umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Really? LMAO. That is funny stuff. Sheeple is correct. Anyone who can still support Bush ATPIT is a sheep. JMO
Really? LMAO. That is funny stuff. Sheeple is correct. Anyone who can still support Bush ATPIT is a sheep. JMO
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Perhaps. Except I do almost none of the above. But maybe I should, its easy to blame Bush.
Gotta love the free thinking left, from John Kerry on down.
So you say, and that's proof enough for you. The last 2 elections have been so close it isn't even funny. Just keep right on believing that the opposition is a "dying bunch".
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
I agree. The current administration is a socially conservative party far more left than the democratic party. Of course, it's all in the marketing, as long as Bush says he is making government smaller, people believe this.
I think Dissipate would be an excellent judge on where size of government is going. Fiscal conservatives listen up. Although in all fairness, I didn't see anything Kerry was bringing to the table to fix this.
I find it hard to believe that many people do not see the right as sheeple.
While the 'liberals' (on a global scale they truly are not) in America are a loose assortment of various ideals huddled together so they can have a chance - the right is overwhelmingly composed of Christian God pushers, overly patriotic people, and supporters of global 'free' markets. All of which in a sense go together, but none of which, except maybe to a limited extent the free-marketers require free-thinking.
In fact in recent times, and just maybe throughout the entire history of America, Conservatives could never even come up with an ideology. Bush was the first to do this. I think I outlined this best in the "Greatest American" thread.
And isn't it so funny that 95% of modern conservatism (that is post 1945) is in its essence a reactionary movement. Always it was "Attack the Third World revolutionaries!!!" "Stem the tide of the communists who hate freedom and humanity" "Lock up the leftists!" "Kill the Lennons, Malcolm X's, Che Gueveras". Where were the ideas of their own? They had none. There will be no Motorcycle Diaries for George W. Bush, probably the only Conservative with a real ideology, and funny that he stole it from the liberal textbook and only made it a bit more violent, a bit more accessible to the wealthy. The only 'diary' we will have of him will be the sad epitaph of high school prankster, turned college hooligan who duped the American public into the false dream of killing a Frankenstein-ish monster created by his ideological father (Reagan) and supported by his biological father (Bush Sr.). Who knows what new monsters we will create in this war?
While the 'liberals' (on a global scale they truly are not) in America are a loose assortment of various ideals huddled together so they can have a chance - the right is overwhelmingly composed of Christian God pushers, overly patriotic people, and supporters of global 'free' markets. All of which in a sense go together, but none of which, except maybe to a limited extent the free-marketers require free-thinking.
In fact in recent times, and just maybe throughout the entire history of America, Conservatives could never even come up with an ideology. Bush was the first to do this. I think I outlined this best in the "Greatest American" thread.
And isn't it so funny that 95% of modern conservatism (that is post 1945) is in its essence a reactionary movement. Always it was "Attack the Third World revolutionaries!!!" "Stem the tide of the communists who hate freedom and humanity" "Lock up the leftists!" "Kill the Lennons, Malcolm X's, Che Gueveras". Where were the ideas of their own? They had none. There will be no Motorcycle Diaries for George W. Bush, probably the only Conservative with a real ideology, and funny that he stole it from the liberal textbook and only made it a bit more violent, a bit more accessible to the wealthy. The only 'diary' we will have of him will be the sad epitaph of high school prankster, turned college hooligan who duped the American public into the false dream of killing a Frankenstein-ish monster created by his ideological father (Reagan) and supported by his biological father (Bush Sr.). Who knows what new monsters we will create in this war?
I think the OP is somewhat valid... it's something that I noticed a while back. The Leftists seem to bombard us with links that supposedly prove a point, with a couple sentences of their own cliched partisanship. This does seem a little sheeple-like.
I don't know if the Right on P&N uses their own thinking more, but I know that being a google-monger is not my style. I have maybe posted a link with my OP a couple times when creating a topic. I prefer to formulate my ideas and present my own thinking on a subject... and it's usually not the "hot topic" of the day to bounce political talking points around.
Here is a variant of the issue, where I had sort of observed that the Left on P&N -in general- seem to focus on singular, easy to digest concretes (via links) and pound their point home, while there's almost never any real, across the board elaboration on a deeper philosophy that binds their narrow, pragmatic talking points together. They have lost the bigger picture of their ideology (maybe out of ignorance or embarassment) while scraping together bits of insignificant effects to dwell on. From my old topic:
--------------------------------
"Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).
Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....
Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently."
