Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Harrison Bergeron on October 20, 2010, 12:03:39 PM
-
Yes, I read Daily Kos. I don't hate all Liberals, sometimes, once in a while they are right.
Like here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/5/6267/39794
"RKBA: Why I Went From Gun Scoffer To Armed Liberal"
I see lots of liberals coming over to the "correct side" of the gun issue, most of them being 35 or younger.
-
A conservative is a liberal that's been mugged by reality.
-
I see lots of liberals coming over to the "correct side" of the gun issue, most of them being 35 or younger.
Ayep. FUD is losing its appeal. Honestly, it's just simple knowledge that's turning the tide. Shooting is a protected right, and fun. The other side solely relies on "You are not trustworthy."
That doesn't work in the long haul.
I'm one of thousands of folks that have been liberals over to the correct side. I'd say I probably brought over roughly 30 people. Plenty of them have started bringing people over too. I'm honestly wondering why a lot of folks, even here, just think you should despise liberals and treating them as rational human beings as being a foolish concept. RKBA is not a liberal or conservative cause. Both have routinely happily sold RKBA down the river plenty of times. RKBA is a civil right and not subject to being shanked for political expediency. Best thing RKBA supporters can do is keep converting as many people as possible and trying to stay non-partisan (in general terms) whenever possible.
-
A conservative is a liberal that's been mugged by reality.
Hey, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. I see validity on both sides at times.
-
Hey, a liberal libertarian is a conservative who's been arrested. I see validity on both sides at times.
FIFY
-
Fast forward to this past year and a half. Think for a moment about the beginnings of reports about right wing militias on the rise. Think about the rise of white power reports. Think about the rising sound of rants against the innocent census folks who were going to be threatened.
He needs to work on where the threats really come from, but at least he is acknowledging that he is responsible for his own self defense. That is a big first step.
I worked with a guy from the East coast for a while who was a self described liberal. I talked to him about guns and such from time to time as he liked to debate about it. He just took that attitude that odds were it wouldn't happen to him. The odds are in his favor, but I wouldn't be happy with that.
-
Hey, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. I see validity on both sides at times.
I'd say it depends on how you see the words. I think a lot of conservatives see liberals as authoritarian people who want to tell them what to do and run their lives. I think a lot of liberals see conservatives as authoritarian types who want to tell them what to do and run their lives.
Neither is necessarily always true. As a conservative, I would say that few conservatives really fit the authoritarian mind set.
-
Hey, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. I see validity on both sides at times.
Well there is a side that wants to control everything from what kind of laundry detergent I can use to what kind of car I can drive, and it's not the conservatives. Liberals have done a pretty good job getting people to think conservatives are the authoritarians. But if you look at who is really trying to pass laws that limit how you live your life, they're not coming from conservatives.
-
Well there is a side that wants to control everything from what kind of laundry detergent I can use to what kind of car I can drive, and it's not the conservatives. Liberals have done a pretty good job getting people to think conservatives are the authoritarians. But if you look at who is really trying to pass laws that limit how you live your life, they're not coming from conservatives.
That really is the disconnect in a nutshell.
Liberals see conservatives angry about Robert Mapplethorpe gallery displays and they want to de-fund the public money going to "Pissed Christ" and the big black and white poster of a guy with a bullwhip handle in his ass, and they scream "CENSORSHIP!" ;/
(pats the liberal on the head), "No... we just don't want public money going to that "art". Any private gallery that wants to can put it on display."
Yet the way that Liberals tend to emote just makes them blind to the distinction.
Honestly, other than illegal aliens, new drugs, and sometimes getting their dander up about extreme pornography, conservatives rarely "ban stuff". Most of the things that you could say are banned by "conservatives" have been on the books for ever, like the states that still have sodomy and sex-toy laws on the books. And even then, that usually goes back several decades to when both parties were usually pretty much in lock-step on social issues, and differed more on fiscal policy and labor and international involvement.
As others have said, it's the liberals that are ban-happy. Banning salt, banning soda, banning guns, banning "offensive" speech, banning smoking, banning industries.
And the liberal definition of "oppression" these days usually means "The state not giving us stuff we want."
Even if I don't like them 100%, well armed, and keeping more of my money and well employed under Conservative control, seems a much better position to fight any Conservative excesses. As opposed to disarmed, taxed to death, or on welfare, to fight any Liberal/Leftist excesses.
In a nutshell, if things under Conservatives turn nasty in a right-wing way, I and a bunch of my buddies can kill them. Or if we lose, we go down swinging and making it damn painful/expensive to take us down. :mad:
If things under the Liberals go bad in a left-wing way, it's the cattle cars and the showers. =(
-
AJ, I just wanted to add to your list of left/right ban issues.
That "liberals" also seem happy with the bans on drugs.
That we "conservatives" would like to ban abortion.
