Any one here not liberal

[windowsblowsass]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

[pseudobrit]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

Blah blah blah liberal snakepit blah blah blah. I guess it's time for the monthly "too many liberals here" complaint.

Someone just kill this thread now.

[windowsblowsass]

Blah blah blah liberal snakepit blah blah blah. I guess it's time for the monthly "too many liberals here" complaint.

Someone just kill this thread now.
just wandering i dont want to have to try and fight off an entire site off democrats in the political forums by ny self so just calm down its just a simple question

[pseudobrit]

just wandering i dont want to have to try and fight off an entire site off democrats in the political forums by ny self so just calm down its just a simple question

Well, you're stereotyping. First it's "liberals" now it's "democrats."

We are who we are and we think what we think.

No one goes around wearing a "liberal democrat," "moderate," or "religious nut" nametag all day and the same is true here. Some are left-leaning, others right, but the simple fact is that all of us vary from issue to issue. If you argue with facts, logic and evidence and put together coherent sentences, you'll be respected and add to the conversation. If you don't, you'll be promptly chewed up and spit out when you fail to verify your claims.

And you could have answered this question for yourself if you'd simply lurked for a few weeks or gone back through a few weeks or months of posts.

[DavisBAnimal]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

To answer your question without getting mad or defensive, this is a primarily liberal board/community, although you will find the occasional more conservative poster (most often with regards to financial matters and taxation).

It hasn't always been this way - the tides of politics tend to come and go, and back about a year ago conservative posts dominated the discussion.

I'll also ad that the spirit of debate here has for the most part come and gone, and fewer and fewer threads are now "catching a bite" if you will - not as many are developing into spirited discussions.

I frankly, think this is a bit of a bummer. You will find here a group of people who is who they is and who thinks what they thinks, and that's great, but the true tides of opposition have slowly been leaking away. A typical thread now consists of a link to an article, a couple of sarcastic comments, or "dude, that sucks!" complaints, then nothing much after.

Davis

[toontra]

I frankly, think this is a bit of a bummer. You will find here a group of people who is who they is and who thinks what they thinks, and that's great, but the true tides of opposition have slowly been leaking away. A typical thread now consists of a link to an article, a couple of sarcastic comments, or "dude, that sucks!" complaints, then nothing much after.

Davis

This may be explained by the fact that almost all the arguments put forward by the "anti-war liberal" brigade a year ago have since largly been substantiated by events!

That being the case, rather than repeating all the arguments, a simple link to an article describing an event or cause which was predicted is a mighty effective way of proving your point.

This may also explain why almost all the pro-war members who were posting here so regularly here a year ago have vanished into thin air! ;)

[revenuee]

my political perspective is very much issue dependent. I'm very totalitarian

[windowsblowsass]

having just discovered the political forums i was wondering if anyone everuses a legitamte argument or if they all just say bush blows over and over (like every liberal at my school)
ps before someone has a hisssy fit im not saying people here do that im just trying to see b/c if it is generally a whine fest im not going to be in here much

[DavisBAnimal]

having just discovered the political forums i was wondering if anyone everuses a legitamte argument or if they all just say bush blows over and over (like every liberal at my school)
ps before someone has a hisssy fit im not saying people here do that im just trying to see b/c it is generally a whine fest im not going to be in here much

Don't let the first response or two to your original question taint your view of the boards - most arguments here don't usually regress to the "blah blah blah...kill this thread it's worthless" type of discussion stifiling comments.

You will definitely come up against some very well articulated, heavily backed up and well thought-out responses to conflicts of opinion, most of which will be in some ways left-leaning, though not all. And of course you'll see comments like the ones you've already witnessed, on both sides, meant to stifle debate more than to encourage it, but you just got to ignore those and respond to the others.

Stick around, though, please please please please - I am a bored, bored liberal leaner in need of some conservative opposition.

Davis

[Desertrat]

I'm generally conservative, although on some issues I range from neutral to liberal in my views. Certainly a fiscal conservative. While I feel strongly about certain issues, I don't tend to get all that excited. Lotsa "BTDT" for us Certified Old Farts. :)

'Rat

[bonehead]

There are plenty of conservatives on this board. They just seem to not post very much on the political forums. As DavisBAnimal said, a year ago or more the boards were heavily conservative.

People arrive at their political opinions in a myriad of ways, how did you come to be conservative Windows? FYI I'm fairly liberal and I respect the right to have and express different views, I'm just curious.

[Sun Baked]

I'm rather conservative when I beat Democrats, otherwise the yelling and screaming gets rather annoying.

And trying to get the blood out of the leather isn't worth the effort.

Of course it is rather fun.

---

But those liberal democrats sure are messing up the sexual mores of the US.

Where do they come up with these odd ideas, where a blowjob isn't sex?

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure I get the definitions of liberal and conservative anymore (if there was ever anything to get), but if you use the war in Iraq as an example, a year or more ago it was impossible to even question the Bush administration in these parts without being beaten silly with a flag pole. Most if not all of the posters who were so vociferous in their support of the war and merciless in attacking its critics are gone now, though a few reappear from time to time under new screen names and then generally vanish again fairly quickly. Personally, I think they get discouraged because this forum isn't like talk radio. It isn't enough to call somebody a name and hang up. I'm impressed by the number of regulars in the section who know their stuff and have given more then passing thought to important issues. That's why I come back -- not for an argument necessarily, because you can get that anywhere, but because the regulars here are thoughtful and interesting people, and I often learn something from them.

In short, I'd like to think you won't be graded by other forum members on your point of view, but on how well you express it.

[Krizoitz]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

I'm pretty moderate myself, but i'm not a big fan of Bush, so you won't get any help from me there, sorry I voted for McCain last time in the primary and Gore in the election :-)

[Krizoitz]

Well, you're stereotyping. First it's "liberals" now it's "democrats."

We are who we are and we think what we think.

No one goes around wearing a "liberal democrat," "moderate," or "religious nut" nametag all day and the same is true here. Some are left-leaning, others right, but the simple fact is that all of us vary from issue to issue. If you argue with facts, logic and evidence and put together coherent sentences, you'll be respected and add to the conversation. If you don't, you'll be promptly chewed up and spit out when you fail to verify your claims.

And you could have answered this question for yourself if you'd simply lurked for a few weeks or gone back through a few weeks or months of posts.

He was asking a legitimate question and didn't do so in any kind of attacking way and you responded to it in the most anal-retentive manner possible. I sincerely hope the only reason your being such a jerk is because you had a bad day, but speaking as someone who had a bad week, grow up, its time to not be so arrogant. Try and be friendly once and a while.

With that said, welcome to the party windowsblowsass. You'll find a fair amount of people here who actually read what you say and respond fairly even if they disagree, DavisBAnimal and I disagree on some issues but I have nothing but respect for the way he acts on the boards towards everyone. As you have seen some people are not so enlightened but don't let that stop you. Stand up for your beliefs, post well thought out and supported arguments, and be open to change. I've actually changed my op on a few things thanks to thoughtful arguments by people here on these boards.

[windowsblowsass]

thanks for all the input it seems like theres at least a few people who know you need to argue a point and not just whine

[zimv20]

thanks for all the input it seems like theres at least a few people who know you need to argue a point and not just whine

nice use of irony. i look forward to your well-reasoned, fact-based positions.

[3rdpath]

i consider myself an independent. i abhor bush and his policies but would have voted for mccain had he been nominated in 2000...we'd certainly not be in the quagmire we're in now if mccain had been at the helm.

it's funny that many will label those against bush as liberals or left wingers... the reality is i vote for who i think will do the best job, who will line their pockets the least and who will balance the govt's checkbook the best.

if being a free thinker excludes someone from a political party..that's a problem. it also reflects poorly on that party's ability to address the current issues.

[DavisBAnimal]

i consider myself an independent. i abhor bush and his policies but would have voted for mccain had he been nominated in 2000...we'd certainly not be in the quagmire we're in now if mccain had been at the helm.

it's funny that many will label those against bush as liberals or left wingers... the reality is i vote for who i think will do the best job, who will line their pockets the least and who will balance the govt's checkbook the best.

if being a free thinker excludes someone from a political party..that's a problem. it also reflects poorly on that party's ability to address the current issues.

