U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2008, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,920 posts, read 3,361,438 times
Reputation: 584

Advertisements

Why do so many conservatives seem to think that all liberals/progressives or "left-wingers" are Marxists who are too ashamed to admit it, or something? It's always "you liberals want everyone to be equal," "you liberals think that a doctor should make the same as a cashier," "you liberals think that people on welfare should have big screen TVs and mansions."

Why is it impossible to say that inequality above a certain level may be unhealthy for an economy (and especially for the poor) without being accused of wanting all inequality to be completely removed? Don't you people that I'm describing above understand that there are shades of grey between Ayn Rand and Karl Marx? I guess not. Everything always has to be this big, good vs. evil black and white battle, aka "capitalist freedom" vs "socialist oppression," "the productive vs. the nonproductive," "the noble Bush vs. the Iranian Hitler," "blessed Israel vs. the savage Palestinians," the "traditionalists vs. the secular progressives," "the Real Americans vs. the Europe libs," etc. I meandered, sorry...

Also, why does every conservative who veers even slightly from right-wing orthodoxy get labeled "liberal" by various right-wing pundits and personalities for not passing the 100% purity test? Pro-life Fair-Taxer Mike Huckabee, who wants to amend the constitution to make it more like the Bible, is a "liberal" because he displays insufficient hatred towards illegal immigrants... anti-spending crusader and ultrahawk Terror Warrior John McCain is a "lib" because he doesn't want Guantanamo detainees to go through what he went through and displays insufficient hatred towards illegal immigrants... neocon supply-sider George W Bush is a "liberal" because he displays insufficient hatred toward illegal immigrants and didn't abolish every last social program during his tenure, etc. It seems like the only way one could become a "true conservative" in the minds of many influential people would be to walk around constantly staring at and obeying your WWRD (What Would Reagan Do?) bracelet on one wrist and your "Speak English or Get Out" watch on the other.

Also, if you are wondering whether I know how bad all of the grammar and wording of the above is, I in fact do.

Last edited by fishmonger; 02-04-2008 at 12:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2008, 03:07 AM
 
10,365 posts, read 8,991,705 times
Reputation: 4762
You could take your questions, switch the political labels you used, and the questions would be just as valid.

e.g. "why are so called "progressives" so vociferously intolerant and closeminded when it comes to those that don't share all of their views?"

The short answer, imo, is that is just how people act when they are passionately attached to political/social beliefs and they feel that they will be forced to abandon,change them or have others forced upon them.

Neither libs nor conservatives have a monoply on being more comfortable when things are being run their way.

Check out the "Marines being kicked out of Berkeley" thread or any abortion thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 03:15 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,638 posts, read 15,005,295 times
Reputation: 11108
That's not the OP for this discussion. Should you want to turn it around, please start your own thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 03:55 AM
 
3,397 posts, read 2,657,400 times
Reputation: 1752
I think the problem is that there are many different types of liberal and a lot of people who aren't really liberals who claim to be. I've known quite a few people that are basically socialists (down to even attacking capitalism and defending communism) who call themselves liberals.

There is your typical liberal who tends to belief in a pretty big safety net and a bit of support for the middle-class and is generally tolerant of alternative lifestyles and so on. I have very little problems with these liberals, it is just a simple matter of degree of a belief rather than an opposing belief.

There are the libertarian leaning liberals. They are very similar to the typical liberal, but they are a little bit more wary of regulation and a bit less keen on welfare. They still usually support the idea of a national healthcare system and they wouldn't dream of getting rid of welfare, but they still get really mad when they see someone abusing welfare or shake their head when they see the excesses of the more extreme forms of liberalism.

There is your nanny-state liberal who wants everyone to be protected from every little thing that can shorten a person's life, both real and imaginary. These are usually the kind of people who you have to explain--very slowly--how allowing a store to sell unpasteurized cheese is different from allowing a store to deliberately murder their customers. Or how someone walking down the street with a cigarette or even too much perfume is not assaulting and killing everyone in sight. These people also believe that everyone is too stupid to make their own choices and it is up to special interest groups and the government to make sure that adults are treated like small children. I hate these people, not just disagree, I hate them almost as much I hate Nazis and Stalinists.

There are the PC and "University" liberals. The ones who give people like Bill O'Reilly ammunition. The kind of people demanding that different sex restrooms be removed because its offensive to the transgendered or write letters to Warner Brothers about how offensive Speedy Gonzalez is to the Mexican-American community. Oh, they aren't transgendered or Mexican, but that doesn't stop them from their outrage.

There are the radical liberals. The liberals who are usually closer to communists or socialists than actual liberals. The people who always are protesting trade conferences and getting arrested outside of McDonalds. You can usually spot these people by their love of Che and Rage Against The Machine t-shirts, PETA pamphlets, and Greenpeace bumper stickers (usually found on either hybrids or the cars with the absolute gas mileage). They are usually the people who make the moderately conservatives who attend college end up becoming almost Coulterish in their hatred of liberals.

