Politics and Ideas

[Blackmail]

Yup.... everywhere but here.... *sigh*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and Ohio, which is supposedly even worse than Michigan.

[phee]

Yeah... but that is true in all aspects of life

[Blackmail]

Yeah... but that is true in all aspects of life

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

as far as the jokes go, you're on a roll today phee

[phee]

HIIIooooo!!!!

[Fierce Critter]

I think there's a difference between liberal/conservative civilians and liberal/conservative position holders in government.

Liberal civilians want programs that help support everyone who isn't rich or able to support themselves by their own efforts. Conservative civilians think you oughtta be able to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps without relying on governmental help.

Either true liberals/conservatives aren't getting in office, or something is happening to them once they do. 'Cause the programs liberals have put into effect don't work right, and the programs conservatives fight for or against seem to only be beneficial to the upper echelon of society.

And the thing that bothers me about conservatives is the views they seem to want to push on the average American are, generally, oppressive & intolerant in nature, whereas the liberal are generally more accepting and good-natured.

And it's really, really impossible to compare democrats/republicans liberal/conservatives of the past to today's hybrids. Back in the days of Lincoln and thenabouts, I probably would have been a republican. Today? Not on your life.

Liberalism is self-defeating in that they want programs to benefit the downtrodden, yet the more liberal office-holders are democrats who push higher taxes, and thus there's less money in the pockets of people overall. It's a paradox that really makes me understand why conservatives are so basically repulsed by & angry at liberals.

Look, I hate taxes myself. Thus, I have republican views. But I have enough firsthand knowledge that the American economic system just doesn't benefit the poor enough that I end up swinging toward the liberal, and by default, democrat. In truth, I'm somewhere in between, and hope someday some kind of middle-of-the-road 3rd party has an actual chance in hell of getting elected.

[phee]

Intelligent post Critter...

[Fierce Critter]

Intelligent post Critter...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'happens once in a blue moon. :grin

[Blackmail]

Fierce, I agree with some of what you said.

But most politicians are actually humans. Yeah there are some nasy republicans who want to help only the rich, but there are some pretty nasty democrats (Sheila Jackson Lee or whatever her name is, for example).

Most liberals I know can be divided into 3 groups.

1. People who want to help the poor and help the environment and believe a liberal mindset is the best way to do this.

2. People who hate America. Noam Chomsky falls into this group. He hates all Republicans and Democrats. He thinks the US is the great satan. Yet he lives here. There are lots of college kids and profs (i.e. Ward Churchill) that feel this way. In fact, in the eary 80's there was a sit in at UC Berkley in support of Khoemeni, who took US hostages. These kids thought it was just. These are the same kids today who think Palestinian suicide bombings are just. Another Prof is Wayne States own Jack Lessonberry, who said the terrorist in Iraq, even the people who behead innocent civillains, are in the right.

3. African Americans. African Americans are not a monolith but 85-90% vote Democrat for various reasons. However many of these same people have lots of "conservative" views outside of their perception of Repuiblicans as being opposed to civil rights (i.e. Bush is against Affirmitve Action).

MOST Liberals fall into the first category.

Conservatives I know tend to fall into these 3 categories:

1. People who think tax cuts and supply side economics benefit a majority of people in this country, they also are strong on defense, tough on crime and think personal responsibility is key and government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

2. Rednecks who hate dem terrist' and A-rabs and think Amerika is da only nation that matters in the n-tire wirl.

3. Rich people who could care less about anything but the bottom line.

MOST conservatives fall into the first category.

My point, is that most people who subscribe to a political idealogy are concerned with the state and overall health of the entire Country, they just disagree with which ways to get there.

And by the way, Bush is NOT conservative on many issues. His budget spending is completely disgusting and the complete opposite of what a true fiscal conservative would do. I know alot of lifelong Republicans who don't like GW Bush.

[Fierce Critter]

And by the way, Bush is NOT conservative on many issues.  His budget spending is completely disgusting and the complete opposite of what a true fiscal conservative would do.    I know alot of lifelong Republicans who don't like GW Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also agree with what you said. And I'll further that what you said dittos what I feel in that the liberals who are getting into office aren't so much liberal as democratic, which sucks, and the conservatives who are actually successful at getting into office fall into your category #3 - in part, 'cause they've got the money with which to get themselves into office.

As for what I quote above, I can't help that feel that with Bush, conservativism/republicanism is yet again taking a turn to a different definition. Just as the republicans of recent history aren't the same as republicans of Lincoln's time. I almost feel sorry for true republicans over this.

[phee]

Fierce, I agree with some of what you said.

But most politicians are actually humans.  Yeah there are some nasy republicans who want to help only the rich, but there are some pretty nasty democrats (Sheila Jackson Lee or whatever her name is, for example).   

Most liberals I know can be divided into 3 groups. 

1. People who want to help the poor and help the environment and believe a liberal mindset is the best way to do this.

2. People who hate America.  Noam Chomsky falls into this group.  He hates all Republicans and Democrats.  He thinks the US is the great satan.  Yet he lives here.  There are lots of college kids and profs (i.e. Ward Churchill) that feel this way.  In fact, in the eary 80's there was a sit in at UC Berkley in support of Khoemeni, who took US hostages.  These kids thought it was just.  These are the same kids today who think Palestinian suicide bombings are just.  Another Prof is Wayne States own Jack Lessonberry, who said the terrorist in Iraq, even the people who behead innocent civillains, are in the right. 

3.  African Americans.  African Americans are not a monolith but 85-90% vote Democrat for various reasons.  However many of these same people have lots of "conservative" views outside of their perception of Repuiblicans as being opposed to civil rights (i.e. Bush is against Affirmitve Action). 

