Excellent Article, and a needed one too, for both sides - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

archer2371 · 12-19-2004, 08:26 PM

Link for Article

And the article.

Quote:

Beliefnet.com
On Belief
Steven Waldman

Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

Why Can't Liberals and Conservatives Get Along? Because They Fundamentally Misunderstand Each Other

I was waiting to go on a conservative talk radio show and heard the host say that John Kerry and his supporters "have no God" because they don’t stand up to evil. He went on to claim that "even the mention of God terrifies them." As for religious people who go to church regularly but vote Democratic, he said, "I see them as sort of phonies."

Then I came on, and his question to me was, "Why do secular people think we're all a bunch of intolerant people?"

I’ve heard similarly clueless statements from liberals who simultaneously talk about the need for fairness then compare the Bush administration to the Taliban or the Nazis.

I’m not going to attempt to bring peace to the land right now but thought it might be worthwhile to sketch the top ways that liberals misunderstand well-meaning religious conservatives, and vice versa.

TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #1
They're Just As Moral As Conservatives

We've seen a wave of commentary suggesting that George W. Bush's re-election was a victory of people who cared about morality over those who didn't. "As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions," writes Mike Thompson, in Human Events Online. Columnist Ben Giles spelled out liberal depravity with greater specificity. "I'm sure the Kerry cabal has a lot to say regarding...conducting an orgy, the preeminent natural herb for curbing the side effects of herpes, how to pick out the right stripper and midget for a ménage à trois, how to redistribute someone else's wealth to pimps, whores and welfare brats, how to rid one's nation of Judeo-Christian ethics..."

The idea that this was a victory for people who care about morality over those who don’t is galling to liberals because, for many of them, the number one issue in this election was Iraq -- and their opposition to the incumbent administration was almost entirely grounded in moral concerns. It’s not like liberals objected because their own family members were dying. Rather, they believe that launching any war unless absolutely justified is profoundly immoral, a position also articulated by the Pope. One can disagree, but I would love the opportunity to watch Anne Coulter tell the Pope his opposition to the war isn't based on morality. Liberals also believe that a morally indefensible policy was sold dishonestly – a gross moral breach compounded by another.

Conservatives ask why the opposition to Bush seems hateful. The answer: liberals believe that what Bush did is worse than what other presidents, Democratic or Republican, have done because it involves the unnecessary and therefore immoral shedding of human blood.

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #1
They're Just As Smart As Liberals

Liberals tend to view people who take the Bible very seriously as yokels opposed to science, knowledge and thinking. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said the Bush administration is about "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge." Novelist Jane Smiley declared the election a triumph for the forces of "ignorance." Privately, liberals friends have told me that Bush voters are "morons," "idiots" and "peanut heads." The idea that red state voters chose Bush because they’re ignorant or uneducated is bigoted, not to mention inaccurate. The least educated voters, people with no high school diploma favored Kerry 50%-49%.

Conversely, most people who are highly educated are quite religious too: 72% percent of people with post-graduate degrees believed in miracles and 78% percent believe in the survival of the soul after death. Liberals can’t mock religious people as dumb when they disagree with them but hail their wisdom when they're liberals like Jimmy Carter. This intellectual snobbery is a major reason why religious conservatives distrust liberal elites.

TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #2
Most Are Religious

A conventional wisdom has developed that almost all religious people voted for Bush and most people who voted for Kerry were secular or anti-Christian. The Republican Party sent out brochures in West Virginia and Kentucky saying liberals wanted to ban the Bible, Dr. James Dobson recently called a liberal senator a "Gods' people hater" and Republican convention keynoter Zell Miller’s said of columnist Maureen Dowd, “You can see horns just sprouting up through that Technicolor hair."

However, not only are liberals not, by and large, Satanic or anti-Bible, they’re mostly quite religious. Voters who went to church monthly split 50%-49% for Bush and Kerry. Those who go to church "occasionally” went for Kerry 53%-47%, while people who attend church weekly went for Bush 58%-41%. More important, 61% of Democrats pray daily, 59% are "certain" there’s life after death, and most believe in God. The spiritual lives of Democrats are, statistically speaking, somewhat less based in houses of worship than those of Republicans but they are believers nonetheless.

When Democrats hear conservatives accuse them of being anti-religion it sounds like what they’re really saying is that Democrats don't practice the right kind of religion -- that they are, as my talk radio friend put it, "a bunch of phonies." This is a direct attack on the nature of liberals’ relationship with God or spirituality.

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #2
They Don't Want a Religious Dictatorship

Liberal columnist E.R. Shipp said conservatives wanted a "Christian Jihad." The Village Voice declared Bush had a "mandate for theocracy." Others have compared the current administration to the Taliban. This is profoundly insulting to most conservative Republicans in the same way it is insulting to liberals when they are called Communists or defenders of terrorism. Yes, religious conservatives want a greater role in public life -- perhaps more than liberals want or the Constitution allows -- but President Bush's faith based initiative is highly pluralistic and he has spoken out for religious tolerance. Equating him or his supporters with regimes that execute dissidents or blow up buildings is heinous.

TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #3
They Believe History Is On the Side of Tolerance

Conservatives contend that liberals believe in moral relativism, and, to be sure, there is a tendency for liberals to avoid accusing people of moral wrongdoing. Conservatives say this proves liberals are immoral or amoral. In fact, what’s happened is that liberals have elevated "tolerance" as the value that trumps many others, an essential and ethical way of coping with life in an increasingly diverse nation. Most liberals who support gay partnership rights are not themselves homosexual but believe in the right of people to determine their own lives. Conservatives appropriately argue that it's OK to be intolerant of some things -- even liberals wouldn't tolerate, say, murder. But that means the debate is really over how to weigh one value (tolerance) over another value (traditional family) -- not over whether one side cares about values and the other doesn't.

There’s something else that needs to be said. Liberals believe that historically red state conservatives were on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle (first as conservative Democrats and then as Republicans) and that they opposed much of the campaign for equal rights for women that enabled Condoleezza Rice to be National Security Advisor and Sandra Day O'Connor to be on the Supreme Court. So when conservatives oppose gay rights, liberals see history repeating itself. To grossly caricature both sides, liberals may have been wrong about the Soviet Union but conservatives were wrong about civil rights and women's rights. Liberals look at gay marriage opponents and say, to paraphrase Reagan, there they go again.

