Misconceptions about liberals and conservatives

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Corbett

F- for misleading thread title. Where are the misconceptions about conservatives?

I'm leaving that up to the conservatives to list out. I'm trying to get an honest dialogue going about what we feel are inaccuracies about each other's rhetoric so that we can try to understand each other better, stop the horseshit and actually talk about the real issues.

Maybe if we can do that, we can reach some common ground? Who knows, as a great liberal once said....

You may say that I'm a dreamer
but I'm not the only one
I hope one day you will join us
and the world can live as one

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic
A quick note on something I saw in the thread... employers don't provide health insurance because of it's a basic right or service. The purely American tradition came about around WWII as a way for private industry to compete against the unions (many of who were providing their members with health insurance), and because of FDR-era legislation making it a non-taxable form of compensation. No other reason really. Take away those incentives and your employer would stop paying for your health coverage the very next day.

Health insurance is a benefit. If an employer stopped paying health insurance they'd have a flood of employees leaving for a company that does. I left my previous employer because the benefits were garbage.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Vic
A quick note on something I saw in the thread... employers don't provide health insurance because of it's a basic right or service. The purely American tradition came about around WWII as a way for private industry to compete against the unions (many of who were providing their members with health insurance), and because of FDR-era legislation making it a non-taxable form of compensation. No other reason really. Take away those incentives and your employer would stop paying for your health coverage the very next day.

Health insurance is a benefit. If an employer stopped paying health insurance they'd have a flood of employees leaving for a company that does. I left my previous employer because the benefits were garbage.

Ahem. Please read my posts before responding to them. Thanks.

 

[Moonbeam]

For me some of the problems with errors about what a liberal are the result of identification and self-hate.

Everybody was taught he is worthless and the result is a looking outside for self worthy. One identifies with the injustice inflicted on the victim and seeks to right that kind of wrong, or one identifies with the good professed by the authoritarian and one sets out to suppress evil. The self hater is in puerperal revolution against an enemy of his own creation. We are the Oroboros, a snake eating its tail.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably because the Cons keep Raising Spending with Borrowed Money. Someone has to do the responsible thing, it seems the Libs are the only one's willing.

HAHA. Man, sometimes the imaginary world you live in really cracks me up.

More like "conservatives" keep raising spending with borrowed money for their pet projects. "Liberals" do the same for theirs. Sadly as a partisan through-and-through you're unable to see this.

Edit: To add quotation marks, since "conservatives" are not conservatives and "liberals" are not liberals.

Reality is not as Imaginary as you might think.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably because the Cons keep Raising Spending with Borrowed Money. Someone has to do the responsible thing, it seems the Libs are the only one's willing.

HAHA. Man, sometimes the imaginary world you live in really cracks me up.

More like "conservatives" keep raising spending with borrowed money for their pet projects. "Liberals" do the same for theirs. Sadly as a partisan through-and-through you're unable to see this.

Edit: To add quotation marks, since "conservatives" are not conservatives and "liberals" are not liberals.

Reality is not as Imaginary as you might think.

So in your world, the "responsible" thing is to just continuously add services/programs and raise taxes? Have you even looked at all of the new spending proposals that these "responsible" liberal Presidential candidates are proposing? How much spending has this new "responsible" Democratic congress cut? Oh thats right, they are sending us all tax rebate checks. How "responsible" of them.....:roll:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Things that I do not agree with that are spouted by social conservatives when trying to discredit liberals:

1. Liberals are socialists - my personal take is that liberals want the government to provide for basic services (healthcare comes to mind) but to stay out of the way of almost everything else (regulation of industry != govt. provide all services in said industry)

The only method to provide for basic services is to create a socialist regime. You might have the bright idea that socialist is a dirty word, but there's no escaping from the result of your form of government.

It will redistribute a great deal of wealth to provide for the "basic needs". Then ultimately that power will corrupt those who have it and government will provide for itself as its primary function and then for the people as its secondary function. That is when you slide from socialism into communism. The only difference being a dictator at the head of the regime.

