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.
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?
I would think that illegal aliens taking of lower level jobs and keeping wage cost (and benefits) lower due to their willingness to work for less, would somewhat negate this being a liberal position. I would think they are for improving the daily lives and opportunities of those less fortunate.
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.
As to your grammar, I figure the concept is always more important than the construct.
I think your answer lies within your own post. The over simplification of complexed and nuanced issues. While on an issue by issue basis, there may be clear, black and white answers (not always of course) but in a general sense people just don't wish to think about it.
My biggest problem with contemporary politics is that while there are certain views from a given perspective such as the communal aspects of liberalism and the individual centered aspects of conservatism, by in large though issues are not digested individually in the context of the greater whole. If they were, then I could show in a variety of issues where the right and left were trying to reach the same conclusion from different approaches but are too busy trying to discredit each other that neither accomplishes their desires. Illegal immigration being the most notable currently.
Humans have this strong desire to label and classify things into neat little categories. This serves to set the framework on how we approach future circumstances or issues. However it also serves to construct a belief system, that given a certain set of criteria a person will tend to lean or believe one thing over another, the danger being as that as time progresses, more reliance is placed in the belief than the empirical weighing of evidence to a given subject. People then become trapped into seeing each new event or topic from the belief they developed over time and in the end, an issue only needs to meet minimum qualifications in order to be labeled or classified as good or bad.
While I have no doubts that many would disagree with me, I happen to see where the Republicans have moved a good ways to the left of their former positions. This is not to say there are still very right Republicans but as a whole the GOP moved from its traditional set of ideas to modified contemporary set of positions and has caused a disintegration of the party as a whole.
I would even claim this happened to the Democrats some time ago as for the most part the Democrats have abandoned their liberal brothers as taken up a much more moderate and even hawkish position in things like foreign policy.
Oddly, with both parties closer together than they would care to admit, they both ended up resorting to attack tactics instead of political philosophies of their given view points.
In the end, the American public can only digest things such as white hats = good guys and black hats = bad guys, because to critique a given issue in any greater depth would cut into their American Idol time, after all we are a culture of personality celebrity, and entertainment. Who needs facts when you have beliefs.
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 02-04-2008 at 09:03 PM..
I would think that illegal aliens taking of lower level jobs and keeping wage cost (and benefits) lower due to their willingness to work for less, would somewhat negate this being a liberal position. I would think they are for improving the daily lives and opportunities of those less fortunate.
My criticism is not concerned with immigration policy per se. It is with the expressed intolerance of liberals toward those who disagree with them. Wanting to control the borders does not equal "hating illegals." If that is so, there is a great deal of self-hatred among America's Hispanic population, since many of them support stricter immigration policies.
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.
True, but the watch has to take precedence over the wristband if 100% purity is to be achieved.
Firstly, maybe most are simply using a bit of hyperbole to get a laugh or a dig in at their ideological opponent.
Secondly, and more likely, we live in an era where outrageous exaggeration has become an acceptable norm and its not soley directed at Liberals. Conservatives are derided as Fascists or Nazis- Bush himself has been described by many, with all due seriousness, as worse than Hitler (there is a helluva variance between a dunce and a genocidal totalitarian).
Other examples abound. Who can forget Rep Bob Dornan's tirades against Clinton that "he gave aid and comfort to the enemy" Jesse Jackson compares anything and everything to Selma. Voters being asked to simply present an id at the booth is derided as a return to Jim Crow.
All things considered, Liberals are getting off rather easy simply being termed Communists.
My criticism is not concerned with immigration policy per se. It is with the expressed intolerance of liberals toward those who disagree with them. Wanting to control the borders does not equal "hating illegals." If that is so, there is a great deal of self-hatred among America's Hispanic population, since many of them support stricter immigration policies.
I don't have a problem with people who support stricter immigration policies, although I guess I would have a problem with stricter immigration policies. What I do have a problem with is the debate spectacles, the "you let illegal children get scholarships you monster!" "Oh yeah, well some illegals worked in YOUR HOUSE even though you probably didn't know they were illegal, but thy soil is tainted with the sweat of the undocumented invaders!" "Oh yeah? Well you let illegals report crimes to the police without being sent to the immigration authorities!" Everybody trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo," as Tancredo himself put it. And I have a problem with people who think that everyone who doesn't play that game is somehow a "liberal," even if every other position they hold neatly walks the line of right-wing orthodoxy.
I define "hatred" broadly as the desire to act in a fashion that is in direct opposition to the basic interests and well-being of those who are acted upon. That's probably not a good definition of hatred, but uprooting people from their adopted homes for a minor, victimless crime and probably confining them to a life of poverty in Mexico that they were attempting to escape, or attacking governors for not refusing to provide basic social services to them, in my mind qualifies under the above definition. I'm not claiming that all nationalist conservatives hate illegals, you probably don't (if you go over my original post you'll notice I wasn't trying to lump the whole right into one category but was rather describing a select set), but you can't deny that many of them do... just turn on the AM radio late at night, listen to some Neil Boortz or Michael Savage, watch some Lou Dobbs or read through some of the threads on the "Immigration" forum here or on townhall.com... you can't deny that many of them do.
Firstly, maybe most are simply using a bit of hyperbole to get a laugh or a dig in at their ideological opponent.
Secondly, and more likely, we live in an era where outrageous exaggeration has become an acceptable norm and its not soley directed at Liberals. Conservatives are derided as Fascists or Nazis- Bush himself has been described by many, with all due seriousness, as worse than Hitler (there is a helluva variance between a dunce and a genocidal totalitarian).
Other examples abound. Who can forget Rep Bob Dornan's tirades against Clinton that "he gave aid and comfort to the enemy" Jesse Jackson compares anything and everything to Selma. Voters being asked to simply present an id at the booth is derided as a return to Jim Crow.
All things considered, Liberals are getting off rather easy simply being termed Communists.
I would think that illegal aliens taking of lower level jobs and keeping wage cost (and benefits) lower due to their willingness to work for less, would somewhat negate this being a liberal position. I would think they are for improving the daily lives and opportunities of those less fortunate.
Good point, but people desparate enough to come here illegaly could also be classified as "less fortunate." So how "liberal" the position is depends (I guess) on how much one thinks we should privilege the interests of native-born citizens over those of non-citizens. Personally I think we should privilege citizens some, or a good deal, but not absolutely. However, I am hijacking my own thread by making all these posts about illegal immigrants, so I'll shut up my typing fingers for now.
Because some left-wingers ARE unquestionably Marxist types.
When a conservative says "all leftists are communists", that's wrong. There are a lot of shades of gray in the political parties- both left and right. There are a lot of liberals who enjoin with conservatives in that strange libertarian confluence on the back-end of political dogma. There are a lot of liberals who are more "Democrats" than they are "liberals", in the classical sense. There are liberals who are socially liberal as far as human choice, fiscally conservative as far as finances but still pro individual responsibility. .
Still, there is an undeniable communist/socialist/Marxist component to the American far left, whether you want to admit it or not.
Yhey know enough to avoid the labels so they won't call themselves such, but everything they promote and support is straight Marxist ideology, whether they call themselves "Marxist" or just the much safer "Liberal".
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.
