They say there are Conservatives at Hatrack. Of course, you can't blanket say there aren't. I do, along with two or three others, post a few times.
Frankly, however, I feel that Conservatives are misreprented on the board. I don't just mean numerical quantity. The small amount who post on a regular basis are not true Conservatives. At best they hold some positions that can be recognized as such, but overall they too often hold positions that are considered moderate. Liberals like to point to them whenever someone tries to express the lack of true political representation. But, actual Conservatives hold most of those token members as suspect. Those who represent the majority Conservative consensus are, even by the moderate Conservatives (and that is generosity), yelled at and harrased and called Trolls.
This shouldn't be surprising considering the overabundant and extremist liberals that post here. Rather ironic, considering OSC is supposed to be a Conservative. Interesting that often times OSC's comments are lambasted with the same force and bias as those who the liberals (and at best moderate Conservatives)here call Trolls.
I am not suggesting change. In fact, I don't believe this will be taken as anything more than "hogwash" for its mere existance. Its just an observation that many Conservatives have recognized and therefore stayed away from posting here. From what I have seen, this isn't the first time this observation has been expressed. Most likely, it won't be the last. Those who post as Conservatives on a regular basis have no idea, or refuse to recognize, how much true majority Conservatives shake their heads in disbelief. You may not give them much respect, but they don't hold you with it either. In fact, some are very angry that you who call yourselves Conservatives do not stand up and tell the liberals here where to stuff it as they have had happen to them many times.
With that said, let the denials begin. My only hope is that the "Trolls" will read this, take courage, and swamp the place with recognition of what I have said. Of course, not wanting to take the abuse this place often gives I am not surprised by their relative silence.
-- Inspired by Jay. You lift my spirits and give me hope.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What does "extreme liberal" mean?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
So let me see if I have this right. You want the trolls, who you figure are the True Conservatives, to flood this board?
Um, yeah, that's nice. Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
People are called trolls because of how they express their ideas, not the ideas themselves. If someone cannot express their ideals civily and be concidered a "true conservative", I do not care to have any of them around.
I am not saying I think Jay is a troll. I have not read enough of his posts to determine that.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, for starters, it means you Synth. But, to be honest those who are extreme never consider themselves that label.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So is it Jay calling everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest idiots that makes him a real conservative, or is it his ignoring people's counterarguments?
If a "real conservative" by your definition could come here and not be insulting and actually respond to people's counterarguments with evidence, they would be welcome. As neither you nor Jay seem to have mastered those skills wrt political threads, you are generally not welcome in those threads because your presence typically impedes productive discussion.
edit: forgot a qualifier from the first p in the second.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That is fine. I consider most liberals here insulting, if for nothing more than their arrogance and hatred.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Who knew Jay had more than one logon?
I seem to recall it being the general consensus that whatever people's tendencies are around here, just about everyone thinks the forum is mostly the "other side."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:If a "real conservative" by your definition could come here and not be insulting, they would be welcome.
Not that any are actually welcome to start with.
quote:Who knew Jay had more than one logon?
See, that is what is so funny. Everyone is in so much denial that they can't fathom that Jay is not the only Conservative that believes that way he does. Yet, he and others like him are the true representation of Conservatives attitutes and beliefs. As I have said, you don't believe me than you should see what is said about OSC compared to what is said about Jay and others like him (and me).
[ January 25, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: overabundant and extremist liberals that post here
I believe that I am considered as part as this 'package', and yet in many countries I am actually moderate in my position in many countries- as a voter in Canada, for example, I am a supporter of the central party, and lean a little to the left of that. I think that "extremist liberals" (communists?) are as rare here as "extremist conservatives". Most people are somewhere in the middle, and that is the way it should be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Jay is almost certainly distinct from Occasional, though I don't know if he has more than one logon.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I find this thread highly ironic, given that it's here at Hatrack that I first heard a conservative viewpoint on various issues presented so intelligently and eloquently and persuasively that I actually revised several of my views more toward the center.
Oh, and just to clarify, it certainly isn't posters like Jay that are persuasive and eloquent. I've named names elsewhere, and they know who the are.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Megan ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Exactly, Megan.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, some of the "liberals" definitely are insulting at times. I actually find it funny that I would no doubt be called liberal by you, as I'm many times more conservative, both economically and governmentally, than Bush. In certain areas some would term me a social liberal, but hardly an extreme one.
However, I believe we're still waiting from answers from you for, oh, nearly every time you've been challenged to provide evidence for a position. How about you start with this one:
Provide evidence for Clinton or Herbie's administration using taxpayer money to pay journalists (or people acting like journalists) to hype their political agendas and specifically not disclose the connection. I'll take as little as a single instance; should be easy, you've alleged its a common practice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I don't think Jay is by any means the only "Conservative" who believes as he does. I know that there are tons of people you would call conservatives who believe as he does.
I consider all the people who act as he does (liberal or conservative) to be idiots.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The reason that the conservative trolls get jumped on more than liberals is that the intelligent, respectful conservatives are sick and tired of being thought of as stupid bigots. It's the more conservative posters who dogpile the trolls. If you see that as a break in loyalty, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. To be fair, when we do get a rude and ignorant liberal, we're very nasty to them as well.
If I am interpreting your post correctly, you're seeing this as a fight between liberals and conservatives, and you see the unwillingness to demonize the other side as a weakness. It's not; it's a strength, and it's far more productive. This isn't about winning a fight. It's about trying to figure out what policies and attitudes are healthiest for us and our countries, and then adopting them--even if the other side came up with them first.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I find Hatrack writ large so conservative that there are certain issues I simply will not discuss here. Then again, an American conservative would certainly call me an extremist liberal (a Canadian conservative might not). Of course, from my Canadian liberal standpoint I'd certainly call Occasional an extremist conservative. Were I an American liberal I might not.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Before we get in an argument either way, define extreme liberal and extreme conservative. Otherwise we may end up talking past each other. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
As twinky's post made very clear, extreme is very, very, very relative in terms of political scale. That's why it's a good term to use very, very sparingly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
*chuckle*
*laughs long and hard*
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:conservative, both economically and governmentally, than Bush.
Than you have proven my point. I don't think you know what "conservative" means anymore. The old definition doesn't fit, and those who are at best moderate Conservatives don't seem to recognize that fact.
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
quote: That is fine. I consider most liberals here insulting, if for nothing more than their arrogance and hatred.
Because there's nothing that stimulates an exchange of ideas like labels and clumsy generalization.
Yay you, Occasional.
bunbun the disgruntled
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
wow, and that same response could go here right after Occasional's too.
Care to elaborate, dear friend? I notice you still haven't even commented on your lack of substantiation of even such a simple thing.
edit: well, if this were right after Occasional's. Also, what I mean by elaborate is, how about you furnish some working definitions of Conservative (and liberal, if you care to) that we can rip to shreds?
[ January 25, 2005, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So, bunbun, do you and dags have AIM names?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well then, name me the Conservatives on this board. At best you'll get a handful.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Extreme, maybe not, I'm looking for middle ground, equality, fairness. If I criticise Bush, I'm calling it like I see it. I see corruption, I see Bush doing things that are wrong, what am I supposed to do, be silent about it? Even some conservatives might say the same thing.
But, are you the same one who said something about using the same sort of tactics the enemy is using or was that someone else?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, watch him ignore the responses that he doesn't have a good response to and sieze on the largely irrelevant ones.
edit: actually, I should say, ones less likely to show his lack of thoughtfulness. Who the conservatives are on the board is relevant, but almost entirely a matter of opinion, and as he seems to have already defined conservative as someone who holds no opinions that could be considered other than conservative whatsoever, the likelihood of his finding a single conservative is low.
Which is good, I'd hate to find people so stupid they didn't have complicated thoughts. Actually, I don't think Occasional is so stupid that he has no positions that could be considered anything other than Conservative. I'm not saying Conservative positions are stupid, I'm saying that people whose entire political thoughts are easily classified are stupid.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That would probably be me. I'm not going to lie about that (in response to Synth).
[ January 25, 2005, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: To be fair, when we do get a rude and ignorant liberal, we're very nasty to them as well.
I have seen a few cases where this has not been the case, at least not that I've seen. (if anybody got on their case, I never saw it)
quote:Then again, an American conservative would certainly call me an extremist liberal
That's true. I've done it. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
But will you respond to any of the questions and points posed to you? That's the real question.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
No, as this post was created for pure expression of observation and to read other people's thoughts; and not (as you would call it) discussion.
To tell you the truth, I want to hear from some Conservatives about this topic. I already know what liberals think.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
twinky sums up the "Canadian Dilemma" perfectly ( ). As a Canadian liberal, discussing politics with an American liberal is in many cases like talking with a Canadian conservative- the scales are totally out of line with one another!
Also, as I discovered reading a book filled with a multitude of articles on American politics the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are themselves confusing. In one article (as I eventually divined) what I would call a liberal was saying things disparaging things about liberal policies. This confuzzled me. I now realise that when he was saying "progressives" (a word I associate with conservatives) he meant what are commonly called "liberals". Confused? I was.
