Conservatives and Liberals: Can we end the fight?

[USA50]

Sentinel,

Does your precint actually let you vote considering this?...

"Liberalism is using the government to rob your neighbor for your own benefit."

Public highways, schools, libraries, food safety, police protection…stuff like that.


"Indeed, more people are dying because of the high price of liability. "

Liability costs are up because liable actions are up and costly. Oh, and the insurance industry is very 'conservative'. People die because they do not have universal health care like every other civilized nation in the western world.

"doctor is so expensive. Half the cost of the doctor and drugs is liability insurance."

People can't aford to go to the doctor because the medical profession has spent 100 years charging whatever it wants for it service.

"As it is, a very, very small percentage of toys are actually returned and companies don't try to track toys."

That’s because liberals insisted on safety criteria.

"The Homeless, etc"

You are patently crazy. Liberals created the institutions for the sick and homeless, it was conservative ranting about welfare costs that put them on the streets.

"Liberals also have a knack of making life very complex which can cause a marginal person to decide just to drop out and avoid the hassle."

We make it complex because we THINK…is that too much for you to handle?

"Every person, all the millions, in the world who have died of AIDS is a victim of Liberal values and compassion. "

Explain this, and you get a Noble Prize. Apologize and you get to go to heaven.

[Favre]

"liberals are small-minded unrealistic, idealistic wimps that have no grasp on reality."

That is not a stereotype, its a fact.

[expat]

What started as a nice attempt to discuss getting along has degenerated into name calling. Again.

[Favre]

It's not name calling, it's a factual statement. Kind of like "Newfoundland Dogs are wonderful". Liberals are idiots. Just factual statements.

[Favre]

I extend no Olive Branch to those who seek to destroy my nation. My attitude is the same toward liberal politicians as it is toward terrorists. They need to be "dealt with". I have no use for placating dialogue that only leads to liberals using emotion to overcome logic. Daschle, Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy..........all part of a vast left wing conspiracy to bring down the nation and install a new world order of socialist utopia. I will not shake their hand and have a "Good discussion". I will do everything I can to defeat them, not placate them.

[quinwound]

expat said:

What started as a nice attempt to discuss getting along has degenerated into name calling. Again.

May I ask that we ignore the posts from the people that stereotype, name call, flame, troll?

I would like to expand on the question "Why is it that America is so hatted around the world?" and ask a question about terrorists "What drove terrorists to the extreme of killing them selves to delver a payload to kill us? What made them so mad at at the USA, that they would give there life to take a few of Americans lives? Why do they feel that they have no other options?"

[MO]

AHHHh... maybe because terrorists are pure evil? So...you make excuses for terrorism?

Quite frankly, on a conservative message board, I hope to be able to debate conservative issues. I think a debate about things like the finer points of the privatization of social security is what is implied. Sadly, it always winds up with butting heads and not getting along when we debate right/ left world views. I am weary of this. Those of you who watched your fellow countrymen and women jumping out of flaming buildings, and find it in your heart to blame THEM, well you are welcome to your opinions however depraved. You can blame your country but I choose to salute and pray for mine.
From www.danielpipes.org/article/1040 It's a little dated but head on!
Why the Left Loves Osama (and Saddam)
Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?

Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos." Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.

Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?

Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:

* Business profits decline in the industrial countries;

* Bosses squeeze their workers;

* Workers become impoverished;

* Workers rebel against their bosses, and

* Workers establish a socialist order.

Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong.

But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.

This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."

For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.

Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."

Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam.

So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists.

This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: "The great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?"

The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.

In sum: 9/11 and the prospect of war against Saddam Hussein have exposed the Left's political self-delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude.

[expat]

Favre,

Please elaborate what you mean by "dealt with":

I extend no Olive Branch to those who seek to destroy my nation. My attitude is the same toward liberal politicians as it is toward terrorists. They need to be "dealt with".

It seems clear enough what is intended, especially when you enlcose it with quotation marks.

Foamy Dog wrote:

This is a forum for civil, intellegent political discussion. I intend to keep it as such. If this is unacceptable to any member or visitor; take your comments elsewhere.

Please feel free to report such posts to me and they will be deleted ASAP.

Thank you for your time;
Foamy Dog

I'd report you to moderator, such as MO, but I doubt he or she wouldn't listen, seeing how she/he posted soon afterwards and saw nothing in your posting to comment on. After a token appeal to calmer discussion he/she pastes is an attack against the "far left" (part of the title), which quickly insinuates that these nutcase saeak for everyone on the Left (a few sentences later) and making no notice that Democrats, both as politicians and citizens, were also outraged, supported the war on Afghanistan, dug out the rubble at the WTC alongside Republicans.

So, Mo, if you are reading this, this unfair, and it is exactly the same sort of rubbish that Conservatives so rightly blast when some lefty extremists labels all Conservatives as would-be Tim McVeighs.

Makes me wonder what ever happened to the root word "moderate" in "moderator".

Mo, devotion to the cause is one thing, but when you take on the role of moderator, you pledge yourself to support the site's policies on bashing and hate. You frequent post some harsh stuff like this, and I wonder if you really up to the job.

If you can't moderate, resign that role, and keep right on posting your colorful commentary here.

I defend your right of expression, but I truly question your impartiality if phrases like "liberal politicians ... need to be 'dealt with.'" don't cause you to speak out against them. Seriously, what would you have replied to the comment: "Conservative politicians should be "dealt with" like one does terrorists"? Would you really have remained silent?

[MO]

First of all, at most boards, questioning the decisions of the mods on open forum is considered worse than anything you could be about. Are you familiar with general board etiquette? We have p.m. on this site, use it!

I have looked over the post in question and I don't find anything particularly threatening. If someone came along and posted that "Bush needs to be "dealt with" I would not delete it. Take a look around! I certainly don't have a happy trigger button, anxious to delete opinions that I don't agree with. If that were the case, your posts wouldn't be here! Do I understand what he means? NO! Is he talking something sinister? I doubt it. My guess is that the way he will put his post into action is to make sure he votes. Perhaps his idea of dealing with them is to vote straight Republican ticket in the next election. Do you know? Neither do I! Perhaps we can have him clarify. Do I think he is capable of better posts, based on what I have seen of previous posts? Absolutely!

I don't know what "dealt with" means! Ask him! In the interim, understand that I am not non-partisan and neither is this board. All are welcome here but it says "CONSERVATIVE RANT" That just means that conservatives should feel welcome to speak their mind and let off steam. All people from the all over the political compass are welcome and encouraged to participate. Those looking for general political discussion that claims neither left or right can check out: pub116.ezboard.com/ftimezone39828frm1

I overlook all types of short, inane hit and run attacks on conservatives and muddle through long lefty diatribes that basically just say that anyone who does not agree with them is inferior. I'm tolerant; you should try it.

[lordjulius7]

I moderate two boards myself, and I must say that Mo puts up with a lot of things I wouldn't tolerate for a second. She gives out more slack than about any moderater I know, so consider your comments about her being too partisan extremely unfair.

[MO]

Thank you for your kind words lordjulius!

There is something about any article by Daniel Pipes that gets some people's hair standing on edge. I have enjoyed reading his work for years and I was delighted to hear of the position that President Bush has called him to.

[expat]

What a sorry state of affairs.

Who is kidding themselves here? All of us, I suppose. Humans are nothing if not selfdelusional.

Favre's quote is clear enough, carefully coded as is to avoid saying it straight out; even if it is probably only pure hot air.

I have gone out of my way to point out that what I consider unfair is also a big part of liberal's critique as well. Review my writings and you will see that I make no claims that Conservatives are devils and Liberals pure. I clearly state that both sides are trashing each other unfairly and that the consequences of this cannot be good for the nation as a whole.

I ask both sides to understand their responsibility in demonizing the other.

I am a fool to think this makes any difference. Partisans (once again, of any stripe) seem happiest when crying "foul" right before they repeat foul things about the other side.

Both liberal and conservative sites are packed with mirror twins screaming "liar!" Without a demon to oppose, real or imagined, the addiction of selfpontification and selfrighteousness would be harder to maintain. Meanwhile, the victims in the crossfire pile up. I've lived in North Ireland, was in Iran a year before the Shah fell, and visited Serbia before Yugoslavia self-immolated. What I'm hearing now in the US is too much like what I've hear there. So yes, I'm touchy.

It's said that a country gets the leadership it deserves, and Liberals deserved Clinton, and Conservatives deserve Bush. And the innocent in between deserve better.

God protect us from the True Believer, whatever his or her cause. These are always the people who start conflicts.

There, I can self-righteously pontificate too! It sure is a lot easier than actually giving a damn about the other side! But you already know that.

You are essentially correct. This site is not for rational discussion and is indeed exactly what is advertised: a site for Conservative rants. It is entirely my own fault for mistaking it as something more.

I appologize for breaking general board ettiquette, if it is as you both say, and I have no reason to doubt you that it is. I had never heard of that aspect before, but that is no doubt my own fault.

I'll not repeat that mistake again, and cooling off, I realize that you both of you should be thanked for volunteering your time.

So, you win, I'm bowing out. Hasta la vista, muchachos, el Internet es grande y hay otras páginas muchas mejores de éstas.

And when the next election is rigged too, and the next and the next ... and the police state tightens its vice around your gated, maximum-security communities, I'll wish you all the best, but I'll have to remind you that you really did have a choice, before it was all too late. I'll no doubt have been executed in Guantánamo by then, by bipartisan consent.

Happy hating! Sow what you reap!

Ciao!

[AgentOrange]

Guest-Bandwagon said:

Sarah you sound like a typical Liberel! You are full of it Liberels are WRONG and JEALOUS face it! And who cares if a bunch of foreiners dont like us! They can all go screw! If they dont like it maybe we will invade them too!

ps you sound like you might be Hot are you Hot! Put up a picture of youself!

It is comments like those posted by BongBoy that ensure that peace will never be accomplished between Liberals and Conservatives. The Conservatives will kiss the buttocks of Commies, Nazis, Vietcong, Nips, Gooks, Israelis......you name the radicals and Conservatives will kiss their asses if they can make a buck or two. But Liberals ? Never. Conservatives will never agree with or even negotiate with Liberals.

How pathetic Conservative are..............long live Bonzo.

[Favre]

"Favre's quote is clear enough, carefully coded as is to avoid saying it straight out; even if it is probably only pure hot air."


There was no code involved. Do you want me to spell it out for you? I mean tried for treason and executed. Preferably at Gitmo. Happy now? I have no wish to see them continue in their treasonous acts. If you think that is "unfair", boo fricking hoo!

[MO]

Well expat- Is that a satisfactory explanation? You can go away mad if you want. That is your choice. It all just looks like melodramatic bs to me.