View Full Version : The real meaning of Liberial (sic) and Conservative
Libareal, Liberel, Libiril - however some of our dyslexic members seem to spell the word - is a complex thing. No scrap that. It's a simple thing. They are, after all simple folk. They require absolutes. X is me, therefore Y is them.
Who is 'them'? Well they are a bit cagey about that - suffice to say; not the conservatives.
Actually, while we are at it, who are the conservatives? Well they are a self defining lot. Indeed they are the ones that seem to like defining. They are the ones who have decided that the world is as simple as X and Y. They are the ones who have decided that they are X and the others are Y. In fact so taken with this definition of life the universe and everything that they go merrily applying it to all situations, past, present and hypothetical.
Did you ever know, before now that Stalin and Hitler were in fact Liberills? Before now, did you ever realise that suicide bombers were Libiraels and B52 bombers were conservatives? I didn't. And I have found this new approach a breath of fresh air, in what I had always thought was a complex and pluralistic world.
Perhaps that's what appeals. The simplicity. KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. An idea to live by.
The only problem I have is that I am not a conservative. And this has led me to the uncomfortable realisation that according to the new thinking I must be a Liboral. I'm shocked at this, and not a little appalled. I have been dilligently reading 3 or 4 lenghty articles, genreously cut and pasted from quality sources (well the must be good as they call themselves Conservative News, and advertise where you can get a hot conservative date for the weekend, and offer more exposes about Bill Clinton - can anyone ever get enough of those?) And all these sources carefully point to one conclusion - Libbirols are the scourge of the world. Through their.. er.. actions (or inactions) they are basically selling out our world to an evil cabal of islamic environmentalist communists who practice positive gay abortion descrimination before giving money to suicide bombers by way of welfare bonuses. (I may have got the last bit a little mixed up - my head is swimming with the list of crimes my ilk have committed).
I think there is light at the end of the tunnel though. I think I should embrace my new libiarel identity. I should be proud of who conservatives think I am. So now I am on the hunt for a leader. Apparently Bill Clinton is the best pick. He seems to be ideologically close to Stalin, that other icon of my new political creed (I spent a while trying to puzzle out how this could be based on their starkly different political perspectives on the control of the means of production and the relationship between economic base and political superstructure - but I have realised that this is just old thinking - time to embrace the simpler new way). However, despite Clinton's obvious merits (lack of personal morals, a few bits of legislation about gay rights... er.. conservatives hate him..) He came up short. You see, I just can't get over how.. well .. conservative the guy is. I mean smoking cigars, hanging out on yachts, getting juicy donations from corporations, being rich, supporting Israel, starting wars. He just isn't the baby killing, godless commie I am looking for.
Tony Blair cropped up as possible - democratic socialism as he calls it - sounds like he should be on track for the sort of homo, muslim worshipping I need. But once again I found him lacking. They guy even goes to church - not to mention gets involved in wars. A thorough disappointment. I went for others but found them equally hopeless.
Chirac - Capitalist - no good for the commie I am supposed to be
Kim Il Sung - Authoritarian - I need a weakling god damn it!
President of Iran... he's too religious, that really doesn't work. Probably anti-abortion too.
The list goes on.
So now I am leaderless. I have decided to undertake a quest, to find my spiritual leader. I shall travel far and wide, look high and low for the craven gutless sponger the conservatives have told me I follow.
However there remains one problem. It's a big problem. I sit here unable to progress until I resolve this. I have studied the great works of the conservatives on this board. Read carefully each line. Re-read and compared. And still I have no clear spelling of Libberole!
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2005, 15:17
Hehe, liberals are big on identity crisis.
"Even though I hold liberal opinions on all major issues, dont you dare call me a liberal!"
Notice how you were all too quick to make broad generalizations about conservatives in the very same thread in which you were complaining about the same thing being done against yourself. Pot and Kettle, yea yea yea..
But I will heed your outcry Idaho. I will no longer call you a liberal. From now on you are a person who holds liberal opinions. Hows that?