There also exists the ideas of the original Liberal Philosophers on which America was founded. However, with the split between economic, foreign, religious/traditional and social policies, no one person truly lines up neatly with one single label.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Get out the petroleum jelly, it's a mental onanism thread!
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Then* I think you're missing the point of the forum, which is, in fact, as I (and many, many other posters all over the political spectrum) call it, discussion.
*Note the spelling. Learn it. Love it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Feel free to respond to my points on the threads where they were made, then . You can start with the one I suggested, which you can conveniently find by going to your recent posts and clicking on the second link that regards the bush's character thread (I know that one's on the same page).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It would be nice if the terms liberal and conservative were defined clearly and what it means to be on the extreme side... When I think of extreme conservatives I think of those scary men who are lunky and wave flags all the time and strongly dislike gays and foreigners... When I think of extreme liberals I think of hippy peta types who have dreadlocks, don't bath that much and wear a lot of hemp. Both are kind of scary...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Definitions:
Liberal--Anyone who is more liberal than you are.
Exteme Liberal--Anyone who is much more liberal than you are.
Conservative--Anyone who is more conservative than you are.
Extreme Conservative--Anyone who is much more conservative than you are.
If you are ultra conservative in all of your ideals, than the person not so conservative would be considered a liberal.
Of course, these definitions are self-defining, meaning that they mean nothing.
Power players in politics have deliberately fuzzied these terms to try and bring in the most people into their political territory. If everyone thinks they are a conservative, they will vote for the guy calling himself conservative.
Conservative & Liberal--Politcal brands used by politicians to get elected. Vaguely meaning Big Business/Old Time Values ideas v.s. Worker/Populist Values.
You want to get people to see your point of view? Talk facts not brands.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
The problem with naming the conservatives is that in many cases it's not clear. I sometimes remember who says something that I would call particularly extreme, but not on a regular basis.
I'd still prefer a list of basic tenants that defines a conservative versus a liberal. Am I a conservative because I want a very decentralized government, or even that if it were my decision, we'd live in a constitutional monarchy? Am I a liberal because I don't support our modern prison system or I'm in favor of state-funded contraceptive programs?
I've given up trying to jump into either pool, since I hate being grouped with ideas I don't agree with. Is there any reason why a hawkish stance on foreign policy should be correlated with an opposition to gay marriage or abortion?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
None of those concepts make any kind of sense to me, like feminine and masculine make no sense. I hate when people through around empty terms like they mean something...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I'm waiting on your definition of conservative, preferably the one that Bush fits in any economic or governmental sense. I'm wondering how you're going to work in "big government" in a definition of conservative.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will actually have to go with Teshi on this one. It would be almost impossible to define Conservative and Liberal. It isn't about a set of definitions as much as many positions and attitudes. There, at least in the United States, no longer exists delineatable philosophies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And no need to say the ways in which you're not going to respond, I think most of us here sort of assume non-response is the default for you. Positive responses to those things you will respond to will be sufficient.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Should have said that earlier, we have yet another post in which you've told us what you're not responding to.
How about you talk about those attitudes? I'm waiting for the conservative attitude which Bush has that involves "nosing about in as much state business as possible and growing government bureaucracy".
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
quote: To tell you the truth, I want to hear from some Conservatives about this topic. I already know what liberals think.
What topic? As political camps are generally defined by thier stance on a given issue, and we have yet to hear what you think about any actual "issues," other that I M conservative, U R liberal, I am at a loss.
Further, you've only provided us with one "defined" conservative--you.
Hmm. Me thinks we will not get far on the "debate" front.
bunbun not so much an IMer dagonee neither sorry
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yet, he and others like him are the true representation of Conservatives attitudes and beliefs.
No. Jay is not a true representation of Conservative attitudes. I've never seen him mention the social contract; I've never seen him mention fiscal responsibility; he's advocating federal intrusion into one of the most traditionally state-driven areas of governance. Most of the policies he decides to speak on are not actually in favor of lessening government interference with the social and economic fabric of society.
I voted for Bush because, as much as I disagree with him, Kerry was farther away from my position on many, many more issues.
Except for civil gay marriage and possibly the death penalty, I line up with almost every litmus-test Conservative issue: abortion, gun control, government regulation, limitation of federal intrusion into state arena through the fiction of the commerce clause, hate crime legislation, taxation, market tactics for environmental regulation, drilling in the Arctic, and health care. On foreign policy, I submit there is no longer a clear "Conservative" position any more, except for a general unwillingness to submit American sovereignty to international authority.
Most of these stem from some common underlying principals that are not compatible with knee-jerk name calling of those who disagree with him.
I have avoided as many of the "Is Bush Good or Bad?" threads as I've been able to resist, and not just because of the more egregious behavior by the "liberals." Bush's defenders on this board have too often resorted to the same tactics as his detractors, and the more annoying on both sides have made reasoned discourse difficult or impossible.
But don't you dare question my Conservative credentials because I choose to not come to the defense of people who by all rights should be an embarrassment to those they agree with.
Dagonee
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know you object to it, but perhaps you should read G.W. Bush's inaugaration speech. His statements are pretty close to the Conservative "attitudes" I am talking about.
I will define Conservatism this way:
The belief in God, Country, Family as it traditionally existed. Taxes should be small and government should protect the sanctity of the above three.
quote:No. Jay is not a true representation of Conservative attitudes.
How many Conservatives have you actually talked with? Perhaps its from where I come from, but Jay is closer to the Conservatives I know than you are.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There, at least in the United States, no longer exists delineatable philosophies.
This is where the problem is. The Conservatism I hold has the basic point that government should do the minimum necessary, with necessary being defined realistically, not as the libertarians do. Governmental tasks should be conducted at the level of government closest to the people capable of doing the job. People who use resources should compensate the owners of those resources, and when the owner of those resources is the government, compensation is still due. The market should be allowed to work in many situations, but this means government enforcement of information accuracy is needed. People should be left to expend their energy and exercise their conscience to the greatest extent possible while still maintaining a community.
This is very consistent, and especially consistent in one facet: every one of these principals has values that must be balanced against each other. Given the permutations available, there are millions of combinations of possible policy preferences that can legitimately be said to stem from Conservative principles.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I question your conservative credentials, Dag . I'm going to keep calling you a moderate, so deal with it .
Of course, that's more under an associative definition rather than a philosophical one.
For one thing,
quote:limitation of federal intrusion into state arena through the fiction of the commerce clause
hardly seems to pop up in practice . Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to why we need to drill in ANWR.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Occasional wrote:
quote:Yet, [Jay] and others like him are the true representation of Conservatives attitutes and beliefs.
I'm wondering who appointed you the Arbiter of True Conservatism. I suspect it is yourself.
Shigosei wrote:
quote:The reason that the conservative trolls get jumped on more than liberals is that the intelligent, respectful conservatives are sick and tired of being thought of as stupid bigots. It's the more conservative posters who dogpile the trolls.
Exactly. I was one of the early votes telling Jar Head to leave, because he was such an obnoxious person that opinions I agree with sound bad coming out of his mouth. When liberals are obnoxious, I don't much care, because they're only making themselves look like fools and discrediting their own positions.
I expect a higher standard of class from my team than from the other side. Conservatives win by having the best ideas, not by pissing the most people off.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Small government is no longer part of the Conservative philosophy as I have heard it expressed (at most that simply means stay away from my pocket book). These days its about a more effective government to withstand attacks on American traditionalism. For instance, when was the last time you heard a Conservative organization argue for smaller government? I think that idea is quickly going out the door.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Two pages of mental masturbation!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How many Conservatives have you actually talked with? Perhaps its from where I come from, but Jay is closer to the Conservatives I know than you are.
Well, let's see. I was Chair for University Affairs of the College Republicans, Managing editor of a magazine that got de-funded by UVA and re-funded when the National Review and Wall Street Journal came to its defense. The Editor in Chief at that time was Rich Lowrey. If you're a real conservative, you'll recognize his name as being the current Editor of the National Review. I founded and helped run a magazine that was de-funded by UVA, and this time we had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to win. The case is a precedent for Free Speech and Religious Establishment that was crucial in resolving the latest school vouchers case at SCOTUS in favor of allowing them. I owned a business for 11 years, and in the course of that time met hundreds of other business owners, all trying to get by and make a few good jobs for their employees. There were more than a few conservatives in that crowd. I've marched on the Capitol in pro-life rallies several times. I was threatened with a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood because of a speaker I brought to UVA. I worked on George Allen's campaign, but found him a little too moderate for my taste.
I'd be willing to compare this Conservative resume with most who aren't doing something political or press oriented full time.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Small government is no longer part of the Conservative philosophy as I have heard it expressed
Just because you want to change the rules of what I believe, don't think I'm going to let you steal it from me.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most of the famous conservative think tanks repeatedly call for small government; for this very reason several are extremely upset with Bush (including for the tax cuts (edit: mainly the second round), which they view as, combined with his lack of fiscal restraint, resulting in larger government in the future to deal with the large debts that result (edit: and also because the accounting used for calculating their impact was intentionally misleading, which is anathema to traditional conservatism)).