I don't think being a free-thinker can exclude you from being "liberal" or "conservative" - those are just adjectives (people should really shy away from using them as nouns). You can be a free, independent thinker and still be liberal or still be conservative. I, personally, consider myself a free thinker. But being someone who freely believes in the rights of gays to marry, freely supports government funded social programs, would like to see a system of universal health care, is freely a pacifist by nature, supports an increased role of the government in preserving our environment, is against the death penalty, I don't hesistate to call myself liberal.

I get annoyed when Bill O'Reilly gets mad at people for calling him conservative. "I think independantly" he says. And while that is true - Bill's certainly iconoclastic and not completely partisan - that's really not an argument against someone calling him conservative. Bill's views on foreign policy, etc., are conservative views. And there's nothing wrong that, and being honest about it doesn't change your status as a free thinker.

It's a sad state of political affairs when the words "liberal" and "conservative" are given such ultimate weight as nouns that people feel like using the words as adjectives immediately dictates all of their opinions. Stupid partisanship!

Davis

[pseudobrit]

He was asking a legitimate question and didn't do so in any kind of attacking way and you responded to it in the most anal-retentive manner possible. I sincerely hope the only reason your being such a jerk is because you had a bad day, but speaking as someone who had a bad week, grow up, its time to not be so arrogant. Try and be friendly once and a while.

You haven't been around here long enough to see the frequency of the arguments that simply degrade into "you're all liberals and it's too liberal here and I'm sick of this" after someone's poor argument is quickly beaten to death with facts and logic by the regulars.

As I see it, mr. windows. is in here one day and has already come to this conclusion. His question of whether this place is liberal was rhetorical.

[AngryLawnGnome]

I'm a republican, but I tend to be pretty liberal. I don't have a definite view on politics, but I'd say you've got one more conservative on your side.

[Krizoitz]

You haven't been around here long enough to see the frequency of the arguments that simply degrade into "you're all liberals and it's too liberal here and I'm sick of this" after someone's poor argument is quickly beaten to death with facts and logic by the regulars.

As I see it, mr. windows. is in here one day and has already come to this conclusion. His question of whether this place is liberal was rhetorical.

I've been a lurker here for quite some time, it is only recently i decided to start posting, and I have seen both sides act that way, so don't try and claim that its only conservatives who act childish, frankly your response to the first posts are prime examples that thats not true.

As for whether his question was rhetorical or not, I personally didn't see it as such. And unless I am given an indication it was I am going to assume it was a real question. His follow up posts certainly made it seem like he was interested in the answer. Next time stop trying to declare what he was thinking or saying.

[Dippo]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you


You can put me down as a conservative republican.

I usually don't post in the political forums though.

[Desertrat]

Funny how all this labelling varies during the years. In 1980, a major issue was whether or not the U.S. should play GloboRoboCop. The Kennedy supporters were vehemently opposed. "Liberal Democrats", right? So along comes Clinton and we go into the Balkans big time, and shoot Cruise missiles into Afghanistan.

During the time of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, much of the opposition to Reagan's policies from Democrats in Congress and liberals in general invoked "national sovereignty". Now, I note that some of the more liberal posters on this board advocate international trade policies which would subordinate national sovereignty to other countries' desires.

I don't see any Republican--or Conservative--advocating starvation for the poor, regardless of rhetoric from some Democrats in Congress. The "Liberal vs. Conservative" argument is over how the poor should be protected against starvation. In general, the liberal view is for tax-paid programs. IOW, the goal is less the issue that the way to achieve it.

Two things, I guess. First, I agree that using political labels in a cast-in-concrete way just doesn't work. But, second, using labels is quite convenient in discussions in order to save hair-splitting second- or third-order definitions requiring a lot of use of the word "some".

Snap judgements don't help. For instance, I have a strongly negative attitude about large-scale behavior which leads to the number of abortions we have each year in this country. Am I a Conservative? I believe a woman has a right to have an abortion if she and her doctor are in accord. Am I a Liberal?

I believe in the NRA interpretation of the Second Amendment. Am I a Conservative? I believe the First Amendment allows one to wear a US flag patch on the seat of his jeans. Am I a Liberal? And what would it mean were I to firmly plant the toe of my boot in the middle of that flag?

:D, 'Rat

[mactastic]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

Ah, you're barking up the wrong tree here, I'm an independant progressive and proud of it. (Note, that does NOT automatically translate to democrat. Common mistake.)

I find the irony of your name highly amusing though. For someone who want's, nay comes in here and demands, a fair airing of the views on all sides, you have a very one-sided name. I happen to use windows, so please stop whining about it.;)

[toontra]

I'm a republican, but I tend to be pretty liberal. I don't have a definite view on politics, but I'd say you've got one more conservative on your side.

What's going on here - setting up opposing camps with their cheer groups based on Republicans v Democrats? I thought this was an international forum where people discussed issues, not mindlessly supported political parties and their ideologies.

If that's what it becomes then I'm off. You can get plenty of that rubbish in the mainstream media.

[zimv20]

What's going on here - setting up opposing camps with their cheer groups based on Republicans v Democrats?

by my count, there's only one camp being formed. most everyone else is calling shenanigans.

[2jaded2care]

It is only one thread, hopefully our friend across the pond means he's off to another thread, not another forum...

Not that it's exactly the same thing, but there's conservatives and liberals in the UK, too, right?

PS - Count me as generally conservative, usually Republican. Past polls have suggested we're in the minority on these forums.

[zimv20]

Count me as generally conservative, usually Republican. Past polls have suggested we're in the minority on these forums.

sample size problem. go back to the months before the start of the iraq war and have a look.

[takao]

it all depends on which standards you calculate

by local standards i am pretty much exactly in the middle of conservative-liberal
but by american standards i am very liberal

[windowsblowsass]

Ah, you're barking up the wrong tree here, I'm an independant progressive and proud of it. (Note, that does NOT automatically translate to democrat. Common mistake.)
I find the irony of your name highly amusing though. For someone who want's, nay comes in here and demands, a fair airing of the views on all sides, you have a very one-sided name. I happen to use windows, so please stop whining about it.;)
ts an opinion and i stand by it sometimes i am required to use windows at school this makes me want to kill myself :D

[windowsblowsass]

i never knew a simple question could cause such a stir its just a question

[pseudobrit]

As for whether his question was rhetorical or not, I personally didn't see it as such. And unless I am given an indication it was I am going to assume it was a real question. His follow up posts certainly made it seem like he was interested in the answer. Next time stop trying to declare what he was thinking or saying.

Let's go to the replay, shall we?

i never knew a simple question could cause such a stir its just a question

It wasn't a question, it was a conclusion:

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

Based on this post, I am forced to find his follow up "questions" were rhetorical.

[AngryLawnGnome]

What's going on here - setting up opposing camps with their cheer groups based on Republicans v Democrats? I thought this was an international forum where people discussed issues, not mindlessly supported political parties and their ideologies.

If that's what it becomes then I'm off. You can get plenty of that rubbish in the mainstream media.
I'm not "mindlessly supporting a party." He asked if anyone wasn't liberal. I even said I was pretty liberal but I would label myself a conservative The question wasn't about a specific issue, but if you were generally more liberal. I answered it. Why cite my post?

[DavisBAnimal]

Let's go to the replay, shall we?



It wasn't a question, it was a conclusion:



Based on this post, I am forced to find his follow up "questions" were rhetorical.

Nonetheless, the response of "blah blah blah...kill this thread" was way out of line. Even if it was rhetorical, treat it, and him, with a little respect.

This has turned into a relatively nice discussion on the nature of political labels, I like a lot of these posts. There's no reason anyone should have urged the killing of this thread, or mocked the original poster.

Davis

[numediaman]

Can we all calm down?

You have to understand that you started it with the initial question: "liberal". The assumption is that anyone who believes that Bush has lied, is a terrible President, is therefore Liberal.

I think that this angers a large group of people.

For instance, how do you describe someone who is for a balanced budget, is for moderate use of American might, is against unfinanced state mandates? Well, the Republicans now want to call these people Liberal simply because they are in opposition to Bush.

Thanks to Bush I am now a Liberal. Well, if that's the case so be it.

(I simply find it hard to believe anyone who uses a Mac is a Bush supporter.)

[IJ Reilly]

Well, the Republicans now want to call these people Liberal simply because they are in opposition to Bush.

Not just liberal, but on the side of Osama and Saddam. We've recently heard a Republican member of the House try out that angle. If it isn't greeted with hoots and howls, you can bet it will return in one form or another over the next eight months.

