why liberals are better than conservatives?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by clevin, Nov 3, 2006.

  1. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #1
    because liberals just can't go as low as conservatives to force something in other people's throat.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201672.html
    how shameless, I can describe these people as humans anymore, they are machines or animals.

    ps, i shouldn't say liberals, since there aren't liberals, I should have said, "why humans are better than conservatives".
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    I wish some Internetters would learn the meaning of the word "some".

    On some issues, I guess I'm off to the right of Attila the Hun. That doesn't affect my view that abortions are mostly a woman's business and not that of everybody else. Nor make me hostile toward medical research or cloning or whatever.

    I've found that it's common for me to agree with the goals of many who style themselves politically liberal. The argument, most of the time, is how to achieve the goals.

    I know a lot of very conservative folks who don't give a tinker's dam about somebody's enjoying a joint. Who think the whole war on drugs is actually a war on the Bill of Rights. Who think such horrors as the Patriot Act and other, related near-unanimous congressional votes are nothing but a theft of liberty.

    The only real difference between these fringe liberals and fringe conservatives who infest Congress is the sort of "stuff" they want to cram down ALL our throats.

    IMO, your "basic middle" of all people run about half mostly-liberal, half mostly-conservative in their political views. Roughly. It's the rabid five percent on each end of the spectrum that mess things up for all of us. The other five percent on each end are the few who actually offer new thought.

    'Rat
     
  3. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    when "some conservatives" are dominating, where are you "moderate conservative"'s voice? if you don't speak, then you are not important, just like I disregard the existence of the liberals, why should I pay attention to "real republican" when they do nothing to distance them from the "some conservatives"?
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #4
    Well, I think you both have a point. Republicans are not one monolithic body, especially since there are two definitively different divisions in the party right now. On the other hand, the only division that is truly dominant is the far-right religious nuts; the traditional Republicans have meekly allowed them to run roughshod over them, and essentially bring the party to ruin.

    Back to the topic at hand: although clevin's post is a generalization too, it's not too far from the truth. While I'm sure there are some liberals who use campaign tactics they should be ashamed of, almost all the really horrendous, evil stuff I've been reading about has come from the Republican camp. Like these push polls.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    All across the political spectrum, I read or hear about "allowed". If those with whom you disagree have the votes, you're not "allowing" anything.

    "...almost all the really horrendous, evil stuff I've been reading about has come from the Republican camp."

    Most of the folks who post at this particular website believe that. But, there are many websites where most of those who post believe just the opposite. In their view, it's the Democrats.

    Me, I figure it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I pay little attention to the rhetoric from either side. Most of it is just the pot calling the kettle black, same as the last twenty-five bi-ennial election cycles I've suffered through. Only the names have been changed, to protect the guilty.

    'Rat
     
  6. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #6
    Here the Liberals ARE the Conservatives. It's the Labor party that are the liberals. Oh, and the Greens are reds.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    You will never get moderates to speak up. They view their fringe as psychos and don't feel they need to say anything. BTW- how often do you hear from moderate Christians or Muslims? Never. They assume the "fringe" will go away no matter how much damage they cause.
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #8
    Can the people at these websites reference any ads where Democrats played on ignorant people's fears of black men dating white women? Or where Democrats claim that Republicans want to let convicted child molesters enter the country? Or that Republicans want to abort black babies? Or that Republicans pay for sex?

    I don't even know why Democrats would have to make up or distort stuff. There's a plethora of true Republican corruption and incompetence to play off of.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    With the rise of Rove as political strategy god, I'm sure political science majors will be studying and employing his tactics across the spectrum in the coming years.

    Right now it's confined to the conservative camps because Rove's tactics haven't been successfully modified for liberal usefulness.
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #10
    I'm not sure that's entirely true.

    In 2004, the conservative base was brought to the polls by pet issues like gay marriage. In 2006, in several states around the country, Dems are energizing their base with ballot issues that raise the minimum wage. Same tactic, although in the Democrats' case there is more of a legitimate issue. The timing, however, is hardly coincidental.

    In other cases I hope Rove's tactics are not adopted by the Democrats. It's often a mistake to just copy your opponent, especially when they are doing things that are morally questionable. You can hardly claim to hold the moral high ground that way.

    The Democrats have drifted somewhat from their principles over the years, but if they ever feel they have to resort to the kind of outright mean-spirited lies that the Republicans use, then the Democrats are lost for good and don't deserve to win any more than the Republicans do.
     
  11. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #11
    :eek: What is next? Toilets flush the other direction? ;) :D
     
  12. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #12
    No, next is simply getting toilets. ;)
     
  13. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #13
    Toi-let??

    It's true though, the Liberal party is known for it's conservative fiscal and social policy. The current Liberal government - in power now since early 1996 - has been arguably our most right wing government since Menzies who was PM for something like 18 years leading up to the Vietnam War.

    The Labor Party is supposedly the left but have of late been closer to the centre, they are a heavily factioned party and over the last ten years factional in-fighting has meant that no strong, capable leader has emerged so we all voted for the devil we knew.

    The Greens are now the "far" left but are too small yet to be a force. They are large enough however to gain enough seats in the senate or the reps to sometimes hold the balance of power. Last time this happened, one senator from Tasmania held the balance of power and so pretty much every legislation had to appease him in some way - it was bloody annoying.

    Currently the Libs have control of the reps and the senate and are passing so many new laws it makes my head spin.