It sounds as if the backroom is about to erupt into civil war. Actually, this persistent labelling is utterly tiresome.
If you define liberil first and match a specific opinion to it, then fine. Otherwise the only point of the word is to distinguish yourself from some broad and unclear political group who are in the current US political decendancy. The term just doesn't cross the atlantic well. Either people over here are unclear as to what it means, or just assume it means something very different - along the lines of the neo liberals or the social liberals.
As far as I can tell a liberal is a slightly unhappy capitalist, and a conservative is a happy capitalist. However both are on the same road going in broadly the same direction. Like two brothers sharing the backseat but quarreling as they go. The two are a very narrow thread in the much larger cross section of political and philosophical debate.
Perhaps it is all about the US deluding itself into thinking it has a broad spectrum of politics and isn't effectively a stitch-up of corporate capitalists.
Libareal, Liberel, Libiril - however some of our dyslexic members seem to spell the word - is a complex thing. No scrap that. It's a simple thing. They are, after all simple folk. They require absolutes. X is me, therefore Y is them.
LOL - don't go patting yourself on the back to much Idaho it seems Liberals have a hard time spelling themselves.
Who is 'them'? Well they are a bit cagey about that - suffice to say; not the conservatives.
Boy are we on a roll today.
Actually, while we are at it, who are the conservatives? Well they are a self defining lot. Indeed they are the ones that seem to like defining. They are the ones who have decided that the world is as simple as X and Y. They are the ones who have decided that they are X and the others are Y. In fact so taken with this definition of life the universe and everything that they go merrily applying it to all situations, past, present and hypothetical.
Pot calling the Kettle Black. Care to quess how many times I have seen you and others that proclaim they are liberals mis-apply labels on others who disagree with them - to include the term applied incorrectly of neo-con?
Again the Pot calling the Kettle Black.
Did you ever know, before now that Stalin and Hitler were in fact Liberills? Before now, did you ever realise that suicide bombers were Libiraels and B52 bombers were conservatives? I didn't. And I have found this new approach a breath of fresh air, in what I had always thought was a complex and pluralistic world.
Nice attempt at spin - but that is all it is.
Perhaps that's what appeals. The simplicity. KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. An idea to live by.
Yes it is a good idea to live by - to bad the politicians forgot that simple idea.
The only problem I have is that I am not a conservative. And this has led me to the uncomfortable realisation that according to the new thinking I must be a Liboral. I'm shocked at this, and not a little appalled. I have been dilligently reading 3 or 4 lenghty articles, genreously cut and pasted from quality sources (well the must be good as they call themselves Conservative News, and advertise where you can get a hot conservative date for the weekend, and offer more exposes about Bill Clinton - can anyone ever get enough of those?) And all these sources carefully point to one conclusion - Libbirols are the scourge of the world. Through their.. er.. actions (or inactions) they are basically selling out our world to an evil cabal of islamic environmentalist communists who practice positive gay abortion descrimination before giving money to suicide bombers by way of welfare bonuses. (I may have got the last bit a little mixed up - head is swimming with the list of crimes my ilk have committed
As well it should
I think there is light at the end of the tunnel though. I think I should embrace my new libiarel identity. I should be proud of who conservatives think I am. So now I am on the hunt for a leader. Apparently Bill Clinton is the best pick. He seems to be ideologically close to Stalin, that other icon of my new political creed (I spent a while trying to puzzle out how this could be based on their starkly different political perspectives on the control of the means of production and the relationship between economic base and political superstructure - but I have realised that this is just old thinking - time to embrace the simpler new way). However, despite Clinton's obvious merits (lack of personal morals, a few bits of legislation about gay rights... er.. conservatives hate him..) He came up short. You see, I just can't get over how.. well .. conservative the guy is. I mean smoking cigars, hanging out on yachts, getting juicy donations from corporations, being rich, supporting Israel, starting wars. He just isn't the baby killing, godless commie I am looking for.