-----------------------------------------
I don't know if the Right on P&N uses their own thinking more, but I know that being a google-monger is not my style. I have maybe posted a link with my OP a couple times when creating a topic. I prefer to formulate my ideas and present my own thinking on a subject... and it's usually not the "hot topic" of the day to bounce political talking points around.
Here is a variant of the issue, where I had sort of observed that the Left on P&N -in general- seem to focus on singular, easy to digest concretes (via links) and pound their point home, while there's almost never any real, across the board elaboration on a deeper philosophy that binds their narrow, pragmatic talking points together. They have lost the bigger picture of their ideology (maybe out of ignorance or embarassment) while scraping together bits of insignificant effects to dwell on. From my old topic:
--------------------------------
"Somewhere along the line, things changed. I'm fascinated by the endless string of editorials and links from the left-wing google-mongers here, because the attitude of today's liberal seems vastly different than the attitude of yesterday's liberal wingnuts from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I guess the only way for them to become a power in the marketplace of ideas was to sell out. That worked for a while... but it's becoming painfully obvious that the gig is up because they have no ideological base to stand on. (Hence the political decline of liberalism in the past 10-20 years).
Whereas the crusading spirit that advocated a planned society, and talking in terms of abstract principles, theories, and noble ends was the norm, today modern leftists concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands without regard to the larger context, costs, or consequences. Notice the same hardened Libs continuously posting links that supposedly "prove a point"... but that's the problem. They're all pragmatic, extremely narrow evaluations of a singular situation. "Bagdad Police Chief Killed" and So-and-So lectures Bush" etc....
Such a strategy may win a few brownie points here-and-there with some people. But what is never developed is the old-fashioned ideological framework. This is the Catch-22 the Left is in today. They can abandon the broad social reforms of their predessesors (because most people will reject the philosophical foundation outright), but eventually their asymmetrical strategy to "smuggle" this society into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting the whole of these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or their underlying base to be exposed crumbles and fails... just as their political influence has deteriorated recently."
-----------------------------------------
The Repubs are Dixiecrats is sheeps clothing. Socially conservative (on Bible thumping issues) and fiscally loose (except when they pay for it) describes most politicals south of the Maxon-Dixon line for about 150 years.
Whether you like it or not, you do fall into a group. However, there are various levels to these groupings and there would be no reason that you could not be part of both groups depending on the situation. However, the very base arguments being used by the two groups tend to fall clearly into the catagories that I listed.
Try as you might to make this an 'us vs. them' or a 'black and white' rip on me. Personally I do believe that there are only two logical outcomes to all questions. Logic and thought tend to clearly support this. So, if you are looking for answers you need to break the question into its two relevant parts. If you are looking for understanding, then break it into greys - however, that will do you no good when looking for a solution. It is an 'emotional' boost for those that are afraid of choice and consequence. To think that a question has a grey area is to doom yourself to never answering it and always asking about it.
I wrote this because this is what I notice on the boards. Yes, there are people that transcend these definitions. However, every day there seem to be fewer and fewer people that can put together a serious and well thought out paragraph. Most responses from the hardcore left devolve into Bush bashing within the first three or four posts. Most responses I have seen from the right tend to be more constructive in thought and structure. Sorry, but that it the way it looks. This could also be a symptom of why people are leaving the left, it is no fun being on the losing side, however, it is much worse to be a sore loser.
Try as you might to make this an 'us vs. them' or a 'black and white' rip on me. Personally I do believe that there are only two logical outcomes to all questions. Logic and thought tend to clearly support this. So, if you are looking for answers you need to break the question into its two relevant parts. If you are looking for understanding, then break it into greys - however, that will do you no good when looking for a solution. It is an 'emotional' boost for those that are afraid of choice and consequence. To think that a question has a grey area is to doom yourself to never answering it and always asking about it.
I wrote this because this is what I notice on the boards. Yes, there are people that transcend these definitions. However, every day there seem to be fewer and fewer people that can put together a serious and well thought out paragraph. Most responses from the hardcore left devolve into Bush bashing within the first three or four posts. Most responses I have seen from the right tend to be more constructive in thought and structure. Sorry, but that it the way it looks. This could also be a symptom of why people are leaving the left, it is no fun being on the losing side, however, it is much worse to be a sore loser.
LOL. Another symptom of the short-sightdedness of the Right.
We aren't the world. Just because the Right is winning in America doesn't mean it is winning all over the world. In fact, it seems to me that a large amount of the first world and a significant amount of the second world, as well as the up and coming countries - India and China are firmly rooted in more leftist thought. This is why for the most part, I find it foolish to argue with most Rightist people. Especially in real life. They are so busy wallowing in patriotism and a unipolar world that they can't think for one second outside of it. Maybe because they've never been outside of it, maybe because they are just not free-thinkers as you claim them to be. Soon there will be a new balance in the world. And if you eliminate leftism in your country, you will find yourself very, very alone.
