Liberals and conservatives....

What are you, an apprentice smart-ass? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Who said anything about "apprentice???"

I've been taking notes.

My personal opinion is that liberalism is founded in theories and driven by emotions.
this explains why academia is so very liberal. They believe that their theories on all things human seem can cure all of societies ills. Unfortunately none of them have any real life experiences to season their theories with. So the end result is a great solution to any particular problem , that does not and can not work. Health care, for example. And the emotion that drives liberals blinds them to reality, giving them the ability to exist in that "universe of lies" , to borrow a phrase.
Conservatives , on the other hand , live and work in the real world and have to base their decisions on the reality of circumstance , instead of a liberals imaginary reality of how things SHOULD be. We have to deal with things as they are. Now I realize that this is an over-simplification of the subject, but its good enough for here and now. Thanks for the forum. paladin55

No surprises here.

My personal opinion is that liberalism is founded in theories and driven by emotions.
this explains why academia is so very liberal. They believe that their theories on all things human seem can cure all of societies ills. Unfortunately none of them have any real life experiences to season their theories with. So the end result is a great solution to any particular problem , that does not and can not work. Health care, for example. And the emotion that drives liberals blinds them to reality, giving them the ability to exist in that "universe of lies" , to borrow a phrase.
Conservatives , on the other hand , live and work in the real world and have to base their decisions on the reality of circumstance , instead of a liberals imaginary reality of how things SHOULD be. We have to deal with things as they are. Now I realize that this is an over-simplification of the subject, but its good enough for here and now. Thanks for the forum. paladin55 Originally Posted by paladin55

BUNK!!! To divide all persons into two groups and denigrate one of those groups is asinine to the nth degree. To take the position that all liberals don't operate in reality and are charged with emotions shows very shallow thinking. Furthermore, to say all conservatives are realists (and by extension, unemotional) is also very shallow thinking.

Complex political issues cannot be divided so easily. And people don't always fall into liberal/conservative spectrums. And to say that conservatives are always right and liberals are always wrong shows a really juvenile approach to politics.

Some people who are conservative in some things are liberal in others, while some people who are liberal in some things are conservative in others. Even Dick Cheney, who has been very critical of the Obama administration, has said that Obama's continuing forceful offense of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is the correct approach.

You need to think out your statement more fully and come to a more mature position. You just can't put everyone in a box, no matter how you might want to.

draw.png

pcgraphpng.png

Now I wish that Libertarian actually meant what the definition of Libertarian is.

The problem is we have nutjobs out there like Alex Jones claiming to be libertarians. And then you have the Tea Baggers who are claiming to be Libertarians. I would not be suprised if in a few years people like Joe The Plumber and Sarah Palin come out and say they have become Libertarians and will run for public office AS Libertarians.

Libertarian has become a word used for the cast offs from the Republican party who are hanging on to the old ways and feel their whole way of life is completely ruined because Obama is president. These Libertarians have become anti-intellectual and are taking votes from both of the Big Parties. Where centrist Republicans like John McCain and Rudolph Giulianni were moving the party more in a sensible direction and I would have voted for either of them for president. (well McCain lost my vote when he added Palin to the ticket.)

I would LOVE to have a third, fourth, even fifth party in the US, and hopefully one day it will happen. The problem is we have a political infrastructure that is set up to favor a two party system, and those two parties like it that way. Our governmental system is designed to be slow moving. The parties like having the same tired old debate back and forth. That is why we confuse Liberal with Democrat, and Conservative with Republican.

I would love to see the Republican Party of Lincoln again. Or the Democratic Party of Kennedy. But those days are long gone. We are instead stuck with the Gambinos and the Sopranos. Two Mafia families with different last names, but the racket is basically the same.

Not unexpected.

Where centrist Republicans like John McCain and Rudolph Giulianni were moving the party more in a sensible direction and I would have voted for either of them for president.

Oh, say it isn't so, Sacker. This gives me sadface.