A government with the power to give us everything we need also has to power to take away everything. Hell is paved with good intentions. By all means, organize a centralized authority and pretend human nature won?t interfere with the utopian vision. You wouldn?t be the first or the last to do so.

2. Liberals are anti- (insert whatever offended religion applies here) - a great deal of liberals are religious and the notion that liberals are primarily atheistic is utter horseshit. According to the latest study on religion, 1.6% claim to be Atheist and only another 2.4% claim to be agnostic while a staggering 78.4% of Americans claim to be Christian of some sort. Now, considering that the country is about 50/50 liberal and conservative.....you can see that it just doesn't add up.

Well, as far as being anti-anything. America was founded with Judeo-Christian law in mind as the basis for our inherently ?god given? human rights. Nowadays there is a great deal of blowback against old religious dogmas except for one religion in particular: Islam.

Being anti-Christian would be attributed due to the view that the left side of this nation slanders Christianity constantly while also constantly apologizing for and protecting Islam under the banner of calling its opponents xenophobes, racists, bigots, Islamophobes, etc.

Liberals call us names, we can?t call liberals names? On point #2 you appear to be seeking a double standard to mask the continued defense of one particular religion over all others. That is an assault against those who you aren?t protecting.

3. Liberals want higher taxes - Do you know how stupid you sound when you try to make this argument? Liberals want zero taxes but aren't delusional enough to think that the highway fairway will magically appear and fix potholes. So there needs to be a minimal tax for that. We don't think that the Ghost of Generals Past will come and arm the military. There needs to be a tax for that. Get the point?

You made your own argument against yourself. You state a certain level of taxation is mandated to fulfill government?s needs. You expressly say government needs to fulfill ?basic needs? including those it has never fulfilled before. That is an increase in taxation to match your much desired increase in centralized government.

4. Liberals hate the military - Another stupid supposition. Liberals hate the use of the military in ways that are not for self defense. Liberals hate the military buildup during times of peace. Liberals serve voluntarily in the military just like conservatives. Try to remember that.

I fully understand you hate its misuse, as do I.

Labeled as ?hating the military? likely comes from situations like Berkeley laying seize to the recruiting office. Bastions of liberal ideology are often hot spots of hate filled activism against the military.

5. Liberals want to grab your guns - Puh-lease. I don't give a shit if you own a gun or ten. What I care about is that if you do own one....you know how to use it and you are responsible for it. How about this for a solution to all of the gun arguments? You can obtain any gun you want any time that you want and the only requirement is that it is registered. Now the catch. ANY crime committed that is traced back to a gun registered in your name....you are liable for the crime. If you committed it, criminal liability. If you didn't but were irresponsible in the storage of your gun...civil liability.

That?s your personal view, in STARK contrast to other so called liberals who truly believe the 2nd amendment only permits government troops to carry. You need to read up on and understand the arguments about collectivism VS the individual. Then you?ll understand why ?liberals want to grab your guns?.

6. Liberals are all BAFs (Blame America First) - I know that this is a simple concept that is incredibly hard for some conservatives to grasp, but you actually can point out faults of something/someone but still love and respect them.

I would warn you that taking side with our opponents in war is not constructive criticism. It is treason. Finding our faults is a good thing. Adamantly opposing Americans while adamantly defending their killers is far removed from doing what?s best for this nation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably because the Cons keep Raising Spending with Borrowed Money. Someone has to do the responsible thing, it seems the Libs are the only one's willing.

HAHA. Man, sometimes the imaginary world you live in really cracks me up.

More like "conservatives" keep raising spending with borrowed money for their pet projects. "Liberals" do the same for theirs. Sadly as a partisan through-and-through you're unable to see this.

Edit: To add quotation marks, since "conservatives" are not conservatives and "liberals" are not liberals.

Reality is not as Imaginary as you might think.