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #3
The Pro-Life Position Is Born of Compassion

Liberals tend to think that right to life activists are motivated by a desire to control women's bodies or sex lives, and to impose a religious doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not, the heart of the pro-life position is the belief that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder. Liberals who don't share that the foundational assumption have a hard time understanding the passion of pro-life voters. Yet they easily admire the radical abolitionists of the 1860s -- who were as "rabid" and doctrinaire in their opposition to slavery as pro-lifers are today. Liberals should ask themselves, if they honestly believed that life began at conception, wouldn't they do exactly what the pro-life forces do?

Liberals sometimes claim that the anti-abortion movement is actually a religious movement aspiring to impose a particular theology. In fact, the anti-abortion side has tended in recent years to make secular arguments. They offer pictures of fetuses at different gestational ages, not Bible verses. You can say it's ghoulish but that approach – having values shaped by religion but making arguments in non-religious terms – is exactly the way faith should be inserted into the public debates.

TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #4
Most Support Separation of Church and State to Protect Religion

There is indeed an outspoken group of secular liberals who oppose any manifestation of religion in the public sphere because they are suspicious of religion in general, and their views are Constitutionally protected. But most liberals (and many conservatives) fret about the separation of church and state because they want to protect the free expression of religious views. Conservatives might scoff at this as an over-reaction, and perhaps it is, but for most liberals it's a view born out of a love of religious freedom.

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #4
They Feel Under Assault

With conservatives controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court -- and Christians accounting for 83% of the population -- it's hard for liberals to understand how conservative Christians can feel persecuted or under attack. But religious conservatives look at this way: they have clear beliefs about what is right or wrong. They think homosexuality is wrong, for instance. They turn on the TV and see it treated as morally okeedoke, and there's nothing they can do about it. They may have the numbers but they nonetheless feel powerless against a popular culture that doesn't seem to share their values, and in the face of aggressive judges who impose their will over the objections of state legislatures.

TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #5
Family Values Are Revered

Telling someone they are against "family values" is not far from telling them they’re bad parents. Most liberal parents (like most conservatives) spend most of their days thinking not about politics but about how to raise good kids. It’s probably not worthwhile to try to figure out who is better at it but these statistics ought to at least pour cold water on conservative self righteousness on this point: of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates, ten of them voted for Bush. Of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates, 9 of them voted for Kerry. And the state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation? Massachusetts.

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #5
They Believe American Culture Has Become An Insult to God

Liberals look at the fervor of the anti-gay marriage movement and wonder: why do they care so much? Are they just obsessed with sex? What that fails to understand is that for many religious conservatives the stakes could not possibly be higher. They believe that in condoning legalized abortion or gay unions or even out of wedlock heterosexual sex, America is messing with morality as outlined in the Bible and so attacking God. As anyone who takes the Old Testament seriously knows, the consequences of that could not be more enormous.

On both sides, discourse now moves swiftly from disagreement into demonizing, from contrast to caricature. The worst motives are always assumed. Both camps have polemicists who win popularity, ratings, and book sales by devising ever more clever ways of ripping the eyelids off their opponents. We all know the visceral satisfactions of hanging out with our home-team blogs and watching the TV or radio stations that fit our worldview. Our politicians and pundits happily supply us with the voodoo dolls and the pins. But we'd be smarter not to use them.

I’m not saying the conflicting values aren’t profound and important. But I am saying that if we choose to find the legitimate underpinnings of our ideological opponents' arguments, we can. It may not be as much fun, but it is more patriotic.

Edit: CRAP!! Forgot my commentary...

After reading through some of the sparring matches in other threads, most notably Lebell's "Why the Left Has Lost Credibility" I remembered this article I read a couple weeks back. I think this is one of the best writings on politics and both sides of the aisle in a long time and it makes an effort to point out the other side's point and why they feel that way. I think it goes without saying that I completely agree with this article, because, while I am conservative, I am also pragmatic and I don't decry liberals as evil satanists that want to destroy everything. Liberals and conservatives have the best interests of the country in mind, there's just a disagreeance on how to implement the interests of the country. I can't really say too much more than what has been said above, because I do believe that this guy has hit the nail on the head.

Manx · 12-19-2004, 08:36 PM

What if I have previously understood the conservative mentality as described in this article but I still find it to be completely unjustified?

I guess I'm shit out of luck.

Woulda been a lot cooler if I had just been mistaken this whole time.

Fourtyrulz · 12-20-2004, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Conversely, most people who are highly educated are quite religious too: 72% percent of people with post-graduate degrees believed in miracles and 78% percent believe in the survival of the soul after death.

Belief in miracles or survival of one's soul after death doesn't make you a follower of any certain religious dogma, it simply means you believe in a higher power and a soul. What's "quite religious" about that? I don't even see the point of these statistics.

Quote:

Those who go to church "occasionally” went for Kerry 53%-47%, while people who attend church weekly went for Bush 58%-41%. More important, 61% of Democrats pray daily, 59% are "certain" there’s life after death, and most believe in God.

Again pointless, going to church doesn't make you moral, it doesn't make you righteous, and it definitely shouldn't affect where you stand on the political spectrum. "Oooh Candidate B's voters claim to go to church more than Candidate A's, that's the candidate for me." Anyone who thinks church attendance or other church affiliated beliefs affect the morality and potential decision making ability of a candidate and it's voters should seriously rethink their political priorities.

Quote:

As anyone who takes the Old Testament seriously knows, the consequences of that could not be more enormous.

In my eyes, anyone who takes the ENTIRE Old Testament seriously should NOT be in a position of power in America, and anyone who only takes some of it seriously is a hypocrite. You can cut and paste your biblical beliefs all you want in the safety of your secular church, but don't do it and attempt to call it law.

How we even got in the position in America today where we need an article like this is beyond me, and truthfully...it is disgusting.

Tophat665 · 12-20-2004, 05:45 AM

I think I am with Manx on this one.

Understanding that opposition to abortion, for instance, is rooted in a belief that life begins at conception does not do anything for me but convince me that the people who hold that belief have something fundamentally wrong with their thought process, and, given that these people are often neo-pharisees (Which is how I tend to see religious legalists in any religion), I suspect that what is wrong with their thought process is their misunderstanding of the bible.

I guess it just galls me that people who call themselves Christians (and believe they are) seem to lend more credence to Leviticus than the gospels, and, to top that off, to still go out and play football and eat shellfish smacks of hypocracy, which is something JC was very down on indeed.

I really do appreciate the article, but understanding the other side believes it is right does not lessen my contempt. Rather the opposite.

archer2371 · 12-20-2004, 09:47 AM

Well gee, the next time I feel like trying to elevate political discourse and an understanding for each other, I'll just keep it to myself. But seriously folks, I don't see a reason to use blind partisan rhetoric as a way to debate the issues, it eventually just turns into a screaming match and insults like one I saw over in the Person of the Year thread about Texas coaches being inbred and how bad it was for Cal to lose the Rose Bowl bid and how the said inbreds also put Bush in office is really starting to disgust me and I thought this article would help in shedding some light on the issues. I myself have been known to resort to snide comments and I have been edited and warned on this board, and my earliest posts in this forum were rather vitriolic against Clinton for no reason and I've come to realize that. I have matured and I think I owe it a lot to this board because I've come into contact with so many different views in one place and it has given me an experience of moderating my language and develop an understanding and yes, even appreciation, for other people's opinions. Call me idealistic, but I was hoping that I could help others develop as I have from being a participant on this forum, that's all I really have to say.

Lebell · 12-20-2004, 10:19 AM

archer,

I think it was a good effort that should not be abandoned because not everyone appreciates it.

There will always be those in any discourse who choose to take the low road, but we should not let that dictate the road we ourselves choose.

FoolThemAll · 12-20-2004, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Understanding that opposition to abortion, for instance, is rooted in a belief that life begins at conception does not do anything for me but convince me that the people who hold that belief have something fundamentally wrong with their thought process, and, given that these people are often neo-pharisees (Which is how I tend to see religious legalists in any religion), I suspect that what is wrong with their thought process is their misunderstanding of the bible.

It's not so much a "belief" that life begins at conception as it is common knowledge. The life of a zygote, at any rate.

Now, if the question were whether human life begins at conception...then it gets much more interesting. Science can't tell us when it becomes human, science can only tell us when it becomes viable, or when twinning is no longer a possibility. It's a philosophical question, a question that even perfectly rational secularists can disagree upon.

But feel free to tout "it's just a bunch of cells" as the obviously correct answer. I mean, only ignorant religious folk getting their belief wholly from a misunderstanding of the bible would find such an answer unconvincing.

FoolThemAll · 12-20-2004, 10:35 AM

In response to the article...I believe that I agree with every part of it. Good article. I appreciated both sides of it, as there are (at least) a few individuals at my college who are fond of demonizing liberals.

roachboy · 12-20-2004, 10:35 AM

but there **are** problems with that article, as well-meaning as it seems to be.
for example, despite claims to the contrary, it does function to trivialize political differences, simple by assuming that religious discourse can function as a linking term, that everyone is really the same underneath it all---cant we just get along? as if the stakes of political debate can be reduced to simple differences of opinion that can be reconciled under the general rubric of "patriotism"....

i do not see the problem with debate between very different positions--it might not always be productive of some overarching consensus, but so what? discussion can be an end in itself, particularly in a pseudo-democracy like this one, where no degree of discussion can possibly translate into meaningful power for the people. and if the positions folk adopt are relatively hard, again so what? the problems come not in the type of political position, but in the way you react to conflict. for myself, i get annoyed at the self-referential world of conservative ideology primarily because i so rarely see a willingness on the part of folk who see the world through that frame to look at their own positions, to lay out the premises of their arguments: in short to engage in meaningful debate. but i also recognize (after a considerable period) that this could be a function of my relation to/assumptions about that discourse.
i find that i am sometimes surprised in this forum by how particular to myself these assumptions can be---and that surprise is the good part of procrastinating in my 3-dimensional life by posting here.

i also understand that i am hardly a saint when it comes to writing as though snippy--which is, in fact, rarely the case--debate is a chessgame, for the most part. that said, i am not interested in finding a middle ground with conservatives. i am interested in demolishing their positions whenever the chance presents itself. i find contemporary conservative discourse be be a dangerous thing. but at the same time, i know that my views are particular, that they sit on types of arguments and that the exposing of these arguments is an important part of discussion, that i am not necessarily right.

so i dont see the problem with debate.
i do see problems with attempts to make debate go away.

Willravel · 12-20-2004, 10:38 AM

I think it may be time to revisit what a conservative really is. Recently the trend of conservatives is to basically act liberal.
There are five ingredients necessary for conservatism. These are fundamentals:

-The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government. Particularly at the federal level. Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government. This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism.

-The second necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in national sovereignty and isolationism. Conservatives do not believe in foreign aid or foreign entanglements. They revere American sovereignty. Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference.

When Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US into the League of Nations, conservatives opposed him. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was aggressively lobbying to get the US into the Second World War, conservatives opposed him. Conservatives have scorned the UN. They are not practitioners of global military interventionism. Conservatives believe in defense of our national borders, not aggression---and real security based on not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Conservatives believe in "Fortress America"...not Pax Americana.

-The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law---beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution".

The only way a conservative would ever alter the Constitution would be by constitutional amendment. He would never seek to override it with power-grabbing legislation. The passage of the USA-Patriot Act--an Orwellian abomination, all the way down to its namesake--established pretty firmly just how many conservatives are left in Washington DC.

-A fourth necessary ingredient to conservatism is a belief in traditional values. It is here that politics over such things as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments come into play. However, traditional values, are, by their very nature, regressive. It is true that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, as commonly stated, but there is also Freedom of Worship, and a generalized restriction of government authority. Therefore no allowances exist for the federal government to dabble in the religion business one way or the other. Real conservatives, being strict constructionists, would protect the religious rights of the individual without exploiting Christianity for seizure of power.

-The fifth necessary ingredient to conservatism is adherence to principle. The stubborn instinct to stand firm on issues, rejecting political expediency, in other words. Conservatism cannot exist without an ideological backbone, because one of the most basic philosophies behind conservatism is preservation of tradition. Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles.

