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.
Oh, come on. Post the link to this falsehood. I'm not defending Republicans, but you sure are willing to demonize them with hyperbole while using restraint to characterize your own side.
Below is the same chart plotting the positions of the 2008 Presidential primary candidates.
Below are world leaders.
Point being, in America, we engage in a lot of debate over whether we're going to elect someone who thinks this way or that. Fact is, no matter who is President, the US is going to make essentially the same decisions and follow the same course. Individual policy matters will have a wider spread, but even those sort of things, such as health care, will regress to the mean if they go too far.
Steve
I take exception with making Libertarianism and Anarchism synomymous. They most certainly are not. Anarchists believe in no government and no rules. Libertarians believe in LIMITED, local government and less federal government. Where did you find that chart?
I take exception with making Libertarianism and Anarchism synomymous. They most certainly are not. Anarchists believe in no government and no rules. Libertarians believe in LIMITED, local government and less federal government. Where did you find that chart?
I think the chart is simply saying that the furtherst extreme of each ideal manifests in the other label. Hence, Hitler at the tippy top of the Authoritarian spectrum and dead center of the economic spectrum (though not shown on the particular chart I posted), and Anarchy at the other extreme. I don't think the labels are intended to be thought of as synonymous.
So, if you take the test, you'll notice there are "propositions" instead of questions. And there are no "don't care" or "don't know" responses. One has to agree or disagree, or agree strongly or disagree strongly. It thus forces an opinion.
The topic of this thread, were it included in the test, could be stated something like:
"Individuals should be free to assign alternate names and labels to places and things in their communications and discussions with friends and peers".
To that question, in a political context, I would answer "Agree", but if you ask me informally if I like Austin being called "ATX", I'd answer that I prefer it remain just "Austin". But I would oppose a law making it mandatory to use "Austin" only, because I think the rights of individuals to express themselves freely overrides my personal preferences.
One answer leans more toward an Authoritarian ideal (thou shalt not refer to Austin by any other name), and the other leans more toward an Anarchist ideal (let's not names things, lets just call things whatever we want).
And thus I think a lot of the debates and discussions in forums like these suppose that the opinions being expressed by others inform us of their political leaning, when in fact it is more likely just a personal opinion.
Oh, come on. Post the link to this falsehood. I'm not defending Republicans, but you sure are willing to demonize them with hyperbole while using restraint to characterize your own side.
Steve
Well, to be sure, I don't know why you say "my side". I pointed out that liberals are also controlling and a bit hypocritical as well. I have no love for politicians, regardless of their party. And the higher up the chain they go, the less I love them. There have been other posts where I have supported liberals, but the post you quote I acutally agreed with you that it's wrong to rip up signs. You suggested that the left is less tolerant of differning political views. To that I offered a topic to discuss "is it because the right seems a little more evil?, so they illicit stronger responses". I was not advocating anything either way. I was just asking a general question to the board.
I also said specifically that I was making broad broad generalizations, just to give an idea of what an uninformed sign ripper might use as an excuse. I was not "demonizing them with hyperbole". I said liberals want to control you in the boardroom and tax the rich, both things I don't agree with. I was equal opportunity Steve.
I know you have mentioned in other posts we have discussed that you don't feel gay people suffer from prejudice or violence in any great numbers. I believe you said that Realtors are in more danger of hate crimes than gays??? (I may be misquoting, that is what I got from your argument). I don't want to devolve this into another JayBrown80/AustinSteve argument of "of course people are prejudiced against gays" vs "gays are crying wolf. It's a statistically insignificant threat against them". I was simply offering a hypothesis as to why republican signs get ripped down. You offered a hypothesis too.
As far as linking proof that Republicans are anti-gay? Well, I thought that would be self evident, but if you insist....
- Sheri Drew, "inspirational" leader, Republican LDS leader, and former White House delegate to the United Nations:
"Those who support gay and lesbian families are no different from those who supported Adolf Hitler in the years preceding World War II"
and also
“At first it may seem a bit extreme to imply a comparison between the atrocities of Hitler and what is happening in terms of contemporary threats against the family—but maybe not.”
