Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[REASON]

The more you read, the more you learn. Here is some more info. I assume everyone here has access to Google. If you have info to counter this, let's share it. I have said before there is plenty of blame here for everyone.

 

 

Link: HumanEventsOnline.com

 

Good grief, questor. You're so gullible. Can't you see that there is not a shread of evidence to support the rampant speculation in your link.

 

Example:

 

The high-risk subprime mortgage social engineering community service experiment by left-wing ACORN and Obama has created the largest financial crisis since The Great Depression.

 

Based on what? According to whom? How do you know it's ACORN? Do you have any evidence?

 

The full reach of the corruption and scandal may never be known but those who created it must not be rewarded. The architects, primarily left-wing Democrats, created laws, took donations, looked the other way and instead were too busy overseeing donations to their own presidential campaigns and robbing main street blind.

 

The architects are left-wing Democrats? I knew it!

 

Created what laws? What did they say? How were the laws implemented?

 

Where's the evidence they took donations and as a result, returned favors? Just because it says so doesn't mean anything in reality. But it sure gets your panties in a wad doesn't it?

 

How were they "robbing main street blind?" That's a pretty inflammatory statement without proof.

 

 

Now these same left-wing Democrats blame everyone else and get up on their high horses and say, "we are here to save you" from the crises they created.

 

It's ironic that this article is attempting, rather pitifully, to place blame and provides no evidence to support it's claims.

 

 

This is just red meat for suckers like you, questor. Why do you insist on perpetuating an us-against-them mentality? Maybe you could explain the cause and effect of that approach.

[REASON]

A simple but succinct story explaining the difference between a conservative and a liberal....

 

''I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

 

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

 

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

 

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house."

 

She thought that over for a few seconds 'cause she's only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

 

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." ''

 

From the internet.

 

"...she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

 

Maybe it's because he's bound to a wheelchair after getting his legs blown off by a landmine in Vietnam. But don't worry little girl, now that your with the Republican party, you don't have to worry about those wierdos anymore. Helping people is for bleeding heart Liberals. Now hurry up, you don't want to be late for church. :D

 

 

What a stupid story. It mearly reflects callous selfishness and indifference. What a disgraceful lesson for children. :naughty:

[questor]

My mind is made up..don't try to confuse me with facts.

 

If you have read all the links I have posted on this thread and you don't believe any of them, then what is the use in further discourse? Where do you get YOUR truth?

[Buffy]

My mind is made up..don't try to confuse me with facts.

I guess that says it all huh?

 

Sorry, those of us in the "reality-based community" won't bother you anymore: If you won't accept any facts whatsoever, well, yah, what is the point?

 

Is there some reason why Conservatvies are so opposed to facts?

 

We were surprised by the extent of the problem, especially among the insured, :naughty:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Where do you get YOUR truth?

 

Truth is not some absolute destination with GPS coordinates of latitude and longitude, but is instead an ever changing, dynamic, context dependent ideal. It is always sought and rarely found. It is not absolute.

 

I sometimes sense parallels with the comparison between conservatives and liberals to neanderthals and homo sapiens, as if one day a "side" will ultimately win and we can be done with this ridiculous nonsense and stop wasting our time.

 

Perhaps liberals see the truth as something to be found, while conservatives see the truth as something that only they have. I dunno. That's probably not fair to either side.

 

Either way, this quote really seems to sum up the issue quite nicely:

 

My mind is made up..don't try to confuse me with facts.

 

 

 

EDIT: Looks like I cross posted with Buffy.

[pgrmdave]

My mind is made up..don't try to confuse me with facts.

 

Please questor, don't give conservatives a bad name by living up to their stereotype. Be willing to show people that you are open-minded, and that being willing to listen to others isn't the sole domain of the liberals. Especially in a thread which is designed to show the differences between the two, not simply attack their positions.

[Pyrotex]

Dave, it won't be that easy for questor. His habits are ingrained deeply.

 

For questor to be open-minded, at least in areas of politics and economics, he would have to do the following:

 

1. Stop getting ALL his information from the most right-wing, ideological, dogmatic, blame-mongering, neoconservative blogs, and FOX. He should at least expose himself to more centrist views, as can be found on CNN, BBC, The Lehrer Report, Time Magazine. MSNBC may be a bit too Liberal, so he can skip that one.

 

2. Read the posts others make, and give the authors credit for having chosen their viewpoints based on the facts available to them -- not assume the authors are stupid or brainwashed.

 

3. Stop putting words and opinions into other peoples' "mouths" that they did not say.

 

4. Actually respond to the points and questions made by others, rather than ignoring them.

 

5. Learn to distinguish the extremes of ideology and dogma. Accept that BOTH parties have advocates (blogs, pundits, reporters) who suffer equally from fallacy, false logic, over-simplification and blind accusation. Reality is RARELY (if ever) to be found in either extreme.

 

If questor would do even 4 out of 5, I believe he could maintain his viewpoint as a conservative (as I do), and become a respected contributor to this thread.

[questor]

I'm sorry you folks couldn't detect my little dab of sarcasm directed to the previous poster:

My mind is made up..don't try to confuse me with facts.

Should I assume none of you have heard this before?

[REASON]

My mind is made up..don't try to confuse me with facts.

 

Where do you get YOUR truth?

 

While there may be YOUR truth and MY truth, in reality, OUR truths may be nothing like THE truth.

 

FACTS help bring us closer to THE truth.

 

In life, we must decide which is more important - attempting to understand THE truth, or continually perpetuating OUR version of it. It is not unusual for people to choose the latter because sometimes - THE truth hurts.

 

Could this be a difference between Conservatives and Liberals? I doubt it.

[questor]

Pyro, you seem to be an intelligent and even tempered person. You call yourself a conservative, yet you say this:

1. Stop getting ALL his information from the most right-wing, ideological, dogmatic, blame-mongering, neoconservative blogs, and FOX. He should at least expose himself to more centrist views, as can be found on CNN, BBC, The Lehrer Report, Time Magazine. MSNBC may be a bit too Liberal, so he can skip that one.

Why do you not find these sources slanted left as most people do? I have watched and do watch these programs and more, and I do not find them centrist at all. These are supposedly NEWS stations and should be neutral. Would you mind telling me if you can, which of these quoted sources support McCain for president?

My description of the basic differences between libs and cons is simple. Libs think most people are helpless for one reason or another and must be helped by the government. Libs believe that our economic system is not fair and the government needs to even out the playing field. Libs believe that most wealthy people achieved that position by being born rich, or taking advantage of others. Libs believe that you have no right to judge others, so you shouldn't criticise others for obnoxious dress, music, or personal behavior.

Libs take a dim view of ambition, hard work and merit. Why should one person try to elevate himself above others?

I don't know your feelings on these isssues, but these are my core beliefs. If these beliefs are wrong and harm society, please feel free to comment.

[pgrmdave]

Questor, I mean no offense, but you should stick to describing how conservatives think, because you really don't seem to understand liberals in much the same way that liberals tend to not understand conservatives.

 

libs think most people are helpless for one reason or another and must be helped by the government

 

As far as I know, this isn't true. Liberals see part of the governments job as looking out for the welfare of the people, ensuring that no matter what, people do not starve to death, freeze to death, or die of simply treatable medical conditions. They want the government to have the ability and the power to help people have a basic standard of living.

 

Libs believe that our economic system is not fair and the government needs to even out the playing field.

Didn't you yourself argue that the playing field of the 'game' wasn't fair, but that we were all playing by the same rules? Without money, it is difficult to get an education (which, again, you argued was necessary in the game of life). Thus, liberals tend to want to help provide a good college education for people who may not otherwise have the chance (which has the added benefit of making our workforce better). Liberals tend to be realistic about discrimination based on things like gender and race, so they take measures to try to ensure that qualified people get jobs for which they are qualified. The more money you have, the easier it is to make money though investments - this is especially noticeable in the lowest income groups, because the less money you have, the more percentage of it you need to spend on necessities, reducing the amount you can have in savings or investments to zero, or even negative (spending on credit for basics). Liberals seek to even this out a bit by taking money from the wealthy in the form of taxes and giving it to the poorer in the form of social programs. This allows the poorer groups to invest more and save more, which helps them AND helps our economy.

 

Libs believe that most wealthy people achieved that position by being born rich, or taking advantage of others.

This just isn't true. They do believe that rich people tend to have a mix of hard work and luck, and that poor people can have just as much hard work but without the luck. They also tend to think that the rich have an obligation to help, because it seems obscene that in a town where the median income is over twice the national median income, a man can freeze to death (Sparta, NJ - 2006. Median income - $101,000. While people made that much money, a homeless man froze to death. If each person had just given a little bit of their wealth, they could have saved a life. Liberals see that as outrageous. Conservatives see it as unfortunate economics perhaps?).

 

Libs believe that you have no right to judge others, so you shouldn't criticise others for obnoxious dress, music, or personal behavior.

No, liberals just tend to think that they have a strong right to privacy. Of course you can criticize others (and liberals often criticize conservatives...) but that doesn't mean you should have the ability to prevent them from doing what they want to so long as they are not harming anybody. (dress however you want, but be decent in public. Listen to whatever music you want, but don't invade my eardrums.)

 

Libs take a dim view of ambition, hard work and merit.

This is just silly - the most famous and best admired liberals worked very hard and were very ambitious in the change they were trying to enact.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, you seem to be an intelligent and even tempered person. You call yourself a conservative, yet you say this:

 

Why do you not find these sources slanted left as most people do? I have watched and do watch these programs and more, and I do not find them centrist at all.

Most people DO find them to be somewhere in the middle. YOUR points of view tend to be extremely right wing.

These are supposedly NEWS stations and should be neutral. Would you mind telling me if you can, which of these quoted sources support McCain for president?

NONE of them, silly. They're "neutral", remember???

My description of the basic differences between libs and cons is simple...

Your description of Liberals is nothing more than a litany of insults, name-calling and generalized exagerations, bearing little if any connection to truth.

 

Your description of Liberals is not yours. It was fabricated long ago, given a fresh coat of paint after Goldwater's campaign, and preached to the naive and uneducated masses as "gospel". It is a simple case of Demonization.

 

What if I described all Conservatives as "fascists, hate-mongers, congenital liars, wrong-headed ideologs who substitute blind dogma for reason, intolerant bigots, and arrogant selfish greed-meisters who have no appreciation of cooperation or community"?

 

Would you consider that an accurate description? :) Hell NO, you would not. Your first reaction would prolly be to accuse me of a petty, meaningless emotional attack. And you would be right.

 

How is your description of Liberals any different? It isn't.

 

Now, I'm NOT your average, run-of-the-mill Conservative. (I call myself a Jacksonian Conservative in honor of Andrew Jackson, whom my father adored and modeled his politics upon.) And the difference is this: I do not make cheap shots at either Liberals or Conservatives. I do not accept extremist views as trustworthy (on either side). I do not consider MOST Liberals to be crazy or stupid. Though I do honor noble conservative traditions and core values, my points of view are rarely black-and-white, but recognize that shades of gray and some* compromises are sometimes politically necessary or expediant.

 

[EXAMPLE]

*If you were to respond by accusing me of saying that I compromise core values, and ignore the word "some", and the context, that would be an example of "taking a cheap shot". It is obviously NOT what I meant.

[/EXAMPLE]

 

My description of Liberals in a previous post was modeled on the well-spoken and well-educated Liberals that I know, respect and consider my friends and colleagues, and upon a few biographies of famous Liberals. My description of Conservatives in that same post was similarly derived.

[questor]

Dave, you are correct, I shouldn't lump all liberals in the same box, just as all conservatives don't think alike. My opinions are gathered for many years of talking to people who profess to be liberal and reading about liberal or ''progressive'' ideas. Let me address some of what you said:

As far as I know, this isn't true. Liberals see part of the governments job as looking out for the welfare of the people, ensuring that no matter what, people do not starve to death, freeze to death, or die of simply treatable medical conditions. They want the government to have the ability and the power to help people have a basic standard of living.

I have not seen reports of people starving or freezing on a wholesale basis.

In my city, we have several homeless shelters where people are fed, clothed and housed. I think most people do not mind paying taxes to have these services performed. Don't you think it would be better for these people to be responsible for themselves so they could contribute to society rather than drain it?

 

[ quote] Didn't you yourself argue that the playing field of the 'game' wasn't fair, but that we were all playing by the same rules? Without money, it is difficult to get an education (which, again, you argued was necessary in the game of life). Thus, liberals tend to want to help provide a good college education for people who may not otherwise have the chance (which has the added benefit of making our workforce better).

Can you think of any reason a person cannot work his way through college?

Is it possible to attend night school to pick up credits while working? Is it possible to obtain student loans, or scholarships? Has this already been done by thosands of people? Doesn't it depend on how much you want it? Are you aware you cannot ''give'' someone an education? You can only present them with the opportunity to get one on their own.

 

They do believe that rich people tend to have a mix of hard work and luck, and that poor people can have just as much hard work but without the luck. They also tend to think that the rich have an obligation to help, because it seems obscene that in a town where the median income is over twice the national median income, a man can freeze to death (Sparta, NJ - 2006. Median income - $101,000. While people made that much money, a homeless man froze to death. If each person had just given a little bit of their wealth, they could have saved a life. Liberals see that as outrageous. Conservatives see it as unfortunate economics perhaps?).

 

Have you ever heard the expression..'' The harder I work, the luckier I get ''

People pretty much make their own luck. Talk to a loser, you'll quickly see why he is like he is. Would he have been a loser if he had studied in school, wasn't a druggie or drunk or didn't get married too early?