That the refusal to codify same-sex marriage is seen as a ban.
Bans on open homosexuality in the military, which many "liberals" think is actually a ban on any service by homosexuals at all.
Probably a few other things.
-
AJ nailed it. To a conservative, the extent of banning is generally confined to "we don't want you to kill human beings, and we don't want you to steal money from citizens to pay for unconstitutional nonsense" To liberal, there is no limit on what can be banned or controlled as long as you tell people that it's for their own good, and they are just backward if they don't see you know what's best for them.
-
A Libertarian is one who doesn't have to be mugged or arrested to know what the Constitution says...
-
A Libertarian is one who doesn't have to be mugged or arrested to know what the Constitution says...
QFT
-
A Libertarian is one who doesn't have to be mugged or arrested to know what the Constitution says...
Get them to start running serious campaigns for small local offices, to build a base, and they'll actually have my vote.
The "Dogcatcher Argument" is the #1 problem the LP has IMO.
-
Get them to start running serious campaigns for small local offices, to build a base, and they'll actually have my vote.
The "Dogcatcher Argument" is the #1 problem the LP has IMO.
I don't care what the politics of my dogcatcher are...and Texas Libertarians are running for state races in the areas where their political philosophies do count....like state reps and judgeships.....the Lib running for Railroad Commish is running on the platform of abolishing the office....
The TEA Party is starting to come to where the Libertarians have been for decades...now it's time for them to put their vote where their mouth is....
-
Yeah, but the Tea Party people aren't looking to elect their own candidates. They are not a political party.
When has the Libertarian Party managed to elect candidates?
-
MechAg94 said,
I worked with a guy from the East coast for a while who was a self described liberal. I talked to him about guns and such from time to time as he liked to debate about it. He just took that attitude that odds were it wouldn't happen to him. The odds are in his favor, but I wouldn't be happy with that.
I wish I could remember who it was who summed that up with the words, "It's not the odds involved, it's the stakes involved."
Hey, six to one is good odds, right?
But not in Russian Roulette.
Terry, 230RN
-
Get them to start running serious campaigns for small local offices, to build a base, and they'll actually have my vote.
The "Dogcatcher Argument" is the #1 problem the LP has IMO.
Quibble -
There's something like 800 Libertarians (not counting Rs and Ds espousing libertarian sentiments) in various lower-level offices IIRC - and there've been hundreds every election for at least a decade (probably more, that's just as far back as I remember off the top of my head).
How much more does the LP "need to pay in dues" before they're 'authorized to run with the big boys'? ???
Yeah, but the Tea Party people aren't looking to elect their own candidates. They are not a political party.
When has the Libertarian Party managed to elect candidates?
Last election, and the election before that, and the election before that...
See my response above.
-
Who is saying they are not authorized? No one here. Authorization has nothing to do with whether or not I would actually vote for them.
800 candidates across the nation isn't very much I would think. Hard to say. Are those pretty widely scattered or concentrated in a few areas?
-
I wish I could remember who it was who summed that up with the words, "It's not the odds involved, it's the stakes involved."
Hey, six to one is good odds, right?
But not in Russian Roulette.
Terry, 230RN
QFT. It would bug me if something happened and I had the means to stop it, but didn't for whatever reason. Same thing if I were to leave a gun in the car and end up needing a gun.
-
I think you are confusing "liberal and conservative" with "Democratic and Republican"
liberal and conservative talks, at least in my mind, to political theories. Republicans and Democrats talks to applications of theories in reality.
I would say liberals and conservatives are equally concerned with freedom.
Democrats in general feel that government can fix all problems, while Republicans seem to feel that Government causes more problems than it fixes.
Strangely enough, I would consider myself a Liberal, but would in most cases vote Republican; in more cases than now if that party didn't place such a premium on religion.
The biggest problem I see between Democrats and Republicans is that each side cares less about running the country, and doing right by their electorate, and are more interested in making "the other guy" look like evil incarnate. It'd be nice to see our government get back to having honest discussions about policy, and less demonizing.
-
Strangely enough, I would consider myself a Liberal, but would in most cases vote Republican; in more cases than now if that party didn't place such a premium on religion.
Amen to that.... oh, wait a minute.
But seriously, that's a big problem with so-called "conservatism," to my mind.
"G-d, country, apple pie, and motherhood."
Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad. I definitely like the apple pie part.
-
I think you are confusing "liberal and conservative" with "Democratic and Republican"
liberal and conservative talks, at least in my mind, to political theories. Republicans and Democrats talks to applications of theories in reality.
I would say liberals and conservatives are equally concerned with freedom.
Yet it is always liberals who talk about banning guns or cutting out the military. IMO, that shows many liberals have no concept of freedom or how it is maintained.
Democrats in general feel that government can fix all problems, while Republicans seem to feel that Government causes more problems than it fixes.
