Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm a conservative, and I don't listen to Hannity or Limbaugh. I find them boring, obnoxious, and unlikable.>> No josh, you're not a conservative, you are a mainstream republican. Take a conservative and add about25 points of IQ and you get a mainstream republican.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^ I actually think it's exactly the opposite. In answer to the OP's query, historically conservatives and liberals have been ideological positions any reasonable person could respect. "Conservative" used to mean that one supported more isolationist policies, small government, low spending (fiscal responsibility), states rights (under the idea that local government knows better than big bureaucracy), etc. Liberals historically have believed in social programs, that a strong government can do much more good than harm, involvement on the world scene (remember, it was Democrats that escalated our involvement in Vietnam), etc. These were ideological perspectives that had merit and one could see both sides. But politically, it's a different story. It's (especially for the Republicans) my way or the highway. You have the demonizing of the word liberal (and to a lesser extent, conservative) that's somehow come to mean "people who want to feed your child's aborted fetus to gay people while letting pedophiles roam elementary school hallways." These are the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to find out what liberals believe (like that makes a bit of sense.) Woody and his posts on this thread are a perfect example of that. Conservatives like him seem to thrive off of anecdotal stories and enlarging them to equal the whole. Listen to these jokers for five minutes; like someone else on another thread astutely pointed out, they'll take one story of a teacher in Champagne, Illinois who read "You Have Two Mommies?" to a third grade class and suddenly rant for two solid hours on how teachers are teaming up with "liberals" to push the homosexual agenda. It'd be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic and poisonous to our politics. Instead of a commitment to principles, it's a commitment to party. You can see this today with people who so quickly label the dip in the economy in 1999 the "Clinton Recession" but then turn around and insist that all is well today; they'll never, ever call it the "Bush Recession." It's gotten so out of this world that we still hear from people who insist that a man who voluntarily went to Vietnam and was shot at was the liar and cheat, and the man whose daddy got him out of service so he could go to Arkansas was the hero. Sometimes, up is down and black is white for these people, all in the name of defending the party at all costs. Some conservatives' view of liberals is the epitome of Stephen Colbert's definition of "truthiness." It's what feels right, not what's necessarily factually accurate. Conservatives have this image of liberals as troop-hating, freedom-loathing, abortion-loving, gay sex-having freaks. It's genuinely very sad. Instead of it being an ideological difference that says "I feel like the nation we both love would be better off by doing this...," it's a view that truly demonizes and ascribes bad motives to the other side. Conservatives like woody seem to truly believe that liberals hate America and want what's worst for it. As for issues like universal health care, it's absurd that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue, but it just goes to show how bad things have gotten in this country. Same with global warming; we might not agree on every tiny detail, but it's ludicrous for it to be this divided. Now, I've thrown words like "liberal" and "conservative" around pretty carelessly. I certainly don't mean to imply that anyone who applies these labels to themselves fits the mold I've described. Quite the contrary, I think people like the conservatives I describe are a minority (fortunately). But they seem to be the loudest, and we all know that there's fewer things as dangerous as ignorance coupled with the strength of one's convictions (Mohammad Atta, anyone?) And reasonable, rational people don't seem willing to stand up and reclaim their party; instead, they sign the deal with the devil to win the election every few years. The last time America was this bad off was in 1974. And our leaders had the good sense to get rid of the man who was responsible, regardless of whether an "R" came after his name or not; today, people side with Bush no matter what. Mitt Romney actually stood there with a straight face and talked about what a great job Bush was doing. Like I said, it'd be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Good analysis. I just let Woody get under my skin. That happens fairly frequently. It is the result of his making statements so far off base that there is really no way to argue against them intelligently. So I end up taking cheap shots. Like asking how you can take a poster seriously who is named after an erection. Oh… a Pixar thing you say?? Sorry... my bad.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <<Would you be cool with bowing towards Mecca? Only takes a few seconds.>> I wouldn't mind if they asked for a moment of silence so those who wanted could bow toward Mecca. Wouldn't bother me. Watching others worship their way for a few seconds is just fine by me. If i were forced to do it, that's another thing. I'd welcome it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"Morals don't matter anymore. At all." Whose, yours?*** I haven't read the whole thread, but wow...that deserves a round of applause!
Originally Posted By johnno52 So from what I am reading about conservatism is that it is ethical for a homosexual care giver to ignore a republican patient (who has no private health insurance) laying on a hospital bed while listening to Rush Limbaugh?
Originally Posted By woody >>When the school leads it, there is pressure to conform.<< Sort of like when they force kids to learn diversity, sexual harrassment, and political correctness. These are all values students of public schools must conform to by the state. >>It is the result of his making statements so far off base that there is really no way to argue against them intelligently.<< Obviously, you're not intelligent to argue with. Gosh, I'm equally at odds with you making outrageous statements coming from non-conservatives who say stupid things. >>Woody and his posts on this thread are a perfect example of that. Conservatives like him seem to thrive off of anecdotal stories and enlarging them to equal the whole. << Opps, did you read another anecdote and enlarged it to the whole? Of course you haven't. See Post 26. I'm surprised no one challedged him. No one needs to challenge the anecdope of a similar ideological chimp. Here's the charming conversation (anecdote) of a so-called intelligent being. "I can personally tell you that is a big steaming pile of crap. I currently have a cousin serving year 12 of a possible 30 year sentence. Four other teenagers(at the time) and him were planning to sell marijuana to another kid their age. But the plan was take the money and marijuana. Well both parties brought a gun to the proceedings. The buyer was shot dead on the spot. Three of the kids are out because of deals they made. The shooter is scheduled to get out soon. My cousin got the stiffiest sentence because he was the mastermind behind the whole thing and didn't show one bit of remorse." "The judge presiding over the case at the time was probably one of the most bleeding heart liberal judges this city and state has ever known and had no problem giving my cousin his sentence." I gave you examples of where the religion was being restrained. I'm not making a case where there is a larger problem, although there is, but I'm haven't quite gotten there yet.
Originally Posted By woody >>So I end up taking cheap shots. Like asking how you can take a poster seriously who is named after an erection.<< I'm not responsible for such an interpretation. No wonder intelligence is lacking, but it isn't coming from me.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm not responsible for such an interpretation. No wonder intelligence is lacking, but it isn't coming from me.>> Once every three months or so I treat myself by buying a bottle of fine Single Malt Scotch. Friday evening was one of those times. I really must remember not to post the first night I have a bottle of Single Malt in the house. ;-)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>When the school leads it, there is pressure to conform.<< <Sort of like when they force kids to learn diversity, sexual harrassment, and political correctness. These are all values students of public schools must conform to by the state.> First of all, what some call "political correctness," others call "manners." And they used to be taught in the schools MORE than they are now, actually. But the main point is that there's nothing in the Constitution about what any individual school district can and cannot teach. Some school districts teach very conservative principles, by the way (I have some southern cousins enrolled in such schools). However, there IS something in the Constitution about the establishment of religion, and that is why state-sponsored schools can't be in that business. A Catholic or other religious school certainly could be, and organized prayers are said there every day. <I gave you examples of where the religion was being restrained.> Not really, you haven't. So far, your examples haven't held water.
Originally Posted By ecdc RT, what kind of scotch? I typically stick to my beloved Bookers bourbon, but occasionally branch out.
Originally Posted By johnno52 >RT, what kind of scotch? I typically stick to my beloved Bookers bourbon, but occasionally branch out.< ecdc, does this mean you are a Liberal?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT, what kind of scotch? >> Well my absolute favorite is Lagavulin, but that stuff has gotten so outrageously pricey ($55+ a bottle) that I haven't had it for a year or so. Since Lagavulin got so expensive I usually buy Talisker which I can usually find for less than $40. Friday I was feeling thrifty (who doesn't these days?) so I just bought a bottle of The Glenlivet. It ran just over $30 and is really pretty good. It doesn't have the strong peat & moss notes I prefer that Lagavulin and Talisker have, but it is a nicely rounded and mellow single malt. Almost TOO drinkable if you know what I mean… LOL
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<peat & moss>> Duh... pretty much one and the same. I meant to say peat and SMOKE...