So in your world, the "responsible" thing is to just continuously add services/programs and raise taxes? Have you even looked at all of the new spending proposals that these "responsible" liberal Presidential candidates are proposing? How much spending has this new "responsible" Democratic congress cut? Oh thats right, they are sending us all tax rebate checks. How "responsible" of them.....:roll:

"Responsible" is to Pay for what you Buy. Going into Debt is Irresponsible.

 

[Vic]

^ I'm not even going to address that generalizing pile of extremist paranoid BS except to say, once again, liberals != leftists.

And it just happens to be a sad reality that, like neocons over real conservatives, leftists tend to be more vocal than true liberals. But should I judge each and every conservative based on George Bush and Rush Blowhard?

edit: referring to Jaskalas's post

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably because the Cons keep Raising Spending with Borrowed Money. Someone has to do the responsible thing, it seems the Libs are the only one's willing.

HAHA. Man, sometimes the imaginary world you live in really cracks me up.

More like "conservatives" keep raising spending with borrowed money for their pet projects. "Liberals" do the same for theirs. Sadly as a partisan through-and-through you're unable to see this.

Edit: To add quotation marks, since "conservatives" are not conservatives and "liberals" are not liberals.

Reality is not as Imaginary as you might think.

So in your world, the "responsible" thing is to just continuously add services/programs and raise taxes? Have you even looked at all of the new spending proposals that these "responsible" liberal Presidential candidates are proposing? How much spending has this new "responsible" Democratic congress cut? Oh thats right, they are sending us all tax rebate checks. How "responsible" of them.....:roll:

"Responsible" is to Pay for what you Buy. Going into Debt is Irresponsible.

You have 2 habits I find consistently annoying:
1. You capitalize words unnecessarily.
2. You argue right past people.

The middle ground in this particular argument is obvious. Both taxes and government spending need to be kept in check and balance with each other.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski
Probably because the Cons keep Raising Spending with Borrowed Money. Someone has to do the responsible thing, it seems the Libs are the only one's willing.

HAHA. Man, sometimes the imaginary world you live in really cracks me up.

More like "conservatives" keep raising spending with borrowed money for their pet projects. "Liberals" do the same for theirs. Sadly as a partisan through-and-through you're unable to see this.

Edit: To add quotation marks, since "conservatives" are not conservatives and "liberals" are not liberals.

Reality is not as Imaginary as you might think.

So in your world, the "responsible" thing is to just continuously add services/programs and raise taxes? Have you even looked at all of the new spending proposals that these "responsible" liberal Presidential candidates are proposing? How much spending has this new "responsible" Democratic congress cut? Oh thats right, they are sending us all tax rebate checks. How "responsible" of them.....:roll:

"Responsible" is to Pay for what you Buy. Going into Debt is Irresponsible.

The middle ground in this particular argument is obvious. Both taxes and government spending need to be kept in check and balance with each other.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic
The middle ground in this particular argument is obvious. Both taxes and government spending need to be kept in check and balance with each other.

They would naturally serve as checks and balances on each other if we outlawed (or made it very, very hard to pass) deficit spending. As long as politicians continue to promise high levels of gov't benefits and low levels of taxes (via deficit spending), we'll continue on the fatal course we're on. And I have absolutely no faith either party or any particular branch of gov't can or will fix it. It's time for a Constitutional Amendment on the issue.

 

[heyheybooboo]

PayGo seemed to work really well when it came to balancing the budget. Once the Cons let PayGo expire in 2001 and enacted several years of tax cuts (without off-setting spending) we dug a deep debt hole pretty fast.

I, like a large majority of Americans, consider myself firmly planted in the middle. I can lean in both directions from there

The problem is they they keep moving the middle further to the right. Richard Nixon would be considered a Leftist Kook these days ...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic
The middle ground in this particular argument is obvious. Both taxes and government spending need to be kept in check and balance with each other.