[DavisBAnimal]

Can we all calm down?

You have to understand that you started it with the initial question: "liberal". The assumption is that anyone who believes that Bush has lied, is a terrible President, is therefore Liberal.

I think that this angers a large group of people.

For instance, how do you describe someone who is for a balanced budget, is for moderate use of American might, is against unfinanced state mandates? Well, the Republicans now want to call these people Liberal simply because they are in opposition to Bush.

Thanks to Bush I am now a Liberal. Well, if that's the case so be it.

(I simply find it hard to believe anyone who uses a Mac is a Bush supporter.)

I don't know if the originator of this thread in any way indicated that he thought people opposed to Bush are automatically liberal. That's obviously a false assumption - look at some of what Mr. Pat Buchanan has been saying - he's all about calling Bush a liar, but is as conservative as they come.

While this may be a phenomenon out and about (I haven't seen it) I haven't seen many instances of Bush opposers being immediately labeled "liberal" without other cause.

Davis

[windowsblowsass]

Can we all calm down?

You have to understand that you started it with the initial question: "liberal". The assumption is that anyone who believes that Bush has lied, is a terrible President, is therefore Liberal.

I think that this angers a large group of people.

For instance, how do you describe someone who is for a balanced budget, is for moderate use of American might, is against unfinanced state mandates? Well, the Republicans now want to call these people Liberal simply because they are in opposition to Bush.

Thanks to Bush I am now a Liberal. Well, if that's the case so be it.

(I simply find it hard to believe anyone who uses a Mac is a Bush supporter.)
CALM DOWN this is not about bashing people it was a question thats all and as for(I simply find it hard to believe anyone who uses a Mac is a Bush supporter.) what does my computr preference have anything to do with my political stance did you read thew question im not labeling anyone i was just asking rather then search through archived forums im not labeling you liberal b/c you dont like bush it was a question that youve blown out of proportion im getting tired of people autamatically assuming that im an evil stereotyping b@$t@rd because i asked a question the first few posts were very helpful now its just ranting you need to understand its a question im not labeling you it was A QUESTION
thank you

[windowsblowsass]

Let's go to the replay, shall we?



It wasn't a question, it was a conclusion:



Based on this post, I am forced to find his follow up "questions" were rhetorical.
by a fit this is what i ment blowing a simple question out of proportion most of my follow ups were either thank you or trying to defend myself so theres no need to bash me for no reasons it was a friendly question thats all.
as for the duplicated post i hit return accedentaly hit the back button later and hit it again it was an accident and im starting to think Mr. psuedo has something agaunst me

[X_Ranger]

macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you

That's a overuse term if I ever heard one. That word has become so generic that it lost it's original meaning.

Please post your definition of the word "Liberal". Of course, I do apply liberal amounts of grease to my hair. Do that make me a liberal? :)

[LethalWolfe]

... im starting to think Mr. psuedo has something agaunst me


Don't take it personally, psuedo has something against all non-liberals. :p

Although I'm a registered<sp?> Republican my beliefs and positions are my own. Some fall on the typically democrat side others fall on the typically republican side. All and all I think I'm basically moderate (which means I usually get it coming and going ;)).

I typically stay out of this forum 'cause I tend to get sucked in an spend an inordinate amount of time posting here. But occasionally I'll pop in and share my 2 cents (like today).


Lethal

[toontra]

I'm not "mindlessly supporting a party." He asked if anyone wasn't liberal. I even said I was pretty liberal but I would label myself a conservative The question wasn't about a specific issue, but if you were generally more liberal. I answered it. Why site my post?

The reason I cited your post is obvious; it was because of the following statement:
"I'd say you've got one more conservative on your side".
To me that suggests that you are willing to support conservative posters irrespective of the issue under discussion. "On your side" is the language of football teams and political parties, not open debate.

[mactastic]

ts an opinion and i stand by it sometimes i am required to use windows at school this makes me want to kill myself :D

So I suppose you'd find it entirely non-controversial if I said that I dealt with Republicans and they make me want to kill myself, and that's my opinion deal with it?

Sorry, but I just find it funny that you would choose a name that would put you in the very position you are whining about being in here. You just don't mind the name here because it puts you squarly in the majority. I'm sure you know the position 'windows blows ass' is just as indefensible as 'republicans blow ass'. But you feel like you are in the minority politically, so you feel like you need complain about the MacRumors political forum being a little to left leaning for your taste.

What would you post in response to a Windows user who started a thread saying we were a little to Mac-centric and bashed Windows for no good reason all the time. All our threads devolve into "Windows sucks, Bill Gates is the devil, Windows machines crash all the time"

having just discovered the political forums i was wondering if anyone everuses a legitamte argument or if they all just say bush blows over and over (like every liberal at my school)
ps before someone has a hisssy fit im not saying people here do that im just trying to see b/c if it is generally a whine fest im not going to be in here much

Replace Bush with Windows and see if your argument still makes sense. Do you see people making uninformed irrational arguments against Windows here? Do you see others making informed rational statements? And the latter are usually the ones who say it's a choice that there are advantages with each and bashing the opposing platform ultimately hurts everyone.

[Backtothemac]

I am a social moderate and fiscal conservative. I am actually pissed at Bush for some of the spending that he has done. Unreal.

All in all, I vote republican, for a couple of key issues that I could never waver on.

[Backtothemac]

On the arguement of the thread. No one likes an extreme view. No one. Psudeo has argued with me till I am sure he wanted to slap me up side the head. Same with Taft, toonra, and others. Point is, that they are not right, and neither am I.

We are all just expressing opinons that have emotion behind them without any non-verbal comminucation occuring. That means that it is very heated, and often misunderstood. Also some people are just wise asses and like to get a rise out of people, that is ok, as long as we all understand that that is what this is. An expression of opinon that cannot be proven correct. ;)

[mactastic]

An expression of opinon that cannot be proven correct. ;)

Kinda like which is the one true religion, or which OS is the best, or where the best place to live is.

(BTW the Cali coast is the best place in the world to live, and you'll never comvince me otherwise.) :)

[Backtothemac]

Kinda like which is the one true religion, or which OS is the best, or where the best place to live is.

(BTW the Cali coast is the best place in the world to live, and you'll never comvince me otherwise.) :)

Well the best OS isn't an opinion, that is a fact ;)

[windowsblowsass]

So I suppose you'd find it entirely non-controversial if I said that I dealt with Republicans and they make me want to kill myself, and that's my opinion deal with it?

Sorry, but I just find it funny that you would choose a name that would put you in the very position you are whining about being in here. You just don't mind the name here because it puts you squarly in the majority. I'm sure you know the position 'windows blows ass' is just as indefensible as 'republicans blow ass'. But you feel like you are in the minority politically, so you feel like you need complain about the MacRumors political forum being a little to left leaning for your taste.

What would you post in response to a Windows user who started a thread saying we were a little to Mac-centric and bashed Windows for no good reason all the time. All our threads devolve into "Windows sucks, Bill Gates is the devil, Windows machines crash all the time"



Replace Bush with Windows and see if your argument still makes sense. Do you see people making uninformed irrational arguments against Windows here? Do you see others making informed rational statements? And the latter are usually the ones who say it's a choice that there are advantages with each and bashing the opposing platform ultimately hurts everyone.
ive made no argument yet please understand that it was a simle question just trying to see if anyone who had been here for more than 1 day if this was true because without taking an elongated period of time i had no way of knowing if my sampling held true for other threads and or eriods of time

[Frohickey]

Actually, there are lots of liberals here. Some are true-classic-definition-of-liberal liberals, like me. :)

Though, it seems that there are more of the new-definition-of-liberal leftists here that are for wealth redistribution. Some animals are more equal than others, dontcha know. :p

[mactastic]

And some of us are ACTUAL liberals. :D

[takao]

Some animals are more equal than others, dontcha know. :p
nice quoting ! especialy with this topic
i always liked the book
it is so awesome to read with all those metaphers

[Sparky's]

Renaissance Conservative here!!

[Sayhey]

Renaissance Conservative here!!

Sparky, does that mean you side with the inquisitors of Galileo? ;)

[AngryLawnGnome]

The reason I cited your post is obvious; it was because of the following statement:
"I'd say you've got one more conservative on your side".
To me that suggests that you are willing to support conservative posters irrespective of the issue under discussion. "On your side" is the language of football teams and political parties, not open debate.
Okay, then. That's not how I meant it. I shouldn't have said "on your side." What a brash statement I have made, lowering myself to a 'team' level. I still maintain, however, that I was simply answering the question by saying that I am, for the most part, a conservative republican, rather than just ripping on people who answer a question that is intended to spark no political debate over certain issues.

[toontra]

Okay, then. That's not how I meant it.

Understood. :)
The reason I picked up on your statement is because I think it would be very sad for this forum if opinion became divided down US party lines - much better to keep it open and discuss issues on their merits and on an individual basis (or am I being foolishly naive!)

[pseudobrit]

by a fit this is what i ment blowing a simple question out of proportion... im starting to think Mr. psuedo has something agaunst me

Yeah, I do. You've misrepresented your actions and I'm holding you to it.

Show me the where this question is in the body of your original post and I'll stand corrected.

[windowsblowsass]

Yeah, I do. You've misrepresented your actions and I'm holding you to it.

Show me the where this question is in the body of your original post and I'll stand corrected.
how can i misinterperet my own post? oh yeah and im sorry i didnt actually state it as a question but it was implied enough if i here if there are any other republicans here please post as are you republican/conservative? if so please post even if it wasnt technically a question you dont have to go out on a tangent and personally hold something against me if you find this simple sentence "macrumurs is starting to seem overwhelming liberal if there any other conservative republicans here please post thank you" offensive well i hope you dont watch tv listen to the radio or walk outside because any of theese brings you in contact with much more offensive materials than macrumors is starting to seem liberal

so please understand this is not supposed to offend you i was just looking for some input i got that now im trying to defend myself

[pseudobrit]

ohh and by the way about your sig whats wrong elimanating this tax my grandfather was a self made man (came over on a boat from italy saw an ad for surveyors on a matchbook) who passed away a few years ago and his estate went to my grandmother now whats wrong with allowing her to keep this money untaxed?

Did she?

[windowsblowsass]

Did she?
no actually shes taxed so much she has to give away more of the money to her kids every year to avoid it
and lets please leave it at this i dont like talking about my grandfather

[mactastic]

having just discovered the political forums i was wondering if anyone everuses a legitamte argument or if they all just say bush blows over and over (like every liberal at my school)
ps before someone has a hisssy fit im not saying people here do that im just trying to see b/c if it is generally a whine fest im not going to be in here much

There is an implicit argument being made here, namely that liberals are unable to formulate anything other than a 'bush blows' argument. If you were interested in fairness (which by your name I can tell you're not) you would have added something to the effect of '...bush blows, kerry blows...' or something to let us know that you know that both sides are capable of making a 'whine fest' argument. Since you only lambasted liberals for this (like every liberal at your school) I have to assume you have as little respect for liberals as you do for Windows.

[pseudobrit]

no actually shes taxed so much she has to give away more of the money to her kids every year to avoid it
and lets please leave it at this i dont like talking about my grandfather

You brought it up. Estate tax is a one-time thing. There would be no giving away every year to avoid it.

And since the estate tax is not applicable to spouses, she most certainly did not pay estate or gift taxes on his wealth, so you should have no problem with the estate tax or any personal interest in abolishing it.

Please get your facts straight.

[Frohickey]

Is this thread finally going to start talking about some issues, or are we still in survey-mode where we try and figure out who are the leftists (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1226) and who are not?

[mactastic]

Is this thread finally going to start talking about some issues, or are we still in survey-mode where we try and figure out who are the leftists (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1226) and who are not?

Well since I'm not a proponent of Communism, nor a Hitler lover, according to your little article there I'm a conservative. Interesting huh?

[SiliconAddict]

Frankly before Bush I have voted for Dem, and Repub depending on who I thought was right for office, but not so amazingly that THING in office has single handedly galvanized me against ever voting Republican ever again, and if I do they will have to be a whole hell of a lot better then that thing.

Last year I was treated for an ulcer in September. I have little to no stress in my life with one exception. I physically hurt from the pure unadulterated hatred when I hear about that thing's various escapades and the crap that thing is getting away with. It churns my stomach and has cost me my health. I AM NOT kidding about this. I have screamed myself hoarse because of that thing. I fear for this country. Honest to god. I'm scared pissless for this country is that thing is reelected. And I can't understand. Can NOT in any way, shape, or form understand how any intelligent person could vote for that thing again. I think about it and can't make sense of it. Even excuses go only so far. There is no excuse anymore. Excuses at this point are self delusional reasons to vote along party lines. If one truly loves this country they vote who they firmly believe is the best candidate available not what freaking party they are associated with! How can anyone do this?!!? :(
I have two bumper sticker that I created last Fall on my car and I mean it with every fiber of my being:

-I'd vote for Satan before I'd vote for George Bush.

-
Vote for big business control of our government
Vote for the eventual eradication of personal freedoms
Vote for war and world wide alienation of the US
Vote for a 1 trillion plus deficit.
[insert the Bush Cheney reelection logo from their site at the bottom of the sticker.]

Now you will excuse me. I need to go do something. Anything else to take my mind off this topic. I've avoided Political Discussions forum for this very reason. This will teach me to search the forums.

[MrMacMan]

Well, you're stereotyping. First it's "liberals" now it's "democrats."

We are who we are and we think what we think.

No one goes around wearing a "liberal democrat," "moderate," or "religious nut" nametag all day and the same is true here. Some are left-leaning, others right, but the simple fact is that all of us vary from issue to issue. If you argue with facts, logic and evidence and put together coherent sentences, you'll be respected and add to the conversation. If you don't, you'll be promptly chewed up and spit out when you fail to verify your claims.

And you could have answered this question for yourself if you'd simply lurked for a few weeks or gone back through a few weeks or months of posts.

IMA SOCIALIST!
I'm anti-business.
Anti-People.
Anti-Everything.
Pro-Racist.

:notices how he somehow got in the Political Forum:

A ha!
I will never be back so you can flame me for my views!

mwhahahahaha


--PWNED.

[Frohickey]

Well since I'm not a proponent of Communism, nor a Hitler lover, according to your little article there I'm a conservative. Interesting huh?

You didn't read enough of the article. It goes further than communism and national socialism.

[Taft]

You didn't read enough of the article. It goes further than communism and national socialism.

And I'm sure it does it with a complete lack of bias. They did say this, after all:

The division obviously is real and the demise of the great icon of Leftism -- the Soviet Union -- seems to have had little impact on its intensity.

Anyone who says this MUST be an unbiased source. :rolleyes:

Here's a newsflash for you: contrary to what Ann Coulter and the like viciously spew at the public, the vast majority of leftists do not admire Communism and they never have. They likewise do not wish to do away with capitalism.

Rather, they wish to create a society where certain basic services are provided to all citizens and those services associated costs are fairly distributed. Its not about "wealth distribution." Its about human decency. The rich can still get rich (as is amply demonstrable via the ever widening salary gap between the biggest and average earners in this country), but there is a safety net so that even the incredibly poor are taken care of.

I'm so bloody sick of conservatives (and evidently libertarians) misrepresenting the beliefs of the left. They are not communists. Most aren't even Socialists. They aren't that easily labeled. In fact, most have beliefs which overlap highly with those labelled conservatives.

Blah.

Taft

[2jaded2care]

Windows, it seems there are at least a few people out here who call themselves conservatives, at least according to their own definitions.

Hopefully you're just curious, as opposed to looking for validation of your own political views. Just because some people might not agree with you, doesn't mean you're necessarily right or wrong. Certainly there are factual matters even in politics, but there are myriad ways to interpret these facts. I don't think that many of these interpretations can be called absolutely "right" or "wrong". (Otherwise, pretty much every smart person would be in complete agreement with another, right?)

...And boy, was that Galileo ever a troublemaker! :)

[Taft]

You didn't read enough of the article. It goes further than communism and national socialism.

Allow me to issue a formal apology. I read the rest of the article. And rather than being a HUGE STEREOTYPE AND BASELESS ATTACK ON ALL LEFT LEANING CITIZENS, its a well reasoned and articulate argument. Here's a passage I really liked:

Leftist Doctrine

Even a Leftist realizes that it is pretty vacant simply to be against the status quo. He has to have something a bit more substantial to say than that in order to get any attention at all. But his best attempt at finding something substantial to say is still pretty pathetic. What he says is: "All men are equal" and "The government should fix it". The proverbial Blind Frederick could see that all men are not equal and anybody who thinks that governments are good at doing things can only be pitied. Nonetheless, "Equality" is the Leftist’s claimed ideal and government action is the way he proposes to bring it about.

So given his slender intellectual and rhetorical resources, the Leftist has to make up for their emptiness by advocating them both blindly and vigorously. If all men are equal, then all races must be equal too, mustn’t they? So the Leftist cannot allow any form of race awareness unless he gives up one of the two slender straws that he clutches at in order to give himself something to say.

Why do Leftists rely so heavily on their two particular vacuous slogans? It is because they are not really interested in solving any problems at all. They are only interested in stirring up change. Really solving social and economic problems in our complex society requires thought, detailed enquiry, in-depth understanding of the problem, creative thinking and patience -- and the typical Leftist is simply not interested in all that. All he or she wants is change. "Get the government to pass a law" is the Leftist’s simplistic "solution."

OK, I was being sarcastic. This is the biggest piece of garbage article I've read since last week's Coulter column.

Let me ask you something, Forhicky. Do you REALLY buy what this article is selling? Do you really believe that I'm not interested in solving the problems of our government as that passage indicates? Do you really think I rely on only two "vacuous" slogans to make my points?

And, assuming you don't, what good does this hacket job of 30% of the American people do? Does it offer any valid insights into styles of thinking? I don't see any.

This is crap. You should be ashamed for posting it.

Taft

[mactastic]

You didn't read enough of the article. It goes further than communism and national socialism.

Yeah it gets better and better the deeper you read. I particularly like these passages...
Equating environmentalist with Communists:
Modern-day "Greenies" go well beyond mere nature conservation in what they seek and are very strong and relentless advocates of change to practically all of our existing arrangements and systems. And that suits change-hungry and drama-hungry Leftists down to the ground. So therefore many "Reds" have in recent times become "Greens" and Red-Green alliances spring up with some frequency
Who was the Republican who, a few years ago, clamied that 'many of those whose former color was red are now green'? Nice tactic. Kinda like calling the teachers union a bunch of terrorists.
It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn’t look when they said, "Mummy, look at me".

This means that the "warm inner glow" that they obtain from their advocacy and agitation is greatly prized. So it is no wonder that anything which threatens to disturb it -- such as mere facts -- is determinedly ignored.


That one actually made me laugh. But then I remembered that you actually believe this stuff.

And, of course, people who themselves desperately want power, attention and praise envy with a passion those who already have that. Businessmen, "the establishment", rich people, upper class people, powerful politicians and anybody who helps perpetuate the existing order in any way are seen by the Leftist as obstacles to him having what he wants. They are all seen as automatically "unworthy" compared to his own great virtues and claims on what they already have. "Why should they have...?" is the Leftist’s implicit cry -- and those who share that cry have an understanding of one-another that no rational argument could achieve and that no outsider can ever share.

So when you cry "Why should they have health care?" does that make you a leftist?

Other reasons for Leftism, often combined with or related to the prime one given above, would appear to be:

Some Leftists just think themselves clever for being able to criticize.

Some are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and so want to change those things willy nilly.

Some are genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for means of fixing it that are not self-defeating.

Some, particularly the young, are idealists who find the imperfect state of the real world unsatisfying.

Some are cynical opportunists who see opportunity for themselves in change.

Some are simply hiding their real hatred of their fellow man in a cloak of good intentions. They want to hurt their fellow man but need to change the system (a "revolution") to get the opportunity of doing so.

Some Leftists know that they themselves are weird so preach change towards greater tolerance for all weirdness out of sheer self-interest.

The Leftist may still be young and unaware of most of life’s complexities so that the drastically simple "solutions" and mantras proffered by the Left simply seem reasonable.

The more "revolutionary" and Trotskyite Left often use the word "smash" in their slogans (e.g. smash racism, smash capitalism, smash various political leaders) so it seems probable that some Leftists simply lust to smash things. They seek a socially acceptable excuse for their barely suppressed destructive urges. They presumably are the ones who are responsible for the violence and destruction that often accompanies Leftist street and campus demonstrations. Violent change is what they are interested in. Presumably, in another time and place, many of them would have joined Hitler’s Brownshirts.


Wow, they've really pegged me perfectly right there. :rolleyes: The suggestion that I would have joined up with Hitler is repulsive.

On a more fundamental level, Leftist hostility to neo-liberalism revolves around the fact that governments and their instrumentalities are far and away the most effective means of obtaining and exercising power over large numbers of people. They exist for that purpose. So Leftists -- with their yearning for power and the ego-boost it provides -- will always advocate anything that promises to extend State power -- in the hope that they can influence or participate in the exercise of it.

Hot damn! You mean to tell me GWB is a leftist? Who would'a thunk it?

And finally this little gem of a conclusion:
I have concluded that the one thing all Leftists have in common (until they get into complete power) is a desire for change in society -- and that for most Leftists advocating change serves mainly to meet the Leftist’s strong ego-needs -- the need for attention, praise and, ultimately power. Leftists are not therefore really much interested in the reality of what they advocate -- so normally they greatly oversimplify any political issues that they debate -- often to the point of ignoring many of the facts of the matter.

Well at least I know now that you think of me as a stupid, ego drivin, infantile mind, incapable of thinking beyond my own selfish desires to control the world. Yep that's most of the leftists I know.

I'm in agreement with Taft here, you should be ashamed to have posted this assesment of liberals.

[Frohickey]

And, assuming you don't, what good does this hacket job of 30% of the American people do? Does it offer any valid insights into styles of thinking? I don't see any.

This is crap. You should be ashamed for posting it.

Only when you become ashamed for "wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them".

Man. I just love Thomas Jefferson. The man could write.

[Frohickey]

Well at least I know now that you think of me as a stupid, ego drivin, infantile mind, incapable of thinking beyond my own selfish desires to control the world. Yep that's most of the leftists I know.

I'm in agreement with Taft here, you should be ashamed to have posted this assesment of liberals.

You have one group of people that would like to control other people's peaceful behavior. You have the other group of people that just want to be left alone. Which group are you in?

[mactastic]

You have one group of people that would like to control other people's peaceful behavior. You have the other group of people that just want to be left alone. Which group are you in?

Wow your world sure is black and white isn't it? Either you're a libertarian or you are a communist. Either you want to be left alone or you are a leftist control freak. Shades of grey must terrify you.

Some people care about other humans. Others want to exploit them for personal economic gain. Which group are you in?

[zimv20]

...And boy, was that Galileo ever a troublemaker! :)

Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers. -Mignon McLaughlin, author

[zimv20]

It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn’t look when they said, "Mummy, look at me".

This means that the "warm inner glow" that they obtain from their advocacy and agitation is greatly prized. So it is no wonder that anything which threatens to disturb it -- such as mere facts -- is determinedly ignored.


switch "David" and "Goliath" and imo it describes the bush and his administration. oh -- better substitute "Daddy" for "Mummy"

[zimv20]

You have one group of people that would like to control other people's peaceful behavior. You have the other group of people that just want to be left alone. Which group are you in?

i'm in the group that doesn't push its religious agenda, that doesn't overrule states' rights for euthanasia and medical marijuana, and that doesn't force state prosecutors to push for the death penalty. which i guess puts me in the "just want to be left alone" group.

[Frohickey]

Wow your world sure is black and white isn't it? Either you're a libertarian or you are a communist. Either you want to be left alone or you are a leftist control freak. Shades of grey must terrify you.

Some people care about other humans. Others want to exploit them for personal economic gain. Which group are you in?

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm in the group that care about other humans. How it is not exploitation when one group seeks to take from another group, regardless of personal gain or not.

[Sayhey]

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm in the group that care about other humans. How it is not exploitation when one group seeks to take from another group, regardless of personal gain or not.

I think that was Karl Marx's point about the extraction of surplus value from workers by the Capitalist class. I knew it all along, Frohickey, you're a secret Communist! :p

[Frohickey]

i'm in the group that doesn't push its religious agenda, that doesn't overrule states' rights for euthanasia and medical marijuana, and that doesn't force state prosecutors to push for the death penalty. which i guess puts me in the "just want to be left alone" group.

Yeah, its unfortunate that the republicans have the FERVENT religous groups. But their influence has been waning.

Now if only we can get the RLC group within the RNC to gain more influence, we'd be on the path for constitutionally-limited government again. <sigh>

[Frohickey]

I think that was Karl Marx's point about the extraction of surplus value from workers by the Capitalist class. I knew it all along, Frohickey, you're a secret Communist! :p

Secret Communist? I have never registered to vote as a Greenie. :p
Karl Marx and his class struggle. Bah.

[zimv20]

the RLC group

i'm not familiar w/ them

[takao]

www.quotationspage.com
i love that page i could surf there for days

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Mark Twain

The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
Nathaniel Borenstein (1957 - )

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Rich Cook

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)

[2jaded2care]

i'm not familiar w/ them

I think it's like the Spice Girls.

[Sayhey]

Secret Communist? I have never registered to vote as a Greenie. :p
Karl Marx and his class struggle. Bah.

I take it you think that distorting an idea and using it to pin your opponents with ridiculous labels is not a cool thing to do? Perhaps you should reread your post of that quite silly article. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm in the group that care about other humans. How it is not exploitation when one group seeks to take from another group, regardless of personal gain or not.

Hey, more of those quotes that make your position unimpeachable!

Myself, I think this one is appropriate.

Man needs, for his happiness, not only the enjoyment of this or that, but hope and enterprise and change.
---Bertrand Russell

Or this one...

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
---Bertrand Russell

[IJ Reilly]

"Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

[Sparky's]

SayHey, sorry I was out for a while. Andrew Wilcow, a local conservative pundit here in Up-State NY coined the phrase "Renaissance Conservative". His core beliefs are conservative in nature but as individual topics or points of interest arise they are judged on an individual personal basis and not judged along a "set guideline" of conservative views.

Such as, I want my guns, but I don't agree with strip mining the planet just to gain energy. I want what "I" feel is right but I want myself taken care of first (My Country comes before all others)

OK?

[Sayhey]

SayHey, sorry I was out for a while. Andrew Wilcow, a local conservative pundit here in Up-State NY coined the phrase "Renaissance Conservative". His core beliefs are conservative in nature but as individual topics or points of interest arise they are judged on an individual personal basis and not judged along a "set guideline" of conservative views.

Such as, I want my guns, but I don't agree with strip mining the planet just to gain energy. I want what "I" feel is right but I want myself taken care of first (My Country comes before all others)

OK?

Thanks for the explanation, I have never heard the phrase before. I didn't really think it had anything to do with the inquisition of Galileo, but I couldn't resist. :p

[kuyu]

It seems I've joined this thread a little late, but better than never.

It's been my experience that the political forum is about 70/30 liberal conservative. Also, about 95% of posters' are nice, intelligent, and open to at least hearing other people's ideas. It's that 5% that give the whole forum a big dark lining. Conservatives are definately more likely to get flamed, but not because liberals are meaner or flame proned. It's a side effect of the 70/30 spread. Were it the other way around, just as many flames would be heaved at those on the left.

I actually avoided the poli forum for a couple of months because the flaming got out of hand. It wasn't anyone in particular, just sort a mob mentality (kind of like the freedom fry thing).

If you haven't figured it out, I would say that I'm a conservative. I don't support the entire republican agenda, but rather -were a gun put to my head- I agree with the right more often than the left.

The strange thing is, I was a HARDCORE liberal not 3 years back. I used to love to bash "righty". I proudly voted for Gore (still wish he'd have won) But, college has changed my entire mindset. I guess I just see the world differently than I used to. (I wasn't brainwashed by conservative prof's, if that's what you're thinking. They've ALL been pretty liberal)

Time to jump back into the poli forum I guess. But, we should all discourage flaming. I'll report conservatives for it if the level-headed liberals will report the zealots. It's a deal!
:)

[zimv20]

Conservatives are definately more likely to get flamed, but not because liberals are meaner or flame proned. It's a side effect of the 70/30 spread.

really? i thought it was because the conservative guys were so wrong... ;-)



Were it the other way around, just as many flames would be heaved at those on the left.

it used to be. pseudo, myself and a few others were pounded mercilessly about a year ago.



But, college has changed my entire mindset. I guess I just see the world differently than I used to.
that's odd. usually people tend to become more liberal in college, at least from what i've observed.

[mactastic]

that's odd. usually people tend to become more liberal in college, at least from what i've observed.

It's not that uncommon. College actually made me more conservative than I used to be.

[kuyu]

really? i thought it was because the conservative guys were so wrong... ;-)
that's odd. usually people tend to become more liberal in college, at least from what i've observed.

LOL. Yeah, I guess I'm the execption to the rule... On both fronts... ;)

[zimv20]

It's not that uncommon. College actually made me more conservative than I used to be.

fair enough. there's probably a million factors, including when i went (reagan was in office)

[Frohickey]

I actually avoided the poli forum for a couple of months because the flaming got out of hand. It wasn't anyone in particular, just sort a mob mentality (kind of like the freedom fry thing).


Never underestimate the lure of a satisfying dogpile. :p

I found college to have their own division of liberals vs conservatives. Conservatives then to gravitate towards the sciences and disciplines that were numerical in nature, at least in my experience.

One conservative that I did find in a non-analytical subject was my Political Science class... required Political Science class. He was very much a conservative. He was a refugee from Communist China, an academician from Communist China. He really gave both barrels to authoritarian governments like Mao's. That was fun. :D

[Frohickey]

It's not that uncommon. College actually made me more conservative than I used to be.

Ever had the desire to go for a higher degree? :p

[mactastic]

Ever had the desire to go for a higher degree? :p

I'm working on one now, why?

[zimv20]

I found college to have their own division of liberals vs conservatives. Conservatives then to gravitate towards the sciences and disciplines that were numerical in nature, at least in my experience.


here's another data point for you: my degree's in computer science

[mactastic]

Mine's in architecture. ;)

But that's really both worlds, that's why I got into it so much. I was taught art and science. But I'm much more the technical whiz than the artistic type. More of an I. M. Pei (http://www.bluffton.edu/HomePages/FacStaff/sullivanm/jfkpei/intatrium.jpg) type than a Frank Gehry (http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Guggenheim_Bilbao.html/cid_bilbao_003.gbi) admirer so to speak.

[Frohickey]

I'm working on one now, why?

Its not working fast enough. :D

[Frohickey]

here's another data point for you: my degree's in computer science

One of my CS minor professors did say that CS is more like art than science. He always dinged me for not enough commenting in source code.

[kuyu]

Actually, a masters in on the horizon. It's either a J.D., M.B.A., M.S., or three years travelling around, while taking computer classes and computer related certification tests. Want to keep my options open.

[mactastic]

Its not working fast enough. :D

I suppose you wouldn't understand since you probably sprung from your father's forehead fully developed and with the corporate libertarianism you espouse in an unchanged state from what it is today, but some of us modify our beliefs over time. I'll never reach your repugnant position though. :D

[Perci Mac]

I tend to be more conservative than most of the posters in this forum. The primary reason I don't frequent anymore is the forum is indeed being overrun by near communist anti-bush haters. It is quite a sad state. I'm glad at least that this forum is now a sub forum.

[IJ Reilly]

I tend to be more conservative than most of the posters in this forum. The primary reason I don't frequent anymore is the forum is indeed being overrun by near communist anti-bush haters. It is quite a sad state. I'm glad at least that this forum is now a sub forum.

If your arguments run towards this sort of hyperbole, I'd recommend that you don't post here.

[zimv20]

The primary reason I don't frequent anymore [...]
funny, i don't remember you being here at all

[Krizoitz]

I tend to be more conservative than most of the posters in this forum. The primary reason I don't frequent anymore is the forum is indeed being overrun by near communist anti-bush haters. It is quite a sad state. I'm glad at least that this forum is now a sub forum.

Well I'm no communist but count me in as anti-bush. Honestly is there anything GOOD he has done yet?

[zimv20]

Well I'm no communist but count me in as anti-bush. Honestly is there anything GOOD he has done yet?

i'm enjoying the national do-not-call registry. that's all i can think of.

[G4scott]

Well I'm no communist but count me in as anti-bush. Honestly is there anything GOOD he has done yet?

Well, if you weren't blinded by hate and bias, you would see that he has created jobs, helped the economy, protected us from terrorism, among other things. It's just that nobody wants to believe that Bush has done anything good, because they hate him so much. Why do they hate him? I don't know. It might be because he'll stand for what he thinks is right, even if it pisses off a few people. He doesn't bend with the prevailing political winds (like somebody you might know running for president.) Or maybe it's his haricut.

I know that there are going to be some 'nice' responses to this post, but that's ok. People are allowed to have their own opinions, just as I am. I'd just like to say that even if Kerry does become president, I'm not going to be a "raging Kerry hater", like many democrats/liberals/progressives/radicals are to Bush. I'm not going to blatantly say I hate him. I'm not going to get a "not my president" bumper sticker. I'm not going to flee to another country, and hide from the issues like many people have suggest they'll do if Bush gets re-elected. I have more class than that. I respect people as long as they are respectful to others. This is something I was taught by my parents when I was young. I was also taught responsibility as a child. (maybe this is why I'm conservative?) I'm also pretty sure that I won't get the chance to be a "kerry hater", because of his unclear position on almost every issue, and his current campaign tactics.

To respond to the original post in this thread: I am conservative.

[IJ Reilly]

1984 came twenty years late.

[zimv20]

he has created jobs, helped the economy

how many net jobs have been created?
how many people are out of work now vs. january 2001?
what are the yearly returns for the DOW, Nasdaq and S&P500 under bush?
how has the federal deficit changed under bush?
how does the federal budget compare each year under bush vs. under clinton?

[G4scott]

No one goes around wearing a "liberal democrat," "moderate," or "religious nut" nametag all day and the same is true here.

Uh, have you seen your sig. recently?

[numediaman]

G4scott: new jobs? been good for the economy? Please.

i posted this on another thread, but I think it tells the story quite well:

[zimv20]

G4scott: new jobs? been good for the economy? Please.

i posted this on another thread, but I think it tells the story quite well:

you are countering g4scott's cry of hatred w/ facts. how patently unfair of you.

[kuyu]

how many net jobs have been created?
how many people are out of work now vs. january 2001?
what are the yearly returns for the DOW, Nasdaq and S&P500 under bush?
how has the federal deficit changed under bush?
how does the federal budget compare each year under bush vs. under clinton?

Jobs: Unemployment only includes people looking for jobs. If 10,000 get hired and 11,000 activley start looking again unemployment rises. There are 10K new jobs, but the stats are deceiving. Bush uses long run strategies, not short run quick fixes.
Employment: 5.6% unemployment. That's what is was in 1996.
Stocks: Up ~40% in the last 22 months.
Deficit: High as hell, but as a percentage of GDP, not the worst we've seen.
Budget: Bush is a BIG spender. Clinton was a moderate spender. Bush did go to war though. That cost a TON of money.

The jobs are coming. Wait until middle summer to see real growth in new hirings. That's how it works when you come out of a recession. Money first, spending second, jobs third. Stage two is still not completed.

[Frohickey]

you are countering g4scott's cry of hatred w/ facts. how patently unfair of you.

hehehe

[G4scott]

how many net jobs have been created?
how many people are out of work now vs. january 2001?
what are the yearly returns for the DOW, Nasdaq and S&P500 under bush?
how has the federal deficit changed under bush?
how does the federal budget compare each year under bush vs. under clinton?

I should've clarified my claim on jobs. Jobs have been added since our economic recovery began.

Jobless claims dropped to three hundred and forty-five thousand sometime around a week ago, mortgage requests continue to increase, GM and Chrysler reported increased sales, consumer spending rose .04 percent in January, and manufacturing has begun to add new jobs. You can say America has lost 3 million jobs since Bush took office, but you must also say how many jobs have been added since our economic recovery began a year ago. In December, January, and February, 128,000 jobs were added to the economy. Although the numbers might not be what we were expecting, you can't say that Bush is destroying jobs. To create jobs, businesses must be comfortable, and that is what Bush is doing. Getting the government out of the way, and easing taxation. While the problem might not be solved by November, his policy is obviously effective, and should be allowed to work it's magic.

Clinton was on the upside of the economy. Shortly after Bush took office, the economy took a turn for the worse, with September 11th, and the collapse of Enron (which was a result of the Clinton era...) With the stock market, once again, this economic disaster hasn't helped at all, but it's on the road to recovery. Deficit spending also helps to stimulate the economy. We've just began to recover, so being in a deficit isn't bad. We just have to make sure to pay that deficit off when the economy is doing better.

It's unfair to compare the federal budget under Bush vs Clinton. Clinton had happy times, when everybody was carefree, and all seemed good. Bush was dealt a bad hand, and he's doing what he can with it.

Increasing taxes, and 'protecting' American jobs (as Kerry plans to do) will only hurt the economy.

The economic downturn was not Bush's fault. It was a series of events, and several tragic incidences that caused it to tank. To blame America's recent economic downturn on Bush is like blaming a driver for an auto accident when it's a faulty car that caused it.

[IJ Reilly]

Jobs: Unemployment only includes people looking for jobs.

Exactly. People who've given up looking for work don't count (in more ways than one, apparently).

We need to add around 150,000 new jobs to the economy every month just to keep pace with the number of people entering the workforce. This translates into 5-6 million jobs over the last three years. Since over 2 million have been lost during that time span, it seems that the great Bush job-creation machine is at least 7 million short.

[numediaman]

Clinton was on the upside of the economy. Shortly after Bush took office, the economy took a turn for the worse, with September 11th, and the collapse of Enron (which was a result of the Clinton era...) . . .

It's unfair to compare the federal budget under Bush vs Clinton. Clinton had happy times, when everybody was carefree, and all seemed good. Bush was dealt a bad hand, and he's doing what he can with it . . .

The economic downturn was not Bush's fault. It was a series of events, and several tragic incidences that caused it to tank. To blame America's recent economic downturn on Bush is like blaming a driver for an auto accident when it's a faulty car that caused it.

You've drunk the Koolaid, haven't you? Bush was dealt the largest surplus in American history, and produced the largest deficit in American history.

Yes, it was those damn Democrats, Skilling and Lay that created the Enron mess! What? Clinton had nothing to do with Enron. Lay is a personal friend of Bush, not Clinton.

I'm sorry if you prefer the current mess to the "happy times" of the Clinton years. Some of us prefer prosperity and peace (guess we are just crazy that way).

[zimv20]

I should've clarified my claim on jobs. Jobs have been added since our economic recovery began.
of course they have. some have been lost. what's less interesting than either gross is the net. it's big, and it's a loss.



Jobless claims dropped to three hundred and forty-five thousand sometime around a week ago

two things cause jobless claims to drop: when someone gets a job, and when someone stops looking for work.

the unemployment rate is 5.6% (i.e. the people looking for jobs). add to that those who've stopped looking, and you've got 7.4% link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/opinion/12KRUG.html)


and manufacturing has begun to add new jobs.
please substantiate that


Although the numbers might not be what we were expecting, you can't say that Bush is destroying jobs.

"destroying" is subjective. i point to the net loss, you point to the fact that the gross number of jobs created under bush is > 0. it's not the same thing.

you're arguing trickle-down, btw.

[IJ Reilly]

Shortly after Bush took office, the economy took a turn for the worse, with September 11th, and the collapse of Enron (which was a result of the Clinton era...) With the stock market, once again, this economic disaster hasn't helped at all, but it's on the road to recovery. Deficit spending also helps to stimulate the economy. We've just began to recover, so being in a deficit isn't bad. We just have to make sure to pay that deficit off when the economy is doing better.

It's unfair to compare the federal budget under Bush vs Clinton. Clinton had happy times, when everybody was carefree, and all seemed good. Bush was dealt a bad hand, and he's doing what he can with it.

It's unfair, is it? I notice the lack of appetite among our Republican friends for explaining why it was necessary for the Bush administration to sandbag not only voters but the Congress on the true costs of their medicare prescription plan.

As for the recession, it was officially over before 9-11.

The debunking process never ends.

[zimv20]

The debunking process never ends.
the GOP controls the WH, both branches of congress, and enjoys a conservative leaning on the supreme court.

and i'm not surprised that the democrats are still to blame for bush's shortcomings.

the hallmark of this administration is to avoid accountability. it seems those who support bush have learned that lesson from him.

[Krizoitz]

i'm enjoying the national do-not-call registry. that's all i can think of.

That wasn't him that was the legislature, he just signed the bill.

[zimv20]

That wasn't him that was the legislature, he just signed the bill.
but it was the best i could do!

[Krizoitz]

Well, if you weren't blinded by hate and bias, you would see that he has created jobs, helped the economy, protected us from terrorism, among other things. It's just that nobody wants to believe that Bush has done anything good, because they hate him so much. Why do they hate him? I don't know. It might be because he'll stand for what he thinks is right, even if it pisses off a few people. He doesn't bend with the prevailing political winds (like somebody you might know running for president.) Or maybe it's his haricut.


Lets see, I said that I am anti-bush and claim that he hasn't done any good and from that you say that I am blinded by hate and bias? Wow someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today

Lets see, the job creation thing has allready been adressed.
The economy is in the crapper right now thanks to bush and his desire to spend more and bring in less. Frankly if he is going to cut taxes than he better be willing to cut spending too. But he's too much of a coward, he's willing to spend us into the largest deficit in history because he won't have to live with it. He's nice and rich, its all of us young people and our kids, the middle class of America who are going to be paying for it down the road.

Fighting terrorism, lets see...Osama is still out there, and we went to war against Saddam and have yet to find ANY evidence he was linked to Al Qaeda or WMD. No before you go and say that we freed the Iraqi people and they are better off, I agree, BUT thats not why he said we were going to war.

As for standing up for what he thinks is right. He thought it was right to allow Enron to sell over priced energy to California, and forced Washington (the state) to sell them our energy (that we needed) as well. But he wouldn't step in because it was a "state matter". He thought it was right to LIE to us about the reasons for going to war. He thought it was right to sign a bill into law that drastically threatens our freedoms, and then has the gaul to call it the Patriot Act. He thought it was right to create tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest people in our country while the middle class and poor get barely anything. He thinks its right to try and create institutionalized discrimination in the constitution! (for the record I think gay marriage is MORALLY wrong, but so is pre-marital sex imo, yet I don't think we have a right to constitutionally ban it). If that is his idea of right, well I think he needs some lessons.


I know that there are going to be some 'nice' responses to this post, but that's ok. People are allowed to have their own opinions, just as I am. I'd just like to say that even if Kerry does become president, I'm not going to be a "raging Kerry hater", like many democrats/liberals/progressives/radicals are to Bush. I'm not going to blatantly say I hate him. I'm not going to get a "not my president" bumper sticker. I'm not going to flee to another country, and hide from the issues like many people have suggest they'll do if Bush gets re-elected. I have more class than that. I respect people as long as they are respectful to others. This is something I was taught by my parents when I was young. I was also taught responsibility as a child. (maybe this is why I'm conservative?) I'm also pretty sure that I won't get the chance to be a "kerry hater", because of his unclear position on almost every issue, and his current campaign tactics.

To respond to the original post in this thread: I am conservative.
I was taught respect and responsibility as well, and frankly it has nothing to do with being a conservative. About the ONLY thing I agree with conservatives on is the Pro-Life argument. How is refusing to follow international law, or sign a treaty (the Kyoto Accords) a sign of taking responsibility? We are one of the worlds largest polluters and yet we won't take steps to stop it, you know why? Cause we have an oil man in the White House.

Oh and under Clinton progress was being made in bringing peace to North Korea. Guess what happened under Bush? He calls them part of an Axis of Evil and their nuclear weapons program starts up again. Gee what a great way of bringing peace to the world.

In conclusion, I am not blinded by hate like you claim, I have looked at the evidence and it makes me SICK. Clinton had an affair, and I thought he was immoral because of it, but it really didn't affect the way he ran the country. Bush took us into war based on LIES and hundreds of people have died because of it. Our economy is in the crapper, jobs are no where to be seen, the patriot act, etc. Yet it was the Republicans who went on a multi-million dollar anti-Clinton witch hunt. Yeah and the liberals are the petty ones.

[Frohickey]

Kim Jong Il never halted his nuclear weapons program.

[zimv20]

Kim Jong Il never halted his nuclear weapons program.
what should bush do about it?

[mactastic]

what should bush do about it?

There's nothing he can do about it at this point. That's one of the side effects of invading the country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Our military is a little tied up at the moment. The only thing he can try is diplomacy, but seeing as how the Bushies have ridiculed Clinton for pursuing that path I don't see how he can negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Particularly since the DPRK is one of two legs of the axis of evil still standing.

Of course he's willing to negotiate with Kadaffi, so I suppose anything's possible....

[Frohickey]

what should bush do about it?

Probably apply pressure to the North Koreans by using their real masters, the Chinese. That is, if spread of nuclear weapons technology is a proper goal for the US government.

[zimv20]

That is, if spread of nuclear weapons technology is a proper goal for the US government.

nah, it's probably preventing the spread :-)

so why isn't bush doing anything about NK?

[IJ Reilly]

so why isn't bush doing anything about NK?

More to the point, why doesn't he seem to care about Pakistan selling nuclear technology to North Korea?

[Frohickey]

nah, it's probably preventing the spread :-)

so why isn't bush doing anything about NK?

You got me. Never voted for the man. ;)

[zimv20]

Kim Jong Il never halted his nuclear weapons program.

fwiw -

In the report, Mr. Khan's transactions with North Korea are traced to the early 1990's, when Benazir Bhutto was the Pakistani prime minister, and the clandestine relationship between the two countries is portrayed as rapidly accelerating between 1998 and 2002. At the time, North Korea was desperate to come up with an alternative way to build a nuclear bomb because its main plutonium facilities were "frozen" under an agreement struck with the Clinton administration in 1994. North Korea abandoned that agreement late in 2002.


link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/international/asia/14KORE.html?hp)

[Sayhey]

Probably apply pressure to the North Koreans by using their real masters, the Chinese.

Now, if we go into the negotiations with that simplistic and false approach we are in real trouble.

[Frohickey]

Now, if we go into the negotiations with that simplistic and false approach we are in real trouble.

North Korea blog (http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/03/the_chosun_ilbo.html)
Analysis: N. Korea relies on China (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040223-043834-1110r.htm)
Frozen frontier where illicit trade with China offers lifeline for isolated North Koreans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1119040,00.html)
Food aid to North Korea stalls (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/us.northkorea.ap/)

Maybe the US ought to drop food aid directly on North Korea.
Include a Liberator (http://home.pacbell.net/rlhag65/) with each package. Might hasten the collapse of the totalitarian North Korean regime... and maybe hasten the collapse of the Communist Chinese regime as well.

[Sayhey]

North Korea blog (http://nkzone.typepad.com/nkzone/2004/03/the_chosun_ilbo.html)
Analysis: N. Korea relies on China (http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040223-043834-1110r.htm)
Frozen frontier where illicit trade with China offers lifeline for isolated North Koreans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1119040,00.html)
Food aid to North Korea stalls (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/us.northkorea.ap/)

Maybe the US ought to drop food aid directly on North Korea.
Include a Liberator (http://home.pacbell.net/rlhag65/) with each package. Might hasten the collapse of the totalitarian North Korean regime... and maybe hasten the collapse of the Communist Chinese regime as well.

I believe you said,

Probably apply pressure to the North Koreans by using their real masters, the Chinese

If your statement had been that the North Koreans rely heavily on Chinese trade and support that would have been very different. You called for putting pressure on their "Chinese masters" and such an analysis is a recipe for disaster. Most folks, outside the John Birch Society, stopped believing in a monolithic communist world in the 1950s, if not before.

The inclusion of China, Russia, and the other nations in the discussion is very important because they have relationships with the DPRK that enable them to not only show that it could become even more isolated internationally, but also because Kim Jong Il is not necessarily convinced that they all wish to do him in. If you want to start a war then your approach would work very effectively, but if you want to actually stop the nuclear program then a more diplomatic approach is necessary.

[Neserk]

so why isn't bush doing anything about NK?

Because the leader of the country didn't put a hit out on his daddy like Saddam did! Silly ;)

[Perci Mac]

funny, i don't remember you being here at all

Well, not to say I have multiple identities, but I joined very near the time that you did, and was quite a prolific poster for a while. Time and quality of the forums has significantly reduced my posting.

[zimv20]

I joined very near the time that you did
the time that i joined MR or the time i wandered into the political forum?

[Perci Mac]

the time that i joined MR or the time i wandered into the political forum?

overall joining MR

[zimv20]

overall joining MR
i didn't wander in here until the iraq war started. perhaps you'd wandered out by then.

[Perci Mac]

i didn't wander in here until the iraq war started. perhaps you'd wandered out by then.

yeah, thats about the time, it must have been about febuary or march 2003, haven't been around much since.

[TheMacOS.com]

im not liberal.

[jelloshotsrule]

im not liberal.

nor am i