You keep referring to a man who froze. Was there no homeless facility, no hospital, no library, no place he could have gone? Why do others have to pay for anothers poor life choices?

 

''Libs take a dim view of ambition, hard work and merit.''

 

This is just silly - the most famous and best admired liberals worked very hard and were very ambitious in the change they were trying to enact.

 

If liberals admire personal ambition, hard work, and merit: why don't we have merit pay for teachers? Why doesn't the NEA want school vouchers? Why do teachers teach to the lowest student rather than challenge the smartest?

Why does America rank #18 in academic achievement among the developed countries?

[questor]

Pyro, I take issue with some of your comments and wonder how you arrived at your conclusions. I don't think any of the news stations you mentioned hide the fact that they have a liberal bias, unless you have information to the contrary. And do you actually believe most networks are neutral ? I think they are liberal and proud of it..why not be proud if you are right?

Your description of Liberals is nothing more than a litany of insults, name-calling and generalized exagerations, bearing little if any connection to truth.

You seem to be quite exercised about this and are calling names. Do you have in mind a specific insult or lie that I have told? I may be able to defend myself against a scurrilous attack.

It is a simple case of Demonization.

And the difference is this: I do not make cheap shots at either Liberals or Conservatives.

In reading your post I can readily see many cheap shots directed at me..how do you justify that?

And I suppose you are the judge of the meaning of extremism?

If I have insulted someone or told a lie, let's see the evidence.

 

This is exceptionally vile, and in no way can be compared to any of my statements.

What if I described all Conservatives as "fascists, hate-mongers, congenital liars, wrong-headed ideologs who substitute blind dogma for reason, intolerant bigots, and arrogant selfish greed-meisters who have no appreciation of cooperation or community"?

You implication is insulting,peurile and vicious. How about backing it up with comparables from my posts.

[Moontanman]

I'm sorry you folks couldn't detect my little dab of sarcasm directed to the previous poster:

 

My mind is made up..don't confuse me with the facts!

 

Should I assume none of you have heard this before?

 

Yes, I've heard it, generally from Right wing religious Conservatives when confronted with facts that show they are being led down the merry path of BS.

[pgrmdave]

I have not seen reports of people starving or freezing on a wholesale basis.

In my city, we have several homeless shelters where people are fed, clothed and housed. I think most people do not mind paying taxes to have these services performed. Don't you think it would be better for these people to be responsible for themselves so they could contribute to society rather than drain it?

 

Two things - first, one person freezing to death is too much. It is not enough to simply prevent horrors on a massive scale, we must prevent them every time they are preventable. Second, I don't live in a city, nor do most people in the US (at least last time I checked, though the numbers were close). Out in the rural areas, it is much more difficult to get people to pay taxes for a homeless shelter.

 

In Sussex county (population ~150,000, density ~275/sq mi) there are no homeless shelters. There is a coalition of churches which provides food for the homeless, and housing for women and children, but it is very inadequate. They are unable to provide housing for men due to potential problems (the volunteers who supervise aren't trained in potentially restraining a large man - these are mostly older women who supervise, and they cannot risk taking in a potentially mentally unstable man). They are unable to provide a stable home environment, these people are shuffled among the various churches. The towns want to do something about it, but when voters have to choose between building a new school (desperately needed due to severe overcrowding) or providing for the homeless, they tend to think of their own children first.

 

Is it possible to attend night school to pick up credits while working? Is it possible to obtain student loans, or scholarships? Has this already been done by thosands of people? Doesn't it depend on how much you want it? Are you aware you cannot ''give'' someone an education? You can only present them with the opportunity to get one on their own.

Is there harm that comes from making it easier to have the opportunity? Is the economic harm caused by raised taxes not offset by the potential gains of having a better educated workforce?

[questor]

I don't personally know of anyone who would refuse shelter to a homeless person on a freezing night, unless that person was a known dangerous criminal.

 

Citizens of the USA are required by law to receive education paid for by taxes.

The law does not require the children to learn very much since the social promotion system is available. Assuming the child finishes high school, he has 12 years of ''free'' education. He is now 18 and a legal adult. He can choose to continue or enter the workforce. He can get a student loan or a scholarship or work and save money to attend later. What else is society supposed to do?

Will he not appreciate his education more if he earns it HIMSELF? When do we cut him loose from the taxpayer? Why is it better to give someone something than to have them earn it? In case you missed this:

 

''I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl, and she said she wanted to be President some day.

 

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

 

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."

 

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food or a new house."

 

She thought that over for a few seconds 'cause she's only 6. And while her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

 

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." ''

 

By the way, the winners can win without anybody's help. They do it on their own.