That is a HUGE difference. I actually wish more Republicans actually did believe the Govt causes more problems than if fixes.
Strangely enough, I would consider myself a Liberal, but would in most cases vote Republican; in more cases than now if that party didn't place such a premium on religion.
I guess I don't see that in that way about religion. I think you are mixing culture versus religion. Most of the cultural stuff is usually in defense as more radical groups are trying to constantly push boundaries often using the courts. The only big one I can think of that might be religious in origin is abortion and I am not sure of that. My pastor always taught that life begins at birth so it isn't a religious issue to me.
The biggest problem I see between Democrats and Republicans is that each side cares less about running the country, and doing right by their electorate, and are more interested in making "the other guy" look like evil incarnate. It'd be nice to see our government get back to having honest discussions about policy, and less demonizing.
No real disagreement there. Honest discussion would require them to be honest about their views which would get in the way of actually being elected. The last time i remember Democrat candidates being honest about wanting to raise taxes and increase govt spending was in the 1980's and they lost the elections. I'm sure there are Democrats who wouldn't do that, but that seems to be the net result when they are in power.
-
Strangely enough, I would consider myself a Liberal, but would in most cases vote Republican; in more cases than now if that party didn't place such a premium on religion.
A talking point endlessly repeated, and never critically examined. The Christians are not coming to get you.
Really, what a lot of rot. The fact that Republicans aren't trying hard enough to marginalize and dismiss religious people (not as hard as the Democrats), means that Republicans "put a premium on religion."
Then again, what would be so terrible about putting a premium on religion? The Constitution Party would be an example of a party that "puts a premium on religion," and their platform is for a very limited, non-intrusive government.
-
A talking point endlessly repeated, and never critically examined.
Calling it a "talking point," as if you wanted to diminish its significance, does not change the fact that it is, and has been, extensivley discussed, hence critically examined, and in my opinion, is a real problem. You can't dismiss Harrison Bergeron's point that easily.
The fact that Republicans aren't trying hard enough to marginalize and dismiss religious people (not as hard as the Democrats), means that Republicans "put a premium on religion."
Do I detect a self-contradictory statement here? Should it read, "does not mean," instead?
Harrison Bergeron, watch out that some people will "re-interpet" what you say to sideswipe your arguments. I have found this to be a consistent problem. One of the warning signs is when they say, "So, you're saying that..." to take your arguments to a different plane.
This is similar to challenging a statement that "the sky is blue" with "So, you're saying the sky is never red," without accounting for the true sense of the original statement that "the sky is blue."
Don't get trapped by that ploy.
Just a general warning to a new member.
Another warning is that religious discussions are very frequently closed before too long. Apparently, the fervor generated on both sides escalates emotions faster than it escalates thought.
I will not take up cudgels on this any more except to say that in my opinion Harrison Bergeron is on the right track when he says:
Strangely enough, I would consider myself a Liberal, but would in most cases vote Republican; in more cases than now if that party didn't place such a premium on religion.
In fact, the only reason I jumped in there was to wisecrack with an "Amen."
After that, I shoulda kept my mouth shut. :facepalm:
Terry, 230RN
-
Harrison Bergeron, watch out that some people will "re-interpet" what you say to sideswipe your arguments. I have found this to be a consistent problem. One of the warning signs is when they say, "So, you're saying that..." to take your arguments to a different plane.
So perhaps you would like to explain how the Republican Party puts a premium on religion, and then explain how that is a bad thing.
I've seen this commentary before, and I don't have much doubt about what HB is trying to say. He falsely believes that the Republican planks on various social issues are religiously motivated. He probably also believes that religious motives are not an appropriate basis for legislation. These myths are widely believed, and are the usual explanation for comments like HB's. So, is it possible I'm misinterpreting what he has to say? Yes, anything can be misinterpreted. It doesn't imply any kind of sideswiping. ;/
-
Republicans seem to feel that Government causes more problems than it fixes.
You wouldn't know it by their actions...
-
>So perhaps you would like to explain how the Republican Party puts a premium on religion<
I'm gonna give my take on this one.
Not going to say that the party itself puts any kind of premium on religion. However, I've noticed that more Republican candidates mention their being a "God fearing person" than Democrats.
I've also noticed that those who go out of their way to wave their "Christian cred" tend to not HAVE actual "Christian cred".
As an example of such: for all that he talks about his faith, I've never known Fistful to talk about his being Christian to promote himself as being trustworthy. He shows his character by his actions. However, one of the worst pedophiles I've known had more pictures of Jesus on his walls than the Vatican...
Does this prove anything? Not really. But one REALLY good example of someone at the national level who seems to "push" their faith as indicating something is Romney: anybody planning on voting for him?
-
The discussion about liberals, democrats, conservatives, republicans was proceeding along nicely with no references to religion or Jesus until a couple folks with antithapy toward religion decided to interject the subject into the discussion.
