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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jun 13, 2004
Well, I'm a moderate without party affiliation to anyone. It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives mean well. Yes, they think differently, but that doesnt mean that either is wrong or is evil, they just have different opinions about how to do things, etc. And if anyone disagrees they are automatically labeled evil. Although I must admit, I do get a kick out of reading the blogs of both conservative and liberal, and how they continually picture the other side as a bunch of ogres.

It seems quite humorous to me how both sides continually demonize each other, when in actuality all are very good top quality folks who believe they are doing the right thing. Occasionally I watch a show on Fox called O'Reilly factor. I get a kick out of this guy, because whoever disagrees with him, he labels as a "pinhead". This includes even apellate judges, etc. All because they don't seem to agree with his point of view. And he is just a news guy! And I see the liberal side label labeling Bush as the ultimate demon because of his policies. Certainly errors have been made in Iraq, but that doesnt make the president the ultimate evil, and I believe that he is basically a very good man, just as Kerry is.

I believe both Bush and Kerry to be very good honorable people. Certainly the Bush administration as said has made some blunders, but I don't believe there were ever any harmful or evil intentions, and this doesn't make Bush a bad man. John Kerry seems to be a good possibility for president also, and I could care less if he smiles or acts jolly, etc. I will certainly will look at each very carefully before I cast my vote. My vote will be based on the most important issues to me mainly the state of the world, the economy, health care, education, etc. if I think that more could be done, and if Kerry could do anything different to improve things, etc.

I am sure that most likely the best people for the job as president will not get it, because they do not have the money, political machine, or are too busy teaching school somewhere, etc. But this is our system, and we evidently are pretty much stuck with it.

Enjoyed the post. Mason.
on Jun 13, 2004
On the left, I find people too quick to scream racism, sexism, classism, etc., which has a chilling effect on any debate. The left is generally, in my opinion, less intellectually honest, though it's a close call these days. As an example, I think Bowling for Columbine was intellectually dishonest. I think a lot of lefty social policy is baloney.
On the right, I may be alone here but I generally see more emotion, specifically anger and hate, in the articles written by so called right wingers. It just seems like the LImbaughs and such have a simmering cauldron of seething hatred which is barely concealed by a thin veneer of civility. I find the so called righties are quick to resort to cheap punditry, highly inflammable rhetoric, strawman arguments, and that sort of thing. It's like their hatred blinds them from seeing straight and clouds their minds beyond reason. Again, the left is guilty of this too, it's just my observation that the level of anger and hatred is substantially higher on the right.
on Jun 13, 2004
It seems self-evident that the really vitriolic diatribes around here are all coming from a right winger.
on Jun 13, 2004
I would love to hear to some examples of

"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 right appears to me to be far more supportive of the ideas of personal responsibility and self-sufficiency."


And on this:
"I see a far more rational argument style from the right, and a good deal more tolerance of the opposition's views."
Two words: John Ashcroft

Did you know that the first thing Bush did as president, and I do mean the first, was to remove all federal funding from organizations like Planned Parenthood that so much as mention the word abortion? If they wanted to keep their funding they had to remove all references to the idea. Tolerant?

And finally, do you really think "The biggest thing I have noticed from the left is a venomous intolerance of opposing views." this is a democratic stance? Republicans and Democrats will take this stance on any issue when its the best way to play the political game. For instance, Tom Delay and John McCain were acting like they never heard of each other and suggesting each others comments must have come from some individual with no understanding the "right" side of the Iraq war. By the way, that all started because McCain was critical of Bush's handling of the war on Iraq.

Here is another good one for you:
"the right does tend to rely more on verifyable facts"

in response: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

There is a whole host of evidence that this was not simply dubious information but information previously shown to be false used to attain a specific political agenda.
on Jun 13, 2004
You should come look at Seattle,... very liberal yet somehow the business flourishes. Are you suggesting that those are owned by conservatives yet some how the city remains vastly liberal?
on Jun 13, 2004
I don't see conservatives using words like "nigger" and "faggot".  In fact, it's usually the left using the big N word these days to describe African Americans who they don't like.
on Jun 13, 2004
the only other time ive seen the first one used here (or anywhere else except neo-nazi sites for that matter) was some idiot whod modified it for use in an anti-arab context.
on Jun 13, 2004
I don't see conservatives using words like "nigger" and "faggot". In fact, it's usually the left using the big N word these days to describe African Americans who they don't like.


Thats putting words into people's mouth... I haven't seen that once around here.... especially from those I know that represent the left....

Good article Mason...

BAM!!!
on Jun 13, 2004

Getting back to topic, one thing I have noticed about liberals, at least on the net, is that they are much more likely to confuse opinions and facts. And if you don't agree with their opinions, it's not that you have a differing opinion, you are simply incorrect and they will point it out.

I have a guy on one of my blogs telling me how ignorant I am of economics simply because my opinion on what affects interest rates is different from his. Nevermind that many economists concur with my opinion. And nevermind that interest rates are only one tiny aspect of economics. Because I differ in opinion with him, I am ignorant on economics.

I saw on one of Jilluser's articles, the one on empathy a condescending response telling her she is probably confusing empathy with sympathy. To disagree with a liberal's opinion is to be wrong.

Right-wingers do that too from time to time but it is my experience that right wingers are much more aware of the distinction between an opinion and a fact.

on Jun 13, 2004

Okay Muggaz, how many times have you used the term Nazi or fascist to describe your opponents? How many times have I used a hateful epitaph in my writings? How many times has Little Whip? or Dharmagirl?  Yes, on this site, the nasty name calling is pretty one way.

on Jun 13, 2004

Example of the left using the term "nigger":

http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/195.html

 

on Jun 13, 2004
Okay Muggaz, how many times have you used the term Nazi or fascist to describe your opponents? How many times have I used a hateful epitaph in my writings? How many times has Little Whip? or Dharmagirl? Yes, on this site, the nasty name calling is pretty one way.


Fascist, I have used, I can acknowledged that... Nazi, I have not used once... that is just plain wrong, and I wont resort to that...

fascist isn't nigger and faggot though....

Brad... you know me... name calling wont get anyone anywhere... why bother reverting to it? or drawing reference to instances where the other side has used it... move on... If anyone calls 'fascist' 'nigger' or 'kook' it basically tells me that they cant present a valid argument and have to revert to name calling to emphasise any point they are trying to present...

keep it clean! http://www.blacknewsweekly.com/195.html might represent 'some' of the left, but we could happily point to some embarrasing instances of the right... but you knw all about them, so I wont bother

BAM!!!
on Jun 13, 2004

I consider the word fascist up there with "nigger" and "faggot" quite easily.

I find it particularly disgusting that you excuse your own nastiness while accusing me of name-calling. Where am I calling you or anyone a name here? 

Feel free to point out articles showing prominent right wingers calling people "niggers". Go right ahead. BTW, tell me, what punishment did Belafonte receive for doing that?  Then again, isn't it the Democrats who have a former klansmen in their ranks?

on Jun 13, 2004
many words have precise meanings that exist outside political context, personal opinion or preference. this is especially true of technical or scientific terms that quantify or qualify in the same way as numbers or notes.. i fail to see how or why its 'condescending' or indicative of political persuasion to suggest that perhaps 4 doesnt equal 4.1 or 4.3.
on Jun 13, 2004
use of racial slurs is a magnitude beyond other name-calling in that racial slurs nullify another's humanity. other names may be insulting but they are less damaging.
4 Pages1 2 3 4