has not made up their mind, then finding both sides can help a person decide their opinions. We need both sides, or more, of all issues out there. It would be bad if there was only Liberal opinion, and it would be bad if all opinions were Conservative.
One sided discussions lead to nothing.
And the purpose of your thread is what JRC?
JRC have you been reading too much Ann Coulter? I usually put up pretty uncontroversial stuff, like declassified government records. The American holocaust has been well documented bu your government, people just don't know about it.
Excellent post. I usually try to enlighten those people who are drifting toward the bad guys' camp. These people listen to the rubbish spouted by lumpy, kuri, monquebec... etc. and think, "Hey if it feels good, it must be good." However, reality is much more complicated. These are the people that I target. They must be encouraged to use their brain. I have had some success as I will receive an occassional, "You may be right." That is reward enough.
The bad guys are actually my greatest asset. By reading their posts, they do far more harm to their "causes" of anti-Americanism and liberalism than I ever could. Here is a recent post from monquebec that I think sums it all up, "How did the numbers get inflated to 2 million? It was only a couple hundred, and he never meant to kill the Kurds."
The ignorance of that statment defies belief. Rational people will look for an intelligent alternative. Luckily, the Good Guys are here for you.
"How did the numbers get inflated to 2 million? It was only a couple hundred, and he never meant to kill the Kurds."
That was possibly the most ignorant statement ever posted on this site.
if we're going to quote Pres. here then hear is a good one.
"could you define the word alone."
Bill Clinton in the Starr report.
"could you define the word "is"."
HE HAS TO KNOW WHAT "IS" IS. He's the PRESIDENT. Its to be. Its the reason he got his winky wet
Don't confuse semantics and "lawyer speak" with ignorance. He obviously knows what the word "is" means in common use.
US=GG: Actually if you have looked for the facts regarding the gassing of the Kurds and stopped spouting off redneck rhetoric, you would see the truth.
The gassing of the Kurds in a border town to Iran during their war was an unfortunate mistake. However, the body count was in the 100's and the gassing was intended to stop an Iranian incursion into Iraqi soil. Does that make it ok? Probably not. But did it make it ok for the US to drop nukes on Japanese citizens because it was going to "save lives"? Probably not, but that's all history.
US!=GG. Nobody has any right to point fingers. If you want to look at the eradication of a people because of religious, philosophical, or territorial differences, why don't you look at the Good Guys back when the American (yes, American) indian was erradicated. Gee whiz, that happened too long ago right? It seems pretty anti-American to kill the original Americans for their land and natural resources doesn't it? To you, probably not because the "Good ole' US Constitution hadn't been created yet!".
I don't care to identify with any one group per-se, however, I would call myself a "classical liberal" or maybe in modern terms somewhat of a Libertarian. I think people like Saddam have to go. Maybe in that respect the end justifies the means, however, it would probably be better if you reserved comment on circumstances you have clearly not researched. It isn't hard to find a dissenting view for any topic on the internet. Intentionally looking for dissenting viewpoints is the path to understanding and it takes a person of strong character to attempt to do so. Sure, you might not like what you are reading, or might even stare in disbelief, but at least you'll have some exposure to some other viewpoint that lies outside of your narrow vision.
Amazing. I can't even escape the raving right on a freaking weightlifting site. The extremes that a lot of you guys like to apply to liberals (which I am, unashamedly) just don't always stick. I have serious doubts as to whether any liberal or democrat is really that upset at the overthrow of Hussein's regime. He was a warlord and deserves to die at the hands of the Iraqi people. The manner of the approach is the issue. The Bush administration has alienated crucial allies in the west. We may be the last and only superpower, but, it sure would be nice not to have pissed them all off and maybe get some additional help to control the unrest in that region. This is just the first of manty instances where we will feel the after effects of the administration's arrogance. What few of you conservative folks are eager to admit is that you won America's favor back by reviving one of it's most evil (I sound like ol' W. now.) legacies that being bigotry. Political correctness may seem pretty silly, but the only reason you guys hate it so much is because you know you played on the racist undercurrents in this nation to regain power. People like that pill popping ass-clown Rush found that you could shift the anger of working class middle America from the rich and empowered onto the minorities on welfare just by spewing some quasi-racist bile on am radio. I admit that on paper conservative fiscal policies look really good. It's just the underlying message of "I don't give a shit about anyone else." that sucks.
Morg: Its absolutely idealistic. Conservatism in a lot of respects is an acceptance and application of natural law, relative to being pius and better than the human animal we are. That in itself is rather idealistic.
I'm all for small government, I'm for public safety, I'm pro-gun, I'm for the free market economy. For me, that's an acceptance of nature. The quest for personal sovereignty. The part that disturbs me about hyper-conservatism is that it is largely based upon religious ideology. That isn't idealistic? Sure, there is moral decline and that has to stop. Ask yourself what initially caused moral decline. I would argue that it is the application of law into all aspects of life, mostly in which the government our forefathers envisioned had no business participating in.
Pornography for example is an expression of freedom. It started out as drawings, moved to photography, nudity was actually included at some point (LOL...), and it has now arrived in ways that would outrage the people that first commercialized it. Why do people continue to express themselves in increasingly extreme ways? Probably because of the increasing control by the government. The government has trascended itself from a body that was intended to facilitate freedom to a juggernaut that is systematically removing a person's sovereignty. Lord help you if your kids get sunburned at a county fair; its the government's job to take your kids away, place them in foster care, and prosecute you as a parent to the fullest extent of the law. If you think I'm joking, look up "mom prosecuted sunburn" on Google.
Its time to get real, shrink government, stop subsidizing irresponsibility, and stop thinking you can prohibit everything. That just seems to cause problems.
Actually Dr.D.Lo, I think if you check your history the gasing of the Kurds was after the Iran/Iraq war. It was meant to show the Kurds what would happen on a larger scale if they did not stop their uprising in their quest for autonomy (self government).
Either way it was a heinous act against his own people.
i would say this. without the religious moral absolutes, who defines what is moral? some government agency? if that's the case, then they can keep changing what is moral.
don't get me wrong. i'm not religious at all. but i do know that this country was founded on christian morals. we have rights that are given to us by god, and if that is the case, then they cannot be touched by government. if we give government the right to give us these rights, then they also have the right to take it away. that's scary.
Morq and anyone else who would like a background on morality and ethics.
Please visit aynrand.org
Go to the on-line seminar and on-line audio seminar. They are free. You can listen to these while at work.
You may not agree with objectivism, but the lectures outline a process for cementing your own views by taking it from one realm of philosophy to the next. In this way, you can see if your philosophy is principled, and how it determines morality and good/evil behavior. It also will help you sort out taking those beliefs and applying them to the context of society.
Just thought these might help. There are many great ideas out there, but you will never understand how to cement your own beliefs if you do not understand the principles of philosophical development. I would ask any liberal to go to this site especially.
Not liberal, not conservative, but principled.