Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[questor]

moonman, ''Come into the light of liberalism you have nothing to fear but fear it's self, we'll be gentile.'' Does this mean Jews need not apply?

[modest]

moonman, ''Come into the light of liberalism you have nothing to fear but fear it's self, we'll be gentile.'' Does this mean Jews need not apply?

 

First off, I do the same thing. I type words like angel when I mean angle. It is (for me) an unavoidable problem.

 

Secondly, your insult, questor, has backfired. The Latin bible was meant to be read by speakers of Latin. Only in that context does the translation of “gentile” to mean “non-Jew” make sense. In Latin, ‘gentiles’ or ‘gentile’ means someone from your own family or your own clan. It’s a person who is like you... a person of your nation or your background. I understand how the bible screwed up that meaning, but I just find it funny - If you read Moontanman’s quote with the proper meaning of gentile it makes perfect and profound sense.

 

Thirdly, perhaps we should all focus on the topic a bit more.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

First off, I do the same thing. I type words like angel when I mean angle. It is (for me) an unavoidable problem.

 

Secondly, your insult, questor, has backfired. The Latin bible was meant to be read by speakers of Latin. Only in that context does the translation of “gentile” to mean “non-Jew” make sense. In Latin, ‘gentiles’ or ‘gentile’ means someone from your own family or your own clan. It’s a person who is like you... a person of your nation or your background. I understand how the bible screwed up that meaning, but I just find it funny - If you read Moontanman’s quote with the proper meaning of gentile it makes perfect and profound sense.

 

Thirdly, perhaps we should all focus on the topic a bit more.

 

~modest

 

Of course the Latin definition was exactly what I meant :) I'll stay on topic, sorry boss man. :)

[sanctus]

Moon, before you run away, take a look at these stats:

 

American Battle Deaths Recent Wars:

 

Second World War....291,557- Pres. at beginning, F.D. Roosevelt, Democrat

 

Korean War......33,741- Pres. at beginning , Truman, Democrat

 

Vietnam War.....47,424- Pres. at beginning, Johnson, Democrat

 

Current War.... 4,093- Pres. at beginning, Bush, Republican

 

The way I read this, an American is much less likely to lose his life under a Republican president.

 

You know, you forgot something in the statistics about the last war, which is quite fundamental and puts all this numbers in another light. Did it ever appear to you that going to Afghanistan and Irak (and someone in this thread even said that the former was legitimate! I would love to discuss this, open a thread and we can talk about a legitimacy of a war...) is the cause that islamic terrorist attacks became worlwide more numerous (think of Spain, UK, ...).

You know usual thing (and you can't deny it) violence usually creates other violence. Imagine just what would have happened without the invasion of Afghanistan, would the terrorist still find as many people wishing to join them?

[InfiniteNow]

.

This graphic seems to speak to the thread title:

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

You know, you forgot something in the statistics about the last war, which is quite fundamental and puts all this numbers in another light. Did it ever appear to you that going to Afghanistan and Irak (and someone in this thread even said that the former was legitimate! I would love to discuss this, open a thread and we can talk about a legitimacy of a war...) is the cause that islamic terrorist attacks became worlwide more numerous (think of Spain, UK, ...).

You know usual thing (and you can't deny it) violence usually creates other violence. Imagine just what would have happened without the invasion of Afghanistan, would the terrorist still find as many people wishing to join them?

 

Your wish is my command Sanctus, the thread is in place, lets go to it. :evil:

[questor]

I don't consider Bush a true conservative fiscally, and totally inadequate as a communicator, so his body of work does not comprise conservatism as I know it. There is no use to continue bashing Bush, he's gone in 4 months, What the liberals should be working on is how they are going to run this country without totally ruining it. So far , on this thread I haven't had a single liberal

explain his concept of liberalism or how those ideas would help our country.

It's a no-brainer to criticise, anyone can do it, the real question is how to make it better. Any ideas?

[questor]

Moon, I'm sure you knew I was tasing you a bit about your spelling. Did you mention something about MY sense of humor?

[Moontanman]

Moon, I'm sure you knew I was tasing you a bit about your spelling. Did you mention something about MY sense of humor?

 

I knew that questor, there are indeed several words i misspell routinely and one my spell checker shows as ok when it's not. It does indeed sometimes result in humorous posts. Oh God! I just realized it's a republican conspiracy to make me look ignorant. oops to late I already do that with some regularity!

[pgrmdave]

Questor, I may disagree with your conservative views on some things, but you bring up a number of valid points of discussion, namely, how do conservatives and liberals approach the same subject differently?

 

As for questor attributing WWII deaths to FDR, it's not really any different from blaming Bush for the deaths in Iraq. While you may disagree with the comparison of the legitimacy of the wars, it remains that each presided over the wars, and was the commander in chief of the armed forces.

 

 

One question I have for you questor - I've seen a lot of data on environmental science, but I've never found it to be biased in either direction. Does the fact that the liberals tend to embrace conserving the environment make the science more biased? Wouldn't that be like saying that economists have a conservative bias, so they shouldn't be trusted implicitly, as the conservative views tend to be more in line with economists?

[questor]

''One question I have for you questor - I've seen a lot of data on environmental science, but I've never found it to be biased in either direction. Does the fact that the liberals tend to embrace conserving the environment make the science more biased? Wouldn't that be like saying that economists have a conservative bias, so they shouldn't be trusted implicitly, as the conservative views tend to be more in line with economists?''

 

What does science have to do with politics? All people of the world should embrace conserving the environment, it's the only environment we live in. In my opinion the best way and only way to save the earth is to reduce population to a sustainable number. But no one is talking about that.

[Essay]

What does science have to do with politics? All people of the world should embrace conserving the environment, it's the only environment we live in. In my opinion the best way and only way to save the earth is to reduce population to a sustainable number. But no one is talking about that.

Sorry to hit and run, but....

 

As former PM Tony Blair said on Charlie Rose, last night, if I recall correctly....

"Politics hasn't caught up with what globalization has done to the rest of the world."

 

Your opinion about population is fine, but it is limited in its scope of seeing the problem and in offering solutions.

After all, just a few hundred million people could still destroy the global biosphere, given a profligate enough lifestyle.

 

Science offers ways to see the problems integrated from various perspectives (including various global perspectives) and offers even more in the way of technological, educational, and systemic solutions to those problems.

 

"What does science have to do with politics?" is an attitude that kind of sums up a major problem with conservatism, I think.

 

Thoughts?

~ :)

[Pyrotex]

I have been accused on this site of being a closet liberal....

There is nothing "educational" or informative in your first post here. It is, in fact, a devisive, rhetorically malicious, taunting, baiting, insulting, prevaricating, misleading, erroneous, fallacious and trite example of a thinly veiled rant.

 

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

But you probably aren't. I fear you give conservatives a bad name.

[questor]

Since you have seen fit to attack me:

There is nothing "educational" or informative in your first post here. It is, in fact, a devisive, rhetorically malicious, taunting, baiting, insulting, prevaricating, misleading, erroneous, fallacious and trite example of a thinly veiled rant.

Before I take offense, why don't you explain exactly what YOU are ranting about?

[Essay]

Yes Pyro, tell us what you really think. :)

 

...but:

What does science have to do with politics? All people of the world should embrace conserving the environment, it's the only environment we live in. In my opinion the best way and only way to save the earth is to reduce population to a sustainable number. But no one is talking about that.

...

 

As former PM Tony Blair said on Charlie Rose, last night, if I recall correctly....

"Politics hasn't caught up with what globalization has done to the rest of the world."

 

Your opinion about population is fine, but it is limited in its scope of seeing the problem and in offering solutions.

After all, just a few hundred million people could still destroy the global biosphere, given a profligate enough lifestyle.

 

Science offers ways to see the problems integrated from various perspectives (including various global perspectives) and offers even more in the way of technological, educational, and systemic solutions to those problems.

 

"What does science have to do with politics?" is an attitude that kind of sums up a major problem with conservatism, I think.

 

Thoughts?

~ :)

 

 

UPDATE:

Well, I was close (just to update that "quote" I wrote, above). Tony Blair actually said:

"I think what's most interesting about politics today is that politics hasn't yet caught up with what globalization's doing to the world; and as I say, what globalization's doing is pushing everyone together."

"And there is no turning back. That's why I sometimes say, as important as left versus right in today's politics, is actually open versus closed; where are you on immigration, trade, international engagement...."

 

Questor, isn't focusing on population as the cause of all these problems just a way to avoid acknowledging the many possible solutions that can handle the current and projected population? It would require a lot of effort to change the trajectory for the future of the world; regenerating the biosphere, accommodating even the least among us. Continuing on a business-as-usual path will lead more quickly to the solution you've focused on; a much lower population, with limited profligacy; and probably enforced by a pandemic (but possibly by warfare -or no doubt some combination thereof).

 

But seriously, do you not see what science should have to do with politics?

 

~Thanks,

[questor]

I cannot see what science has to do with politics per se. Whay aspects of science are an integral part of politics? Here are some definitions of politics:

 

<quote> Definitions of politics on the Web:

social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power; "office politics is often counterproductive"

the study of government of states and other political units

the profession devoted to governing and to political affairs

the opinion you hold with respect to political questions

the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government; "unemployment dominated the politics of the inter-war years"; "government agencies multiplied beyond the control of representative politics"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/

I don't see anything scientific here unless you are talking about Political Science which is the study of politics.

[Pyrotex]

Since you have seen fit to attack me:

Before I take offense, why don't you explain exactly what YOU are ranting about?

questor, questor, questor... it's okay. calm down.

 

I wasn't "ranting" about anything, dear boy.

 

What I was doing was merely accusing you of premeditated character assassination of the very class of people who gave us Rule of Law, Trial by Jury, Capitalism, Democracy, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Equality of Women and People of Color -- and your freedom to publicly malign that class of people.

 

Peace be unto thee, and amen.