Poltical question

[Meshugger]

I saw this rather funny remark at another forum: "Liberals hate america as much as conservatives hate americans"

 

True or false? (in terms of american politics ofcourse)

[Kaftan Barlast]

Its a nice catchphrase but what America is it that the Liberals are supposed to hate? Is it the goverment or is it the stereotype of the country?

[Gabrielle]

Never heard of that phrase myself.

[Judge Hades]

I have and it is completely wrong. No one is 100% liberal and no one isn't 100% conservative. I myself am about 50/50.

[Gabrielle]

Anarchy FTW

[Colrom]

I think these types of generalizations are proposed as rules for assigning labels by those who seek to do that type of thing.

 

Over time I have come to the view that most people are sufficiently "conservative" that they might be willing to accept the "conservative" label in the right context.

 

Some are conservative Fascists.

 

Others are conservative Communists.

 

Others are conservative Baseball fans.

 

Etc.

[Meshugger]

Good answers everybody. The bullsh*t rhetoric hasn't spread to Obsidian.....yet.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Meshugger

[Walsingham]

It's all part of the mudslinging I have come across, where cretins rant at one another in obscurely mild language. I mean how quintessentially English (although obviously American) to use a word like 'liberal' or 'conservative' as a mortal insult? Why not calll them 'temperate'? Or 'considered'? :D

 

'Conservatives' seem to find it appalling that a free democracy can produce people who criticise it.

 

'Liberals' find it shocking that a system which has been built after rigorous criticism may find people living in it who feel inclined to defend it.

 

I find it shocking that anyone could consider themselves in either camp. Although I'd say I was more conservative than liberal [bearing in mind that these things are not actually opposed in any literal sense].

 

Nevertheless, Hades, you can easily find people who ARE nearly 100% in either camp. They pay money to belong to your political parties, and are the tub-thumping ninies who get to vote in the primaries and pre-select the presidential candidates.

[kumquatq3]

this thread is odd

[Walsingham]

this thread is odd

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This from a talking kumquat?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I mean how quintessentially English (although obviously American) to use a word like 'liberal' or 'conservative' as a mortal insult?

I saw this guy on FoxNews who uses 'secular' as a term of abuse. It's really quite funny, in an ominous kind of way. I'm a secular, and thus a blight on the face of the Earth the way he tells it.

 

Not all members of political parties are to be found at the ideological extremes, but they do often fall into the trap of tribalism and lose site of reality. I went to a party conference once and found it pretty uncomfortable - it almost seemed as though people were egging each other on to extremes and intransigence.

 

This thread is not odd.

[Mirax]

this thread is odd

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This from a talking kumquat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought he was a mango...

 

Mirax

[Darth Drabek]

It's easy to find talking heads who are nothing more than mouthpieces for the conservative or liberal cause. John Stewart had it right on "Crossfire." Those guys are not journalists, they are just two guys yelling the party's line on whatever issue they're talking about that day. And I swear, there's people out there who just reiterate that same line as their "opinion" just because it's the "Liberal" thing to do, because the liberals oppose the war, or it's the "Conservative" thing to do, because the conservatives oppose gay marriage and abortion.

 

Of course it makes sense to form your own opinion issue by issue, but it's much easier to just subscribe to a particular set of pre-selected opinions. And many Americans are lazy. Especially when it comes to thinking.

[astr0creep]

It's easy to find talking heads who are nothing more than mouthpieces for the conservative or liberal cause. John Stewart had it right on "Crossfire." Those guys are not journalists, they are just two guys yelling the party's line on whatever issue they're talking about that day. And I swear, there's people out there who just reiterate that same line as their "opinion" just because it's the "Liberal" thing to do, because the liberals oppose the war, or it's the "Conservative" thing to do, because the conservatives oppose gay marriage and abortion.

 

Of course it makes sense to form your own opinion issue by issue, but it's much easier to just subscribe to a particular set of pre-selected opinions. And many Americans are lazy. Especially when it comes to thinking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Uh oh. You called somebody lazy. A large group of somebodies. You're gonna get it now. "

[~Di]

Indeed. Just as many Canadians are smugly narcissistic! Especially when it comes to criticizing others.