They would naturally serve as checks and balances on each other if we outlawed (or made it very, very hard to pass) deficit spending. As long as politicians continue to promise high levels of gov't benefits and low levels of taxes (via deficit spending), we'll continue on the fatal course we're on. And I have absolutely no faith either party or any particular branch of gov't can or will fix it. It's time for a Constitutional Amendment on the issue.

I would suspect that an 'absolute' position of deficite spending might not be a good idea either.

 

[blackangst1]

Title of thread: Misconceptions about liberals and conservatives

Number of times "conservative" appears in OP: 7
Number of times "liberal" appears in OP: 19
Number of times a point starts with a liberal idea that you would like to clear up misconceptions about: 6
Number of times a point starts with a conservative idea that you would like to clear up misconceptions about:0


huh? You should change your thread title to something more accurate like "Yet Another Liberal Apologist Thread"

 

[LumbergTech]

deleted sry double post

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Liberals might not all be atheists, but atheists, I find, tend to be liberal-minded. If the conservatives are applying stereotypes that liberals are anti-religion, it's no worse than liberals applying the stereotype that all preists are pedophiles.

wow...heh
just WOW..

the catholic church systematically allowed these sick mofos to feed upon children..

apparently you hate atheists so much that the accusation of being one is similar to that of being a pedophile..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic
The middle ground in this particular argument is obvious. Both taxes and government spending need to be kept in check and balance with each other.

They would naturally serve as checks and balances on each other if we outlawed (or made it very, very hard to pass) deficit spending. As long as politicians continue to promise high levels of gov't benefits and low levels of taxes (via deficit spending), we'll continue on the fatal course we're on. And I have absolutely no faith either party or any particular branch of gov't can or will fix it. It's time for a Constitutional Amendment on the issue.

I would suspect that an 'absolute' position of deficite spending might not be a good idea either.

Sometimes you need to borrow. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as it is sometimes.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

5. Liberals want to grab your guns - Puh-lease. I don't give a shit if you own a gun or ten. What I care about is that if you do own one....you know how to use it and you are responsible for it. How about this for a solution to all of the gun arguments? You can obtain any gun you want any time that you want and the only requirement is that it is registered. Now the catch. ANY crime committed that is traced back to a gun registered in your name....you are liable for the crime. If you committed it, criminal liability. If you didn't but were irresponsible in the storage of your gun...civil liability.

You do know that mandatory gun registration would be impossible to enforce right? Lets say I own a gun and sell it to you. I cant force you to re register. Oh, but it could be that we both have to sign for it, like a car, right? Who makes sure the paperwork is filed? What if youre a felon and cant own a gun, and I just sell it to you under the table? Well, ok I sell you a gun and neither one of us register. You go out and kill someone. There is no way in hell I would be found a co-conspirator for that. Not with laws that are on the books right now. At the most I would get fined for not registering. Otherwise, if I sell a car to you and you fail to register it, and you go and kill someone in it, I would be liable also.

It's just not possible.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is they they keep moving the middle further to the right. Richard Nixon would be considered a Leftist Kook these days ...

That's pretty much been Rightwing strategy for decades- replacing reality with perception, in the absence of any real "Left" in American politics. I most European countries, Kucinich, probably the furthest left of any nationally known politician, would be considered a Social Democrat...

The currently fashionable definition of "Leftist", as a consequence, has little or nothing to do with real Leftists, at all- that definition is very much a convenient construct, an illusion purposefully projected by the likes of Rush, Hannity, et al...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

The problem is they they keep moving the middle further to the right. Richard Nixon would be considered a Leftist Kook these days ...

That's pretty much been Rightwing strategy for decades- replacing reality with perception, in the absence of any real "Left" in American politics. I most European countries, Kucinich, probably the furthest left of any nationally known politician, would be considered a Social Democrat...

The currently fashionable definition of "Leftist", as a consequence, has little or nothing to do with real Leftists, at all- that definition is very much a convenient construct, an illusion purposefully projected by the likes of Rush, Hannity, et al...

Nonsense to both of you. The middle has not been changing. It's both the extremes that have been flying outward. In the meantime, the line that "they keep moving the middle further to the right" is just as much hack BS as the way the righties are always screaming that we're plunging headlong into socialism.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Now the catch. ANY crime committed that is traced back to a gun registered in your name....you are liable for the crime. If you committed it, criminal liability. If you didn't but were irresponsible in the storage of your gun...civil liability.

Ummm... no. Who defines irresponsibility? If my house is locked and someone breaks ina and steals my gun from under my bed is that being irresponsible on my part?

I think I'd draw the responsibility line at allowing my crack-head second cousin in-law to borrow my gun because he wants to talk to his ex-gf's new boyfriend...

Liberals want higher taxes - Do you know how stupid you sound when you try to make this argument? Liberals want zero taxes but aren't delusional enough to think that the highway fairway will magically appear and fix potholes. So there needs to be a minimal tax for that. We don't think that the Ghost of Generals Past will come and arm the military. There needs to be a tax for that. Get the point?

:laugh:

Then why do they keep raising taxes instead of cutting spending? You're only interested in providing basic services right? So why not get all your liberal friends to team up with all my conservative friends and we'll truly cut the budget down to 'basic' and save everyone a TON of money in taxes!

But... that'll never happen so there's always going to be a tax for "that" whatever "that" is. This gets back to your 'basic services' premise witch is false. Libs will never be happy with only providing basic services. They always have to go way past that point. (Case in point - you cited socialized medicine in your OP) And don't tell me about republicans... the republican party isn't conservative anymore.

Probably because the Cons keep Raising Spending with Borrowed Money. Someone has to do the responsible thing, it seems the Libs are the only one's willing.

Well... That doesn't really answer the second part of my question does it? I don't want this to turn into a R/D thing but the liberals have control of the purse strings right now and I don't see spending going down. I don't hear the two liberal candidates for president calling for less spending. I don't see congress producing a budget that is smaller than last year's. What I hear is we need to spend MORE. To be fair, that mantra is coming from both parties. Only the conservative minority in the Republican/Libertarian camps seem to call out for LESS spending.

My gripe is with the laughable contention that liberals only want to provide basic services and would be happy to have a country with no tax. That's just complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Vic
A quick note on something I saw in the thread... employers don't provide health insurance because of it's a basic right or service. The purely American tradition came about around WWII as a way for private industry to compete against the unions (many of who were providing their members with health insurance), and because of FDR-era legislation making it a non-taxable form of compensation. No other reason really. Take away those incentives and your employer would stop paying for your health coverage the very next day.

Health insurance is a benefit. If an employer stopped paying health insurance they'd have a flood of employees leaving for a company that does. I left my previous employer because the benefits were garbage.

Ahem. Please read my posts before responding to them. Thanks.

Are you saying all non-union employers would suddenly stop providing health benefits? Doubt it.

Edit: Further reading has been much more entertaining. Excuse my post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic
The middle ground in this particular argument is obvious. Both taxes and government spending need to be kept in check and balance with each other.

They would naturally serve as checks and balances on each other if we outlawed (or made it very, very hard to pass) deficit spending. As long as politicians continue to promise high levels of gov't benefits and low levels of taxes (via deficit spending), we'll continue on the fatal course we're on. And I have absolutely no faith either party or any particular branch of gov't can or will fix it. It's time for a Constitutional Amendment on the issue.

I would suspect that an 'absolute' position of deficite spending might not be a good idea either.

Sometimes you need to borrow. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as it is sometimes.

I need to read what I write a bit more closely. I was saying what you are. I intended to say that I suspect an absolute rule that you never borrow would not be a good idea.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
^ I'm not even going to address that generalizing pile of extremist paranoid BS except to say, once again, liberals != leftists.

And it just happens to be a sad reality that, like neocons over real conservatives, leftists tend to be more vocal than true liberals. But should I judge each and every conservative based on George Bush and Rush Blowhard?

edit: referring to Jaskalas's post

I told you, Jackalas, you need to see a doctor.