I get a little sick to my stomach when people mention Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, George Will, or a bunch of other people on Capitol Hill as conservative. Facism is not conservatism, capitolism is not conservatism (while it can compliment conservatism, it never overrides. The corporation is not more important than the Constitution), a theocracy is not conservatism, and neo-conservatism isn't conservatism.

Seaver · 12-20-2004, 10:40 AM

Quote:

What if I have previously understood the conservative mentality as described in this article but I still find it to be completely unjustified?

I guess I'm shit out of luck.

[QUOTE]

The point of this is not to make you justify either one's philosophy, but to understand it.

I'm very conservative on some points, but very progressive on others. I.E. I disagree with most liberal agendas, but I do believe that Gays should get civil unions.

I see WHY many people dont want gay marriage, but I dont agree with it. I see WHY some people argue for reparations, but I would never give into it.

The point is seeing where people come, hopefully so we see no more threads on how "Republicans are less educated than Democrats because.." or that "Liberals dont believe in family values", both of which I've seen on this board dozens of times.

Great article Archer, we did need this here

archer2371 · 12-20-2004, 10:47 AM

I'm not interested in making debate go away, I'm more interested in making sure debate doesn't turn into name-calling. Your post roachboy is excellent, and I see your points, but as a pragmatist as far as politics goes, I disagree with you. I don't see the total destruction of the left as an atainable or desirable goal, yes, I do work for a major conservative internet publication, but my goal for that is to present an argument against the left and let people decide for themselves. As a hopeful future politician, I see compromise as the ultimate in the bettering of the lives of Americans on most issues, however, that is me training myself to work towards that job, because you can't be a politician and not compromise.

roachboy · 12-20-2004, 10:59 AM

that's fine archer: it is good that there are folk out there who work toward this. maybe if the main discourse was different than it presently is, i would join you in that. but it isnt other than it is. sadly.

Lebell · 12-20-2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am not interested in finding a middle ground with conservatives. i am interested in demolishing their positions whenever the chance presents itself.

Serious question:

How is this position different than any other radical position, some of which you yourself have expressed anger against on this board?

What I mean is, how are they doing anything different than what you are doing, just with a different end-game in mind?

Rekna · 12-20-2004, 11:50 AM

Tollerence is what I try to live by. I am a very religious person and yet I fall to the left side of the center isle. I believe the new testment taught us to love eachother and especially our enemies. This means we must be tollerent of each others beliefs. This is why I oppose laws which limit what others can do/believe despite them going against what the bible teaches. Like abortion, I believe there are cases where a victem should not have to have the kid but I also believe that we need to minimize the abortions people have. I believe everyone should be able to believe what they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else adversely. I guess it is the tollerence that makes me a little liberal.

Manx · 12-20-2004, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

archer,

I think it was a good effort that should not be abandoned because not everyone appreciates it.

There will always be those in any discourse who choose to take the low road, but we should not let that dictate the road we ourselves choose.

Who exactly in the posts above yours and Archer's has taken the low road?

I sure as hell have not. That would leave one other post and I didn't read anything that could or should be considered the "low road" in that.

Archer - simply because I stated that I find the conservative mentality as defined in the article as unjustifiable does not mean I do not essentially agree (with some minor points here and there and maybe one major point) that it is the conservative mentality. I do not disagree with your article, it simply doesn't make me more pleased or feel more acceptance with conservatives is all. You don't honestly believe that there are words that exist that are going to make all political ideologies suddenly embrace others as equal, do you?

Manx · 12-20-2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The point of this is not to make you justify either one's philosophy, but to understand it.

Understanding is required for justification. I understand the conservative ideology in that I do not demonize conservatives (in general, potentially I will demonize a specific conservative if that is the only productive means of discourse). I understand it and I find it to be entirely wrong. The articles assumption is that much of the conflict is due to misunderstanding. In my case, that is not accurate. The conflict exists because I am entirely opposed to the actual mentality of a conservative.

powerclown · 12-20-2004, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that said, i am not interested in finding a middle ground with conservatives. i am interested in demolishing their positions whenever the chance presents itself. i find contemporary conservative discourse be be a dangerous thing.

What a curious comment....points for honesty, anyway...

sob · 12-20-2004, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

that said, i am not interested in finding a middle ground with conservatives. i am interested in demolishing their positions whenever the chance presents itself. i find contemporary conservative discourse be be a dangerous thing.:

I'm more tolerant than you. All I want is for liberals to leave me alone, and spend their OWN money in attempting to accomplish their goals.

Willravel · 12-20-2004, 04:00 PM

Maybe I wasen't clear enought before. Conservatives are against Bush. Beliefnet assumes that the "conservative" is the person who is the protestant pro war person who voted for Bush. That idea is absurd. I think it might be time for people to reexamine what party or label they belong to. If you voted for Bush, you are not conservative. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Obviously a lot of people support Bush in what he does. You are more than welcome to do so. But you are no longer a conservative. When this article say things like "With conservatives controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court ", I think "What?!". Republican does not equate to conservative. I'm sure there are conservative republicans, I know some, but the terms are NOT interchangable.

I am a conservative libertarian, for example. There are conservative green party members and conservative democrats (I'd guess a great number of democrats are conservative now). Please see above for what a conservative really is.

Aside from that error, the article means well and does point out the reasoning on subjects on both sides. I can certianally appreicate the effort to try to repair the gap.

Edit: I'm going to go ahead and start another thread on the "conservative" confusion.

roachboy · 12-20-2004, 04:36 PM

Quote:

How is this position different than any other radical position, some of which you yourself have expressed anger against on this board?

What I mean is, how are they doing anything different than what you are doing, just with a different end-game in mind?

well first off dont take that entirely out of context: the post was much more differentiated than that.

second i tried to be clear that, while this is my disposition, what matters as much or more is the discussion--which like i said surprises me fairly often--the requirement that i have (but usually have to suspend with conservatives) is that the premises of the argument be put up for debate in addition to the argument. if what you quoted was all i said, there is little doubt that i would not be here at all. i dont think anyone changes anyone's mind really on a message board.
given that, perhaps what i said was a bit hyperbolic.

third, the only time i remember being actually angry here is during the are you going to leave the country thread right after the election. there, i thought some conservatives were just simply being assholes. i had no problem with actual arguments.

and i see little problem with finding contemporary conservative ideology to be dangerous. it does not help its partisans see the world in any detail: it seems about the opposite. for all its talk about morality, it also blurs straight into support for an administration that systematic lied to the public about the reasons for war, etc etc,,,the list of problems can go on and on.

there are, however, people who occupy what i take to be that position, here and in 3-d world, whom i enjoy talking with--again, if i did not then i would not be here---and most of the time discussion is an end in itself.

but as for political compromise with the right? that is different from discussion, and for me there is little or no possibility of it. i think most conservatives are well-meaning folk who are wrong about almost every issue. they probably think about the same of me. i dont see much compromise from their side either.

Tophat665 · 12-20-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

It's not so much a "belief" that life begins at conception as it is common knowledge. The life of a zygote, at any rate.

Now, if the question were whether human life begins at conception...then it gets much more interesting. Science can't tell us when it becomes human, science can only tell us when it becomes viable, or when twinning is no longer a possibility. It's a philosophical question, a question that even perfectly rational secularists can disagree upon.

But feel free to tout "it's just a bunch of cells" as the obviously correct answer. I mean, only ignorant religious folk getting their belief wholly from a misunderstanding of the bible would find such an answer unconvincing.

Actually, what pisses me off about the abortion debate is not that one side is basing it's argument on a 2000 year old political document - that's a bit exasperating, but it's all about perspective. No, what gets me is that I think we could all agree that when human life begins is something that reasonable people can disagree on.

With that said, 1) There is no point in the argument because people will persistantly disagree and 2) aren't there other priorities that we ought to have that resonable people will agree upon that ought to be handled while there is agreement? Abortion has fixed positions on both sides of the issue, and it is used by unscrupulous politicians (From both sides) to divide the middle. Given that there will never be agreement, it can only be a wedge issue. And that is what really chafes my butt about the argument.

Yes, I think the deeply religious are somehow flawed. I'm sure they return the favor. I can live with that. Can you?

archer2371 · 12-20-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Maybe I wasen't clear enought before. Conservatives are against Bush. Beliefnet assumes that the "conservative" is the person who is the protestant pro war person who voted for Bush. That idea is absurd. I think it might be time for people to reexamine what party or label they belong to. If you voted for Bush, you are not conservative. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Obviously a lot of people support Bush in what he does. You are more than welcome to do so. But you are no longer a conservative. When this article say things like "With conservatives controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court ", I think "What?!". Republican does not equate to conservative. I'm sure there are conservative republicans, I know some, but the terms are NOT interchangable.

I am a conservative libertarian, for example. There are conservative green party members and conservative democrats (I'd guess a great number of democrats are conservative now). Please see above for what a conservative really is.

Aside from that error, the article means well and does point out the reasoning on subjects on both sides. I can certianally appreicate the effort to try to repair the gap.

True enough, I consider myself to be a "Neo-Federalist" holding true to Reagan's EO on Federalism. I have said a couple of times before that if the Democrats nominate Mark Warner in '08, I would seriously consider voting for him. I live in Virginia and he's done a great job of toeing the line of being a moderate and pleasing Republicans and conservatives at the same time, and I really like the guy, I think he's got a strong character that would work well in the Oval Office. I am a little upset with Bush because of the deficit, not so much the Iraq War, because I thought it was necessary, but that's another thread. So in a sense, the author's definition of conservative is a bit misguided, but the voters that did vote for Bush did hold the issues outlined in a high enough regard to effect their vote a month and a half ago.

roachboy · 12-21-2004, 06:06 AM

link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/featu...369643,00.html

this is insane:

Quote:

'We have to protect people'

President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned. Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen

Thursday December 9, 2004
The Guardian

On the black list... A Chorus Line (pictured: Daniel Crossley and Jason Durr in the 2003 Sheffield Crucible production). Photo: Tristram Kenton

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Earlier this week, Allen got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

I ask Allen what prompted this bill. Was one of his children exposed to something in school that he considered inappropriate? Did he see some flamingly gay book displayed prominently at the public library?

No, nothing like that. "It was election day," he explains. Last month, "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list".

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

I ask him, again, for specific examples. Although heterosexuals are apparently an endangered species in Alabama, and although Allen is a local politician who lives a couple miles from my house, he can't produce any local examples. "Go on the internet," he recommends. "Some time when you've got a week to spare," he jokes, "just go on the internet. You'll see."

Actually, I go on the internet every day. But I'm obviously searching for different things. For Allen, the web is just the largest repository in history of urban myths. The internet is even better than the Bible when it comes to spreading unverifiable, unrefutable stories. And urban myths are political realities. Remember, it was an urban myth (an invented court case about a sex education teacher gang-raped by her own students who, when she protested, laughed and said: "But we're just doing what you taught us!") that all but killed sex education in America.

Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green.

It would not be the first time Cat on a Hot Tin Roof ran into censorship. As Nicholas de Jongh documents in his amusingly appalling history of government regulation of the British theatre, the British establishment was no more enthusiastic, half a century ago, than Alabama's Allen. "Once again Mr Williams vomits up the recurring theme of his not too subconscious," the Lord Chamberlain's Chief Examiner wrote in 1955. In the end, it was first performed in London at the New Watergate Club, for "members only", thereby slipping through a loophole in the censorship laws.

But more than one gay playwright is at a stake here. Allen claims he is acting to "encourage and protect our culture". Does "our culture" include Shakespeare? I ask Allen if he would insist that copies of Shakespeare's sonnets be removed from all public libraries. I point out to him that Romeo and Juliet was originally performed by an all-male cast, and that in Shakespeare's lifetime actors and audiences at the public theatres were all accused of being "sodomites". When Romeo wished he "was a glove upon that hand", the cheek that he fantasised about kissing was a male cheek. Next March the Alabama Shakespeare festival will be performing a new production of As You Like It, and its famous scene of a man wooing another man. The Alabama Shakespeare Festival is also the State Theatre of Alabama. Would Allen's bill cut off state funding for Shakespeare?

"Well," he begins, after a pause, "the current draft of the bill does not address how that is going to be handled. I expect details like that to be worked out at the committee stage. Literature like Shakespeare and Hammet [sic] could be left alone." Could be. Not "would be". In any case, he says, "you could tone it down". That way, if you're not paying real close attention, even a college graduate like Allen himself "could easily miss" what was going on, the "subtle" innuendoes and all.

So he regards his gay book ban as a work in progress. His legislation is "a single spoke in the wheel, it doesn't resolve all the issues". This is just the beginning. "To turn a big ship around it takes a lot of time."

But make no mistake, the ship is turning. You can see that on the face of Cornelius Carter, a professor of dance at Alabama and a prize-winning choreographer who, not long ago, was named university teacher of the year for the entire US. Carter is black. He is also gay, and tired of fighting these battles. "I don't know," he says, "if I belong here any more."

Forty years ago, the American defenders of "our culture" and "traditional values" were opposing racial integration. Now, no politician would dare attack Cornelius Carter for being black. But it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people for what they do in bed.

"Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it."

Of course, Allen was talking about books. He was just talking about books. He never said anything about pink triangles.

when you think about the bush administration, what do you think about?

putting aside the many, obvious problems this administration has created for itself and the rest of us (start with the iraq war and move in any direction) there is also the possibility of stuff like this.
even so, the particular scenario outlined above seems to cross some kind of line, moving seamlessly into absurdity.

when it is time to pay the christian right off for their support in the last election, is this the kind of stuff that will be dragged in, maybe even taken seriously?

Tophat665 · 12-21-2004, 09:08 AM

Quote:

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #2
They Don't Want a Religious Dictatorship

TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #5
They Believe American Culture Has Become An Insult to God

I think putting those two next to each other is interesting. I agree that the Religious Conservative Block (hereafter RCB) does not want a dictatorship, though I frequently refer to ttheir actual aim as "Theocracy". However, in the light of the second item, the RBC certainly wants to exclude a very broad range of viewpoints from public policy based on a book, the value of which can most certainly be argued.

Add in the above article about coercively shaping public discourse about homosexuality, and that pattern snaps into sharp focus.

I mean, people are people regardless of what birth made them. What happened to, "What is done to the least of my followers is done to me?" What's up with motes and beams? Anyone who attends to their own soul and leaves me to mine is OK in my book. Anyone who prays that I will come around to their faith and so save myself has my (slightly amused) thanks. Anyone who tries to force me to come around to their faith has my enduring enmity.

Further, don't may of those in the RCB follow faiths that believe that those who will be saved are predestined to be saved, and that the rest are damned anyway?

Bottom line, all of the RCB believes in Revelations, and some of it is actively trying to bring it about. Whether it's bunk or not is immaterial. These people are trying to bring about the end of the world and for that alone they are all guilty of criminal intent on a staggering scale.

FoolThemAll · 12-21-2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

2) aren't there other priorities that we ought to have that resonable people will agree upon that ought to be handled while there is agreement? Abortion has fixed positions on both sides of the issue, and it is used by unscrupulous politicians (From both sides) to divide the middle. Given that there will never be agreement, it can only be a wedge issue. And that is what really chafes my butt about the argument.

Yes, I think the deeply religious are somehow flawed. I'm sure they return the favor. I can live with that. Can you?

I don't think that abortion's polarizing effect lessens its importance. In fact, I considered it one of the three most important issues in the 2004 election. I consider it much more important than, for instance, the gay marriage issue, which is why I didn't flinch when I voted for Bush and against Michigan's 'defense of marriage' amendment.

I don't think the deeply religious, the deeply areligious, or those somewhere in-between are necessarily flawed in any serious way (although any of them certainly could be). But yes, I can live with others holding that mindset.

fibber · 12-22-2004, 09:12 AM

I don't have to believe in christian values to be conservative. I think the gov't should have no part in abortion controll because I want them small and in the background, take my taxes build my roads and leave me the fuck alone.

We bicker over lables and unimportant shit here to the point of absurdity.
We do this because it's easier to make broad generalizations (like I'm doing here.)

No one here argues for anything, just against so we can get mired down in semantic argumentative bullshit. While I find some points in the opening article laughable, I applaud the poster for trying to temper the partisan bickering. But it WILL NOT STOP.

So you'll see me in the cooking board from now on untill some one goes over there and tries to tell me I'm a fucking moron for preferring egg-white omlets over regular. Then I'll give up on discourse entirely and go play more Pirates!

-fibber

roachboy · 12-22-2004, 09:24 AM

control over terminology=cultural/political power.
in its everyday expression.

most arguments over meaning are therefore arguments over political space, control of it, opening it up, etc.

if all that was at stake about words were their dictionary definitions, then maybe you'd be right, fibber, that debate is a pointless exercize in semantic quibbling.
but the fact of the matter is otherwise.

you might think about a number of terms, as examples:
terrorism
insurgency
foreign elements
democracy
morality
pro-choice/pro-life
conservative/liberal

none of these operate in bushworld in ways that could be understood if you reverted to the false neutrality of dictionaries as a way to think about them.

Lebell · 12-22-2004, 09:37 AM

The term "bushworld" is an example of trying to control the debate with words and doesn't help the debate, IMO.

roachboy · 12-22-2004, 09:44 AM

i see bushworld as a fairly neutral designation of a sorry state of affairs, personally....
and as a term i use to spare myself indulging more precise/vitriolic characterizations--and others who wade through my posts the same headache, or a parallel one.
indulge me in it, please.

besides, pointing out a problem does not mean that you are somehow above it yourself. it would be goofy to pretend otherwise.

fibber · 12-22-2004, 09:51 AM

Yeah, "bushworld" was the one that got me goin too.

I don't think it's wrong to think I'm above it and certainly not "pretending" with the negative implication there. I also feel that you and the others here are certainly above and could find a few of your posts to prove it too. Hell even USTwo has a few non-ranters out there

My dismay probably stems more from discussion of politics in general. When I stop and see how far away I am from any real decision making process, the whole thing becomes somewhat absurd and I'ld rather discuss ideas than argue opposite points.

Besides lets be honest here, I started posting to get the boobie board back, and my theories on the perfect brisket are much more researched and relevant than how I would balance the budget. (which can't be done btw...)

-fibber

Bill O'Rights · 12-22-2004, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz

You can cut and paste your biblical beliefs all you want in the safety of your secular church, but don't do it and attempt to call it law.

Ironicaly, I found the following quote, in the "Readers Comments" of the daily birdcage liner that I read:

Quote:

It is not the least bit surprising to me that the more farsighted judges in Alabama are sincerely motivated to protect the relevance of the Ten Commandments. It is their sworn duty to protect the law.

To ignore and diminish the relevance of the Ten Commandments is to undermine all law.

If the Ten Commandments were thrown out completely, morality, justice and equality would be gone also.

I'm sorry, but this kind of sends cold shivers down my spine.

Fourtyrulz · 12-22-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry, but this kind of sends cold shivers down my spine.

It's hard to put your post in context with the word missing between "of" and "sends". Could you clarify? Sorry if I sound like an ass.

12-20-2004, 05:45 AM	#4 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	I think I am with Manx on this one. Understanding that opposition to abortion, for instance, is rooted in a belief that life begins at conception does not do anything for me but convince me that the people who hold that belief have something fundamentally wrong with their thought process, and, given that these people are often neo-pharisees (Which is how I tend to see religious legalists in any religion), I suspect that what is wrong with their thought process is their misunderstanding of the bible. I guess it just galls me that people who call themselves Christians (and believe they are) seem to lend more credence to Leviticus than the gospels, and, to top that off, to still go out and play football and eat shellfish smacks of hypocracy, which is something JC was very down on indeed. I really do appreciate the article, but understanding the other side believes it is right does not lessen my contempt. Rather the opposite. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

12-20-2004, 09:47 AM	#5 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Well gee, the next time I feel like trying to elevate political discourse and an understanding for each other, I'll just keep it to myself. But seriously folks, I don't see a reason to use blind partisan rhetoric as a way to debate the issues, it eventually just turns into a screaming match and insults like one I saw over in the Person of the Year thread about Texas coaches being inbred and how bad it was for Cal to lose the Rose Bowl bid and how the said inbreds also put Bush in office is really starting to disgust me and I thought this article would help in shedding some light on the issues. I myself have been known to resort to snide comments and I have been edited and warned on this board, and my earliest posts in this forum were rather vitriolic against Clinton for no reason and I've come to realize that. I have matured and I think I owe it a lot to this board because I've come into contact with so many different views in one place and it has given me an experience of moderating my language and develop an understanding and yes, even appreciation, for other people's opinions. Call me idealistic, but I was hoping that I could help others develop as I have from being a participant on this forum, that's all I really have to say. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

12-20-2004, 10:19 AM	#6 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	archer, I think it was a good effort that should not be abandoned because not everyone appreciates it. There will always be those in any discourse who choose to take the low road, but we should not let that dictate the road we ourselves choose. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-20-2004, 10:35 AM	#8 (permalink)
FoolThemAll Walking is Still Honest Location: Seattle, WA	In response to the article...I believe that I agree with every part of it. Good article. I appreciated both sides of it, as there are (at least) a few individuals at my college who are fond of demonizing liberals. __________________ I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

12-20-2004, 10:35 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	but there are problems with that article, as well-meaning as it seems to be. for example, despite claims to the contrary, it does function to trivialize political differences, simple by assuming that religious discourse can function as a linking term, that everyone is really the same underneath it all---cant we just get along? as if the stakes of political debate can be reduced to simple differences of opinion that can be reconciled under the general rubric of "patriotism".... i do not see the problem with debate between very different positions--it might not always be productive of some overarching consensus, but so what? discussion can be an end in itself, particularly in a pseudo-democracy like this one, where no degree of discussion can possibly translate into meaningful power for the people. and if the positions folk adopt are relatively hard, again so what? the problems come not in the type of political position, but in the way you react to conflict. for myself, i get annoyed at the self-referential world of conservative ideology primarily because i so rarely see a willingness on the part of folk who see the world through that frame to look at their own positions, to lay out the premises of their arguments: in short to engage in meaningful debate. but i also recognize (after a considerable period) that this could be a function of my relation to/assumptions about that discourse. i find that i am sometimes surprised in this forum by how particular to myself these assumptions can be---and that surprise is the good part of procrastinating in my 3-dimensional life by posting here. i also understand that i am hardly a saint when it comes to writing as though snippy--which is, in fact, rarely the case--debate is a chessgame, for the most part. that said, i am not interested in finding a middle ground with conservatives. i am interested in demolishing their positions whenever the chance presents itself. i find contemporary conservative discourse be be a dangerous thing. but at the same time, i know that my views are particular, that they sit on types of arguments and that the exposing of these arguments is an important part of discussion, that i am not necessarily right. so i dont see the problem with debate. i do see problems with attempts to make debate go away. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-19-2004, 08:36 PM	#2 (permalink)
Manx Loser	What if I have previously understood the conservative mentality as described in this article but I still find it to be completely unjustified? I guess I'm shit out of luck. Woulda been a lot cooler if I had just been mistaken this whole time.

12-20-2004, 10:38 AM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think it may be time to revisit what a conservative really is. Recently the trend of conservatives is to basically act liberal. There are five ingredients necessary for conservatism. These are fundamentals: -The first necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in smaller government. Particularly at the federal level. Statism is Leftism--an all-powerful, centralized government. Conservatives oppose this, embracing state's rights and a smaller, less centralized federal government. This is the foundational cornerstone of conservatism. -The second necessary ingredient for a conservative is a belief in national sovereignty and isolationism. Conservatives do not believe in foreign aid or foreign entanglements. They revere American sovereignty. Yes, conservatives do believe in a strong national defense--but national defense as mandated by the Constitution and the Monroe Doctrine. An invasive military empire is not mandated. Therein lies a crucial difference. When Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US into the League of Nations, conservatives opposed him. When Franklin D. Roosevelt was aggressively lobbying to get the US into the Second World War, conservatives opposed him. Conservatives have scorned the UN. They are not practitioners of global military interventionism. Conservatives believe in defense of our national borders, not aggression---and real security based on not meddling in the affairs of other nations. Conservatives believe in "Fortress America"...not Pax Americana. -The third necessary ingredient is a belief in the Rule of Law---beginning with the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights is essentially sacrosanct. A conservative does not believe in a "living Constitution". The only way a conservative would ever alter the Constitution would be by constitutional amendment. He would never seek to override it with power-grabbing legislation. The passage of the USA-Patriot Act--an Orwellian abomination, all the way down to its namesake--established pretty firmly just how many conservatives are left in Washington DC. -A fourth necessary ingredient to conservatism is a belief in traditional values. It is here that politics over such things as Roy Moore's Ten Commandments come into play. However, traditional values, are, by their very nature, regressive. It is true that there is no constitutional separation of church and state, as commonly stated, but there is also Freedom of Worship, and a generalized restriction of government authority. Therefore no allowances exist for the federal government to dabble in the religion business one way or the other. Real conservatives, being strict constructionists, would protect the religious rights of the individual without exploiting Christianity for seizure of power. -The fifth necessary ingredient to conservatism is adherence to principle. The stubborn instinct to stand firm on issues, rejecting political expediency, in other words. Conservatism cannot exist without an ideological backbone, because one of the most basic philosophies behind conservatism is preservation of tradition. Traditions cannot survive in the absence of principles. I get a little sick to my stomach when people mention Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Bennett, George Will, or a bunch of other people on Capitol Hill as conservative. Facism is not conservatism, capitolism is not conservatism (while it can compliment conservatism, it never overrides. The corporation is not more important than the Constitution), a theocracy is not conservatism, and neo-conservatism isn't conservatism.

12-20-2004, 10:47 AM	#12 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	I'm not interested in making debate go away, I'm more interested in making sure debate doesn't turn into name-calling. Your post roachboy is excellent, and I see your points, but as a pragmatist as far as politics goes, I disagree with you. I don't see the total destruction of the left as an atainable or desirable goal, yes, I do work for a major conservative internet publication, but my goal for that is to present an argument against the left and let people decide for themselves. As a hopeful future politician, I see compromise as the ultimate in the bettering of the lives of Americans on most issues, however, that is me training myself to work towards that job, because you can't be a politician and not compromise. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

12-20-2004, 10:59 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's fine archer: it is good that there are folk out there who work toward this. maybe if the main discourse was different than it presently is, i would join you in that. but it isnt other than it is. sadly. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-20-2004, 11:50 AM	#15 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Tollerence is what I try to live by. I am a very religious person and yet I fall to the left side of the center isle. I believe the new testment taught us to love eachother and especially our enemies. This means we must be tollerent of each others beliefs. This is why I oppose laws which limit what others can do/believe despite them going against what the bible teaches. Like abortion, I believe there are cases where a victem should not have to have the kid but I also believe that we need to minimize the abortions people have. I believe everyone should be able to believe what they want as long as it doesn't effect anyone else adversely. I guess it is the tollerence that makes me a little liberal.

12-20-2004, 04:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Maybe I wasen't clear enought before. Conservatives are against Bush. Beliefnet assumes that the "conservative" is the person who is the protestant pro war person who voted for Bush. That idea is absurd. I think it might be time for people to reexamine what party or label they belong to. If you voted for Bush, you are not conservative. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Obviously a lot of people support Bush in what he does. You are more than welcome to do so. But you are no longer a conservative. When this article say things like "With conservatives controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court ", I think "What?!". Republican does not equate to conservative. I'm sure there are conservative republicans, I know some, but the terms are NOT interchangable. I am a conservative libertarian, for example. There are conservative green party members and conservative democrats (I'd guess a great number of democrats are conservative now). Please see above for what a conservative really is. Aside from that error, the article means well and does point out the reasoning on subjects on both sides. I can certianally appreicate the effort to try to repair the gap. Edit: I'm going to go ahead and start another thread on the "conservative" confusion. Last edited by Willravel; 12-21-2004 at 01:59 PM..

12-22-2004, 09:12 AM	#27 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	I don't have to believe in christian values to be conservative. I think the gov't should have no part in abortion controll because I want them small and in the background, take my taxes build my roads and leave me the fuck alone. We bicker over lables and unimportant shit here to the point of absurdity. We do this because it's easier to make broad generalizations (like I'm doing here.) No one here argues for anything, just against so we can get mired down in semantic argumentative bullshit. While I find some points in the opening article laughable, I applaud the poster for trying to temper the partisan bickering. But it WILL NOT STOP. So you'll see me in the cooking board from now on untill some one goes over there and tries to tell me I'm a fucking moron for preferring egg-white omlets over regular. Then I'll give up on discourse entirely and go play more Pirates! -fibber

12-22-2004, 09:24 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	control over terminology=cultural/political power. in its everyday expression. most arguments over meaning are therefore arguments over political space, control of it, opening it up, etc. if all that was at stake about words were their dictionary definitions, then maybe you'd be right, fibber, that debate is a pointless exercize in semantic quibbling. but the fact of the matter is otherwise. you might think about a number of terms, as examples: terrorism insurgency foreign elements democracy morality pro-choice/pro-life conservative/liberal none of these operate in bushworld in ways that could be understood if you reverted to the false neutrality of dictionaries as a way to think about them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-22-2004, 09:37 AM	#29 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The term "bushworld" is an example of trying to control the debate with words and doesn't help the debate, IMO. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-22-2004, 09:44 AM	#30 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i see bushworld as a fairly neutral designation of a sorry state of affairs, personally.... and as a term i use to spare myself indulging more precise/vitriolic characterizations--and others who wade through my posts the same headache, or a parallel one. indulge me in it, please. besides, pointing out a problem does not mean that you are somehow above it yourself. it would be goofy to pretend otherwise. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-22-2004, 09:51 AM	#31 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Yeah, "bushworld" was the one that got me goin too. I don't think it's wrong to think I'm above it and certainly not "pretending" with the negative implication there. I also feel that you and the others here are certainly above and could find a few of your posts to prove it too. Hell even USTwo has a few non-ranters out there My dismay probably stems more from discussion of politics in general. When I stop and see how far away I am from any real decision making process, the whole thing becomes somewhat absurd and I'ld rather discuss ideas than argue opposite points. Besides lets be honest here, I started posting to get the boobie board back, and my theories on the perfect brisket are much more researched and relevant than how I would balance the budget. (which can't be done btw...) -fibber Last edited by fibber; 12-22-2004 at 10:04 AM..