As for "at most that simply means stay away from my pocketbook", I suggest you consider purchasing a thinking cap, or one which aids basic reading comprehension; Dagonee enumerated quite a number of things small government means that are far more than that.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here is a question then for Conservatives; Why aren't more Conservatives posting here and why don't you respond more than you do (I can count perhaps three Conservatives who are consistant posters)?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think a lot of them prefer Ornery. Less fluff there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If by Conservatives you mean people like you, I can only assume because other people keep asking them to provide evidence to support their statements and they aren't able to do so.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Perhaps because not all posters enjoy the sort of, um, spirited debate that a thread with this sort of title would create? Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
Good Gravy.
quote: Small government is no longer part of the Conservative philosophy as I have heard it expressed
I find this *stunning.*
What kind of conservative bastion are you hanging out in these days? Are you going to at least try to support this ambitious claim at some point?
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
quote: Why aren't more Conservatives posting here and why don't you respond more than you do (I can count perhaps three Conservatives who are consistant posters)?
1) You've scared them all away with your small government rant. 2) You've embarrassed them by mispelling "consistent." 3) They're all at a rally discussing this question, and you're missing it.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: bunbun ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Dagonee, your resume is pretty impressive; I'll give you that. But, I still believe you don't understand the changes in Conservative philosophy. I am not changing your beliefs, but pointing out that you don't hold the majority opinion anymore.
Again, it might be because of where I live (that would be the Intermountain-West) where there are more Jay's than there are Dagonees in temperments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did I miss the meeting where we all decided small government was out?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Are you going to at least try to support this ambitious claim at some point?
Magic Eight Ball says . . . "You must be joking."
Actually, he likely could find some evidence for it, sort of, at least by talking about who the people in power are that call themselves conservative and what their behaviors are. Excepting a decent number of Senators and a much smaller position of House members, those people currently calling themselves and their policies "conservative" are mostly neo-conservatives, which shares all of about a name with conservative philosophy (some of the conclusions are the same, but for pretty much wholly different reasons), or would better be termed career politicians, who I think by definition are required to not have a substantial political philosophy.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I consider myself a moderate, and I really can't fathom what use it is to have more people of a given extreme viewpoint on a board. What would be nice is LESS extreme liberalism. Then we might actually get to have useful dicussions
The more extremists you cram in, the less sense anyone makes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think you did miss the meeting Its not a direct statement as much as a focus on priorities.
Honestly, when was the last time you heard the "smaller government" rhetoric as a main part of Conservative ideals? Give me a quote by current leaders in the Conservative movement. You know, the ones that actually have power and influence?
[ January 25, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, a lot of the problem comes from that a lot of the "conservative" voters have never been conservative in a political/philosophical sense, but are often "whoever smashes the most of those stinkin' liberals" or "the more religion in US politics, the better" types. Or then there are my favorites, the ones who punch a button for straight party line republican even though they don't have any idea who's running for most of the positions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Honestly, when was the last time you heard the "smaller government" rhetoric as a main part of Conservative ideals? Give me a quote by current leaders in the Conservative movement. You know, the ones that actually have power and influence?
[ January 25, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't realize my presence offended you, Geoff. [I want to put an emoticon here, but I'm not sure which one. Some strange combination of the wink and the stuck-out tongue.]
[ January 25, 2005, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
fugu, as much as I disgree with you on everything; you actually hit the nail on the head. That way you stated that could have been less biased, but it is a good summary of current Conservitive ideals and positions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
twinky, I use that one all the time, only to have to change it when I realize ;p doesn't insert a smilie.
Dagonee
Posted by bunbun (Member # 6814) on :
quote: The belief in God, Country, Family as it traditionally existed. Taxes should be small and government should protect the sanctity of the above three.
This sounds like limited government to me.
Call me crazy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I consider myself a moderate
You know, Dog, between you and I calling ourselves moderates, I think we demonstrate the problem with different scales admirably .
I know we do not think the same way, or even close and yet we both say "I am a moderate".
EDIT: And twinky, I don't know how liberal you are but I have a suspicion that although I call myself a "moderate" and you call yourself an "extreme liberal" we line up more than ARNDog and I do. So basically, what I'm getting at is that names are... impractical.
[edit for baduss grammaruss]
[ January 25, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:fugu, as much as I disgree with you on everything; you actually hit the nail on the head. That way you stated that could have been less biased, but it is a good summary of current Conservitive ideals and positions.
No, it's not. It's a good summary of people's misperceptions about current Conservative ideals and positions.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
fugu, you are sneering. And since there aren't any conservatives here you are embarassing the rest of us.
Icarus did start a thread naming both liberal and conservative trolls (who poisoned the well) but there were more conservative than liberal trolls in that inventory. But other than that, I haven't seen liberal trolls reigned in by other liberals.
I think the difficulty in defining liberal and conservative is the tendency for a writer to define "sane people" as their own leaning, be that liberal or conservative and "dangerous people" to be the other side. Thus the desire to categorize Dagonee as a moderate instead of a conservative.
Ultimately, conservatives shouldn't need to agitate since our guy is in office. P.S. That is to say, for someone to be obnoxious and conservative is seen as gloating. To be obnoxious and liberal is agitating for change.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lets play it this way....you made a claim, that it is not a part of the Conservative view these days...
So YOU be the first one to document your claims.
This isn't a liberal or conservative thing, it is a debate thing. Dag has pretty impressive credentials, and has proved repeatedly that he knows his stuff. I am a moderate, in that I think both extremes have good things to bring up, but even though I often disagree with Dagonee I respect his opinions.
Since you say Jay is your idol, pardon me if I don't automatically extend you the same courtesies.
Kwea
[ January 25, 2005, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Dagonee, now find Conservative politicians and activists (especially grass roots) statmenents and beliefs.
quote:So YOU be the first one to document your claims.
How can I document a negative? I never said they repudiated the idea directly, but that it has simply not been part of the platform as much as lots of other priorities.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I'm going to let you back up your blanket assertions first.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Who are you talking to, Kwea? I may have missed something. I hope you don't mean me.
I guess you must mean Occasional. Jay did help me on my resume thread.
I think Jay and fugu are roughly equivalent in terms of not being trolls, but in being very spirited about their opinions. Going by thread titles at least. I think the whole evidence/linky thing can be good, but I've seen too many instances where the source of a link is dismissed as propaganda. I mean, this is the internet afterall.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I'm serious. Would I have to post every single Presidential and Congressional position and the Republican platfom and say "see, its not in there?"
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Did I miss the meeting where we all decided small government was out?
Punch was served.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've got to disagree on some particulars, there, bunbun. Protecting the sanctity of God does not sound like limited government to me. Smaller taxes as a goal in and of itself does not sound like smaller government to me. Heck, protecting family as it traditionally existed does not sound like smaller government to me.
Yes, I am sneering. Dag seems to be sneering too, though he's being much more polite about it. Honestly, I'm pretty fed up with Occasional and his ilk, and feel like venting a bit. I'm not even feeling all that bad about it, as I still await even acknowledgement that he didn't respond to the point regarding the misuse of the press.
As I said in my comment, I'm calling Dag a moderate in an associative sense. From a philosophical point of view, I'm rather conservative (though dag and I have significantly different interpretations of what that means on certain issues). This should help illustrate what I meant about an associative sense.
And I should re-point out that I don't consider those things I listed "conservative". Those are the sorts of things that particularly un-thoughtful, religiously motivated, and/or angry people do, not conservative people. As far as I can tell, Occasional and Jay fall into at least the first two categories.
I've thought for a bit why I don't comment as much on "extreme liberals" (though I've certainly been known to rip into Tres, so its hardly ignoring). I think part of its that I do identify more with a conservative philosophical basis, and find perversions of it particularly annoying. Another part is probably that I often find the "extreme liberals" more . . . ineffectual. You don't really see threads like this for the liberals; there's less sympathy for a lot of the positions. Another part which I can't deny is that I do have a residual sense that liberals are often more motivated by good reasons than conservatives, though I deny this intellectually (feelings are hard to change); this is particularly amusing as, as noted, my philosophical basis is largely conservative.
And I don't rip into the polite extreme liberals like Syn because they're polite; same as I don't rip into polite people in general. Note: I consider part of politeness responding to people's points (or at least, not ignoring them and continuing to provoke them). Its a quirk of mine.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am saddened that you would think me equivalent to Jay, mt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So this allegedly non-small government is going to be paid for by the lower taxes you admit they do advocate? Are you saying you prefer deficit spending? Although some of those in power might
Again, Republican <> Conservative.
And frankly, I'm not going to take your assessment of what "Conservatives" believes over the institutions and people that have espoused COnservative ideals since Buckley.
And Adam, thank you for finding a McCain quote. I wanted to name him, but couldn't find anything quickly.
