The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6   Reply to this topic

Any conservatives out there?

Beth
post 25.Feb.2006, 08:43 AM
Post #76
Joined: 15.Sep.2004

roy, doc, kang, carol...you guys seem to be having a fantastic debate. however, at the onset of a saturday that looks to have fair weather promise, i can't devote the good hour your points would merit to properly digest your arguments.

can anyone sum it up?

roy, you just posted. seriously, how long did it take for you to compose that reply?
Go to the top of the page
+
Roy E
post 25.Feb.2006, 08:51 AM
Post #77
Joined: 23.Nov.2005

15 minutes writing.

2 hours correcting typos. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Beth
post 25.Feb.2006, 08:53 AM
Post #78
Joined: 15.Sep.2004

where's my summary...no typo correction required
Go to the top of the page
+
Roy E
post 25.Feb.2006, 01:33 PM
Post #79
Joined: 23.Nov.2005

OK beth, only 'cuz you asked. Here's a thread summary:

Early on it was the standard back -a-forth political one upsmanship to which we've become too accustomed.

I then posted my observations of the debate which is: because the left seems to lack a clear defining set of core values, it is unable to be decisive and take action. Moral relativism renders them impotent.

Dock Ellis countered that... well, I'll let him speak for himself.

And then I rebutted, Dock Ellis feeling pretty confident that he pretty much reinforced my original points. That liberals are mired in 'analysis paralysis' and have no clear plan of their own - that they are more inclined to fixate on the rearview mirror rather than what lies ahend on the road.

and that's where it is.

but if the thread is to continue, something has to change! Book-length entries are too brutal - for both author and audience! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Beth
post 25.Feb.2006, 01:49 PM
Post #80
Joined: 15.Sep.2004

thanks roy. have to say that i like both your and dock's mode of debating an issue. i just wish i had the time to keep read up --impossible if you go to sleep and wake up with an exchange-novella in print :wink:
Go to the top of the page
+
Aneud
post 25.Feb.2006, 03:20 PM
Post #81
Location: Stockholm
Joined: 27.Nov.2005

Not to belittle what was (hopefully IS) a wonderful exchange between RoyE and DockEllis but here's something on the light side for the "us" and "them" debate

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2006/02/irrat...l-response.html

laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Dock Hussein Ellis
post 25.Feb.2006, 05:53 PM
Post #82
Joined: 9.Nov.2005

[quote=RoyE]Conservatives do tend to view human nature as rather constant, that mankind is essentially flawed - aways has been, always will be - and that we are only one generation away from a return to barbarism. It's happened before in history. It will happen again. it is to be guarded against. You've read 'Lord of the Flies', haven't you? It makes the case better than I can. Plato's Republic is also instuctive on how democracy 'evolves' into anarchy and tyranny (Chapter 4).[/quote]

So... all political evolution is bad? 150 years ago in the US, it was legal to own slaves. It no longer is- we evolved past that. By your argument, lawmakers of the 1860s should have retained slavery, lest the resulting change plunge us into anarchy (please don't bring up the fact Lincoln was a republican, we all know that the political parties of those days bear no relation to the modern parties with those names). What exactly does "Lord Of The Flies" have to do with Liberalism vs. Conservatism? Mankind needs structure and order, fine- but does it have to be a structure with it's head firmly planted in the sand, shunning all new ideas?

[quote=RoyE]And BTW, most conservatives do believe in evolution. You are speaking of religious fundamentalism which is something completely different. you are wrong to conflate the two to distort the argument.[/quote]

I thought religious conservatives were the "silent majority"? And be careful about throwing stones regarding "conflating the two to distort the argument", Roy-

[quote=RoyE]The other side seems to have a much fuzzier set of core values - moral realativism. It equates 'suicide bombers' to 'freedom fighters', It will passionately protest the death sentence handed down to a mass murderer , while being completely insensitve to the sufferering of the victims and their familes (following up with a phony, token sympathy only when they are called on it). It will endlessly protest the unfortunate death of civilians caught up in the crossfire of battle, but remain dead silent about ongoing genocide in places like Darfur, Rwanda, Nigeria, and Tibet. It will excuse riots, deaths, and embassy burnings because somebody was 'offended'. They decry 'civil rights!' at every turn but when it comes to the ultimate civil right -- to life -- they are mute.[/quote]

This only describes the fringe Berkeley ex-hippie liberal, none of the ones I know, and it certainly doesn't describe the majority of liberals. I let it slide the first time, but since you brought it up...

[quote=RoyE]Another term for this is 'Analysis paralysis'. The choice between a perfect solution or doing nothing is unrealistic. Courage and confidence help in these situations.[/quote]

The only options aren't "do nothing" and "act without any thought at all"- liberals tend to overthink, conservatives tend to act without thinking. Analysis Paralysis leads to missed opportunities, "fire, aim, ready" leads to turning big problems into gigantic, insurmountable problems.