We aren't the world. Just because the Right is winning in America doesn't mean it is winning all over the world. In fact, it seems to me that a large amount of the first world and a significant amount of the second world, as well as the up and coming countries - India and China are firmly rooted in more leftist thought. This is why for the most part, I find it foolish to argue with most Rightist people. Especially in real life. They are so busy wallowing in patriotism and a unipolar world that they can't think for one second outside of it. Maybe because they've never been outside of it, maybe because they are just not free-thinkers as you claim them to be. Soon there will be a new balance in the world. And if you eliminate leftism in your country, you will find yourself very, very alone.
irwin, you might make a much more persuasive argument by using examples. Just sitting here and saying "the right are free thinkers and the left are sheeple" is no more convincing than me sitting here and saying the exact opposite. In fact, it sounds dangerously like... partisan rhetoric.
"Only two solutions to a problem?!
Don't restrict creativity... "
Creativity does not answer a question. Yes, there may be more than two routes to the solutions, but in the end every question has only one answer. Black and white. Logic prevails here and logic gets seriously flawed and twisted when you try to arrive at more than one solution to a question.
There are no restrictions upon the thought process. I think this is where the 'anti black and white' people go wrong. They assume that if there is only one correct outcome and another false outcome, that there are limited appoaches to problem solving. Not the case at all, and a logical fallacy at that. Just becaue there is a single answer does not mean there is only one path to it. So, you can have a black and white world while also enjoying the benefits of creativity.
On the other hand, adding greys to a solution does nothing but to cloud the issue. Like I just posted, to look at greys is to doom yourself to forever look at the problem and never look for a solution.
Don't restrict creativity... "
Creativity does not answer a question. Yes, there may be more than two routes to the solutions, but in the end every question has only one answer. Black and white. Logic prevails here and logic gets seriously flawed and twisted when you try to arrive at more than one solution to a question.
There are no restrictions upon the thought process. I think this is where the 'anti black and white' people go wrong. They assume that if there is only one correct outcome and another false outcome, that there are limited appoaches to problem solving. Not the case at all, and a logical fallacy at that. Just becaue there is a single answer does not mean there is only one path to it. So, you can have a black and white world while also enjoying the benefits of creativity.
On the other hand, adding greys to a solution does nothing but to cloud the issue. Like I just posted, to look at greys is to doom yourself to forever look at the problem and never look for a solution.
The examples exist in almost every post. Open your mind and go look. Look from the perspective of someone who is opposite of yourself. I have the ability to remove myself and my thoughts from a situation to see what the other side sees. I understand the hatred for Bush I do not understand the amazing lack of depth in the arguments however.
Hell, just do a short comparison of posting lengths - gives you a good idea.
Strangely enough, I agree. When has a man mired in the middle made a difference; good or bad?
At least reactionary Conservatives have attained their goal of dealing a swift blow to leftism in America. What has an independent or neutral done?
I suppose all those people who believed Comrade Stalin about his happy Siberian work camps were open-minded, thinking people.
Come to think of it, they were, on both sides of the wire.
Thats all well and good. But name a place where a 'grey' political party or movement has made significant headway.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
With a two party system, there's never been a grey option. There's always one in power and the othere MUST criticize. The job of the opposition is to hold the governing party to account. I'm going to get crap for this, but I'd say Clinton was more of a grey, not to start debating all the ideas presented in his term or what happened under his watch, I feel he built way more bridges than Bush ever did.
TastesLikeChicken for example was a Clinton guy, and he is very much against the current democratic party. (PM me if you want this out TLC) Moderates bring people and ideas together.
TastesLikeChicken for example was a Clinton guy, and he is very much against the current democratic party. (PM me if you want this out TLC) Moderates bring people and ideas together.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Indeed. There is nothing "conservative" or pro-capitalist about the Dixiecrat crowd. They're the traditional party of the KKK. Worse than "liberals" IMO and that is saying a lot.
To the OP: there are thinkers and sheeple in all political crowds and schools of thought. "Philosophical principles are no substitute for thinking," but many people think and act as those they are. There are many examples here, and very few free-thinkers. The reasoning for this is because, as our democracy descends into mob rule, it is only the agenda of biggest gang, the largest majority, that will be successful. As the individual is the smallest minority of all, individualism is not to be tolerated, and adherence to one's gang is to be paramount.
Sadly there are no fiscal conservatives in government, which essentially negates this part of the discussion. If Kerry would have done something about it, I would have supported him.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter