liberal or the other one?

“Yeah okay.

I just didn't understand what you meant with the cryptic line I quoted. You've obviously taken issue with the word "neutral". Okay.

I didn't say unbiased, I said neutral - as in the guy wasn't trying to be inflammatory or mean about his outlook toward the other side.

This black-and-white disparity in his description clearly shows the author's bias.

As you said, he didn't try to hide which side he was on. He did, however, try to examine the reaction of the other side from a compassionate point of view, and I don't think he strayed too far from it.”

“Sheesh Phaed, if that’s neutral you might want to go get yer eyes checked.”

“How is it not?”

“Neutral or not, a reactionary is a reactionary.

adj;
Characterized by reaction, especially opposition to progress or liberalism; extremely conservative.

noun;
An opponent of progress or liberalism; an extreme conservative.”

“Pheadrus, I think Nigal wants it sugar-coated.

"Compassionate Reactionary"”

“Well here’s his discription of conservatives:

“That was the Bible Belt, where one might be more likely to hear the term "Antichrist," but the general pattern of vitriol held true in other parts of the country. I began to form the impression then that the conservative mindset springs from what, for lack of a better term, might best be described as an Old Testament world view: Life is harsh, God is angry, enemies ought to be treated without mercy. An eye for an eye. There is good and there is evil, and the distinction between them is as clear as the line between sin and righteousness. These days, the words of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or George W. Bush only reinforce that impression.”

Then he describes liberals:

“Most liberals, on the other hand, appreciate life's gray areas, which is perhaps why left-wing radio has never been very entertaining. The strength of this embrace of ambiguity is that liberals see the world in all its complexity. The weakness is that evil, real evil, can sometimes become so abstract and multifaceted that it is not quite real.

Life, liberals believe, is meant to be pleasurable, God is forgiving if He exists at all, and it's important to think about others' feelings and motivations as well as your own. You might not like the idea of abortion, but it is important to allow people who believe differently to make their own choice.”

You are absolutely blind.”

“I have to agree Phaedrus that when you say neutral that I am equating that with unbiased, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "neutral" in this case. If you mean that the author attempts to look at the subject without getting into polemics I can go with that. But I would not use the term "neutral look at the issue" to me a neutral look would have to come from putting bias completely aside.”

“I think by neutral he means he is the center of reason and everyone right of him is a fascist.

Least that's the line of shlt Marko-pollo always gives me. LOL!”

“That description of conservatives is pretty right on.

Nigal talks about hating liberals and about biblical "principle" and puts things in absolutes with little or no grey area........or grey matter, while we're on the subject.”

“Burying dead liberals in my crawl space has nothing to do with hate Marko-pollo. It’s all about reasonable practicality.”

“That's "MarkO con pollo", putzki!!”

“Don't you mean, "plausible deniability" ?”

“Yeah? Well when Kerry comes up 5 votes shy in Ohio, who'll be laughin' then funny man? haha!”

“Ohio.......I mean, Ohio??

Maryland is goin' Democratic.”

“"That's "MarkO con pollo", putzki!!"

MarkO
12:05:37 PM
09/23/04

I don't want to eat you with or without chicken, I just want flame ya on these threads, and hike with ya :)

What Nigal wants to do with you and a nice bottle of chianti isn't a liberal or conservative thing.”

“Do you still hear the cry of the lambs Marko?”

“Uh......no, but I do hear the turkeys gobblin'.”

“

$31.99 at amazon.com”

“Conservative:

Life is harsh, God is angry, enemies ought to be treated without mercy. An eye for an eye. There is good and there is evil, and the distinction between them is as clear as the line between sin and righteousness.


Liberal:

Life, liberals believe, is meant to be pleasurable, God is forgiving if He exists at all, and it's important to think about others' feelings and motivations as well as your own. You might not like the idea of abortion, but it is important to allow people who believe differently to make their own choice”

“Phaedrus, that sounds like a fair definition.”

“Heck, I figured that was why the terms "blissninny" and "warmongerer" actually had some punch.”

“Yeah......and bleeding heart and conquistadope.”

“I thought Fuego was for any political stuff, not just incendiary stuff?

As for this guy's view of liberal vs. conservative, he's got it all wrong. Conservatives are the happy ones, seeing the joys of life, the hard work and rewards and simple pleasures and self-conidence derived from such hard work, not seeking handouts unless they are truly needed, seeing good and evil for what it is and not afraid to call it as such, seeking justice for all, and holding on to traditional moral values that have made this country great. Liberals tend to by cynical, skeptical, define no true line distinguishing between good and evil, look towards the government to assist and provide, think that there is a reason and blame when things go bad and hence criminals had bad childhoods which means they are perfectly fine but their parents were bad and a little time in a plush facility can make them all good again, they think that regardless of how hard one works or not that all should have the same priveliges, if you work too hard and make a lot of money you should be penalized and have your money taken away before a compassionate conservative even has a chance to write a check to a charity supporting poor people, etc.

That's my take on it. Different worldviews. That Roland Merullo looks at it much much differently. To suggest conservatives believe that "God is angry" shows his lack of insight. It's just the opposite. Conservatives feel that "God is love", not angry.”

“I'd have to go with Buck on this one, I know that shocks you libs :)”

“"Conservative:

Life is GOOD, God is LOVE, enemies ought to be treated WITH mercy by giving them opportunity to change, knowing the consequences if they don't. An eye for an eye is not how they think, if so they'd be proudly beheading people on videotape and bragging about it. They'd be taking over countries like Iraq and putting their own American flag on the ground and calling it the 51st State. There is good and there is evil, and the distinction between them is as clear as the line between sin and righteousness.


Liberal:

Life, liberals believe, is meant to be viewed cynically, God is apathetic and uninvolved if He exists at all, and it's important to think about others' feelings and motivations as well as your own, unless they are conservative. You might not like the idea of abortion, but it is important to allow people who believe differently to kill babies if they choose."”

“Maybe we should set up a subtype of conservative for Buck.

Let's call it wackawackawheeeeeeee!

Somehow this is the sound that plays through my mind repeatedly as I read his posts. No offense.

Hike on, Brother human!”

“President Bush believes that...

...the government can do a better job than private industry of checking bags at airports. Result=big new government program.

...the government should extend itself into previously private religous social service programs. Result=big new government faith-based initiative program.

...the government should be able to look at the library records and flight information of every American. Result=big new system to monitor Americans.

...the government should pay senior's drugs at incredibly high costs to support the pharmaceutical industry. Result=big new entitlement program.

...the U.S. government would do a better job of running Middle Eastern countries than Middle Easterners themselves. Result=big new government-funded nation-building program around the world.

...the government can spend the American economy out of recession through massive spending increases. Result=greatly enlarged government size and massive deficits.

...the federal government should control local schools rather than local communities. Result: Massive federal mandates in No Child Left Behind.

...the federal government should decide whether local municipalities should allow domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. Result=constitutional amendment to destroy local control of marriage.

In almost every way, George Bush is NOT a conservative. He believes that government should play an overarching role in the lives of every American.

I remember standing in my dorm room at U of Michigan in 1994, cheering the Republican Revolution. Finally, I thought, we would get limited government.

Where did the Revolution go?”

“Okay then, if Bush isn't even conservative, what you the liberals complaining about? VOTE COMMIE in NOVEMBER! VOTE G-DUBYA!”

“Do you have a substantive response?”

“Are you being serious?”

“Buck,

The Republican Revolution was all about limited government. It ushered in a decade of responsible government. Clinton and the Republican House get most of the credit.

Now, we have an era of massively increased government. How can this be defended?”

“Interesting.
Each side casts the other as the angry, no-fun, out to control everything side.”

“reformed lurker, first of all I was just being goofy, but your e-mail-style cut and paste is just the typical stuff I see everyday on both sides. If you think with a split Congress and all the special interests and all the mumbo-jumbo political rhetoric on both sides that you can somehow get limited government or a socialistic government, you're kidding yourself. We'll have status-quo (within limits) balanced by both sides. You won't see any major swings in the way things are with either Dems or Repubs, they're entrenched in their ways.

But it would be very easy to ask why in the heck would liberals be calling Bush ultra-right-wing conservative if you think he's a liberal? If so, shouldn't Bush be getting a huge percentage of the liberal vote AND the Republican vote? I think most people think of Bush as being quite conservative, even if what's happening fiscally under his Presidency says otherwise. Also, there are a lot of exaggerations and misconceptions in many of those pull-string rehashed statements in your post.”

“Buck,

I wrote that. It was not a cut and paste.

And the Congress is NOT divided. It is controlled by one party. The Republicans promised smaller government in 1994.

You would think that if they controlled things completely, they would bring fiscal discipline to the budget.

At least Kerry could put a check on Republican spending.”

“RL's right. Kerry at the helm would make a partisan and ideological "balance" much more of a possibility than the present scenario. And I think he was saying (in an eloquent way) that he is disappointed in the fact that the party did not deliver (in the 90's and into the 00's) the message it sold itself on, which was smaller government. Then, your post goes on to classify Bush as technically a liberal (by definition), as if the differnece between a conservative and a liberal was solely defined by whether they support big gov't or limited gov't. I maintain that the definitions are not that cut and dried...”

“Nah. Buck likes Bush cause he's a fellow fundamentalist Christian who believes fetuses have souls and criminals and democrats don't.

Also, Buck likes to kick puppies and twist the wings off baby birds.

Can we please get back to the point of my troll on this thread: Conservative/liberal bashing?”

“Damn. Some days I'm just too damn honest.”

“I'll humor you for a minute and respond.

...the government can do a better job than private industry of checking bags at airports. Result=big new government program.
I>

When it comes to the protection and safety of American citizens, such as military and police, the government steps in. It's one of the prime reasons we have government - according to Republican ideals.

...the government should extend itself into previously private religous social service programs. Result=big new government faith-based initiative program.


The government has long provided tax breaks and grants and public funding and gov't perks for non-profit social orgs, including religious based ones, with stipulations. Bush wants to have an even better relationship with these charity and non-profit organizations because they do such a great job in the communities and provide resources and assistance better and more effetively than just the government alone. Bush wants to promote even more awareness of these faith-based programs because they work. That's a good thing.

...the government should be able to look at the library records and flight information of every American. Result=big new system to monitor Americans.


Do you feel you are being watched? I haven't had any feds monitoring me. This is just scare tactics because in reality the feds just want to be able to track someone if they check out books on "how to build a nuclear bomb" and then check out a book "most effective way to destroy San Francisco", etc. These are just ways of matching records to track terrorists. Bush got hammered by libs for not putting 2 and 2 together prior to 9/11, and now he wants to make it easier to track suspicious activities and share information between agencies so they can stop acts BEFORE they happen. If you go to the library and flip through Backpacker Magazine you won't be watched, trust me. I'm Buck Forester, you can.

...the government should pay senior's drugs at incredibly high costs to support the pharmaceutical industry. Result=big new entitlement program.

The government wants to help with seniors on the high cost of necessary prescription drugs. That's a good thing. And pharmaceutical companies are investing and making life-saving medications so we can live longer and healthier lives, that's a good thing. Money gives them incentive to take risks and provide the research and talent it takes to cure illnesses. People have no problem paying $1,500/mo. mortgage and $400/mo car payment and buy new HDTVs and furniture, but if they have to pay $800/mo. for the most important thing in their life, their health, they get pissed off at the company who is allowing them to continue living in the first place. I don't get it. It's like, "I DEMAND YOU TO SAVE MY LIFE AND YOU BETTER MAKE IT CHEAP!"

...the U.S. government would do a better job of running Middle Eastern countries than Middle Easterners themselves. Result=big new government-funded nation-building program around the world.


I didn't realize we are running middle eastern countries? Seems to me we are taking away dictators who run middle eastern countries and then are giving it back to the people to run it themselves, freely, with liberty and justice for all. That's a bad thing?

...the government can spend the American economy out of recession through massive spending increases. Result=greatly enlarged government size and massive deficits.


Bush is giving us tax breaks so WE can spend our money. We aren't in a recession (unless you're a pessimistic liberal, then we're always under recessions when Dem's aren't in office). I agree federal spending is out of control and some of that can be contributed to post-9/11 expenditures, Homeland Security, the war in Iraq, and bills getting passed through Congress with all kinds of attachments. But Bush should be firmer on what gets passed or not. Agreed on that one.

...the federal government should control local schools rather than local communities. Result: Massive federal mandates in No Child Left Behind.


"Control" local schools? Hardly. Federal standards? Yes. Controlling schools? No. That was bipartisan legislation by the way.

...the federal government should decide whether local municipalities should allow domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage. Result=constitutional amendment to destroy local control of marriage.


reformed lurker, if I live in Sacramento and we don't want gay marriages here, yet a gay couple get married in Mass and move to Sacramento and we have to accept it as law, how is that us having local control? No, that's being controlled by people outside our community forcing us to accept it. The Amendment would say that States would NOT have to be forced to accept the marriage of another State. What's wrong with that? Also, it takes a lot to get an Amendment passed so it would be the will of the people enforcing what they want. Is that bad? It appears most State's are making laws against gay marriage as it is.

In almost every way, George Bush is NOT a conservative. He believes that government should play an overarching role in the lives of every American.


That is just a plain untrue statement. No comment necessary.

If you really believe this, go tell John Kerry that Bush isn't even a conservative President. In fact most people think (wrongly so, IMHO) Bush is more conservative President than John Kerry is a liberal Senator.

Gotta run! Adios.”

“Dweeb!

;)”

“And the Congress is NOT divided. It is controlled by one party. The Republicans promised smaller government in 1994. - reformed lurker

reformed lurker? The Congress is not divided? You mean it's 100% Republican? I didn't realize that. I retract my divided statement. I thought the Republican majority was a razor thin margin, with it being virtually divided down the middle. You do realize that it takes more votes in Congress than merely having one or two or three more seats than the other party to get legislation passed, no? Of course you do. Congress is divided.

Do you realize that Republicans have 51 of the 100 House Seats? 51/100. Sounds divided to me!”

“He means having a democratic majority in one of the houses, dum-dum!”

“Phaed, if you have a one-seat majority, 51/100, it doesn't effectively change the policies that need the necessary votes to pass from both sides of the aisle! You don't "control" everything that becomes law because you have one single more seat than the other party!”

“I fart in your specific direction.”

“Having a majority allows you to pass practically anything along party lines.”

“A tie works, too. Especially when ole Dick(less) is there to break it!”

“And in both houses, it allows you to do petty much anything besides make amendmets to the constitution.

Not that they haven't tried, mind you.”

“I believe most votes ARE a simple majority. If I remember correctly, you need two thirds to override a veto, correct?”

“I agree, Phead. Also, have we all noticed how the Judical branch has kept in line with Asscrofts arrests?

The case in Detroit was dissmised.

The lastest case that went to the Supreme Court was dismissed.

The Pedella case is in limbo.

I don't think they have been able to make anything stick that is questionable.


BTW - did ya'll hear the one about how the house past a bill to make sure that the spreme court couldn't rule in a case about *under god* in the pledge? It won't clear the Senate, but what a frickin` waste of time in that part of Gov. This is the second legislation the house has past that attempted to limit the powers of the courts. WTF are they doing over there?”

“Fellas - let's please keep in mind that the Repubs have controled all three branches of governemnt and haven't been able to pass anything on there platform.

Real sad. It's shows how divided they really are!”