    The US-press referred to our government as "centre-right" which shocked me because from our point-of-view they are most definitely "all-the-way" to the right.
     
  14. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #14
    My own view is that it is because liberalism is a reasonably coherent ideology.

    I have never had a conservative explain the principles that conservatives stand for, without the result being otiose or ridiculous.

    Conservatism is not a political ideology. It's a collection of prejudices, some of which don't fit with the others.
     
  15. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #15
    Liberal elitist. ;) :D
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    Agathon, your comment is sorta indicative of the problems with political labels in today's worlds, with all the competing views.

    For me, I guess being conservative in great part means a belief in the fundamental principles of our Constitution: Limited government is a large part of the deal. The passage of years has created an improvement in actual equality among people of all types and persuasions, but the fundamental ideas are unchanged.

    All that I'm against, as near as I can tell from trying to figure out why do I think as I do, is the Big Nanny of the State trying to pass a bunch of laws "for my own good". I'm not interested in telling anybody what to do; I don't need somebody X-thousand miles away messing with me--or you.

    I definitely believe that we are all responsible for the consequences of our decisions and actions.

    As far as conservatives and change, I have to laugh at the idea that conservatives believe, "Change is bad!" Nope, there's nothing wrong with change if two facets are thought about. First, is it actually an improvement; and second, are there unintended consequences which can bring harm.

    I dunno if you see this line of thinking as ideology or philosophy or what. Doesn't matter; your opinion is as irrelevant as mine...

    :), 'Rat
     
  17. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #17
    But what about the death penalty and abortion? Aparently it is OK to kill babies, but not mass murderers.

    If you don't know, I say kill 'em both. mwahhahahaa
     
  18. eva01 macrumors 601

    eva01

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Gah! Plymouth
    #18
    well they aren't babies yet if they haven't been born :/
     
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    Though you've misstated the situation, does it make any more sense than the GOP position of killing adults who committed crimes as children but not embryos that would have been flushed down the drain?
     
  20. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #20
    You think I'm going to defend the GOP on this issue? Hahahaha. They are hypocrites too.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    Seems to me that if you believe life, or "humanity", or the soul, begins at conception, you have no choice but to see abortion as murder. If you believe that human rights status does not begin until later on, you need not regard abortion as murder. One question, seems to me, is that of viability. If the foetus can be incubated and saved to become an infant/child/adult, abortion at that stage is readily seen as murder.

    Can't have it both ways.

    Isn't all this liberal/conservative BS a matter of "Pick your issues"? After all, the liberals in Congress voted right along with the NeoCons on the Patriot Act. They voted the authority and money for L'Affaire Iraq.

    If liberals are so wondrously in favor of liberty and freedom, where is the legislation--at least, introduced bills, if not passed--to the effect that government has no business telling you what you can ingest? Where are the bills to de-fund this War On Some Drugs?

    Pick your pet issue, I guess, and ignore any notion of consistent political philosophy...

    'Rat
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    Without wanting to head fully down this tired road again, I will point out that the same situation arises with regard to life support. If the person can be put on machinery and saved to possibly recover but the relatives choose not to, that "plug-pulling" could just as easily be seen as murder.

    As far as the law is concerned, viability has been discussed and ruled on, and has been the deciding factor in elective abortions, which typically cannot happen past the first trimester.
     
  23. Agathon macrumors 6502a

    Agathon

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #23
    This is what I mean. Everyone short of Kim Jong Il believes in limited government. The practical question is how limited it should be. You can't just say that smaller government is an end in itself. At some periods in history, more collective spending is required, at other periods less. Being in principle for one or the other is a fetish rather than responsible thinking.

    This is the function of the state. Sometimes, letting people do their own thing leaves us worse off. Economists call these "collective action problems". In such cases, there is no alternative but for the state to regulate.

    Of course, some laws are bad laws, and some regulations exist where there is no need, but there will always be laws for our own good, because human beings left to their own devices will work themselves into the pit.

    How do you reconcile this with the scientific view of the human person? Responsibility is a cultural norm, not an objective fact. At least that is the only conclusion we can draw, given our modern world view.

    I think everyone believes that. That's why I can't see it as a defining aspect of conservatism.

    :)
     
  24. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #24
    So you're saying that just because it hasn't been born it's not a human? Is it not a living creature? Does it have a heart beat? Just the birth determins whether it's a human or not? If the baby dies just seconds before it gets birthed, was it never a human?

    And you think conservatives are bad because they say that killing babies should be illegal (abortion). Is that not murder? It's killing a human being, so isn't that murder?

    Secular humanism says no religion should be taught in school, but it's labeled a religion by the USA, so isn't that contradicting it's own belief? If evolution is true, shouldn't that mean that the world should be getting better as time goes on? But isn't the world getting worse, students think that cheating on tests isn't bad, people think that stealing is not wrong. If there is not a God then ethics do not exist, so there is not absolute laws that are in place. If there are no absolute laws in place then there cannot be countries, only individual people, because there would not be leaders because they would have beliefs. If people have beliefs then they have absolute laws that they abide by.

    Also, if there are no absolute laws to abide by, then how can someone place judgement on someone else? If there are no absolute laws, then there can be no laws in general, so nothing is wrong. Murder is not wrong if there are no absolute laws, so if someone killed everyone in the world, then he did no wrong because there are no absolute laws.
     
  25. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #25

    Ethics existed long before religion did.
     

Share This Page