-Jerry Falwell, Republican and conservative commentator
""[homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven."
-Roy Moore, Republican, former Cheif Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, currently running for Governor of Alabama
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family....It is an inherent evil against which children must be protected."
I could go on and on. These are just the most outright hateful comments that I could find no short notice, that supported what I called my "broad generilzation" and that you called my "falsehood" and my "hyperbole" . I didn't include the subtle homophobia that you can find through out the Republican Party, but I could go on for pages and pages with that. Please notice that I didn't just include "anti-gay marriage" quotes, I included actual "gay must be destroyed, they are demons" quotes.
It's interesting that whenever I criticize conservatives for homophobia, everyone assumes I am deifying liberals and giving them a free pass. Liberals have problems too, but conservatives are a lot more anti-gay. If you don't believe that, then frankly you are delusional.
I think the chart is simply saying that the furtherst extreme of each ideal manifests in the other label. Hence, Hitler at the tippy top of the Authoritarian spectrum and dead center of the economic spectrum (though not shown on the particular chart I posted), and Anarchy at the other extreme. I don't think the labels are intended to be thought of as synonymous.
So, if you take the test, you'll notice there are "propositions" instead of questions. And there are no "don't care" or "don't know" responses. One has to agree or disagree, or agree strongly or disagree strongly. It thus forces an opinion.
The topic of this thread, were it included in the test, could be stated something like:
"Individuals should be free to assign alternate names and labels to places and things in their communications and discussions with friends and peers".
To that question, in a political context, I would answer "Agree", but if you ask me informally if I like Austin being called "ATX", I'd answer that I prefer it remain just "Austin". But I would oppose a law making it mandatory to use "Austin" only, because I think the rights of individuals to express themselves freely overrides my personal preferences.
One answer leans more toward an Authoritarian ideal (thou shalt not refer to Austin by any other name), and the other leans more toward an Anarchist ideal (let's not names things, lets just call things whatever we want).
And thus I think a lot of the debates and discussions in forums like these suppose that the opinions being expressed by others inform us of their political leaning, when in fact it is more likely just a personal opinion.
Steve
Reps to you for this post, Steve! Especially the bolded part.
Believe it or not, most people don't view the entire world and everything in it through politically-colored glasses. And LIKE it that way!
...
I also said specifically that I was making broad broad generalizations...
What you said was:
Quote:
Typically conservatives believe that all Mexicans are a drain on the economy, that all gays are trying to recruit and rape children, and that no woman is allowed to end a pregnancy in her body. These can all be categorized as "controlling people".
I call BS. You can pluck quotes all you want, but you're trying to ascribe the fringe comments of a few people to a broad population of people. Replace the word "Republican" in your quotes with the home state of each person, and tell me if it would be an accurate reflection of the people of those states.
Pick your favorite or most "correct thinking" leader whom you trust and admire, and we could dig up stupid, embarrassing quotes from them.
Your characterizations of "conservatives" and your chosen tactic are weak and, by definition, hypocritical. What do you stand for?
What you said was: I call BS. You can pluck quotes all you want, but you're trying to ascribe the fringe comments of a few people to a broad population of people. Replace the word "Republican" in your quotes with the home state of each person, and tell me if it would be an accurate reflection of the people of those states.
Pick your favorite or most "correct thinking" leader whom you trust and admire, and we could dig up stupid, embarrassing quotes from them.
Your characterizations of "conservatives" and your chosen tactic are weak and, by definition, hypocritical. What do you stand for?
Steve
No Steve, let's not accuse someone of being hypocritical, when we are being hypocrytical ourselves. What I said was
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBrown80
that all gays are trying to recruit and rape children, and that no woman is allowed to end a pregnancy in her body. These can all be categorized as "controlling people".
Now, of course these are broad broad generalizations and oversimplifications of political positions..
