War On Liberal America

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by Carrera, Apr 27, 2005.

  1. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said address the issue before a crime is committed. Get me :confused: Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. PREVENTION/EQUALITY !!!
     


  2. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get me! People have the ability to decide what to do. If we don't hold people pesonally responsible for their own actions prevention won't matter.
     
  3. lokstah

    lokstah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    It wan't Jitt, it was Jaguar. I didn't tell Jaguar that what I thought he was implying about race was wrong; I only honestly stated that the angle he was taking was a discussion I didn't want to have.

    I thought this subject was more manageable, though I didn't address it without taking exception to something David suggested: that Republicans have a unique history of opposition to civil rights.

    I happen to disagree, noting as you and Zap have, that it's conservative politicians (particularly prior to the 1970s) from both parties that opposed civil rights.

    You're honestly perplexed by that suggestion in a historical, sociological context? You'd sincerely disagree that the deepest legacies of intolerance towards certain genders, races, economic classes, cultures, and sexual orientatins throughout the history of the planet aren't corruptions of conservative social philosophy?
     
  4. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd like to hear some examples.
     
  5. lokstah

    lokstah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a yes, I take it?
     
  6. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Affirmative! That is a positive.
     
  7. lokstah

    lokstah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following as a quick list of actions, policies, and historical episodes which I would characterize as being influenced by old-entrenched notions of culture, nationalism, religion, gender roles, or race. I'd characterize the movements to oppose them as progressive actions:

    The persecution and subjugation of Chinese and other Asian immigrants in America through the mid-20th century.

    Restricitions on women's roles through early 20th century America, including the right to vote.

    The state of apartheid endured by African Americans through the mid-20th century, particularly in the South.

    The enforcement of slavery in the United States.

    The enfocrement of slavery in Africa.

    The enforcement of slavery in Asia.

    The perpetuation of the caste system in India and other Hindu territories.

    The persecution of Jews in nearly every nation they've settled, for centuries.

    The persecution, prosecution and harrassment of homosexuals, nearly everywhere, for centuries.

    The persecution, prosecution and slaughter of early Christians.

    The persecution and subjugation of women and homosexuals in some contemporary Muslim cultures.

    The persecution, prosecution and slaughter of Muslims throughout the Middle Ages; the Crusades.

    The persecution, prosecution and slaughter of Christians throughout the Middle Ages, in various regions, intermittently by Muslims.

    The colonization and subjugation of indigenous populations in Africa, Asia, and America by European nations; often including persecution, prosecution, slaughter, rape, slavery, and forced conversions.
     
  8. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your point is relevant when an individual has been given all of the options/advantages inre: their future. I'm saying address the issue at 5 yrs,. of age as opposed to your proposition of addressing the issue when the individual is in a bell tower w/ a deer rifle. You don't have to agree w/ me. Let's move on. This discussion makes me see how it must be like to have disagreements in congress.
     
  9. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've got to be kidding, right?
    Just how do you define conservatism?

    And here are a couple you left out. Darlings of the liberal minds.
    Pol Pot. Wanted to create that perfect society. Quite a legacy.
    Mao. The great revolution. Quite a legacy.
    Lenin. All will live equally. Except those in charge.
     
  10. lokstah

    lokstah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Conservatism and liberalism aren't political parties; they're mindsets. The slow march of humanity, out of the most primative, non-egalitarian and compartmentalized society, to the most open, tolerant and least stratified society, is embraced by liberalism and approached with caution by conservativism. Where history has seen traditional fears--about other races, other nations, or the disruption of tradition--slowly give way, I'd consider those liberal victories, no matter the declared affiliation of the actor.

    Because these are mindsets and not parties or fixed affiliations, we all have liberal and conservative impulses--and we all use each to positive effect in our day to day. I also respect what you've characterized from time to time, which is that conservativism and liberalism prevent one another from destroying society; that society, though, is only in progress due to small impulses to shirk traditionalism.

    You can definitely file socialist/Communist revolutionaries, like Pol Pot, Castro and Mao, in the opposite category: examples of leftism gone very bad (though both the right and the left can head, in additoin to left and right, towards the autocratic or the libertarian; these guys were all autocrats).
     
  11. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is totally ridiculous. Conservatism is not against change. Conservatism is against sudden change. Conservatism believes sudden change leads to anarchy. It is interesting that under your argument, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would have to be conservative. On the other hand, a famous dictator, who was a socialist, would fall on your side. His name is Adolf Hitler.
     
  12. lokstah

    lokstah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're speaking completely different languages. Describing conservatism as being "against sudden change" is a specific articulation of a particular sort of conservative thinking; there are more extreme, and more relaxed ways to describe conservativism as well. Maybe you're describing modern American conservative Republicans, or something. Maybe you're describing yourself. Think more broadly; you're getting bogged down: in terms of root characteristics, conservatism and liberalism are basic opposing forces. What's important is how they relate to one another: liberalism, as a philosophy, aims to break down and replace existing systems. Conservativism--as a philosophy--opposes that process. Any individual experiences and acts upon both impulses.

    If we're speaking in this general philosophical sense, it's dumb to classify a person (as you've done several times over) as "conservative" or "liberal;" what makes more sense is describing certain beliefs of, say, George Washington, as being more conservative than those of some of his colleagues. In other regards, he would have held more liberal views than the same colleagues. Relative terms.