Now that is funny - but full of hyperbole
Tony Blair cropped up as possible - democratic socialism as he calls it - sounds like he should be on track for the sort of homo, muslim worshipping I need. But once again I found him lacking. They guy even goes to church - not to mention gets involved in wars. A thorough disappointment. I went for others but found them equally hopeless.
It seems you are starting to get the message ~;)
Chirac - Capitalist - no good for the commie I am supposed to be
Kim Il Sung - Authoritarian - I need a weakling god damn it!
President of Iran... he's too religious, that really doesn't work. Probably anti-abortion too.
Go for Jag's favorite Chavez - he is not all that bad.
The list goes on.
Grows shorter by the decade does it not?
So now I am leaderless. I have decided to undertake a quest, to find my spiritual leader. I shall travel far and wide, look high and low for the craven gutless sponger the conservatives have told me I follow.
Well it seems you haven't looked low enough - you got a good candidate for the type of leader your are lookin for in your neck of the woods.
However there remains one problem. It's a big problem. I sit here unable to progress until I resolve this. I have studied the great works of the conservatives on this board. Read carefully each line. Re-read and compared. And still I have no clear spelling of Libberole!
Then you might want to consult a dictionary - here is a little help for you
http://www.m-w.com/
And since I fell especially helpful in helping you solve your crisis I even looked it up for you.
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>. GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing <children spoiled by bountiful presents>. MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes <a munificent foundation grant>.
Notice how you were all too quick to make broad generalizations about conservatives in the very same thread
Personally I don't think you share as many views as you think. However, for whatever reason you define yourselves as conservatives.
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2005, 15:44
Well Im sticking to my guns, from now on i will only describe ideas or policies as xxx, not people.
Some more help for you Idaho in finding the meaning of Liberalism - Again notice how the word is correctly spelled not only by myself but this group.
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/liberal.html
And since your in the United Kingdom - some sites just for you to help find yourself while in your crisis
A list of many parties and thier links
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/parties.htm
You might want to find this group - since they understand how to spell the word Liberal
http://www.libdems.org.uk/party/
Byzantine Prince
08-12-2005, 16:31
I'm so tired of this labeling. In fact I'm exhausted from it, all thanks to Gawwain and the likes of him. It's getting to be a real drag and not to mention really boring.
Can we please focus on the issues and not the left/right tendencies of each member. I think most of can think for ourselves and don't need to be labeled in order to figure out what side of an argument to take.
GAH!!!
I'm so tired of this labeling. In fact I'm exhausted from it, all thanks to Gawwain and the likes of him. It's getting to be a real drag and not to mention really boring.
Your tired of it - yet you only blame one by name. Now that is funny since I have seen labels thrown about by both sides of the politicial spectrum in the four years I have posted here - to include you.
Labels are used to demonize the opposition so that you can attempt to discount their opinions and viewpoints. Notice how many times Idaho did that in his little attempt here in this thread.
Can we please focus on the issues and not the left/right tendencies of each member. I think most of can think for ourselves and don't need to be labeled in order to figure out what side of an argument to take.
GAH!!!
Notice who started this thread......... :help:
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2005, 16:40
I'm so tired of this labeling. In fact I'm exhausted from it, all thanks to Gawwain and the likes of him. It's getting to be a real drag and not to mention really boring.
Im tired of people attackiing Gawain. Hes started and participated in some of the best debates on this forum. Put him on ignore if you cant debate his views.
Byzantine Prince
08-12-2005, 17:43
Yeah Gawain is reponsible for some great debate threads even though the articles he starts them with are usually biased. But that' besides the point. He shouldn't use labels when he starts those topics. That clearly sets the mood for senseless bashing from both sides. I'm not saying I'm innocent but I try very hard to resist, which is pretty hard when someone else stays so true to party line it's painful to read!
scooter_the_shooter
08-12-2005, 17:45
There is NO article that is not biased anywhere. Its like fox news and cnn they both claim to be balanced but they are not.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-12-2005, 17:47
Yeah Gawain is reponsible for some great debate threads even though the articles he starts them with are usually biased. But that' besides the point. He shouldn't use labels when he starts those topics. That clearly sets the mood for senseless bashing from both sides. I'm not saying I'm innocent but I try very hard to resist, which is pretty hard when someone else stays so true to party line it's painful to read!