McCain is an idiot and a RINO. Remember the hazing he took for a public rally he gave in his home state? He was addressing some locals on why they were being silly to oppose illegal immigration. To illustrate his point, he asked them, "Hey, would YOU take a job picking lettuce for $50 an hour?" Much to his surprise, the vast majority of the plebes thought $50 an hour was a lot of money. I think his heart's in the right place, only his common sense took a vacation to Brazil and just sends occasional post cards home.

And Rudy. Bless his pea-pickin' lil heart. Russell Harding, Richard Roberts and Judith something. Or, respectively, child pornography, graft and the trophy mistress. Didn't he move her into the governor's mansion after using a press conference to inform his wife the marriage was over? Tasteful. Kerik was probably not his problem, but recommending him for a presidential advisor doesn't inspire faith in Rudy's intelligence. Frankly, I wouldn't offer the man a position in charge of a chicken coop. He seems determined to plumb the depths of the Bad Career Politician stereotype.

The rest of your post I found spot-on, though. Pretty succinct analysis of what's wrong with the system.

Oh, say it isn't so, Sacker. This gives me sadface.

McCain is an idiot and a RINO. Remember the hazing he took for a public rally he gave in his home state? He was addressing some locals on why they were being silly to oppose illegal immigration. To illustrate his point, he asked them, "Hey, would YOU take a job picking lettuce for $50 an hour?" Much to his surprise, the vast majority of the plebes thought $50 an hour was a lot of money. I think his heart's in the right place, only his common sense took a vacation to Brazil and just sends occasional post cards home.

And Rudy. Bless his pea-pickin' lil heart. Russell Harding, Richard Roberts and Judith something. Or, respectively, child pornography, graft and the trophy mistress. Didn't he move her into the governor's mansion after using a press conference to inform his wife the marriage was over? Tasteful. Kerik was probably not his problem, but recommending him for a presidential advisor doesn't inspire faith in Rudy's intelligence. Frankly, I wouldn't offer the man a position in charge of a chicken coop. He seems determined to plumb the depths of the Bad Career Politician stereotype.

The rest of your post I found spot-on, though. Pretty succinct analysis of what's wrong with the system. Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

Hurrah! Someone who knows and speaks politics. I gotta admit you have me thinking about the comment I made.

Specifically I like Giulianni for his leadership and his ability to get the crime situation under control in NYC. I am a huge believer that what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, so his affairs mean little to me. Child porn? Well that's news to me.

As far as McCain, well I did like him, and like I said before the polarizing decision to ad Palin to the ticket I WOULD have voted for him if say Hillary Clinton had been the nominee for the Dems. McCain showed his true self while on the campaign trail.

But his voting record up until he decided to be a hard liner was pretty good. He was a guy who would reach across the aisle, and that is still what we need.

As far as his policies, well there were none. In the debates he seemed overwhelmed and disorganized, and that is why I and many many many others voted for Obama. Like him or not Obama had plans and goals. Now is he achieving them? Well that is a very different thread indeed.

As a porcupine Libertarian, I will say the same thing is wrong with both groups. Both groups contain elements that want to legislate, "their way," onto all.
+
The liberal/socialists want to redistribute assets to enforce their view of charity, calling it "social justice."

Meanwhile the conservative/religious zealots want to control every one's bodies and actions to enforce their view of virtue, calling it "patriotism."

A pox on both their houses, the key is a government just barely big enough to do what it was meant to do, and not big enough to do either what the liberals or the conservatives what it to do.

The political spectrum is a circle or sphere, never a straight line.

Regards, Originally Posted by Iaintliein

I happen to agree with Iaintliein on the highlighted items. I think both parties are seriously messed up such that they all need to go and the quicker the better for this country! Now what I do not agree with is that a conservative is a religious zealot since I am conservative but by no stretch of the imagination am I a religious zealot. Those people are really damn dangerous to all who don't think like they do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting tests and my results are such that I question the long test by a great amount.

The first seems about right.
Attachment 3217

While this one I have serious questions about.
Attachment 3218

And I will ad one more morsel. Probably the biggest problem with the perceptions and understanding of the platforms and ideologies of these parties is how the media does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to clarify anything. It seems the media is just out to stir the pot.

Rupert Murdoch AND Ted Turner are media moguls who know exactly how to spin information in the direction of their target audiences, and keep the ad revenue rolling in.

Hurrah! Someone who knows and speaks politics. I gotta admit you have me thinking about the comment I made. Originally Posted by rekcaSxT

It's my other job. Freelance writer specializing in political commentary and economics. (Probably self-explanatory as to why I'm escorting, eh wot? Writing is so much fun I'd do it for free, but something has to pay the bills.) I love politics. So many opportunities to expound on the foibles of those who think they're special snowflakes.

Specifically I like Giulianni for his leadership and his ability to get the crime situation under control in NYC. I am a huge believer that what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom, so his affairs mean little to me. Child porn? Well that's news to me.

I'm not sure about the crime thing. He took heavy fire, pardon the pun, for a PD run amok. In all fairness, I can't say the crime stats improving were anything Guiliani gets to beat his chest over but neither should he be solely to blame for the police department.

Clearly, bedroom behaviour is not on my personal list of deal-breakers. Being a tasteless jackass is, however. So is sensitivity to your constituents. Find me a politician who refuses to touch sexual scandals with a ten-foot pole, notifies his wife of her impending divorce through process servers and moves his mistress into a discreet condo where he spends a lot of down-time, and I'll say the fellow's penile escapades have nothing to do with his politics or voters. It would not be understating the case to say this does not describe Guiliani. (And is that how his name is spelled?) A Republican moving his mistress into the governor's mansion is openly telling his constituents, "Mamon mi la verga."

Google Harding. He did jail time.

As far as McCain, well I did like him, and like I said before the polarizing decision to ad Palin to the ticket I WOULD have voted for him if say Hillary Clinton had been the nominee for the Dems. McCain showed his true self while on the campaign trail.

But his voting record up until he decided to be a hard liner was pretty good. He was a guy who would reach across the aisle, and that is still what we need.

Say what you will about her, McCain's poll numbers showed Palin was the only reason his candidacy wasn't a total joke. Some adviser was remarkably astute when they put her on the short-list. If he had any common sense he wouldn't have needed Palin at all. Before some of his bigger blunders he could have swept an election on his own merit and that widespread crossing-the-aisle appeal.

As for me, he lost me at McCain-Feingold.

Like him or not Obama had plans and goals. Now is he achieving them? Well that is a very different thread indeed.

Isn't it just. Most of my writing earnings since Janurary 2009 have come from Obama articles.

And I will ad one more morsel. Probably the biggest problem with the perceptions and understanding of the platforms and ideologies of these parties is how the media does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to clarify anything. It seems the media is just out to stir the pot.

Rupert Murdoch AND Ted Turner are media moguls who know exactly how to spin information in the direction of their target audiences, and keep the ad revenue rolling in. Originally Posted by rekcaSxT

YES. YES, YES, YES.

I will never forgive them for what they did to Ron Paul.

We seem to have widely different opinions on the politicians themselves, but think alike on general political concepts. Interesting

Rudolph Giuliani

1 "n" you are correct.

And maybe Palin helped McCain in the polls, but I sure as hell was not going to vote for a ticket with her on it.

"Who is your favorite founding father"
Palin: "Well, um, uh, all of them"

"What do you think of the Bush doctrine"
Palin: "...... ..... .... In what respect?"

I can not believe she is still a public figure. If the goddam media would shut the fuck up about her, and ignore her entirely she would go away! She is the second biggest joke played on the American people in recent history. What do other countries think when they see this backwards ass yokel getting serious attention as a national politician?



And now she has a reality TV show? WTF?!

YES. YES, YES, YES.

I will never forgive them for what they did to Ron Paul.

We seem to have widely different opinions on the politicians themselves, but think alike on general political concepts. Interesting Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

We should be the politicians...