A bunch of useless crap
A bunch of MY opinions
Published on June 12, 2004 By MasonM In Politics
WARNING: This is an article about generalities with regard to political ideologies.This article contains MY personal observations, opinions, and conclusions. It is all based solely on things I have observed personally and is not supported by sources other than my own observations (It's called thinking for yourself) It is just chock full of generalities. If that bothers you, stop here and move on to another article.


I read articles and discussions written from both left and right wing perspectives. I listen to various opinions and debates on the radio and television. I observe, listen, and draw conslusions based upon what is said and how it is presented. I prefer to form my own opinions based on verifiable facts and information instead of just "what someone else says" I should think.

If someone says something, I'll check it out and weigh it against available information and what I already know.

In observing the discussion, debates, articles, and oher communications from both sides of the political spectrum I have drawn some conclusions regarding the general styles and ideas of both sides.

Liberal: It seems to me that the bulk of the arguments from the left seem to be based heavily upon feelings and emotions. Often, the arguments lack much in the way of substance and seem to be more of a "Our way is much more humane, tolerant, fair, and enlightened than yours. We know what's best so you should think this way and do these things."

Often the "facts" presented are either flatly untrue, or more often only "half truths" taken out of context and skewed to support an argument that otherwise would be unsupportable.

The biggest thing I have noticed from the left is a venomous intolerance of opposing views. I see much more hateful diatribes spewing from the left. They claim to be standing up for tolerance and yet are extremely intolerant themselves. They employ scare tactics and misinformation and when challenged by verifiable facts fall back on emotional rhetoric and accusations ranging from racism to homophobia (totally misusing the word) to lieing about the facts which are easily verified. Sometimes it seems they are unwilling to investigate the real facts for fear of being forced to change their minds.


Conservative: The right does tend to rely more on verifyable facts upon which to base their arguments but are often guilty of ignoring the "human factor". To me, I see them more concerned about themselves than their fellow human beings.This is the impression I often get from them.

I see a far more rational argument style from the right, and a good deal more tolerance of the opposition's views. Tolerance does not equate with agreement, simply respect for the right of someone to have an opposing view. The right seems far more interested in protecting the rights of all citizens instead of just the rights of a select group, while at the same time addressing the realities of the world.

Their debating style is far less based upon emotion than it is factual information although I have seen them become enraged when faced with emotionally based arguments which can't be reasoned with.


The right appears to me to be far more supportive of the ideas of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency. The old "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" idea.

The right seems to be much more corporately oriented and money driven. They, in my opinion, are far more likely to support the goals of the wealthy than the poor. I see them as being guilty of elitism and classism at times, seeing the poor as more of a burden than anything.

But, frankly,, the bulk of the productive work is accomlished by the right. They spend far more energy on the practical side of things than the idealistic.


All in all, I don't see either side in a very good light as I see the real, practical, and best solutions to things to be somewhere in between these two ideologies. My personal ideology lies a little right of center in a good many areas, and a little left of center in some other areas. I like to thing that on the whole I'm just about at the center.

Perhaps if people spent less time and energy worrying about "left" and "right" and just got together to hammer out real, substantial, and workable solutions to things we just might actually progress. I think a great many good solutions to problems get chucked to the wayside in the name of ideology. The left refuses to work with the right and visa versa.

Oh, and if people would just stick to the facts instead of ideological smokescreens (both sides) intended to advance their own agenda, things would move along much better.

Again, these are MY opinions and conclusions based solely on my personal observations and thinking. I am quite sure that there are plenty of anecdotal examples to contradict the things I said regarding either side but I am speaking in generalities here. I know, generalities drive some people nuts. Oh well, this is an article about generalities. And, after all, the views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of, well, anyone else.

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jun 12, 2004

You won't find too many liberals running a company or certainly starting a small business.

The private sector is not terribly forgiving of half-baked ideas or concern about ones intentions. 

By contrast, areas where there are few, if any, metrics for determining quality tend to be filled with liberals. Entertainment and academia for example.  Areas where quality is in the eye in the beholder. Areas where natural talent are king.

I don't think one is better than the other. You really need both. Without liberals, the world become a cold gray treadmill of output. Without conservatives you are left with anarchy and material poverty.

on Jun 12, 2004
I agree completely Brad. I really don't think one is better or worse than the other. Just a collection of thoughts on the topic.
on Jun 12, 2004
Yeah, both sides have their purposes. My oversimplified view: I think that liberals help keep society up with the times (by pointing out what needs to be changed) while the conservatives help stabilize society. However, sometimes some liberals want to change unnecessary things and some conservatives want to resist change that would be good.
on Jun 12, 2004
Very good article and subsequent posts. Both sides are necessary to provide checks and balances.

Having watched politics for 35+ years, I have seen the "single issue litmus" test applied to determine if someone is a "liberal" or "conservative." But when that issue is gone, the arbitrary definition becomes irrelevant. For example, in the 1930's conservatives favored non-intervention in the affairs of Europe. In the 1960's, the issue was Vietnam. Last year the issue was the War in Iraq. But after the immediate issue fades, you have to look at a wider range of positions.

The world changes and you have to adapt. The question is when and how much.
on Jun 12, 2004
I love the way you think MM.
I think it is great that you worded this in such a way that others have to understand that this is not open for attack becouse they may dissagree. How could anyone fault an obvious concept such as this? You have succeeded in writting an article that is based on an "opinion" but it is knowledgable and insightful enough to almost convince an otherwise disbeliever.
Your "opinion", in my eyes has become each sides "Mission Statements" or requirements.
on Jun 12, 2004
little_whip, you fail to mention that I was the one referenced above that pointed out that the source of the article you posted was inaccurate. Other sources were then referenced and they contradicted the first article that you posted. I supported everything that I wrote with quotes. The first page that you used as a reference attacked the Supreme Court of the United States on the opening page. Therefore I said that I thought THEY were a hate group, a definition that I think most people would agree with.

I don't hate you or the values that you embrace. I don't know you. I simply pointed out that you had been sucked in by an urban legend. As were the publishers of Rolling Stone.

It was you that said "What's wrong with hate groups anyway?" which I can only assume that you may have meant humorously.

The original thread is at http://little-whip.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=18071 I invite anyone to read my posts and let me know if they think anything I said was inflammatory. I also invite the Joeuser community to read the replies. One person chided me for having been "ultra-quick" to find the contradictions. Hardly a reasonable remark.

Sometimes we all make mistakes. Just because someone was wrong once, doesn't mean that you are always wrong.

If your definition of an intolerant liberal is someone that points out when the sources that you cited (not you yourself, but the sources) were wrong, well then I guess that I fit the bill. I do believe that facts are important to making informed decisions. And you know what? I know many conservatives that would agree with that.

I hope that I have not hijacked this thread. I did feel that I had to respond since little_whip's comments are right below mine. (Which I find a little bit eerie, but there it is.) Perhaps this is a good example of tolerance versus intolerance. Which is what this thread is all about.

Peace. (That's not too inflammatory for me to say, is it?)
on Jun 12, 2004
(My reply is not about liberals, it's about conservatives. We've already heard enough of the impressions that liberals give conservatives in recent weeks, so here's the other side of the coin. Since many of you have taken great cares to confuse ideology and character, maybe I'll do the same (or maybe I won't).

One other thing I've noticed is that hateful conservatives tend to prefer threats of murder and hell, slang labels like 'nigger', 'faggot', and 'commie', and the occasional use of violence against people they don't like. Often times, just like the communists and stereotypes they oppose (myself included: please consider me a commie faggot, not a liberal), the conservatives forget about the importance of liberal dialogue, and lash out in unpredictable ways. Of course we are currently living in a brief period of Civil-Bushdom, so conservatives are really digging this democracy thing for the time being. Conservatives relish the opportunity to wag their fingers disdainfully at the left, portraying them as hopeless, rabble-rousing malcontents. When the Civil-Bushdom subsides, and the government see-saws back to democratic control, we'll have an opportunity to see the hopeless, rabble-rousing malcontents of the right go berserk, bomb federal buildings and abortion clinics (Remember Tim McVeigh and that Rudolph dude both stood for limited government and traditional values). Oftentimes conservatives will murder atheists and bury them in tupperware. Less intelligent and motivated conservatives will simply listen to hateful talk radio and think that because the evils of liberalism are recognized, they are being defeated. Realistically, liberalism is only defeated with bombs, lies, and corruption.

Conservatives also have a tendency to excuse the criminal, immoral, and destructive tendencies of people like Tom DeLay, Ronald Reagan, and the Bushes. Conservatives know that there is a line between what they need to know about their government and what they don't need to know about it. What they need to know is its symbolism and its outward character. What they don't need to know is its operation: who finances it, who benefits from it, how it reaches its decisions, etc., etc. If the a republican 'stands' for personal responsibility and the rule of law, it doesn't matter if he is simply a corrupt ex-businessman who would like to help corporations be less responsible and laws be less enforcable. If he 'stands' for America, it doesn't matter that he sells his service to the pro-Israel lobby or compromises security in his dealings with Saudi Arabia. Conservatives are concerned with gestures, but not with consequences. The appearance of defending one's country is much more important than doing the thing which will make the country safer. Many conservatives can't tell the difference, but they insist on 'sending messages to the terrorists' or 'causing the terrorists to be destroyed by a domino effect... what a cool idea, a domino effect'.

Conservatives are very emotional and idealistic creatures who will often ignore reason. Granted, many conservatives and libertarians are very reasonable, but only when it concerns their individual needs, never when it concerns some of the needs of society (like regulation, law, welfare, education, environment, etc). Given the choice between giving a woman a fish and teaching a woman to fish, most conservatives will lash at out the woman for her irresponsibility in not knowing how to fish in the first place, tell her she's not strong enough, and freak out if the government uses their tax-money for the purposes of either giving her a fish or teaching her how to fish. The best way to deal with such a woman is to let her be, allowing her the dignity of being helpless, hopeless, and poor. Very reasonable.

Conservatives are value oriented, and have a great deal of contempt for those who have either surpassed the need to be value oriented (radiating goodness without touting or identifying values) or are oriented to different values than their own. Conservatives coallesce into large social value brigades, and have a remarkable affinity for those who preach values loudly and obnoxiously, but in reality are complete hypocrites and counterproductive to their cause. Liberals tend to associate their values with historical, sociological, and natural phenomenon, wheras conservatives associate values with tradition and social inheritance. When faced with the onslaught of those 'unclear' and 'unpronounced' values inherent in any human experience, conservatives will idealize selective impressions of 'traditional' value systems that may or may not be functional or applicable to modern experience. There is always an accute desire for 'things as they used to be', and this desire is projected through the condemnation of those who demonstrate the validity of a particular logical argument: "I did not have traditional values, therefore I acted in an immoral fashion". Conservatives are fixated on these instances to the point of irrational idiocy, and they love to identify all of society's ills with this ethical paradigm. They do not consider the alternative phenomena: "I do not have traditional values, I acted immorally, but my actions have nothing to do with my different values", or "I have traditional values and I acted immorally because of them", or "I have traditional values and I acted immorally/morally in spite of them", or "I do not have traditional values, and/therefore I acted morally". Nor do they consider cases in which the values espoused by something were traditional, but the outcome was negative, or the values espoused by something were not traditional, but the outcome was positive. Naturally, such thinking makes it very difficult for the conservative intellect to process reality when it refutes their assumptions, yet they retain strong faith in the unerring correctness of their beliefs.

on Jun 13, 2004
They hate heterosexuals. They hate guns. They hate Republicans. They hate pro-lifers. They hate caucasians. They hate corporations. They hate the wealthy. They hate the flag. They hate american ideals. They hate patriotism. They hate our President. They hate conservatives. They hate the checks and balances built into our Constitution, limiting government power. They hate our military. They hate religion. They hate and hate and hate.

this is so inflammatory and baseless that it says volumes about its author and little else. im commenting on it only because this is the 2nd blog in which its appeared today. ironically, its in direct contradiction to the theme of the seed article.

they hate hetrosexuals: ergo, all liberals are virulently homosexual? or possessed of chronic self-hatred?

they hate guns: it's hardly possible to hate an inanimate object without being profoundly mentally schizophrenic

they hate republicans: hatred now equals disagreement?

they hate pro-lifers: thus explaining the number of pro-life headquarters that have been bombed as well as the murders of pro-life advocates.

they hate caucasions: would that be the mountains or people with white skin? we're beginning to get a clearer picture of liberals now: theyre gay and non-white.

they hate corporations: the gay, non-white political advocacy organizations are either sole proprietorships or partnerships. its getting easier to track them down.

they hate the wealthy: no, they merely wish to cook and eat the wealthy. well all except the dark-skinned, gay, non-incorported wealthy who i am beginning to suspect must also be suicidal.

they hate the flag: (see 'guns' above)

they hate american ideals: this is a subjective view and turns on the writer's concept of what those ideals are. since the framers of the constitution were amont the wildest-eyed liberals of their time, one must suppose the constitutional convention would have provided hunter s thompson with great material for a book entitled 'fear and loathing in philadelphia'

They hate patriotism. another example of a strong tendency towards self-destruction since, as samuel johnson pointed out, patriotism would be their last refuge.

They hate our President. im not sure why unless it would be he's white, hetrosexual, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-american ideals (whoops wait, that would require him to be at least an 18th century liberal) anti-scoundrel refugee, wealthy, etc. etc.

They hate conservatives. is it their fault many conservatives are white, hetrosexual, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-american ideals (whoops wait, that would require him to be at least an 18th century liberal) anti-scoundrel refugee, wealthy, etc. etc. ?

They hate the checks and balances built into our Constitution, limiting government power. this one i have to take issue with solely because this would require them to hate all those activist judges (like scalia and thomas)...but perhaps you mean welfare checks? in which case i guess it fits that self-loathing pattern.

They hate our military. only the white, hetrosexual, sane, non-radical founding father branches. it would be more accurate to say they very much disliked crispin attucks (unless he was a homosexual cannibal).

they hate religion: that rounds out the picture. gay darkskinned suicidal schizophhrenic constitutional-convention-attending sole-proprietor cannibal self-destructive, self-loathing suicidal fish-bellied heathens

unfortunately the author's statement went left unattributed what i believe to be the source of her claims: one dr. psuess who wrote 'the red under the bed was black' from which this verse was excerpted.

They hate and hate and hate

the liberals they hate the great
the liberals they hate the state
they hate shirley
they hate kate
uless of course one girl's a dyke
in that case hate turns to dislike
they hate early
they hate late
they hate the time
they hate the date
the thing that makes me so irate
is how they hate and hate and hate
on Jun 13, 2004
gay darkskinned suicidal schizophhrenic constitutional-convention-attending sole-proprietor cannibal self-destructive, self-loathing suicidal fish-bellied heathens


bingo
on Jun 13, 2004
'fear and loathing in philadelphia'

God, I'd love to read that!
on Jun 13, 2004
little whip, im thinking you're a ten year old hick from colorado in white america, or some trailer park with nazi and confederate flags? although you have SOME intelligence for a ten year old, little whip, you seem to contradict yourself a lot, a WHOLE lot. I can go on and on in this post detailing everything you said in this topic, but it wont do any good. You'd just tell me im liberal crap and that i should back to my gay darkskinned suicidal schizophhrenic constitutional-convention-attending sole-proprietor cannibal self-destructive, self-loathing suicidal fish-bellied heathens roots and just shut up?

I applaud saint ying and kingbee for some awesome posts. As for little whip (which is a funny name), Im not against you cuz your conservative (or somewhat extreme), but cuz your stupid and ignorant. I don't really care if you follow up with some insults, cuz it doesn't matter. My perception of you is CLEAR (although you won't care).
on Jun 13, 2004
Saint Ying, thanks. I was hoping someone would respond to this article in the same vein as it was written. While you site some anecdotal examples contradicting some of what I said (just as I predicted in the article) I appreciate you making your comment, stating your viewpoint, your opinion, in a similar manner (perhaps a bit too sarcastic), as the original article was written.

This article was written to express my opinions and impressions of both sides of the political spectrum without personal attacks on anyone from either side. I think it would be productive if those who feel inclined toward personal attacks and insults (on both sides) would kindly take these to another thread. This article and thread are for you personal opinion and impression of both your viewpoint and the opposing viewpoint. I was hoping my article could serve as an example of how to do that without resorting to name calling, sarcasm, and attacks.

Please feel free to add your thoughts, opinions, and impressions of left/right, but please try to do so in a rational manner.

I am going to leave the comments as is for now. Any further comments on the thread containing attacks or name-calling will be deleted for the sake of the integrity of the thread. I hope you understand, and thanks for your cooperation.
on Jun 13, 2004
House Negro" (Powell)

im curious as to whether you actually saw this in person or a photograph or was it described?
on Jun 13, 2004
i do have a picture of bush being transformed into hitler...but i forgot the link or website. it had bush waving his hand in the air, and then suddenly become hitler with a similar prose.
on Jun 13, 2004
Hey Saint Ying... nice post
4 Pages1 2 3  Last