Misconceptions about liberals and conservatives

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
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.

I assume he meant that while nobody likes to pay taxes, liberals feel that there are certain things which are worth paying taxes for, in order to improve the safety and quality of life for the population in general (things cost money). Of course, what defines "basic services" is a matter of opinion.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 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.

The second part doesn't really matter when it comes to the issue of Responsibility. The important thing is: Whatever you choose to do, only do it if you are willing to Pay for it. Whether it's Defense only or Cable TV for all is rather moot.

 

[venkman]

Myth: Republicans want to bankrupt the country by running up ridiculous deficits year in and year out.
Fact: Republicans have always been about less tax and less government spending. Just because the every year for the last ~18 years of Republican presidency have resulted in a deficit, doesn't mean that this isn't true.

Myth: Old People Love The neo-cons
Fact: Old People Love neo-cons because they completely screw young people to cater to the older demographic. I look forward to my 2031 tax return paying for a bomb dropped in Iraq this morning plus interest and quadruple the SS tax of today (discounted for inflation of course).

Sigh.....Where have all the real Republicans gone?

 

[REEE]

This thread essentially turned into a "Liberals want to steal your money, liberals commit treason, America is a Christian nation" thread.

 

[MadRat]

My impression is if you said you were conservative over in Europe someone would give you a good swift kick in the balls because over there that is a bad thing. Shame, shame. Back in the 70's all the children were indoctrinated into Liberalism devoid of Communism. It wasn't until the first Bush era that people seemed to lockstep Liberal with Leftist and Libertarian with Homosexuals. To think people had it all wrong for thousands of years...

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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?

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
3. Liberals want higher taxes - Do you know how stupid you sound when you try to make this argument?

4. Liberals hate the military - Another stupid supposition. Try to remember that.

5. Liberals want to grab your guns - Puh-lease.

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

Sounds like you are more trying to pick a fight and talk down to thos who dont see it your way, rather than "trying to reach some common ground"

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
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?

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
3. Liberals want higher taxes - Do you know how stupid you sound when you try to make this argument?

4. Liberals hate the military - Another stupid supposition. Try to remember that.

5. Liberals want to grab your guns - Puh-lease.

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

Sounds like you are more trying to pick a fight and talk down to thos who dont see it your way, rather than "trying to reach some common ground"

Like Ratt.....I'm back for more.

Not trying to pick a fight at all. I am trying to end ridiculous viewpoints that are thrown about as fact about liberals and have also invited conservatives to do the same because there are certainly liberals that do the same in reverse. Here's an example:

Conservatives hate gays - while this might hold true for some of the ultra right or be a talking point amongst the fundamental sects, conservatives as a larger group are willing to accept people for who they are. Cheney has a gay daughter that he apparently loves very much is an example.

This is what I am talking about. Just as the points I made in the OP have some validity among members of the left or amongst some liberals, the brush is being used to paint ALL liberals or leftists as such. I'm not stupid, blind or partisan enough to not admit that the stereotypes came about because there was some truth to them. But that doesn't change the fact that they are used too loosely and too freely against all.

We need to get off of the third rail issues and get back on track with discussing the problems that are truly affecting us all and reach some common ground, common sense agreements on how to solve them.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: 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.

No, offense, Vic. You are just flat wrong

 

[EXman]

That they are arguementative know it all over educated types that are NEVER wrong so we should take this a gospel. :roll:

Oboma just said the other day he want to take our monies and make it "MORE FAIR?"
Dood is a marxist. Hung out with marxist in college and FAIRNESS rubbed off on him. Guy Owns no stock, has no retirement. WHY?

Clinton wants to tell you where you put your reitrement and take your money for CRAPPY Universal health care and if you don't they will arrest you. She is a Known Military hater. Many Military in the White house during the Clinton years said she treated them poorly if not rudely. Clinton health care = SOCIALISM.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: EXman
That they are arguementative know it all over educated types that are NEVER wrong so we should take this a gospel. :roll:

Oboma just said the other day he want to take our monies and make it "MORE FAIR?"
Dood is a marxist. Hung out with marxist in college and FAIRNESS rubbed off on him. Guy Owns no stock, has no retirement. WHY?

Clinton wants to tell you where you put your reitrement and take your money for CRAPPY Universal health care and if you don't they will arrest you. She is a Known Military hater. Many Military in the White house during the Clinton years said she treated them poorly if not rudely. Clinton health care = SOCIALISM.

Well if it's any consolation, nobody is going to mistake you for an "over educated type". "Dood is a marxist"...it's like the Lincoln-Douglas debates around here.

Edit: Also, it's possible my sarcasm detector needs new batteries...it's just hard to tell sometimes...

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: EXman
That they are arguementative know it all over educated types that are NEVER wrong so we should take this a gospel. :roll:

Oboma just said the other day he want to take our monies and make it "MORE FAIR?"
Dood is a marxist. Hung out with marxist in college and FAIRNESS rubbed off on him. Guy Owns no stock, has no retirement. WHY?

Clinton wants to tell you where you put your reitrement and take your money for CRAPPY Universal health care and if you don't they will arrest you. She is a Known Military hater. Many Military in the White house during the Clinton years said she treated them poorly if not rudely. Clinton health care = SOCIALISM.

Well if it's any consolation, nobody is going to mistake you for an "over educated type". "Dood is a marxist"...it's like the Lincoln-Douglas debates around here.

Edit: Also, it's possible my sarcasm detector needs new batteries...it's just hard to tell sometimes...

I got mah skoolin!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 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.

As you well know Vic, the extreme right and extreme left are nearly indistinguishable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: 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.

No, offense, Vic. You are just flat wrong

Ok, then you should have no problem proving your assertion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: 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.

No, offense, Vic. You are just flat wrong

Ok, then you should have no problem proving your assertion.

I find the question interesting and don't know who is right, but the first thing I thought when I read your statement, Vic, was if you yourself had proof. And couldn't it be some of both?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: 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.

No, offense, Vic. You are just flat wrong

Ok, then you should have no problem proving your assertion.

I find the question interesting and don't know who is right, but the first thing I thought when I read your statement, Vic, was if you yourself had proof. And couldn't it be some of both?

I think Vic is right look at who is running the show although splintered

Dems- Howard "the scream" Dean and 2 Dems that are considered the two most liberal voting in the senate running for POTUS Although Obama and Clinton people seem to really not like each other and that is causing a divide. Clinton vs Soros? Soros=terrorist in my book.

Republicans- George Bush then the Rush Hannity Lavin gang. Two seperate but opposite groups here. Although Bush will have little influence once he leaves office I think.
On problem though John McCain is easliy the most senter of all 3 candidates. He rather cross party lines than work with most republicans. I hate that he is the candidate. He stands for almost nothing to me.

As you can tell I probably will not be voting for a Pres this next election cycle? Well maybe a constitutionalist party or Libertarian party? NO NOT RON PAUL! not a Presidential bone in his body.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I find the question interesting and don't know who is right, but the first thing I thought when I read your statement, Vic, was if you yourself had proof. And couldn't it be some of both?

Well, I think it is some of both. Which is what I already implied.

From a purely economic and paleo-leftist standpoint, one could argue that the American "center" has moved to the right. The power of the old labor unions has declined as the American workforce has become increasingly white collar. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Unions were only good because they helped protect workers from abusive megacorps. They come with their own problems though in that they are hierarchical, authoritarian, and prone to corruption. So as long as middle America can make money without the unions, they will do so. If that changes, they will go back to them.

From a social viewpoint, the American "center" has unquestionably moved to the liberal. That's not even debatable IMO. And please don't bring up the Fundie right -- powerful as they still are, their power has actually waned in recent decades. Abortions, homosexuality, and saying "pregnant" on TV used to illegal, remember? We have a ways to go still, but ironically some of the biggest challenges to further social liberalization in America now come from the nanny-state zeal of Authoritarian left.