    It's inevitable that when a strange, antiquated construction of human thought--the idea, for instance, that certain Hindus are, by birth, unworthy of a dignified life--comes into question, and the movement towards identifying lower Indian castes as unjustly oppressed picks up steam, the opposing force in that operation is a conservative one.

    I would never suggest that conservatives, if individuals chose to identify themselves as such, are inherently prone to racism, bigotry, or other forms of social injustice. It remains undeniable, though, that the march out of the past's injustices is bound to divide conservative actors from liberal ones--despite how people may have identified themselves prior.
     
  13. lokstah

    lokstah New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, gotta go. Know we've opened a big can of worms. I'll answer soon.
     
  14. Colorado Ryder

    Colorado Ryder New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, ridiculous. You have passed judgement on people from times long ago and used your values as the executioner. What is pathetic is your attempt to paint conservatism as inherently evil. It is a interesting train of thought. Your train left the tracks when you tried to frame it as conservative vs liberal.
     
  15. jaguar75

    jaguar75 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is a comment that will certainly get a rise out of all of the liberals here...

    I liken conservatism to realism and Liberals to hopefuls and dreamers...

    It is the Conservative way to take the hard core approach and for the liberals to take the - we hope it will get better if we just look the other way and if it still does not then we will hug our way there!!!
     
  16. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's a slight misunderstanding of this theme on poverty.
    Really I'm the same as you when the chips are down and I might unexpectedly have to defend myself or family from violent criminals. Just like yourself, I'd hit out first and ask questions later. Naturally you have to put yourself and a potential victim first.
    But having embraced that initial reality, I believe politicians and sociologists, at the very least, need to consider the idea that crime is a social problem linked to a number of factors. I mean, I agree with Schwarzennegger when he pushes the line that sports can play a positive role in keeping people on the straight and narrow, as well as employment and opportunity, social programs and investment.
    Let's face it, the reality for many people is life in a squalid flat in a run-down area with parents who could be into drugs or even alcoholics. Such people have never experienced a stable family environment. As a result, they wind up joining some street gang or other and, before you know it, they're behind bars.
    In the worst case scenario, such an individual then finds himself under the jurisdiction of one of these ingenious sheriffs, we've been discussing, who decides that maybe parading the inmates publically in pink pants as part of a chain gang is just the ticket to bring about a change in atttitude. Usually the public applauds that kind of policy! It certainly gratifies the mainstream desire for revenge, but I don't think it does any long term good.
    I agree with you that some crime cannot be excused so easily. Rape, for example, destroys the victim's life and you can't simply dismiss these actions as not being linked to personal responsibility. I think I'm talking more about gangland culture, street crime, theft and anti social behaviour.
    You may know that police officers in Brazil used to simply accept the idea that street kids were a lost cause as they came from such deprived areas it was considered inevitable they'd fall into gangland culture. So, police simply did away with many of the kids and they went missing. However, liberals don't support policies that "do away" with potential gang members. Liberals recommend social funding for recreational programs, encourage sports, education and try to look into the root causes of crime.



     
  17. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    But what do you mean by "hard core approach"? Chain gangs or shop-lifters carrying guilt placards in the streets?
    I think there are liberals out there who understand the need to have solid, concrete rules and discipline in general. Many liberals will also go along with the idea there is such a thing as personal responsibilty for your actions.
    For me, liberalism has much to do with individual choice, respect for workers rights, human rights, personal dignity, freedom of expression and opinion, the right to a social safety net to be protected from poverty and freedom from sexual or racial discrimination e.t.c.
    So, as a liberal the idea of women and children in chain gangs as a solution to antisocial behaviour is like a step back in time to the mediaeval period.

     
  18. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the "rise" you said you might receive (I'm a dyed in the wool, liberal/progressive to the core, bikerider):
    By your reasoning, & other misguided souls who share your veiw; all vet's-like myself-must be Republican. You are incorrect in making this BROAD, OVERREACHING GENERALIZATION. Mt father is a retired, vietnam era, combat aviator & a Progressive Democrat. He never "hugged" his way out of a darn thing :mad: I also am a Veteran &, you guessed it, a Progressive Independent. I don't subscribe to the "herd-mentality" & "status-quo" of the two party system. I've said it before & I'll say it again-"It's time to drain the swamp" (allow other parties to participate in the system besides Repulicrats or Demopublicans). Heard about the Abramoff story :confused: http://slate.msn.com/id/2117520/nav/ais/ Up until recently, they have been "one in the same". :) People (maybe even you) are afraid to think for themselves so they have to get a party (in this case one of the two entrenched parties) to speak for them.
     
  19. davidmc

    davidmc New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,415
    Likes Received:
    0
    True. In my humble opinion, Conservatism=maintaining the status-quo (don't rock the boat) or "change is bad" except for when it has to do w/ tax-cuts, then its OK :rolleyes: .
     
  20. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,534
    Likes Received:
    291

    I for one do not see the need to "pigeon hole" individuals. You could be a republican and not support GW or a card carrying liberal and support the death penalty. I refuse to be classified.
    I am too damn wierd to be defined.
    So there! I support and defend # 1 ,the big cheese, El Magnifico....you know me.
     
Loading...
Loading...