Who has the agenda?
Beliefs and philosophy inform and determine ones political leanings. The Republicans without the "religious right" would quickly become a permanent minority party. Much of the remaining "protestant work ethic" and "rugged individualism" can be found in religious conservative communities across the country. You will find them to be more skeptical of government planners of Utopia and to be proponents of local solutions to problems vs looking to far away bureaucracies. Flyover country should be a natural ally to a more libertarian style of governance.
Alienate them and you'll continue get Barak Obama and his ilk as president.
-
Um, maybe you missed something in what I said?
Not saying that being religious should be a bad thing. Not even saying that the "religious right" is a bad thing.
Pointing out an example (Romney) of someone who seems to promote their faith as some kind of indicator for what they will do as a bad thing. Possibly even as a negative indicator.
Let me pick on Fistful for a bit more. Do you honestly think he would mention his faith as a selling point were he campaigning for office? Yet he's one of the most faithful Christians I can think of...
Or, put another way: too many talk the talk, not enough walk the walk...
-
AJ nailed it. To a conservative, the extent of banning is generally confined to "we don't want you to kill human beings, and we don't want you to steal money from citizens to pay for unconstitutional nonsense" To liberal, there is no limit on what can be banned or controlled as long as you tell people that it's for their own good, and they are just backward if they don't see you know what's best for them.
Well, I can't speak for conservatives, but there is wide spread belief among the under 30 crowd that the Republicans are hypocrites. That they hate/dislike gays, but get caught having clandestine gay affairs. That they push the war on drugs, but use drugs themselves. That they preach small government or responsibility, but push through agencies like DHS. That they gripe about welfare, but love corporate welfare.
All of these perceptions range from likely true to very true. Whether they are true or not is actually largely immaterial. People believe it, and perception defines reality. True, the Dems generally get caught doing the same thing, but they rarely claim to the contrary. So it's a question of being stabbed in the front or in the back. People like being stabbed in the front. It's a touch more honest.
-
Well, I can't speak for conservatives, but there is wide spread belief among the under 30 crowd that the Republicans are hypocrites. That they hate/dislike gays, but get caught having clandestine gay affairs. That they push the war on drugs, but use drugs themselves. That they preach small government or responsibility, but push through agencies like DHS. That they gripe about welfare, but love corporate welfare.
All of these perceptions range from likely true to very true. Whether they are true or not is actually largely immaterial. People believe it, and perception defines reality. True, the Dems generally get caught doing the same thing, but they rarely claim to the contrary. So it's a question of being stabbed in the front or in the back. People like being stabbed in the front. It's a touch more honest.
I don't like wading into discussions about religion because they invariably get locked.
That said, is it better to aspire to be a good Christian (or Jew, or Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim) and falter than to not try at all? Yes, there are devout Christians who do all of the things that you say. If they're true to their religious beliefs, they'll try to redeem themselves and ask for forgiveness. By stressing their religion, they connect with a large group of voters, but they also set themselves up for public humiliation, as their every step will be scrutinized.
It's much easier to be a Bill Clinton and be an amoral lech during the week, then walk into church on Sunday dodging lightening bolts.
-
I don't think Revdisk's point was about religion.
-
But one REALLY good example of someone at the national level who seems to "push" their faith as indicating something is Romney: anybody planning on voting for him?
If he's the candidate in 2012, I'll probably vote for him. But I would like to see some examples of what you mean. I haven't followed him that closely, so I've probably missed a lot.
I suspect he talks more about religion than others, because he's asked about it more often (being Mormon). And, if he wants the White House, he really does need to "prove" his Christianity to a lot of people who think he's in a pseudo-Christian cult, or who get their ideas about Mormonism from watching Big Love. Also, he is somewhat of a volunteer clergyman, from what I understand, so he's just a religious guy. That's gonna come out when he speaks, isn't it?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0809/p01s01-uspo.html
-
No, it wasn't about religion per se, but brushed by it. ;) Strings post was more about religion.
If the under 30 crowd wants to consider hypocrisy, why don't they take a look at Obama? Has there even been such a wide chasm between campaign rhetoric and actions in office?
-
If the under 30 crowd wants to consider hypocrisy, why don't they take a look at Obama? Has there even been such a wide chasm between campaign rhetoric and actions in office?
See, that's part of the Change he promised. He Changed his mind. Changed it a lot. =)
-
If the under 30 crowd wants to consider hypocrisy, why don't they take a look at Obama? Has there even been such a wide chasm between campaign rhetoric and actions in office?
Honestly, a lot are. But they wanted to believe Obama, because he promised to be different than our current corrupt system. Belief dies hard. Give it time.
-
Sorry, my above post was worded a little stronger than it probably needed to be to make my point.
The continual hyperventilating about the big bad religious right at other forums, and that occasionally pops up here, tries my patience.