 

(The above is merely to illustrate the folly of national generalizations, and is in no way a reflection on my Canadian friends. Except those who are indeed smugly narcisstic. )

[kumquatq3]

Completely off topic:

 

British censors are bleeping a new advertisement for Australian Tourism

 

Why you ask? (yes, I can hear your thoughts)

 

Because a girl in the commercial says in a upbeat way "So, where the bloody hell are you". "bloody hell" is being beeped.

 

I had noooooo idea that was a taboo phrase in Britain. I thought it was like "O crap" over here, not exactly perfect manners, but pretty much socially acceptable.

 

 

@ the guy who thought me avatar was a mango, my name is KUMQUAT

Edited March 10, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Laozi]

To me the polarization of politics in america is done so that people feel compelled to choose one of the two existing parties. Both parties would have alot to lose if a third party gained momentum. As it is currently its hard for a third party canidate to even get on a ballot.

 

 

Specifically the democratic party seems to be more the "anti-republican" party lately. Instead of coming up with its own original platform its seems content with just being against whatever the republicans are trying to do.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Laozi

[~Di]

Laozi... you're kidding, right? I don't know what your last presidential ballot looked like, but mine had over 20 candidates from 20 different political parties listed. It is far from difficult for any third party candidate to get on a ballot. Now getting on ALL ballots in every single state may be another matter. Still several do it every election, including the Green Party, the Independent party, the Libertarians.

 

I do agree with your comments about the democratic party. Lately it seems to be less in favor of anything than it is simply against stuff that the republicans favor. I've always said a pox on both their houses. We do have several viable alternate parties here, but because of the financial resources needed to get elected in this capitalistic quagmire, only a few have managed to get elected.

 

Campaign finance reform is the first step, in my opinion, to establishing viable third parties. I hope to live long enough to see that happen.

[Laozi]

In Texas one can only get on a balot as an independent if they recieve some 60,000 write in votes, and only those not participating in either party's primary are eligible. Where as it is not impossible by any means, I don't think these restrictions are fair, and unless someone has considerable clout can these things be achieved. I'm not refering to the presidential elections.

 

 

This latest round of opposition to campaign financial is annoying. Saying that by restricting how much money a private interest group can give a candidate "limits their freedom of speech" seems a gross misinterpretation of the constitution

[Darth Drabek]

Di ~

Pulling votes from one of the big two is considered a huge success for a third party. Unfortunately, they aren't viable alternatives at the moment, you said so yourself.

 

It's interesting how conservatives align with the Republican party, and liberals align with the Democrats, but to get elected you need to be sufficiently middle-of-the-road to try to appeal to everyone. It's one reason Clinton did so well and Howard Dean never had a chance.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Darth Drabek

[~Di]

Alternate political parties aren't viable candidates (despite the fact that there are indeed a few Independents and Libertarians serving in congress) because of the danged money. Dems/Repubs spend the national debt on each election, which pretty much knocks everyone who hasn't got a few billion bucks tucked away out of the running.

 

Until we stop allowing our elected government officials from the top down to purchase their positions, nothing is going to change.

 

John McCain for president. *hoists sign*

[WITHTEETH]

Do not watch tv news, its poisonous. I wouldn't even call it news, more like crap. Its worse then the tabloids because its suppose to be accurate. BBC, Democracy now, and NPR are my choices on the radio, or internet.

 

EDIT: anybody know any other great sources for news?

Edited March 10, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[Dark Moth]

I try to avoid watching TV news. Usually the best sources are newspapers and magazines. And even then, it's best to get your news from multiple sources. Better still, get it from the "neutral" sources and the biased sources, so you know how both sides of the spectrum think and argue. Knowledge is power.

[WITHTEETH]

I try to avoid watching TV news.  Usually the best sources are newspapers and magazines.  And even then, it's best to get your news from multiple sources.  Better still, get it from the "neutral" sources and the biased sources, so you know how both sides of the spectrum think and argue.  Knowledge is power.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly! :D You become a tool when you unconsciously vote for something liberal, or conservative, ect without know the specifics. Just because you supposedly belong to that party, doesn't mean you agree with EVERYTHING that party says. Its nice to have a wider lends, i agree Mothman.

[Dark Moth]

Yeah. Me, I can't stand people who vote for candidates simply based on idealogies. Usually, I try to look at what the person stands for and what he/she plans to do. I admit I'm a registered Republican, and that's cause I'm more comfortable with some of the "conservative" philosphies, but it really comes down to the individual. For example, there are plenty of people on the right side I can't stand. *cough*Limbaugh*cough*