[quote=RoyE]There is a tremendous amount intellectual debate in the conservative camp.
You won't find any conservatives nearly as isolated as Joe Lieberman is right now by the liberals.[/quote]

Do a google search on North Carolina Republican Chairman Ferrell Blount. Blount is "cleansing" the state party of anyone who has collaborated with democrats.

[quote=RoyE]There is far more tolerance for diversity of thought in the conservative camp. Conseratives do not deny anyone freedom of speech. They do not shout down. They don't throw pies either.[/quote]

That's funny, Roy- did you miss the "free speech zones" outside the GOP convention in 2004? You know, where the NYPD was later found to have arrested hundreds of protesters for absolutely no reason at all? What about Cindy Sheehan being arrested at the State Of The Union Address for wearing a t-shirt? What about the fact that Bush/Cheney rallies were only open to those who signed loyalty oaths?

As for "tolerance of diversity of thought", didn't you say conservatives " have crystallized their values" and [quote=RoyE]"By 'rigid' you must mean 'consistent'. Consistency occurs within a moral framework - crime should be punished, the innocent protected, people should have freedom of choice, small government is desirable, etc, etc ... and conservatives do tend to exhibit consistency in these matters." [/quote]

while deriding liberals as having "a much fuzzier set of core values - moral relativism"?

[quote=RoyE]There is a very lengthy appeals processes and new DNA testing in place to safeguard against miscarriages of justice. There is nothing cavalier about it.[/quote]

Read these-
http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/pr...ber/004148.html
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_fraud.html

Conservatives would rather execute a few innocent men in order to execute a lot of guilty ones, where liberals see the execution of even one innocent man to be too high a price to pay.

[quote=RoyE]As far as 'diametrically opposed values' are concerned I fail to see your point - those opposed to abortion do so because they feel it is innocent life as opposed to guilty life. The idea of justice intervenes. Defend the defenceless.[/quote]

Sometimes the defenseless are marginalized citizens railroaded by an overzealous justice system. Conservatives tend to simplify issues to make them easier to swallow.

[quote=RoyE]I don't recall ANYONE from any side championing Iraqi human rights back then. [/quote]

Liberals did. You know, the squishy, touchy feely folks who were squeamish about Reagan getting into bed with Saddam Hussein.

[quote=RoyE]Does that make it wrong to do it now r? Of course humans rights would fall in the 'pro-' column. Anyone who didn't put it there would have been remiss. I Don't get your point. Is yours a reason not to act?[/quote]

It just smacks of political opportunism to suddenly care about people you've been helping to oppress once it's in your interests to do so. And to suddenly say "hey, it's their country, let THEM fight for their freedom" once the political tide turns back.

[quote=RoyE]same answer as above. Proxy wars against the Soviet Union. When the choice is between two evils, we choose the lesser evil.[/quote]

1. Yeah, that was such a great idea to give money and training to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians. Just like we backed Fidel Castro to overthrow Batista. Typical conservative short-sightedness, because they refuse to analyze the possible repercussions of anything.
2. The "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" is still in operation, while the USSR is long gone.

[quote=RoyE]Or should the sitting government be overthrown first? Is your logic to let a bad regime be replaced by an even worse one? I don't get it.[/quote]

What are you talking about? WE replace bad regimes with worse ones! WE prop up dictators until they turn on us or no longer serve our purposes! Hussein, Batista, Castro, Noriega, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bin Laden, etc.

[quote=RoyE]War sucks, You fight to win it. Not to lose it. You dont' get to set he gameboard up in advance the way you like it.[/quote]

Typical conservative argument- treat whatever course of action you've chosen as the only option. When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see all problems as nails. If war sucks so bad, why start them when you don't have to?

[quote=RoyE]Not sure how to quantify the torture, murder and corruption allegation. I'd like to see more evidence of it. And I agree that turning a blind eye to it is not good.[/quote]

http://www.soaw.org/new/newswire_detail.php?id=851

[quote=RoyE]But How far do yo go in making the world a perfect place? Can't advance freedom eveywhere, limted resources and all. Would be nice if France and the UN didn't stand in the way of it.[/quote]

Who said it was the US's job to "advance freedom"? That's awfully arrogant, isn't it? Every society is on it's own timetable- we can't just impose our values on another culture and expect it to work. That's why so many people in the world hate us. Besides, we've been doing a piss-poor job of it since 1945 anyway, so why not stay out of it for a while and see what happens?

[quote=RoyE]But it's like the same dilemma Google faces, isn't it? Do you slam the door altogether or try to stay in the game and have a chance at influencing it? Are you suggesting we break off trade and cooperation with China? [/quote]

Hell, I'm just glad Bush hasn't declared war on China.


[quote=RoyE]Once again, you conflate. You confuse conseratives with Republicans. Two different things though there is overlap.[/quote]

Well, you did it all over your original post, so I thought it was OK. You are correct though, just as "liberal" and "democrat" aren't synonyms either.

