Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 5:16 am

As most of you know, I am not too keen on the Liberal movement. Consider the following:

They are for abortion......Yet they are against the death penalty. In other words, if someone goes out with an M-16 and massacres 100 people, we should 'counsel' them as opposed to killing them. But at the same time they are telling all the women of this country that it's ok to have all the abortions they want.

Also forget about chopping down trees or killing a squirrel. Yet they complain about the housing shortage. And they don't want to build anywhere lest a population of field mice be decimated or a tree turned into lumber.

They scream about pollution and the evils of drilling for oil. Yet every single Greenpeace bumber sticker I've ever seen was holding together an old clunker with terminal rust, bald tires, no muffler, and spewing more smoke than a straight pipe 707.

They complain about AIDS and STD's yet they give condoms to 12 year olds and never teach abstinence.

They don't believe in The Golden Rule from a religious standpoint nor that it has any effect on schools yet when I finished school, metal detectors weren't needed.

Gore wants to ban the internal combustion engine yet has no compunctions about touring the country in his 757 which has two very large internal combustion engines. I've seen him in his limousine more times than I can count but never on a bicycle.

These are just a few things....but something in the Liberal equation just doesn't add up.
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 5:42 am

Can anyone actually define, rationally and clearly, what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" actually mean without indulging in an emotivist rant or spewing empty, mindless rhetoric?

More often than not, it seems these are terms loosely thrown around with the intent of bashing anyone who does not agree with someone's ideology or point of view, or are used as an easy, simplistic scapegoat for deep seated complicated problems.

Is there anyone out there who is capable of having an intelligent discussion without having to indulge in stereotypes and mudslinging?

Charles
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
TWFirst
Posts: 5752
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 5:30 am

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 5:57 am

What I don't understand is why someone would want to repeatedly post the same topic material on this forum. The author of this thread has posted the above statements over and over. Is one to assume he didn't get enough satisfaction from the responses to these statements the last 100 times he made them? One must wonder.
An unexamined life isn't worth living.
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

TWFirst And CTBarnes

Fri Nov 10, 2000 6:24 am

It would seem that at least as of yesterday, you and I had taken a few steps towards reching some kind of common or middle ground. I'm not aiming to change that because contrary to what you may think, I try to be as open minded as I can. The purpose of the aforementioned post (which by the way was only the 84th time I've posted my contempt for the Liberals) was to point out some inconsistencies with some of their issues, and to hope that someone would expound, and not to be as dogmatic as I may or may not have been in the past. I did not make that post with any malicious intent whatsoever.

As for CTBarnes request, that one is not so easy to answer. There are definite EXTREMES of the type that personify the opposite ends of the spectrum.
An example of a far right (conservative) would have to be Pat Buchannan or Jesse Helms.
Examples of the far left (liberal) would be Dianne Feinstein or Gray Davis or Jesse Jackson.
The problem is the middle ground, wherein lies 80% of the population. Here we enter a truly nebulous area that isn't so cut and dry.
There are exceptions, but here is a very basic guidleline. I'm sure someone will dispute part or all of it, nevertheles, here goes:

Usually, but not always

Liberals:

Ethnic minorities
No college degree
College degree in technology and arts/language
Blue collar/union job (construction, manufacturing, etc)
Under $30K year salary
Seniors dependant on Social Security
Homosexuals
Atheists
Career women
Anyone that considers partying more important than eaning a living
Artists
Homeowners in middle and lower class neighborhoods
Some teachers/professors

Conservatives:
White males
Farmers
Military/fire/police personnel
Housewives/married women (domestic engineers)
College graduates in Business related fields
>$50K annual salary
Homeowners in middle and upscale neighborhoods
Professional/management careers
Some teachers/professors
Dedicated religious people
Truck drivers
Landowners
Anyone for whom marriage and family is more important thn single life



 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 7:14 am

Matt, I think you're correct there are no cut and dry categories (despite the fact we throw them around as if they were). There are indeed extremists as you point out, however the categories you list are very wide of the mark:

I am a 39 year old white male
I am educated to a Master's level in a business-related field
I am working on a second Masters in Philosopy and will eventually be studying Theology
I have worked in management
I am a vowed Catholic religious (Dedicated religious people)
I make less than 30K a year
I live in a lower-middle class neighborhood

This assessment however does not chide at all with my religious/political views.

I just don't think we can make those kind of generalizations about groups of people. Moreover, the fact we do with abandon means we see the stereotype, not the person, and that is my objection (and my pet peeve).

Charles
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 7:38 am

I don't disagree with you one iota. As I stated, my "stereotyping" (for lack of a better word) was not meant to be all inclusive; I stated that there would be and are exceptions to the examples given. I don't usually like to paint with that wide a brush, but given what I've seen, I really don't think I'm too far off the mark.
And you are absolutely right. We need to focus on the individuals as they are, not make blanket judgements in one fell swoop.
Unfortunately that is just human nature. I've been guilty of it at some points in my life. And if all of you were honest with yourselves, you'd be guilty just the same.
Somehow with the increasing diversity in our culture with respect to values, beliefs and cultures, we NEED to ALL reach some kind of middle ground and understanding whether we want to or not. Otherwise it's only going to get worse and worse. That means I have to make a conscientious effort. That means YOU have to do likewise.
That goes for all of us Conservatives such as myself and for you Liberals as well. It can't be a one sided concesssion.
 
Guest

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 7:40 am

So Matty,

I see your back and thumping your old thunderheaded views. I'll grant you one thing, you are reasonably consistent, but watch out, there are a few others out there that have "exactly" the same views and will give you a run for your money.

mb (*grin*)
 
lax2000
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 9:12 am

RE: TWFirst And CTBarnes

Fri Nov 10, 2000 7:40 am

I took the Liberal test.

Ethnic minorities: no

No college degree: Some Art Scool

College degree in technology and arts/language: No

Blue collar/union job (construction, manufacturing, etc):No

Under $30K year salary: almost 30k

Seniors dependant on Social Security: No

Homosexuals: Not really

Atheists: Jewish, but not religious

Career women: No

Anyone that considers partying more important than eaning a living: If partying means living life to the fullest, then Yes!

Artists: Yes

Homeowners in middle and lower class neighborhoods: Yes, Beautiful Glassel Park

Some teachers/professors: Both of my parents LAUSD
 
Guest

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 8:01 am

Can I take the Liberal test, please???

mb
 
CPDC10-30
Posts: 4681
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 4:30 pm

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 9:34 am

Matt, you are wrong on on major count. I don't think many "liberals" support counselling for mass murderers (or any murderer for that matter). We support life imprisonment, which is what many on the death row fear.

I have no idea what the Golden rule is. And no, when I finished high school two years ago, there were no metal detectors installed in any school in the country (I still don't think there are any).

About the voting stats and who you expect voted for each party...your results are mixed according to exit polls. Yes, homosexuals are mostly democratic but that should be obvious. In terms of religion, the only support Bush has was from Protestant Christians. All other groups favoured Gore.
In terms of income, lower-income voters favoured Gore and middle-class voters Bush. But, at the highest income levels, the candidates are almost dead even. 61 percent of Bush voters are gun owners (scary!!!). 15 percent of Bush voters believe he is too Liberal (ever scarier!!!).

Take a look for yourself at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
 
anzff
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri May 05, 2000 5:45 pm

RE: Let Me Get This Straight

Fri Nov 10, 2000 9:52 am

I took the liberal test too and couldn't help wondering why you bothered coming up with it:
I am not from an ethnic minority.
I have a college degree (a BA).
I am studying for my second degree: a professional one (law).
I do not have a blue collar job.
I do earn less than $30K pa.
I am not dependent on social security (i am inelgible).
I am not homosexual.
I am not an athiest (but rather a Lutheran).
I consider earning a living much more important that partying.
I am not an artist (not creative at all).
My family: homeowning (50acres in upper-middle suburb plus island holiday home). son of teacher and farmer.

Ok so who cares what I am under your test - but if you knew people would sidupte all of it why did you bother? Why not just accept that between the ends of the spectrum there is a great big grey area that cannot be defined and in your original post rather than accepting this you took each end of the spectrum and juxtaposed them:

counsel mass-murderer allow unlimited free abortions
lock up murderers and throw away the key
and restrict abortions to early term and/or
where life of mother in danger

can't chop down tree/kill squirrel no housing
develop responsibly and sustainably,
not destroying old-growth forest/
endangered species but accepting some damage

complain about STDs/AIDS give condoms to 12yos
accept that teenagers will have sex whether
their parents discourage it or not (probably
more so if parents discorouge as it gives
them a chance to rebel!) so accept it and prevent the need to consider an abortion later on

Now compromises like that will offend each end of the spectrum but 80% of the 80% in the middle will probably agree. So why the hell bother trying to categorise and trying to ask people to reconcile different ends of the spectrum.
If you're so keen on acceptance of these differences in opinions why do you keep trying to get people to reconcile the differences you don't like or understand?

>They don't believe in The Golden Rule from a religious standpoint nor that it >has any effect on schools yet when I finished school, metal detectors weren't >needed.

What's wrong with not beliiving int he golden rule on a religious basis? The golden rule is a basic principle not exclusive to Christianity but common to all major religions, and also common to atheistic humanism - so almost everyone accepts it (by virtue of religion or not). But that doesn't result in the need to metal detectors in schools - that results from far-right crazies who demand the right to keep powerful weaponry and carry concealed guns. Tightening gun laws would not eliminate the problem over night but it would reduce it long-term by reducing the number of guns available, making them more expensive and restricting access to sporting shooters and sensible weapons for self-defence (if you need a gun to protect your home you do not need a sub-machine gun!).
The US school shootings are the result of the far-right not the left.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KLAM, seb146, vikkyvik, YokoTsuno and 9 guests