It might not = Conservative, but it comes darn close.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:twinky, I use that one all the time, only to have to change it when I realize ;p doesn't insert a smilie.
Yeah, and using both and feels like overkill. I dig. It's a tough one.
Teshi, my self-label is, somewhat reluctantly, "social democrat" (reluctantly because I'm not sure that social democracy can work, which leaves me wondering whether the socialism or the democracy is more important to me). Were I not so offended by the very existence of Stephen Harper I would never vote further right than the NDP. I plan to relish his pending implosion over the issue of same-sex marriage, and will celebrate his long-overdue demise by sipping green tea lattés with my card-carrying Marxist-Lenninist friends at a seance on the west coast of Vancouver Island, where we will channel the restless spirit of Ernesto 'Che' Guevara for guidance. Yes... this is a fertile land, and we will thrive. We will rule over all this land, and we will call it... "this land."
"I think we should call it 'your grave!'"
"Ahhh! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
"Ah hahahahahah! Mine is an evil laugh!"
...
... ...
Er. Sorry. I got kind of carried away there. But I guess if you wanted to summarize me you could say that I'm a social democrat but am also a hypocrite. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Fugu-
quote: Yes, I am sneering. Dag seems to be sneering too, though he's being much more polite about it.
O_o Sneering is strictly a matter of manners, and has nothing to do with being right or wrong. When you use bald sarcasm against an opponent, that is sneering. Such as "my good friend". I think it weakens your argument.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Perhaps because not all posters enjoy the sort of, um, spirited debate that a thread with this sort of title would create? [Big Grin]
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"my good friend" was actually more amused on my part than sarcasm, which I wasn't really trying for at all there. The sarcasm was more in things like the magic 8 ball post.
And yes, a lot of this is for my personal benefit, as I said, I've got a need to vent. And I do know that sneering is a matter of attitude, and I still think Dag's doing it, but in a more polite manner .
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
If this thread were to be a TV show it would not be one with nice bells and winners, it would quite obviously be The Gong Show.
Yeah, twinky, see I would think of voting NDP like you would voting Liberal... it would definately not be the end of the world. I'm very socially liberal. I also think Stephen Harper is excessively Conservative and wouldn't dream of voting for him.
Not that I can actually vote or anything .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:p. 39: We believe that good government is based on a system of limited taxes and spending. Furthermore, we believe that the federal government should be limited and restricted to the functions mandated by the United States Constitution. The taxation system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs. The taxation system should not be used to redistribute wealth or fund ever-increasing entitlements and social programs.
Many Democrats, however, believe the government has a right to claim the money earned by working Americans. They fight any attempt to return the balance of power from Washington to individual families and businesses.
quote:Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
See? Open dismissiveness and sarcasm:
quote:Hmmm. What's that again?
Fully warranted, of course.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I do agree with Occasional that 'liberals' on this forum sometimes do not give the conservatives the space and respect they deserve.
The way the board basically breaks down is that there are a huge number of social conservatives and/or moderates here, but not so many actual social liberals. Sometimes, I think I'm the only one above the age of 25 here who doesn't have some kind of social ideal that he thinks the government should inculcate the kids at school with.
I would say that there are probably a lot of 'compassionate conservatives' here, not so many hard-nosed fiscal conservatives, and quite a few fiscal liberals.
What I think differentiates most of the 'conservatives' on this board from other conservatives is that, due to the highly religius nature of the board, they are much less likely to support war as a solution, and if they do, it is in a very limited sense.
Keep in mind as well that this board is fairly unique on the net in that the numbers of men and women are about equal. This has a pretty significant influence on the social dynamic.
I would really like to see more conservatives post, but I hope they are more of the sort that post research from the Heritage foundation than they are that post Limbaugh's topic du jour.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The member organizations and columnists that we have chosen to feature on Townhall.com do not necessarily agree on every issue, yet that is why Townhall.com believes our community is of value. An interactive, open and honest debate of the issues within the conservative community will help us all in the fight against those who would sacrifice the individual and freedom for political gain and big government.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And Occasional, I'm pleased that you are open about most conservatives not being opposed to a certain type of big government. It's refreshing to see that kind of honesty. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Fine, so you win on that score (as I said the Republicans are practically Conservative). Still, what about the list I provided? Or, do you not count them as a major part of the Conservative base?
I suppose you could say that there is a WAR over what Conservative means. However, it seems the "smaller government as priority" group is losing ground.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Honestly, Dagonee, most(notice I said most) self-described conservatives are communitarians. No matter what those links might say, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the conservative ideal is bent towards pushing the individual to behave within the 'traditional' community.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Fine, so you win on that score (as I said the Republicans are practically Conservative). Still, what about the list I provided? Or, do you not count them as a major part of the Conservative base?
I suppose you could say that there is a WAR over what Conservative means. However, it seems the "smaller government as priority" group is losing ground.
I'll let you go back and read my other posts quoting some of those before responding to that.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ok, so you win on that. Still, I think it has become less and less of a priority and more of a rhetorical tool about liberal government programs. The Social and Religious priorities are ten times more abundant than the economic priorities.
Three points for Dagonees textual proficiency. Still think its a less than honest portrayal of what Conservatives current positions are.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Honestly, Dagonee, most(notice I said most) self-described conservatives are communitarians. No matter what those links might say, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the conservative ideal is bent towards pushing the individual to behave within the 'traditional' community.
Which doesn't speak to big government, of course. Nor does it match most of my experience.
Dagonee
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Anyone find it ironic that the conservative point of view is apparently quite subject to change?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
As a liberal, any war in the other camp is good news for me.
Keep it up, and you won't be able to keep in power past 2006.
I enjoy debates and discussions, but I think everyone here would agree there is one definition of Conservative that is wrong--"Anything President Bush does is Conservative."
Yet much of what I hear from some outspoken young people claiming to be "True Conservatives" is Presidential Apologetics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Still, I think it has become less and less of a priority and more of a rhetorical tool about liberal government programs.
Only because we learned our lesson with Pat Buchanan in 92. This time, the primaries are going to be a lot different.
Edit: And this time, "we" refers to Republicans, or at least people who wanted G.H.W. Bush to win again in 92.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:As a liberal, any war in the other camp is good news for me.
The problem is, for liberals, the war is over. The only thing left is small skirmishes by those like Dagonee who still cling to what has become in the Bush/Religious Right years antiquated. Just read that list I gave.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"This time"? What about in 2000, in particular Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Specifically, no one tolerated a challenge to Bush because of what happened last time a Bush faced a midterm same-party primary challenge.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, mid term? 2000, not 2004, Dag.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Then what that means is that the Conservative stand that Dagonee says he holds has pretty close to given up. If I am understanding what he is saying correctly -- loyalty and winning, over ideals for the "more small government first" group.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As a side note, I'm amazed at how radically non-conservative W's politics are in comparison to Herbie's, honestly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only thing left is small skirmishes by those like Dagonee who still cling to what has become in the Bush/Religious Right years antiquated. Just read that list I gave.
First, that list you gave is on a site that is dedicated to the social side of conservatism. No wonder it lists sites that have social conservative bents. And even among them, limited government is a big theme.
Second, it ain't over. I, and many like me, will tolerate this when necessary, especially when the corresponding choices are so bad. But this isn't final.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Which doesn't speak to big government, of course. Nor does it match most of my experience.
So, in your experience, conservatives that you've known aren't for a strong military and civilian police force? Conservatives you've known aren't for various laws that enforce, or promote, the mythical traditional ideal? You don't know of a lot of conservatives that are for public schools that promote traditional values--flags in the classroom, traditional social standards taught, love of country taught? Interesting.
See, my experience is that neither side is for 'big government' when that government isn't working towards things they value, but both sides are for government that works towards things they value and supports their group. If government interference helps them to achieve that, they're for it. If government interference would screw with power they already have, or intrude on areas they think are fine on their own, they're against it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Uh, mid term? 2000, not 2004, Dag.
Oh, I misread. When the other choice is Gore, you go with what you got.
I so wish McCain had one, even though I hate his finance bill.
Dagonee
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You win on the rhetoric. I've already agreed with that. Now the question is, what is "small government" mean? Do you feel they represent that?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
WOW! I’m just getting home. Went for my Tuesday night run with the Hash House Harriers. What a trail. But anyway, then I had to pick up my neighbors from the airport. So I have a lot of catching up to do but doubt I’ll get to much tonight!
But I wanted to say it is so nice to have a buddy here on Hatrack. Thanks for the words of encouragement Occasional.
Ok, Farmgirl has been there too, but she likes to stay out of the big discussions for the most part.
Now to catch up….. Doubt I’ll post more tonight. But tomorrow looks promising at work again!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, in your experience, conservatives that you've known aren't for a strong military and civilian police force?
Both traditionally can only be effectuated by the government.
quote:Conservatives you've known aren't for various laws that enforce, or promote, the mythical traditional ideal? You don't know of a lot of conservatives that are for public schools that promote traditional values--flags in the classroom, traditional social standards taught, love of country taught? Interesting.
I didn't say that. I said that's not big government.
quote:See, my experience is that neither side is for 'big government' when that government isn't working towards things they value, but both sides are for government that works towards things they value and supports their group. If government interference helps them to achieve that, they're for it. If government interference would screw with power they already have, or intrude on areas they think are fine on their own, they're against it.
Interesting that you'd call anything that happens in school "government interference." Why do you think I support school choice so much? Because the continuing entrenchment of the government is forcing religion and morality out of more and more areas of public life. Allowing more private service providers is directly aimed at this.
Dagonee
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
See, S.S., my experience is the same thing. I do believe in less economic governmental interference. But, I am not for less governmental interference in social causes.
Bringing me back to the question I had; what does "smaller government" mean? Less interference or less size? I guess that is a matter of opinion.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I figured out why I'm so annoyed. When someone calls me a token (and please don't pretend it wasn't obvious that I was one of those you were referring to), calls me suspect, and attempts to coopt my beliefs, I get testy. Especially when he doesn't have the balls to do it by name.
Dagonee
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Occasional,
What you are describing as "real" is now known as "neo-conservative," and it basically consists of a loose coalition between several groups whose goals are, while not complementary, still compatible, such as religious groups and war hawks (seems like it would be incompatible, doesn't it?). One of the reasons neo-conservatism is on the rise is that one needn't have a real understanding of the issues to find it appealing, since it is the philosophy that many of the emotional arguments tend to best coincide with, such as the "my country right or wrong patriotism, or the desire to legislate specific religious dogmas. I find this coalition very scary.
However, traditional conservatism, like the kind Dagonee represents, is the one that has been a major part of the political topography of the nation since its inception. It's the one based on federalism, the same ideas that you can find in the Federalist papers that were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (who went on to sit on the Supreme Court) as arguments for the ratification of the constitution. It is a philosophy that isn't going anywhere, and if the Neo-Conservatives completely take over the Republican Party, I'm sure the party will split, because it's still an idea that resonates with a huge number of those who bother to come up with a coherent political philosophy. It comes, in large part, from the writings of John Locke, especially in that it places property as an important (if not the most important) concern of society, and particularly the protection of one's own property against things like exorbitant taxes. Arguments that you hear on C-Span (though, from your comments, I really doubt you watch congressional proceedings much) for lower taxes often come straight down from Locke himself, and they haven't changed much.
I am what you would call a liberal, but even I understand that true conservatism has been a huge force in our society and that the tenets it espouses, though I don't agree with all of them, are based on a reasonable set of principles intended to strengthen the nation, and not ephemeral emotional appeals like the things neo-conservatives have been doing.
Dagonee is my favorite conservative on the board, because even when I can't agree with him, his level of discourse and experience is so high that one can't really dismiss what he is saying. I always feel that I have a great deal to learn from him. People like Jay and his predecessors are really really easy to dismiss. That's why they aren't successful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly my point about the go with what you've got thing -- the neocons controlled the Republican primary agenda in 2000, and the conservatives weren't able to steal it back (though McCain gave a spirited try, it was not spirited in the really-had-a-chance sense once the primaries had actually started). And since you're talking about the primaries, who one should have voted for in the main election matters little, though its worth pointing out that Gore's proposed budgets were significantly more fiscally conservative than Bush's budgets, both proposed and real.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
And my argument, Idem, is that kind of Conservatism is losing ground fast. NOT that it was never part of the philosophy, but that it is becoming (if not on the edge) antiquated. At best it is getting assimilated and redifined.
I am not sure if Neo-Conservatism is the one that is gaining ground (unless you count the social and religious concerns in with that). It is larger than that International viewpoint position.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote:...most(notice I said most) self-described conservatives are communitarians. No matter what those links might say, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the conservative ideal is bent towards pushing the individual to behave within the 'traditional' community.
I think this deserves comment. While this is true, the 'traditional' values is much higher priority than the 'community.' At least in conservatism according to me. The reason Republicans arose was to oppose issues that would have persisted in a strictly democratic system but were simply immoral i.e. slavery. Of course, in those days I guess the Republicans would have been the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Yes, you are right, the true conservative position may be losing ground to the Neo-Conservative coalition, just as it lost ground to progressivism practically since FDR through 1994. The point is, however, that it is still a major presence and that it is not, as you claim, on it's last legs. The "real" conservatives (and by that I mean limited government folk, not neo-cons) as Dag said above, are just putting up with the Neo-Con stuff because it got them into power. However, it's a lot easier to find a Republican who is pro-choice than it is to find a Republican who is for, for example, the welfare system (an oft-touted "Big Government" program). The criteria you are using to judge conservative are not the ones they use to define themselves. I'll be back soon. I have to collect my thoughts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The old definition doesn't fit, and those who are at best moderate Conservatives don't seem to recognize that fact.
I was rereading, and this struck me as terribly strange. Am I imagining the irony in this sentence? The people who aren't Conservative enough are those that won't adopt the new definition of Conservative?
Dagonee
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think finally learned when it was the Democrats became liberal and the Republicans were pushed into conservativeness. On a PBS MLK day special, MLK called Johnson and explained to him that if a democrat president gave the blacks the vote, the blacks would give the democrats the south. Was it possibly an accident of who happened to be in the White House when MLK's crest of influence arrived? I guess a Republican wouldn't have been influenced if they felt they didn't need to worry about gaining the South. I don't know.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:That is fine. I consider most liberals here insulting, if for nothing more than their arrogance and hatred.
It's funny. I'm pretty sure it's the hatred that keeps me from not being a troll.
Mothertree,
Do you really set Jay and Fugu equal to each other in terms of not being a troll? And I don't think it's as simple as MLK and LBJ. FDR and Adlai Stevenson and Kennedy were all more sympathetic to civil rights than Hoover, Eisenhower, Goldwater, and I think most people agree that Nixon made the Republican party the white guy's party.
________________________________
[ January 26, 2005, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
While that's an interesting theory, it probably would have more to do with the fact that LBJ happened to be in office at the time. Kennedy was working on the Civil Rights issues, but he was assassinated. Eisenhower made symbolic attempts at fighting for civil rights (like passing a voting rights act that had the result of an increase in African American voting that came to about 3%) but wasn't going to do anything bigger.
Another thing to remember about the civil rights movement is that it actually split on the states right's issue. For the federal government to pass a civil rights bill is is to impose on the state police powers. In fact they did it in a fairly sneaky way. If you haven't had a constitutional law class, you may not know that the Constitutional Power cited by Congress for a lot of the civil rights legislation is the power to regulate inter-state commerce! The constitution really doesn't give the Congress power to pass such sweeping legislation geared at governing individuals. It is more designed to govern the states. Nevertheless, the congress passed laws saying owners of private businesses couldn't segregate! That represented not only a victory in the civil rights movement, but a fairly large shift of power from the states to the Congress, and if the Warren court hadn't been on the bench, it wouldn't have flown.
The point is that a Republican president, being for small government, probably would not have done the sweeping things for civil rights that LBJ did. All one has to do is look at the campaign literature of the guy who ran against him, a man by the name of Barry Goldwater.
A lot of issue that people look at on the surface and take to be isolated emotional fights have at their root the struggle between state government and the federal. That's why the small government school will always be around.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How exactly am I a radical liberal?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Incidentally, I meant to bring that up earlier, when fugu said the "fiction" of the commerce clause doesn't come up much. Trust me fugu, it comes up ALL the time, because usually when Congress passes a law intended to "promote the general welfare" it does so under the commerce clause. The Rehnquist court has started to push a lot of that stuff back, but some examples are the Violence against Women Act in the early nineties (using the fact that cities with higher Rape rates discourage tourism, which is interstate commerce, so there should be civil remedies, harsher penalties, etc.,) a law concerning guns in schools (because guns in schools harms education, which is essential for employment, which allows, income which is used for commerce, so there should be stronger penalties to protect commerce) etc.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, no, it doesn't come up in political discourse. I can't think of any republican politican offhand who denounces it. Nary a one.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I'm confused. You seem very sarcastic there, but I really haven't heard about it much in the media, even from Republican interview subjects. Like... at all. The first I had ever heard of it was in my Con Law class. And I watch C-Span for fun! (Or I did when I got it.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where's "there"?
If you mean the comment above, I'm not being sarcastic. The no, no is chiding myself on not being clearer, and the assorted stuff towards the end is amusement.
My point was/is that it isn't part of political discourse, at all, really. No one, republican or democrat, "conservative" or "liberal", in congress voices any concern over the use of the commerce clause as a political bludgeon.
That's a problem I have, actually, my amusement being mistaken for derision in many cases (this doesn't just happen online). I take amusement from many things (I consider it a strength).