As far as my favorite or most "correct thinking" leader, whom I trust, as I said previously, I dont' like politicians. I don't trust them either. I said that in a previous post. I would accuse you of not reading the post, but you quoted it, so you must have read it.
The only reason I gave you quotes is because you asked me too Steve. I would hardly call Jerry Falwell or the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court as "fringe". These were not guys typing hateful rhetoric in their mother's basement. Jerry Falwell started a major American University whose students were heavily recruited by the Bush Administration, co founded the Moral Majority, and had MILLIONS of loyal followers. Jerry Falwell isn't fringe at all.
As far as my "characterizations" of conservatives. I also made broad generalizations about liberals too. Keep in mind the point of my post. You said that Republican signs get ripped down in Travis Heights. You hypothesized it's because Liberals are not as tolerant for political differences as they are for physical differences (such as pink hair). I offered a counter hypothesis that maybe Republican/conservative signs get ripped down not because liberals are less tolerant, but because Republican/conservative political postions seem more threatening because they usually target people. I then gave broad generalizations of BOTH liberal and conservative viewpoints, and said specifically that, while I couldn't speak for everyone else, conservative viewpoints seemed more sinister, TO ME. I am allowed to have my opinion Steve. Stating my opinion does not mean I am passing it off as fact.
Now Steve, as far as you comment that "your chosen tactic are weak and, by definition, hypocritical. What do you stand for?" What's weak and hypocritical? The fact that I pointed out that some Republicans are homophobic? That's true. I didnt' attribute it to ALL conservatives, I said they were generalizations. I could say that Teenage girls like The Jonas Brothers, and why that is probably true of most teenage girls, it's assumed that I didn't go poll every teenage girl in the country for her Jonas Brother opinion. That, coupled with the fact that I specifically said I was only making Broad Generalizations, makes me wonder why you feel like I was "attacking" conservatives. Saying that liberals "want to tax the rich" is not a generalization of Democrats? I notice you don't feel the need to defend liberals. I was merely offering an alternative hypothesis to the sign ripping situation.
I don't know how to answer your question of "What do you stand for?" What do you mean? Politically? Morally? How do I feel about the Jonas Brothers? If you WOULD ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS, you would see that I stated several of my political views already, from wanting small government, good fiscal policy, gay marriage, less government intervention into the free market and an end to the TARP program.
I can only assume you don't actually read my posts before you respond to them. Or, you read some of it, get to a particular line that sticks in your craw, and respond before you have finished reading the whole thing. Why else would you ask me questions I have already answered?
No reason to get so worked up Steve. I was agreeing with you that ripping up signs is wrong, I was just disagreeing with the motivation that MIGHT be behind someone doing that. I would think you are being a little dishonest with yourself Steve, if I generalized liberal AND conservative policies for the sake of brevity, and you choose to only focus on the conservative generalizations. I am sorry Steve, but I have to call BS too, to anyone that says Jerry Falwell was a "fringe" member of the Republican party. He was a huge evangelical figure, and evangelicals are a huge "base" of the republican party.
But please Steve, prove me wrong. Find me some quotes from conservatives just as big and powerful as Jerry Falwell was, that DID support gay rights? Or liberals, just as big and powerful as Jerry Falwell, who AGREED with him. It is not a generalization to say that conservatives are typically less gay friendly COMPARED TO LIBERALS. It is not a generalization to say that liberals are typically less buisness friendly COMPARED TO CONSERVATIVES.
Ok, I did read your entire response, but the point you miss is that you previously stated:
Quote:
Typically conservatives believe that all Mexicans are a drain on the economy, that all gays are trying to recruit and rape children, and that no woman is allowed to end a pregnancy in her body".
You can call these broad generalizations, but accusing the "typical" conservative of believing "that all gays are trying to recruit and rape children" is more than a broad generalization. It's a terrible thing to say, and it's not true, and you know it. It causes me to discount everything else you say.
Steve
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.