This opposition to being labled is silly to me. How is it us conservtives not only dont mind being labled as such but in fact relish it yet liberals get upset when you call them that? If the label dosent apply to you then ignore it.
Man Im starting to feel Like GWB. Everywhere I look theres another thread attacking me. I take it as a compliment though. Please keep it up your infalting my ego. ~D
sharrukin
08-12-2005, 20:58
however some of our dyslexic members seem to spell the word
I hear you on this one.
This is a point that has bothered me as well!
Some examples from our dyslexic community.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=881146&postcount=60
Mussolini in Italy and Moseley in Britain wree both originally socialists (of wealthy backgrounds) but switched to facism.
Moseley: I assume you mean Oswald Mosley?
wree; This is were?
facism: I assume you mean fascism?
One of the key differences between socialism and facism is it's treatment of the means of production.
facism: Again I assume you mean fascism?
Facists do the opposite.
I assume you mean "Fascists do the opposite."
"Did you ever know, before now that Stalin and Hitler were in fact Liberills?"
I think I hit a sore spot with that.
Unfortunately that was never my point, nor did I say that Stalin or Hitler were Liberals. But I understand that we live in a complex and pluralistic world which might get confusing for you. So perhaps to reduce it to simplistic terms is easier for you. As you say "The simplicity. KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. An idea to live by. "
You see the Left-wing comprises a wide range of political beliefs, from Communism, Socialism, Fascism, modern Liberalism, and many more. Each has a range of opinion within each group as well. In addition old Liberals are more like modern Conservatives in many ways.
So why would you take offence at my saying Hitler was left-wing unless YOU see them as a single group?
The only problem I have is that I am not a conservative.
You can work on that! Never give up hope!
"Indeed they are the ones that seem to like defining. They are the ones who have decided that the world is as simple as X and Y."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I think liberals would have some of the same books, such as the ultra-conservative fascist ones like Mein Kampf.
Sharrukin's response;
Fascism wasn't conservative. It was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) and many of the members were former socialists and communists. Its closest to being a strange variant of communism is some ways.
My point was that Hitler and Stalin were extreme Socialists who belonged on the left-wing of the political spectrum, rather than the right-wing. That is if we use such a spectrum, which I pointed out was less than adequate.
This point was being made to a 'Liberal' (did I spell that right?), Hurin_Rules, who had said that Hitler was more of a ultra-conservative.
Maybe Hurin_Rules the 'Liberal' shouldn't have said that!
Maybe I shouldn't have asked what books a 'Liberal' would have on their list of banned books.
Hurin_Rules however apparently saw himself as a Liberal and answered the call, therefore earning himself the title "The Liberal'. I suspect he isn't all that ashamed of it either.
Maybe rasoforos shouldn't have said "one of those websites that do the thinking for american conservatives" or "if Dubya and his thugs swear by Keynes, and the conservatives support Dubya".
Maybe Don Corleone shouldn't have called himself a "knuckle-dragging neanderthal conservative" and Xiahou shouldn't have asked "Huh? Someone say my name?"
And perhaps Idaho The Evenhanded shouldn't have said "The most harmful thing to modern civilisation is the 15 doddering old farts who dreamt up that list. Reactionary twaddle." A cutting political point I grant you, but being a Conservative I lack the mental capacity to see the finer details of this analyzes. BTW, civilisation is mispelled, should be; civilization. ~D
And Byzantine Prince shouldn't have said "I think it's obvious that conservatives aren't aware of how economics works and how it affects people." In any case he thought better of his indiscretion "Oh pardon was that a jab at cons? Shame on me!"
The point is that everyone uses such broad strokes not just to paint the enemy, but to describe themselves. Labels are useful which is why we all use them. To argue that there is no logical dividing line between what is a couch and a chair, does not alter the value of such terms. We simply need to keep in mind that they have their limits and meant as broad descriptive terms only.
They are, after all simple folk. They require absolutes.
I have been called more mean names by Conservatives than anyone else.
Over the death penalty Proletariat said... "You're dithpicable!"
Redleg said something to the effect that I hate the American army.
Gawain thinks I am a Bush-basher (that one is true).
Some support the death penalty, some don't.
Some support the war in Iraq, some don't.
Some support religion influencing politics and some don't.
The list goes on.
Conservatives are a diverse bunch as well.
Its no real shock to Conservatives that we don't all agree.
We still call ourselves Conservatives because we can see the forest and no, all those trees are not in the way.
Outside of us simple folk calling you "that unpleasant little fellow", what exactly do you want us to call you?
What political label would be acceptable to you?
Or do you reject such things as labels and names?
Should we call you "The Forum member formerly known as Idaho"?
Suggestions would be very helpful.
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2005, 21:06
Outside of us simple folk calling you "that unpleasant little fellow", what exactly do you want us to call you?
What political label would be acceptable to you?
Or do you reject such things as labels and names?
Should we call you "The Forum member formerly known as Idaho"?
Suggestions would be very helpful.
:laugh4:
Byzantine Prince
08-12-2005, 21:16
This opposition to being labled is silly to me. How is it us conservtives not only dont mind being labled as such but in fact relish it yet liberals get upset when you call them that?
Maybe you relish it because liberals hate it and you seem to not mind. I still have yet to see where are these liberal that hates being called that. Here in Canada we have Liberal Party! and they are in power right now. They don't seem to mind, seeing as they are only called liberals. In the US though the right has created this myth that liberals are afraid to be called that, so that they relish(mmmm relish) being called consevatives. It's kind of funny how republicans delude themselves.
Man Im starting to feel Like GWB.
Yeah, of course you do. But that's not something I would advertize if I was you. ~D
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2005, 21:19
Maybe you relish it because liberals hate it and you seem to not mind. I still have yet to see where are these liberal that hates being called that. Here in Canada we have Liberal Party! and they are in power right now. They don't seem to mind, seeing as they are only called liberals. In the US though the right has created this myth that liberals are afraid to be called that, so that they relish(mmmm relish) being called consevatives. It's kind of funny how republicans delude themselves.
Do you realize how many nasty, evil labels you just used. Gather the stones guys...
KukriKhan
08-12-2005, 21:26
:twee-e-e-e-et!:
Play nice, or yellow & red cards start flying.
The post-starter asked (in his own round-about almost-baiting way) for a definition of 'liberal'. Everyone is free to take a chance at answering that request. All else is useless fluff, which if continued will lead to thread termination, as being counter-productive to fruitful discussion.
:twee-e-e-e-et!:
Play nice, or yellow & red cards start flying.
The post-starter asked (in his own round-about almost-baiting way) for a definition of 'liberal'. Everyone is free to take a chance at answering that request. All else is useless fluff, which if continued will lead to thread termination, as being counter-productive to fruitful discussion.
Trying to play nice - but its just so tempting of a target - especially given the way Idaho chose to start the thread.
I shall refrain from clipping and otherwise illegal hits below the belt on this one. ~D
Honestly, are the liberals in the Backroom circulating talking points memos or something? How many threads is this now about the big bad conservatives not playing fair in debates? Really, I think it's getting pretty tedious.
Complaining about unfair criticism and blanket generalizations, all the while stooping to making fun of people's spelling and... ~:eek: making blanket generalizations.
RabidGibbon
08-13-2005, 00:05
I'm a bit of a lurker in the backroom, and just so you all know, if I was accosted on the street by a guy with a gun demanding to know whether I'm right or left, I'd say left.
However I wonder if "Left" and "Liberalism" (Sod spelling, I'm too drunk to care) don't mean different things on each side of the pond.
Originally posted by Redleg
of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
Now in the USA aren't economic freedom & greater participation in government by individuals (ie: States rights?) Republican things? The republicans being the conservative branch of american politics? Whereas Liberals in the UK are considered being on the Left?
Whereas my favorite party, the good old Lib Dems are, in the Uk considered to be the centre, although since Labour went New labour there now the left.
Of course theirs some things that the two countries will never agree on like Public health care and the right to "pack heat", but thats why you had your revolution right?
AntiochusIII
08-13-2005, 01:02
Of course theirs some things that the two countries will never agree on like Public health care and the right to "pack heat", but thats why you had your revolution right?Wow, this is awesome. Would you give me permission to put it in a quote? ~D
Well, I guess the backroom currently portrays a situation in which lot of "conservative" (I use this term liberally here, for lack of better words ~D) threads with little point and quite more of an attack and bait for flaming are popping up. In the meantime, the "other side" (who are they?) complains a lot more than usual and should be.
Neither proves to be a wise course of action.
Tachikaze
08-13-2005, 06:33
I've used the term "liberal" for myself to counter the way people use it as an insult, like liberals are supposed to feel shame. So, I'm a liberal in defiance.
Definition?
A liberal is someone who will adapt their culture, political structure, and laws to a changing world. Thus, they question social/political/economic structures, religious beliefs, morals, laws, and other institutions that may be outdated or counterproductive in their present form. They are willing to make adjustments to provide the best solutions to a constantly evolving planet and a constantly evolving understanding of the world around us.
Divinus Arma
08-13-2005, 06:49
The terms "liberalism" and "conservatism" are ultimately defined by those who use these as a label for themselves.
A conservative may espouse principles and ideas shared by liberals, though they may disagree simply on the label.
Consider the following example:
____________ is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty and private property as the purpose of government.
Is this a liberal or a conservative?
According to our favorite wiki encyclopedia, 'tis a liberal. Yes, it is true that it is wiki web page and anyone can write that or change it. But can you imagine a Republican Conservative writing it of liberals? Me thinks not.
I agree with this statement so long as this "purpose of government" only seeks to support negative rights. Simply put, the government should only defend my right to retain property, rather than promote property rights by giving me an "entitlement to property". I am only entitled to that property that I earn.
Fascism wasn't conservative. It was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) and many of the members were former socialists and communists. Its closest to being a strange variant of communism is some ways.
My point was that Hitler and Stalin were extreme Socialists who belonged on the left-wing of the political spectrum, rather than the right-wing. That is if we use such a spectrum, which I pointed out was less than adequate.
Outside of us simple folk calling you "that unpleasant little fellow", what exactly do you want us to call you?
What political label would be acceptable to you?
Or do you reject such things as labels and names?
Should we call you "The Forum member formerly known as Idaho"?
Suggestions would be very helpful.
Nonsense. A feeble and unsubstantiated rewrite of history that no respected academic would agree with.
Names and labels are fine - if they are used intelligently. Alas I fear such subtleties are beyond you.
So now I am leaderless.
Wrong! You have Lucifer.
sharrukin
08-13-2005, 22:40
Nonsense. A feeble and unsubstantiated rewrite of history that no respected academic would agree with.
Names and labels are fine - if they are used intelligently. Alas I fear such subtleties are beyond you.
I fear they are as well!
This is not the first time you have been challenged either.
PanzerJager
You are simply not intelligent enough to understand the significance of those articles - and the significance of the points in history they describe.
I realize that I, and every conservative here, fails to ascend to your intellectual heights, but is there anyone who is capable of such a feat? I mean anyone at all?
It must be very lonely for you!
Crazed Rabbit
08-14-2005, 04:54
lonely, high; in his
ivory tower, aloft thought,
intellectual
Crazed Rabbit
P.S. So it wasn't great. But I did it in 2 minutes and, let's face it, I didn't feel like putting a lot of time into when this whole thread is for bashing conservatives with his smug tone.
Devastatin Dave
08-14-2005, 05:09
I'm tired of typing "liberal", can we just start calling you guys "kettles"? Has a ring to it ya know... ~D
Tachikaze
08-14-2005, 07:14
There's always librul.
Complaining about unfair criticism and blanket generalizations, all the while stooping to making fun of people's spelling and... making blanket generalizations.
There's lots of that in here, to be sure, from people of many different ideologies.
My point is simple. When we seek to understand other points of view, and we allow our own views to grow and improve as a result of that, then we make progress. When we use labels to demonize others and polarize the conversation, then we have accomplished little more than squabbling.
There are legitimate cases of us and them, but we should seek to find the middle, the high ground, and save the fighting for times when it is necessary.
ichi :bow:
KafirChobee
08-14-2005, 19:08
Labeling, is a time honored method for one political opponent to slander his adversary.
That the term "liberal" is now equated with weakness, communism, moral corruption, anti-church, anti-freedom of life (never use the term PRO, when slandering an opponent - it gives a more possitive slant to their arguement, only use PRO when describing your own possition. Unless of course it is something like; they are PROTERRORISTS, pro-gays, pro-scareything), anti-IntelligentDesign, anti-war, anti-soldiers, anti-family values (my personal fave), and all the other anti's that the right proclaims the misguided that oppose them are. Where as, all their values are listed as pro (except of course pro-choice, where they don't mind using the anti-abortion slogan), or possitive for the betterment of Americans and the world.
Labeling is fun, and turning or twisting what the other side is actually saying is even more enjoyable. We can all do this. It is the old kettle and pot crap that some love to bring up - but, never adhere to. Or, the item by item analogies some like to use to discredit a point of view they find offensive - to me it is just annoying when someone discredits an entire line of thought with a cursory one line statement that is somehow suppose to be an answer in itself - versus actually putting some thought into it, or even addressing the question imposed honestly. Or, even worse using some Http from a slanted source as support for their answer.
When in doubt demonize or portray your opponent as an extremist or even a liar. Liar is best, especially if they are a war hero (eg, McGovern, Kerry, Kennedy, McCain, or the boy that just lost the election in Ohio). But, in a pinch demonizing works - take the LBJ ad against Goldwater as the best example (little girl turning into a mushroom cloud - it has been employed ever since - remember the Dukakis in the tank), or demonizing an entire political movement by selecting a few emotional items is even better. Ignore the possitive, always highlite the negative. If there are no negatives, create them with false testimony (i.e. The Boat people against Kerry, the inventive documents on Bush43's service - someone will believed them), or by taking things out of context. Also, run an investigation against them - do so for as long as it takes to come up with something (even if the original premise was found to be untrue). - sooner or later someone will find something (humans being what they are).
Be firm, never change your mind about something. If you believe that your side is all good - the other all bad. Label them, so all know your misconceptions and intolerance for their views. Be sure to associate them with someone in history that few can defend (or even want to). Hitler, has been over used - use Gerbels, or Nixon, or Hoover instead. Stalin, has been over used also - use FDR, or Kennedy (only refer to his sex life tho - never his accomplshments, same with Clinton and Carter), or Castro (associating your opponent with him is always a good ploy - guarantees the Miami Cuban voters), or alQuada (if you can't really associate them with them, just say they aren't strong enough to deal with them - that seems to work).
Regardless, of ones political, social, moral, or ethical leanings - labeling is a sure fire method to demonize "them", while reassuring your own minions that what they believe is the only true path to godly perfection. Those heathens will rue the day they ever tried to define their own moral worth.
~D
King Henry V
08-14-2005, 19:22
Ah, they are too many librarians in the world. ~;)
KafirChobee - If I ever run for election I'll hire you as head of propaganda!
KafirChobee
08-16-2005, 05:46
Idaho, your on. :balloon2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.