MOST Liberals fall into the first category. 

Conservatives I know tend to fall into these 3 categories:

1.  People who think tax cuts and supply side economics benefit a majority of people in this country, they also are strong on defense, tough on crime and think personal responsibility is key and government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

2.  Rednecks who hate dem terrist' and A-rabs and think Amerika is da only nation that matters in the n-tire wirl.

3.  Rich people who could care less about anything but the bottom line.

MOST conservatives fall into the first category.

My point, is that most people who subscribe to a political idealogy are concerned with the state and overall health of the entire Country, they just disagree with which ways to get there.

And by the way, Bush is NOT conservative on many issues.  His budget spending is completely disgusting and the complete opposite of what a true fiscal conservative would do.    I know alot of lifelong Republicans who don't like GW Bush.

Another smart post

[BrassFusion]

BM, I totally agree with your classifications, but I'm surprised that religion didn't play into any of it.

Make a new category for secularists and atheists under "liberals" and insecure Christians under "conservatives." A whole lot of people are out voting for no other reason than to back their own spiritual team.

And that is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

[Steven]

BM, I totally agree with your classifications, but I'm surprised that religion didn't play into any of it.

Make a new category for secularists and atheists under "liberals" and insecure Christians under "conservatives." A whole lot of people are out voting for no other reason than to back their own spiritual team.

And that is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your right.

[Blackmail]

BM, I totally agree with your classifications, but I'm surprised that religion didn't play into any of it.

Make a new category for secularists and atheists under "liberals" and insecure Christians under "conservatives." A whole lot of people are out voting for no other reason than to back their own spiritual team.

There are plenty of Christian Liberals (43% of Christians polled said they supported kerry in '04) and tons of atheist are conservatives. The Democrats use religion as much as the Republicans anyway, didn't you notice Kerry talking about his Catholicism and how he was personally opposed to abortion?

And that is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

it's not wrong, people are entitled to use their vote as they see fit.

[Msterbeau]

it's not wrong, people are entitled to use their vote as they see fit.

OK. It's not wrong, but it is damn short-sighted.

My daughters' mom votes based on what her priest says... and basically all he does is tell his parisheners to vote pro-life. One issue like that to determine how you vote? What about foreign policy? Domestic policy? What if the guy's a crook? You get my point...

[phee]

I vote on whatever the DGN genie tells me

[Blackmail]

OK.  It's not wrong, but it is damn short-sighted. 

My daughters' mom votes based on what her priest says...  and basically all he does is tell  his parisheners to vote pro-life.  One issue like that to determine how you vote?  What about foreign policy?  Domestic policy?  What if the guy's a crook?  You get my point...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if prolife/prochoice is her number one issue, that's her business.

I'm guessing that everyone who disagrees about politics finds the other to be short sighted.

[Msterbeau]

So if prolife/prochoice is her number one issue, that's her business. 

I'm guessing that everyone who disagrees about politics finds the other to be short sighted.

It's not that it's her number one issue. It's her ONLY issue.

Yes it's people's own business... but I don't like the idea that someone can get elected based on ONE issue. I also don't like that they give their vote away to whatever their church dictates instead of evaluating a canidate on their own merits.

[Shade Everdark]

So if prolife/prochoice is her number one issue, that's her business. 

I'm guessing that everyone who disagrees about politics finds the other to be short sighted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find it morally reprehensible to give away one's opinions and intellectual sovereignty to some religious figure.

We don't, however, as a rule (though there are TONS of exceptions) legislate morality. I will be scared if/when we start.

[The_Dark]

I really like how this conversation has turned out.

[Fierce Critter]

We don't, however, as a rule (though there are TONS of exceptions) legislate morality.  I will be scared if/when we start.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't think all the gay rights legislation is a start? And I'm not just talking gay marriage/civil unions. Also on the state level regarding adoptions, etc.

As a side note, my parents are what you'd call "good Catholics". Hardcore democrats bordering on socialists, they were almost ready to vote for Bush regarding the abortion issue. The Catholic church as an institution lobbied hard and guilted their followers intensely to try to get them all to vote for Bush because of his so-called anti-abortion stance.

My parents eventually sought council from a respected priest, who told them to vote their candidate, not the church's.

They voted for Kerry.

One point they made. Exactly how much has Bush REALLY done to outlaw abortion? Hm? Not much, if you really look at the big picture. It's still legal 2 years away from his leaving office.

[Moonlight_Phantasy]

I vote Democrat. They for the poor people. (Yeah Right!!)

[Steven]

OK.  It's not wrong, but it is damn short-sighted. 

My daughters' mom votes based on what her priest says...  and basically all he does is tell  his parisheners to vote pro-life.  One issue like that to determine how you vote?  What about foreign policy?  Domestic policy?  What if the guy's a crook?  You get my point...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, actually its just plain wrong.

I piss off alot of my fellow Christians with this point if view, but then again my point of view is my freedom in Christ. Plus I earned it goddammit.

[Msterbeau]

I really like how this conversation has turned out.

I'm trying to figure out if your being sarcastic or not.. :erm

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

Holliwood is not happy with me because despite my intense study of politics etc. I am a single issue voter.

I would vote for that issue no matter who supported it (if I belived them).

That one issue dictates how I vote to the detriment of all other issues... yet i feel it is the most important (to me).

I think a lot of people are the same way (just on other issues)

[The_Dark]

Marc, no sarcasm at all. The conversation has been civil and has never even been a debate.. just a conversation.. which is what I wanted. Conversation moves ideas ahead faster then debate or argueing everytime.