However, for instance in language classes, someone will say something (mistakenly) which is incredibly amusing. I will often burst into abrupt laughter. I mean them no derision at all, god knows my own attempts are fraught with mistakes. I am just exceedinly amused at whatever thoughts their mistake triggered.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I think it's a part of the political discourse in that it is a reflection of the larger debate over the extent of the power of the federal government.However you are right in that it isn't specifically mentioned much outside of floor debates on the specific statutes where it's being used, simply because it's fairly high concept for inclusion in mass market media. I haven't read a lot of the think tank stuff I must admit, but I imagine they talk about it a lot more, and I KNOW that SCOTUS has been taking an interest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not just a fairly high concept; almost no politicians (particularly if we're talking about congresspeople) seem to have any desire to get rid of it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:So, in your experience, conservatives that you've known aren't for a strong military and civilian police force?
Both traditionally can only be effectuated by the government.
And, traditionally, conservatives are for 'larger' versions of these.
quote: quote:Conservatives you've known aren't for various laws that enforce, or promote, the mythical traditional ideal? You don't know of a lot of conservatives that are for public schools that promote traditional values--flags in the classroom, traditional social standards taught, love of country taught? Interesting.
I didn't say that. I said that's not big government.
Why isn't it 'big government'? It's the state engaging itself in people's lives in a very pervasive way.
quote: quote:See, my experience is that neither side is for 'big government' when that government isn't working towards things they value, but both sides are for government that works towards things they value and supports their group. If government interference helps them to achieve that, they're for it. If government interference would screw with power they already have, or intrude on areas they think are fine on their own, they're against it.
Interesting that you'd call anything that happens in school "government interference." Why do you think I support school choice so much? Because the continuing entrenchment of the government is forcing religion and morality out of more and more areas of public life. Allowing more private service providers is directly aimed at this.
I didn't say that 'anything that happens in school' is government interference. It's only interference if it contradicts what the individual or the group wants, eh? Othewise, it's a helping hand.
What I did say, and you aren't contradicting it with your statements, is that both liberals and conservatives seem to be for government in size and scope that helps them to accomplish their ends. Don't you think this is often true?
Now, there are people on both sides out there who are willing to live and let live, short of someone throwing a rock through their window, so to speak, and I think you are one of those people in a lot of ways, but I do very much believe that the power of the state is just so tempting and easy to use and abuse, I think most people on both sides jump to use government before they ask themselves if their goals could better be accomplished through persuasion.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't look down my nose at people who want to use the power of the state.
I guess what I'm saying is that size is relative. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
[breaking in to thread with inane and stupid comment] I like tater-tots [/breaking in to thread with inane and stupid comment]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair Dag, I've been saying something to you very similar to what Occasional is, which is that you are a poor example of people who self-label themselves as conservatives in this country. Of course, I think Doc Occ and I may be coming from very different places, but I'd agree that the majority of conservatives are more like Jay than like you. (And yes, I'd make a similarly unflattering statement about self-identifying liberals too.)
[ January 26, 2005, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
I agree with Dagonee.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would say most liberals are not like Jay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I said the level of unflatteringness would be similar, not the actual comparision. Most people, regardless of party affiliation think and act irresponsibly.
Oh an Oc, conservative isn't the word for what you're describing. I think you may find authoritarian a better fit.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just wish that so many conservatives would NOT sound like Cartman... Perhaps I'd be a bit more open to them, I'm not completely unopen to conservative concepts like tradition and family values.... But, I still don't completely understand why some people think that gays are contrary to traditional values.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't see why people are bothered when they find that few other posters on Hatrack agree with them about something.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But, I still don't completely understand why some people think that gays are contrary to traditional values.
What's to understand? Traditionally, homosexuality has been considered a sin in our culture. Therefore, homosexuality is agianst the traditional values of our culture.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What what's meant by traditional values? And do we mean traditional [i]western[i] values? Also, there used to be a time when homosexuality was mostly underground, but I'm reminded of a book that talked about intimate friendships women had in the Victorian Era and Boston Marriages...
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Occasional, your first post is a cowardly attack on most of the conservative members on Hatrack. Kat, Farmgirl, Pooka, Dags, NFL, MPH and many other posters here work hard to represent the conservative viewpoint in a clear and honest manner. You slander them with your mindless accusations ("You may not give them much respect, but they don't hold you with it either") and refuse to discuss your ideas when they are challenged. Frankly, I'm disgusted.
If you want more neo-cons on the website, that's fine. But please do not tell the conservatives on this board what to do.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
But it is also supported by a long traditional history of personal freedom.
It isn't that cut and dried, at least not to us as a nation. Of course we all have our personal opinions about it, and those opinions ARE pretty cut and dried....but the question of homosexual freedoms is a log like other personal freedoms, and the arguments for allowing them are grounded in the same principals that allow you to be a Mormon, or a RC, or a Pagan.
We were traditionally a Christian nation, but our system of freedoms allowed others to practice their religions as well. No one could make you be Christian, but you aren't allowed to stop them from being one, and them being one doesn't negate their rights as Americans.
It isn't about approving of it as much as allowing people to enjoy their personal freedoms and live how they choose to live.
Kwea
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
MT, it was directed at Occ.
He is the one challenging Dag's credentials, and claiming that Dag doesn't know jack about his own political party, without posting a shred of proof other than his poorly thought out personal thought on the matter....so I called him on it.
Occ, you can't prove a negative, but that isn't what was necessary...you could have posted someone directly refuting it (there is at least one person you should be familiar with who has done so, but if you don't read the papers I am not going to spell it out for you ), or posted links that were highly conservative in nature that didn't mention it at all.
You could have posted links to the Republican platform that can't be done using the smaller government standard and tried to show how that would be possible.
You could have done a google search and posted random slanted news items, and tried to make your case that way.
As bad as some of those choices would have been, all of them would have been better than simply repeating the same thing over and over again, inferring that you have the authority to speak for all conservatives....even those like Dag who have 50 times the political savvy and experience....regardless of if they believe what you are claiming is the "truth".
As it stands, I won't bother to refute anything specifically that you have said....your own attempts at debate have proven my point without me even needing to be in this thread.
Kwea
[ January 26, 2005, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
mothertree:
quote: The reason Republicans arose was to oppose issues that would have persisted in a strictly democratic system but were simply immoral i.e. slavery. Of course, in those days I guess the Republicans would have been the liberals and the Democrats the conservatives.
You're right in saying that the Republicans would have been the liberals then, but you're wrong about the other side of it. Republicans (well, Dagonee's type) and Democrats today come from the same roots, in Locke's philosophy back in the Enlightenment.
They split around the time of the slavery issue because the Classic Liberals (now Republicans) felt that (after defeating their opposition fairly soundly--the Whigs right?) their "job" was done. They had established a republic that addressed most of Locke's points. The Constitution protected their freedom and their property and government was small.
Today's Liberals were then people who felt that the "job" wasn't done. Yes, they had a small government and great freedoms and everything, but they decided that government had other purposes that Locke didn't talk about. They felt that perhaps if they added some social programs here and there, they could make the country even better and fix some injustices that Locke didn't predict. This perspective led to the social reforms supported by Democrats that have increased the size of government in persuit of what many feel are higher goals.
Edit to add: Conservatives started calling themselves "conservative" to underscore their efforts to adhere to the values they had from the Enlightenment. This has traditionally gone along with some degree of religious conservatism, as many of these people treasured the traditional values held by their religious practice.
If I've misrepresented something, let me know. I'm writing this from memory.
[ January 26, 2005, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Of course, a lot of the problem comes from that a lot of the "conservative" voters have never been conservative in a political/philosophical sense, but are often "whoever smashes the most of those stinkin' liberals" or "the more religion in US politics, the better" types. Or then there are my favorites, the ones who punch a button for straight party line republican even though they don't have any idea who's running for most of the positions.
Brilliant. You rock my world Fugu.
I consider myself a moderate too. I'm all for gay rights and the right to bear arms. I like smaller government and I'm all for the right to have abotion. I approve of the death penalty and I think stem cell research is really important. And the environment is good too. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:referencing thread title:
I know folks who would argue that there are no REAL Mormons on Hatrack, either.
:shrug:
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
*squeals and dances*
Sweet! What'd I win?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What would be nice is LESS extreme liberalism."
Geoff said this in an earlier post on this thread, and I was a little baffled by this.
Who on Hatrack is an extreme liberal? We've got one or two people who're pro-life socialists, and one pro-choice socialist; we have a handful of social libertarians who believe in federalized medicine but are otherwise pretty laissez-faire about capitalism. And these are the most liberal people I can think of off-hand. Are these extremely liberal positions? If so, perhaps we should stop using the word "extreme" in general, because it's obviously become meaningless.
[ January 26, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I dunno Tom, I think extreme is an excellent word to describe Jay and Occasional . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, y'know, I'm not sure their actual political positions are all that extreme. Heck, I don't think they know what their political positions even are; they don't strike me as particularly conservative.
They are, rather, very PARTISAN; they are passionate -- even hostile -- members of Team Conservative, even if they don't know what that team stands for, and they root for the leaders of Team Conservative and attack its enemies without pausing to think much.
It is, I suspect, precisely this "attitude" that they think is inherent to "true" conservatism, and they bemoan its lack here; no one here is sufficiently partisan and/or insulting enough for them, so they don't think the other conservatives on the site are showing enough Team Spirit.
That they don't even recognize why this is a bad thing is something that I find somewhat depressing.
[ January 26, 2005, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, I dunno Tom, I think extreme is an excellent word to describe Jay and Occasional
If these two are extreme in position, then we undoubtedly have extreme liberals on the board. And, frankly, there's nothing in their behavior I haven't seen from liberals here.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I honestly don't get why everyone is jumping on Occasional so hard. Yeah, I understand why some of the other conservatives are pissed at him, because he said they weren't really conservative. But I don't think he voiced his opinion in a mean or obnoxious way, and he's been polite throughout the whole thread.
I think it's obvious that the terms conservative and liberal are very subjective, to some degree. I think Occasional has shown that he understands this and has been more than happy to discuss what does constitute conservative and liberal in an honest, forthright, polite fashion. Maybe y'all should give him some slack?
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
This thread is depressing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I'm a little bit late responding to this, but...just wanted to add that I'm conservative, and I have never been made to feel unwelcome here. In fact, all of my best friends consider themselves Very Liberal, and a few of them are here on this board, and I don't have a problem with that at all. I'd like to think they don't have a problem with my beliefs either, but I have learned anyway to try and avoid political discussions with them, because I know we will not agree on it, and nothing productive ever happens from our arguments. Looking back on my past posts here on the 'rack, I realize that I've definitely come across as a liberal, because, well, I used to be one. My political views have changed quite a bit.
I try to avoid any sort of politics here on Hatrack because I have noticed that they tend to get out of hand and people lose their tempers too easily, and I like you all too much to argue about stuff like that. Just wanted to say my piece about this topic.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Your last sentence probably explains why you might not have noticed what Occasional is talking about.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But again, how am I extreme? I believe in- Reasonable gun control, keeping guns out of the hands of ex-felons, background checks and 5 day waiting periods Funding the arts (Especially opera, the Met radio broadcasts could really use some help) I have mixed feelings about abortion. Banning it won't end it, just force it underground and make the problem worse. The key is education, birth control, things like that. gay rights. Gays, if they wish to should marry or have civil unions. Churches shouldn't be forced to join them if they do not want to, but they should still be able to have benefits. *thinks of one of my best friends I lost years ago* And I don't think gays should be denied housing or jobs either. I think that the education system has to be improved, having come from schools that had trouble keeping spanish or science teachers. More resources should be put towards public schools and there should be less buracasy? grah. spelling >.< When it comes to affirmative action I don't like the concept of quotas, or the accusation that a person was only hired because of their race and not their skills. Really it's a bandage solution. But, it's not much different from the children of rich alumni being able to get into schools easier. Again, it's something that requires middle ground. Really, what I believe in is doing things that work. I don't think that billionaires should get tax cuts, trickle down isn't very effective when it hurts people like this girl I know who worries that her disability will be cut. I don't believe in laissez faire capitalism, it has done a lot of damage to society socially, economically and environmentally. I think small businesses and farmers should get tax cuts. I think that middle class families need more help so the companies that they work for should provide them with health care, child care and days off so they can take care of their children when they need them. I, most importantly believe in the thread principle and in doing things that work that are effective whether or not they are conservative or liberal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In fact, all of my best friends consider themselves Very Liberal, and a few of them are here on this board, and I don't have a problem with that at all."
I think, by Occasional's definition -- and certainly by Jay's -- this would mean you aren't a real conservative.
------
BTW, Synth, whatever your motivations, the net result of your reasoning is that you hold positions which are traditionally liberal across the board. That said, none of those positions are very liberal -- but every single one of them is to the left of center. IMO, you're one of the more liberal people on the board -- which I think says a lot about how few really "extreme" liberals we have, if merely leaning a bit left on all the major issues makes you more liberal than most of us by comparison.
[ January 26, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
It's depressing because I agree that conservative viewpoints are attacked and their holders dogpiled and vilified, and this thread highlights why that isn't going to change. Also, people are more complicatd than a binary choice of designations could ever describe, and I hate that issues devolve into that kind of partisan wrangling. It happens from both sides, and every time it does, my opinion of the people who do it bottoms out. I like people, and I like to like people, and so this is distressing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"this thread highlights why that isn't going to change"
Because the conservatives who visit Hatrack are rude, confrontational jerks?
See, I don't think that's the case. I would prefer not to believe that inherent in conservative thought is the need to be a complete asshole. And I believe quite strongly that people with passionately conservative viewpoints have been treated with respect and fairness on this board, provided that they're capable of extending the same respect to others.
Please don't tell me that conservatives can't do that, Katie, Because that would be depressing.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Tom, I know you're upset, but I didn't say what you're implying that I said. I didn't even come close.
Rereading my post, apparently the ambiguity was in saying that this thread points out why it isn't going to change. The thread has said different things to us. You see it as saying that conservatives will continue to be dogpiled because they act uncivily, and I see as saying conservatives will continue to be dogpiled because the people that do so intend to continue acting uncivily.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do think that a lot of conservative concepts are the cornerstone to society and its foundation. We need conservative concepts. I am, however, not to fond of neo-conservative thought or people who think like Ayn Rand. I just think we need to take care of each other and be compassionate. Most people view that as wimpy, but I don't really care. Liberal concepts are useful because they have done a lot to improve things for millions of people. Rather than just dismiss certain concepts, why not embrace them and try to understand them better?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok, who called in and made sure I’m busy today? Thanks….. now I can’t keep up. Great….. And this one looks so fun. Oh well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's depressing because I agree that conservative viewpoints are attacked and their holders dogpiled and vilified, and this thread highlights why that isn't going to change.
But I think the thread demonstrates that it's not the possession or expression of conservative viewpoints that leads to the dogpiling and vilification, it's the mode of expression that leads to it.
I do think that when certain liberals act like this, there is more of a tendency to simply ignore them rather than dogpile. I'm not sure why that is.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet you said that conservative viewpoints are "vilified" by a "dogpile."
Oddly, I can't think of a time when this has been true of any viewpoint expressed in a respectful fashion. So you must be referring to those times when idiots come on here spouting rhetoric; I certainly do recall dogpiles of that sort.
But I would prefer not to associate conservatism with rhetoric. It's certainly possible for Porter or Dag or Farmgirl or you -- or any of our other resident righties -- to come out with an opinion that is not "vilified." It's harder for you to come out with an opinion that is unchallenged, but then when was the last time you saw me get away with voicing an unchallenged political opinion? Have I become a conservative without knowing it? (If so, the definition must have changed even faster than Occasional expected.)
What I think has historically bothered conservatives on this board is that some of their positions are quite accurately depicted as unsympathic and/or uncaring by those who are directly affected by them. I know several people were offended when Karl and Telp and Caleb made a point of demonstrating why anti-gay-marriage rhetoric was a personal attack on their lives; I know I offended many Christians by pointing out that, by any sane measure, worship of an apocalyptic God is an evil act. And yet these are easily the harshest and most confrontational arguments ever lobbied towards Hatrack conservatives, mainly because they seek to undermine basic assumptions through personal connection.
Is this "vilification?" Hardly.
So, then, Katie, who is the liberal majority on this thread who have acted uncivilly toward Occasional and Jay? In what way have they been uncivil? Do you not agree that Occasional and Jay were, themselves, uncivil from the start in their political threads?
Perhaps you are defining "vilify" and "civil" and "dogpile" in ways that I don't recognize.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I do think that when certain liberals act like this
Like what?
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:I do think that when certain liberals act like this, there is more of a tendency to simply ignore them rather than dogpile.
Exactly. I could come up with some reasons:
1. The conservative party is in power, so when a liberal acts like an idiot while expressing their views, it easy to dismiss them as irrelevant anyway. 2. Liberals who dogpile loathe to do it to one of their own, while conservatives have no problem with doing it to one of their own. 3. Conservatives have a greater belief in free speech, and so both speak more freely than liberals and hence get a greater response, and also allow others to speak freely, secure in their belief that their correct viewpoint will win out. 4. It isn't a political thing at all, and those who dogpile just happen to liberal, and hence conservatives are the main target.
All of the above are plausible, but I don't know if any are the reason. If any, I actually suspect the fourth is the most correct.
---------- Tom: To be honest, I'm thinking of me. No, I don't express political opinions now, and it's because of stuff that has happened.
I doubt Occ or Jay would label me as a conservative.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's a different issue, Katie.
Most of us are pretty capable of ignoring obvious trolls. Many of our younger and most, um, "exuberant" members lean left, and are more likely to take that sort of bait. Moreover, it's been my experience that conservative trolls are like brambles or perhaps pit bulls; they get stuck where they post, hoping that their words will bring enlightenment to the masses, and merely ignoring them won't encourage them to move on. Instead, a conservative troll will become more and more inflammatory until somebody finally does reply, at which point it turns into a thread. A liberal troll, by contrast, blows like a tumbleweed into LiveJournal if no one's replied within thirty seconds (a period in which they'd've hit "Refresh" about sixty times already.)
