Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I'll admit it. I see very little difference between the liberals and the conservatives on this board. While there is certainly a difference in what they believe; there is very little difference in how they act. All I see is a bunch of self-important tools who are completely convinced they are right.
Both are convinced they are right.
Now this is a no-brainer. Everyone thinks they are right to an extent. You probably wouldn't harbor those beliefs if you did not think they were morally or factually right. But most liberals and conservatives KNOW they are right. Nothing can change their point of view. Liberal and Conservatives actually handle this differently, although the end result is the same. Conservatives prefer to muddy the waters and use pseudo-science to further their goals. Evolution debate? Go find some scientist who specializes in an area completely unrelated to biology and who is completely ignorant of it to back up your claims. Liberals prefer to proclaim they are correct and that is the end of it. Someone mentions that Global Warming is not exactly as solidly proven as gravity? Well, just mention that the matter is settled. Someone brings up several geologists and climatologists who mention that the Earth has gone through hundreds of climate shifts (minor to major) in its history and that current climate science is still a relatively new and undeveloped science? Well, they are paid shills and not real scientists. I mean, that's what that Al Gore movie said and who else could possibly more qualified to speak on the subject?
Logical debating standards only applies to the other side.
Ad hominem attacks, slippery slope fallacies, ad hoc justifications, appeals to tradition, appeals to novelty, appeals to fear, wishful thinking, insults, and strawmen are usually considered bad form in debate. Liberals and Conservatives consider it bad form as well... When used by the other side. They are more than willing to use these tactics themselves, but whenever an opponent uses such a tact they commonly retort with something along the lines of:
"Whether or not Bush was raised in a wealthy family has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the War on Terror is a valid foreign policy doctrine, America hater. I thank God that we are fighting terrorists, rather than giving them plutonium and maps of New York City like you would prefer."
Both believe the other side is not just wrong, but stupid and evil.
It's not possible that the person you are debating is not merely misguided or misinformed or even just looking out for their own best interests. It's not that the person believes that single-payer health care might be more humane and more effective than the current mishmash of systems in the US. Impossible. It is clear that wish for a People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America. It is not that the other guy sees the mistakes and inefficiencies of the public health care systems in other nations and sees the less than spectacular results of current American public health care programs like Medicaid and the VA hospitals that make him skeptical of government health care. No. He hates poor people and loves to see HMOs screw working people out of even the most basic treatments.
Both are willing to ignore or excuse or even praise behavior that their idols partake in that they would otherwise find abhorrent.
I've seen conservatives actually praise Ted Nugent's method of dodging the draft by literally s--tting his pants. I've heard them praise his music, ignoring lines like "I make ***** purr with a stroke of my hand" or the language he uses on stage (I know, I've seen him in concert). You know the kind of lyrics and behavior that they rail against rappers for. Speaking of rappers; you might remember that NWA frontman Eazy-E actually attended several Republican fundraisers and was a welcomed guest at several Republican events. You know the guy who wrote "F--k the Police" and was a self-proclaimed member of the Crips? Well, when he was shelling out money, the Republicans had nothing bad to say about him.
Or let us look to a recently deceased liberal icon. I have read so many liberals actively excusing Ted Kennedy's less than stellar character. It doesn't seen strike them that if Kennedy was a poor man, he would have spend most of his life in prison. If a regular person was drinking a drove off a bridge with another person inside the car, left the scene of the accident, and did not report the incident until some ten hours after it took place, they would agree that he should be in jail, but he was power, rich, and had two overrated brothers that everyone seems to have a sentimental attachment to.
Too bad. They should have really considered what he said about Ford pardoning Nixon:
"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?”
Agreed with regard to behavior points noted above. The policies and basis of beliefs is completely different.
I disagree. Both have their authoritarian streaks and beliefs. I think they have more in common than they would like to admit, especially when you start getting into the extremists.
Unfortunately, the extremes of both sides are in charge ... that's the problem.
Not really. I know he talks a good line and sounds like a liberal, but when it comes to action, Obama has sided with the GOP in the name "bipartisanship" at every turn. Name one seriously important policy issues where Obama hasn't rolled over and conceded to the GOP. It seems to me that we voted for a liberal but basically got Bush-light.
They are the same in many ways. Heck, even their general policies are identical. Just compare Bush policies to Obama policies. What's the difference? There really isn't mush differences. Obama simply picked up where Bush left off. Even Reagan wasn't that different. He practically invented deficit spending and somehow managed to TRIPLE the national debt. He expanded the government like no one before him, all the while preaching about small government. Tax cuts are great, but if you are also going to spend like a drunken sailor, then the tax-cut policy is foolish.
The only difference between liberals and conservatives is in what they say. The conservatives like to preach small government and low taxes, while liberals don't hide the fact that they want government to take on more control. But when they act, they both act the same way and expand the government. It is sillier than hell to see the conservatives of today attack Obama for doing the exact same things they do when they are in power.
Not really. I know he talks a good line and sounds like a liberal, but when it comes to action, Obama has sided with the GOP in the name "bipartisanship" at every turn. Name one seriously important policy issues where Obama hasn't rolled over and conceded to the GOP. It seems to me that we voted for a liberal but basically got Bush-light.
I agree with you on this. He always sides with the people that didn't, nor would they ever, vote for him.
Excellant points. It often strikes me that it wasn't always that way. That we were more civil to one another and open to other viewpoints in the not too distant past.
Do you think this is the case or is it just the technical age we live in (internet, blogs, cable television, texting, tweeting, etc.) that allows everyone an opportunity to speak and get their opinion heard by many and quickly? Are all sides trying to grab that soundbite, to get their 30 seconds of news coverage?
Hehe, politics has always been a full contact sport! It may be tempered by memory, but the reality is politics has always been quite contentious in this nation. Bully politics is a very American thing. If you wish to get a good grip on this at any point in history, find sources of the time, not rewritten history. But I digress.
Good points Frank, funny I just put up a rant about the intricate link between both parties in "Communism in the White House: Yea or Nay" thread before reading your post.
I disagree. Both have their authoritarian streaks and beliefs. I think they have more in common than they would like to admit, especially when you start getting into the extremists.
The far right and the far left meet around the back door of politics.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