There are too many different types of liberal and groups that identify as liberal to really make an accurate generalization. I mean look at all the politicians, philosophers, celebrities, and writers who call themselves liberal. There is a massive range from Russ Feingold to Hillary Clinton. Barrack Obama to Ralph Nader. Alec Baldwin to Rob Reiner. Carmen Paliga to Katherine McKinnion.

The problem is that a lot of conservatives and libertarians picture the liberal they hate the most and whenever someone identifies as a liberal or is identified as one, they are hostile because they automatically assume it is the kind they hate. Sort of like how a lot of liberals and libertarians automatically assume that all conservatives are part of the Religious Right or Neoconservatives or the politician who preaches small government, but proudly gives multi-billion dollar corporations subsidies. They rarely think of the fiscal conservative or the guy who doesn't hate gays, but is just a little wary of change and wants to see more long term same-sex relationships before he is comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. And a lot of liberals and conservatives picture the libertarians they hate or mock, the Ron Paul fanatics who don't even vote, the Ayn Rand fans who are obsessed with her (the Randroids), the militia members, and the Republican with coke habit. Not the person who thinks that since government has been responsible for virtually every war and genocide, most civil liberties violations, and countless minor infractions and annoyances in our daily lives, maybe we don't need so much of it.

Some people need to make strawmen and stereotypes. It's easier for them to imagine their opponent is the worst of the worst than to actually debate their ideas on their merit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 04:11 AM
 
10,365 posts, read 8,991,705 times
Reputation: 4762
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
That's not the OP for this discussion. Should you want to turn it around, please start your own thread.
Man, you wake up grouchy. He asked for opinions I gave mine. Just not up to your standards. My loss.

Last edited by doc1; 02-04-2008 at 05:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,875 posts, read 29,423,523 times
Reputation: 15727
I am neither liberal nor conservative. I am a bit of both. I believe the government should protect the masses from depredations of a market economy with the diligence it uses to protect the corporate classes from market forces. I really do believe a civilized society protects the people from economic failure by providing a decent but not generous safety net that includes food, shelter and healthcare.

A progressive income tax and the reduction of our overseas empire and the associated cost of maintaining a foreign legion can pay for these minimum supports. We do not need to protect international shipping and finance without any payment from the protected. We should disassemble our empire and let the world get on with its population reduction programs of genocide, war and endless retaliation.

We also do not need to waste our energy protecting our domestic monopolists from the economic distortions they create. The government should strictly enforce anti-trust laws and recreate institutions like savings and loan system to protect small individual savings from a boom and bust capital market.

On the individual basis I believe the government maximize individual freedom by not making laws that limit abortion, enforce religious dictates or attempt to limit language. I also think the government should return to the concept a fully armed and trained militia consisting of every individual that can carry a gun and that military weapons be in every household. This would not only reduce domestic crime but would go a long way toward preventing the destruction of our Republic.


So, I can only conclude that I am a Liberal Libertarian. I like that concept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 08:59 AM
 
4,403 posts, read 3,677,441 times
Reputation: 2859
Why the "over-labeling", for lack of a better term?

Because Americans would rather insult than argue. Because Americans would rather simplify an argument than use their brain to dissect the finer points and determine the actual facts from fallacies. Because we don't think "united" anymore; instead, we think in black and white, us vs. them. Because it's so easy to attach all kinds of assumptions to people you'll never bother to get to know better or, worse, even associate with. Finally, (I'm out of time and should be at work right now!) it's because Americans would rather feel "right" (and boast about it) than actually solve the problem or--heaven forbid--compromise. We are a nation of fighters all fighting for the wrong reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,237 posts, read 27,295,624 times
Reputation: 10607
[quote=fishmonger;2716542] It seems like the only way one could become a "true conservative" in the minds of many influential people would be to walk around constantly staring at and obeying your WWRD (What Would Reagan Do?) bracelet on one wrist and your "Speak English or Get Out" watch on the other.

/quote]

IRCA of 1986 was signed by REAGAN. It gave amnesty to thousands of illegals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 11:48 AM
Status: "Only misdemeanors, Santa" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: On a hill near a river
14,464 posts, read 12,350,804 times
Reputation: 5829
Why do liberals like fishmonger interpret the conservatives' insistence that our country control its borders and remain a sovereign republic as "hatred of illegals" (his term)? Might it be that intolerance for others and their views is more often expressed by those on the left of the political spectrum than by those on the right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2008, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
33,875 posts, read 29,423,523 times
Reputation: 15727
Illegal immigrants are a source of cheap non-union labor - of course Reagan signed the bill - Tyson Foods paid him too (indirectly at least).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top