[ January 26, 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I think the entire issue is just too complicated to divide people along such binary lines.
Added: At least, such division makes me feel homeless, because I don't belong in the dyed-in-the-wool liberal camp I know, but I also do not place myself in the Occ and Jay camp as a conservative.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Like what?
Like Jay, Bean Counter, Jarhead, or the early CStroman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"No, I don't express political opinions now, and it's because of stuff that has happened."
Katie, I think I can recall specifically the circumstance you're talking about, and I can say with some certainty that the issue was more of a personal one than a political one for everyone involved, even if the fight was framed by a political conversation. By the time y'all got down to brass tacks, none of the hurt feelings were being caused by politics. Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
A political discussion turned personal when political arguments failed to sway. If you can't shut someone up one way, then try another. Because it turned personal doesn't mean it wasn't sparked by politics. If I'd had different politics, it never would have turned personal.
Added: I don't know - maybe I have a different perception of what happened. I can barely remember most of it - it's become an emotional memory where I'll have a reaction to a person or a topic and I have to think for a second to remember why.
[ January 26, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you want to discuss this elsewhere, Katie, drop me an E-mail. You've been avoiding political conversations ever since out of a memory of that incident, and I think it's a shame; I really do believe that it was a unique combination of factors, most of which involved cliquishness and only incidentally had anything to do with politics at all.
If you recall, I actually excoriated the people involved for pretending that it was about politics at the time. Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I do remember. I'll send an e-mail this afternoon.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: I know several people were offended when Karl and Telp and Caleb made a point of demonstrating why anti-gay-marriage rhetoric was a personal attack on their lives; I know I offended many Christians by pointing out that, by any sane measure, worship of an apocalyptic God is an evil act.
Your explanation of who is offended in these two scenarios puzzles me. Belief in an apocalyptic God is as essential to my being as being gay is to those who believe it is a deep part of their essential identity. But maybe I don't understand your definition of an apocalyptic God. But as I've said before, it probably has to do with me not thinking death and suffering is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If I did think that I would cease to find meaning in life and kill myself immediately. This is not the same as other philosophical statements I have made, like that there must be a Satan.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's certainly possible for Porter or Dag or Farmgirl or you -- or any of our other resident righties -- to come out with an opinion that is not "vilified."
I felt a surge of fan-boy glee to see myself lumped in with such cool people. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And the environment is good too.
Well, that sets you apart from...nobody. Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
I know that i am probably just repeating what everyone else in here has already said, but the problem is not having 'extreme' conservgatives, or 'extreme' liberals. What has been pointed out, i will echo, even though it will have no further influence from me. extreme is a very relative word, and one that, realistically, should be used at all.
The problem is that no matter where you belong on the political scale, be left or right, or even up or down(JOKING), we attack everyone. there should be some calm explanation as to why you believe what you believe and why you believe that the other person is wrong, because what you believe (politically) is exactly that, what you believe. It is you opinions. I disagree with everyone here on at least one thing, and agree with everyone here on at least one thing.
PLEASE, i am incredibly sick of the arguing, it does nothing to prove you point and just drives the other person farther away. I know that i'll probably be blown off, but it's worth a try, eh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*applauds Peter* I have no idea who you are, but you are entirely right.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:The problem is that no matter where you belong on the political scale, be left or right, or even up or down(JOKING)
Check out Annie's thread with the http://www.politicalcompass.org link in it. A political spectrum can have "up" and "down" just as easily as it can have left and right. And it makes for a better scale too.
Edit: I'm a dummy, thanks for the correction, Frisco.
[ January 26, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Me, I'm a Dagonee Conservative.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I took the test and came up with scores of: Economic Left/Right: 3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41
I guess I'm a somewhat right of center mild libertarian. And on their chart of noted political figures, there is NOBODY even in the same quadrant as me. I guess I'll have to start my own party. I don't know what I'll call it, but my symbol will be a hedgehog.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But as I've said before, it probably has to do with me not thinking death and suffering is the worst thing that can happen to a person. If I did think that I would cease to find meaning in life and kill myself immediately.
I'm not getting this; if you thought death was the worst thing that could happen to you, you would instantly kill yourself? How does that make sense?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
psst.. Kom... You just got into it. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Death is not the worse thing, but suffering? If a person doesn't have to suffer, if it's preventable, why should it happen?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I personally would not be as happy right now if it weren't for some of the times I have suffered in the past. I am glad that all of my suffering wasn't prevented.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If a person doesn't have to suffer, if it's preventable, why should it happen?
Even if one accepts this philosophy, it doesn't follow that suffering is the worst thing that can happen.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, But that's a case for takinga longer view of things, not for a different valuing of suffering/happiness.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What's what it appeared that Trisha was doing as well.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Everybody knows that true politcal definitions have 4 simultaneous 24-hour scales.
My mind!
*HEAD A SPLODE*
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:3. Conservatives have a greater belief in free speech, and so both speak more freely than liberals and hence get a greater response, and also allow others to speak freely, secure in their belief that their correct viewpoint will win out.
Some people see free speech where I see cock-sure, potato po-tah-to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You would know.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: people are more complicated than a binary choice of designations could ever describe, and I hate that issues devolve into that kind of partisan wrangling. It happens from both sides, and every time it does, my opinion of the people who do it bottoms out. I like people, and I like to like people, and so this is distressing.
I agree with this completely,.
The problem I had with Occ, and it really was a fairly minor problem when all is said and done, is that he didn't document any of his claims, and that he was declaring himself the final arbitrator of what is and is not a Conservative these days. I don't really care about his politics at this point, I was more focused on his way of presenting it.
He did a much better job of it than Jay does, IMO.
I even agree with some of his points...not many, but some.
I wasn't trying to dog pile on him, but I don't like to let that type of arrogance/disrespect of others go unchallenged.
I have never jumped on anyone here for stating their opinion, as long as they don't slam others while doing it.
And as long as they can back up the facts they are presenting.
I think that most people are not black and white, party-line voters, and that depending on the specific timing and issues they can vote either way. I know that sometimes I have to vote for a candidate I disagree with, just to make sure there is some balance in representation. I might not agree with every view they have, but as long as most of the major points align with what I feel is best, I learn to live with the other stuff.
So Liberals don't like me much because I sometimes vote Republican...and Republicans don't like me much because I am sometimes too liberal-thinking.
Most often I don't particularly like either of them, so it all works out OK in the end.
Kwea
[ January 26, 2005, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Player: 1 Label: A Actions: mix with other A's and bash all the other B's
Player: 2 Label: B Actions: mix with other B's and bash all the other A's
What I think about the solution to the problem? Player: 3 Label: none Actions: Bashing some A's and some B's, because I see that people are not labels. People can be reasoned with, labels CAN NOT. (If you don't believe me think about this just like racism.)
How do you know that these 'conservatives' aren't just keeping to themselves over issues they find to be petty?
Calling out all of the Liberals saying they need to change seems like a good idea, until you realize that users that post here are people, and have feelings, and are going to worry more about thier personal feelings than that of some group agenda.
Bottom Line: If you feel they are misrepresented, then you should represent them properly, not call for change in everyone else. Since you seem to understand let's look at these labels of conservative and liberal. I am what I am, and I do not follow any set 'ideal' other than what I feel I should, this means that instead of me just reacting to whatever happens, I will slow things down, think about it, and then act how I want to respond to things. Thus being more myself, and not having an agenda other than learning.
To me, you starting this thread is ludicrous. Why call for change in everyone else? Change starts with yourself. If you don't want to change, why should anyone else put forth effort?
(In other words: If you are really a conservative, why are you trying to be liberal?)
Definitions I used for: Liberal: "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." Conservative: "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change."
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I think the political test on the other thread along with thread really proof Occasionals point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only if you accept both that heavily flawed test and Occ's definition of conservative.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And ignore the self-selection bias. Maybe "liberals" are just more likely to post their test results publicly.
Or maybe the whole point of the other thread is that the terms liberal and conservative are insufficiently descriptive. An interesting thing that the test doesn't make clear -- some of the people who posted the most "liberal" numbers from the test are also among the most actively religious folks at Hatrack (Christian and Jewish). How does that fit into Occasional's stereotype?
[ January 27, 2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Maybe "liberals" are just more likely to post their test results publicly.
Certainly the people I think of as the most conservative members of the board have not posted their scores.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I did too!
Oh wait...
Does that mean I'm not the most.
Dang.....
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No Jay, you're not.
You may be the one most obsessed with conservative vs liberal labeling, however.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Go ahead and take the second test, Jay; I think it's more accurate.
But, no, I don't think you're the most conservative person on the forum. Honestly, I don't even think you necessarily know what you actually believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jay, let's stop talking in labels and get down to some specifics. What is the government's role in ensuring the accuracy of information necessary for the proper workings of a free market?
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). As a Canadian liberal, discussing politics with an American liberal is in many cases like talking with a Canadian conservative- the scales are totally out of line with one another!![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. I'm going to keep calling you a moderate, so deal with it ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
you are embarassing the rest of us.![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
.