[quote=RoyE]Conservatives stick to principles, politicos compromise them for politcal advantage. If you look closer, you will discvoer significant conservative dissatisfaction with George Bush. We're you sleeping during the Harriet Miers fiasco? The illegal immigration controversy? The out of control federal spending?[/quote]

You have to admit though, conservatives (like John McCain) are more likely to stick to the "party line" in the interests of loyalty and unity than liberals are with then Democrats. It just illustrates how out of control the Bush administration is when even Republicans can't stomach his incompetence anymore.

[quote=RoyE]the breakdown in the Intelligence community started in the 1970's. Google the 'Church Commission' sometime.[/quote]

So... reining in illegal activity by the intelligence community represents a "breakdown"? To men like Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover, maybe.

[quote=RoyE]Recall the missed collapse of the Soviet Union also.[/quote]
Hmm, a vast military industrial complex all geared towards facing down the USSR finds itself obsolete virtually overnight. I don't blame them for wanting to kick the corpse for a year or two just to be sure.

[quote=RoyE]There's a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism. Liberals seem to have lost their discernment.[/quote]

See "the Clinton years". Pot, meet kettle. This is what our political system has been reduced to for both sides- I blame TV news.

As for your bus analogy. You built a straw man. [/quote]
Yes I did, as a jab towards the "cancer patient" one you built in your post.

[quote=RoyE]Put into historical context and perspective, the situation is not nearly so dire. I'm not even willing to call it 'broke'. You want broke? Look at Africa.[/quote]

True, but Africa is not filled with people who now want to set off an A-bomb in New York harbor.

[quote=RoyE]Iraqis have a say in their own future there now. That's a big improvement.[/quote]

You mean, they get to vote for the puppet government that will fall 15 minutes after the last US trooper leaves the country? Or do you mean the ones who are "having a say" by attacking the US and it's proxies?

[quote=RoyE]It's unfortunate that the mainstream media wishes it to fail.[/quote]

What validation do you have for that insult? Just because the media doesn't just spout government propaganda like Fox news doesn't mean they want the mission to fail. They're just reporting the fact that it is.

[quote=RoyE]The people on the ground in Iraq seem to be sending back a very different message than the one we get though the press.[/quote]
All of them? Besides, a soldier's view is usually confined to his immediate surroundings- German soldiers in 1918 were stunned that Germany surrendered because from their perspective, they were holding their own. Ask a Marine involved in the taking of Falujah in 2004 what was going on in Iraq, compared to a soldier stationed in Mosul during the same time period.

[quote=RoyE]And your answers seem to reinforce my point - Until liberals have 'perfection' they tend to be paralyzed by indecision.[/quote]

And your answers reinforce mine- conservatives make a snap judgment based on no data or analysis, never reconsider based on new information, and stick with it to the very end, no matter how wrong they may be.

[quote=RoyE]The best we can hope for is incremental improvement and we are achieving that. one step at a time .[/quote]

The best we can hope for now is ANY improvement, as we're vastly worse off than we were before the invasion. What improvement are you seeing? Some sham elections which are resulting in civil war? Radical islamic fundamentalism spreading like wildfire as a result of the invasion? How is that progress?
Go to the top of the page
+
Dock Hussein Ellis
post 25.Feb.2006, 06:04 PM
Post #83
Joined: 9.Nov.2005

QUOTE (RoyE)
QUOTE (Beth)
where's my summary...no typo correction required


OK beth, only 'cuz you asked. Here's a thread summary:


This is kinda like the spin doctors after the presidntial debates-

REPUBLICAN- the president really hammered Kerry, it was a knockout!
DEMOCRAT- Kerry wiped the floor with the president, it was a knockout!

QUOTE (RoyE)
but if the thread is to continue, something has to change! Book-length entries are too brutal - for both author and audience! laugh.gif


Agreed- I'm getting carpal tunnel just thinking about it.

Instead of us trading hammer blows back and forth, my next post will detail the things I agree with the conservatives about and fault liberals for. But first, lunch.
Go to the top of the page
+
Roy E
post 26.Feb.2006, 02:31 PM
Post #84
Joined: 23.Nov.2005

And there we have it.

People looking at the same situation(s) and walking away with completely different assessments.

What explains this? I think it boils down to core values and perspective. Relativism confuses both to a net negative result in my conservative opinion.

Here's an interesting perspective from an Australian source that speaks to this. I beleive conservatives will largely be in agreement with this article- and liberals inclined to issue with it.

QUOTE
The Adversary Culture
The perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite

http://www.sydneyline.com/Adversary%20Culture.htm


I'm going to reference this in a new thread. It's important enough to dicuss as topic in and of itself. But in the context of this discussion, it's a good example of a key difference between comtemporary conservative and liberal mindsets.
Go to the top of the page
+

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: