I've never gotten the feeling that conservatives (or liberals) would like to see America reduced by liberal (or conservative) politics as a means to hurt the long term ability of liberals (or conservatives) to function. I have gotten the impression that conservatives believe this is what liberals want though.
Conservatives and liberals are at odds because the success of one group is defined as failure by the other. The two ideologies are mutually exclusive. So for Bush to 'succeed' via conservative means to a liberal that he's failed. It means that he is doing exactly what you're so pissed about BR. It means he's screwing up the country.
So for a liberal to want Bush to 'fail' by definition means that the liberal, from the liberal's perspective, wants the country to succeed. And the reverse is true for conservatives. Everybody wants peace on earth there are just different means of getting it. This war in Iraq is a great example of how to not get peace on earth as a liberal would define it. A conservative would say we're now closer to peace than we were a year ago.
It has nothing to do with party politics which is an entirely different beast altogether and equally ugly for any political party.
It is partisan to say he could never do a good job because he is a conservative, however.
No, I think I cleared this up in my previous post (that happened after you wrote this but before I read this.)
By a liberal's definition Bush wouldn't be a conservative if he were doing a good job. He's be moderate or liberal. By being conservative his very actions are contrary to what a liberal believes is good for America.
No, I think I cleared this up in my previous post (that happened after you wrote this but before I read this.)
By a liberal's definition Bush wouldn't be a conservative if he were doing a good job. He's be moderate or liberal. By being conservative his very actions are contrary to what a liberal believes is good for America.
It's not partisan though, it's just polarity.
I know this does sound partisan but he does have a point.
No, I think I cleared this up in my previous post (that happened after you wrote this but before I read this.)
By a liberal's definition Bush wouldn't be a conservative if he were doing a good job. He's be moderate or liberal. By being conservative his very actions are contrary to what a liberal believes is good for America.
It's not partisan though, it's just polarity.
Stop kidding yourself that there are huge differences between today's centrist-pandering parties.
You've missed the point from the very beginning. Whether it is on purpose or not determines what kind of person you really are. I don't know what's worse: your bigotry if you are so mired in stereotypes that you think all conservatives are bad or your dishonesty if you are playing dumb and hijacking my thread.
There are such minute differences in what defines left of center and right of center that the debates become enraging when one stumbles upon the core of these arguments. The problem is that there is very little substance in these supposed cores and people are reduced to arguing in definitives -- no its not, yes it is. There is no subtlety to arguments any longer. No nuanced thoughts. All I see are the same arguments applied with equal logic with varying assumptions and these 'insights' are rocketted across the trickle of difference between those arguing with such force that there is barely enough time to see if the argument even hit its target before the next battle load is propelled.
In response to the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, William Blake, religious but most definitively an intellectual, suggested that the concept of synthesis was inherently anti-intellectual. There is no reason to pursue common ground, because the goal of any discussion should not be to create agreement but to stimulate and improve further discussion. With the middling of american politics, the synthesis, if you will, of the popular left and right policies, and the corollary demonization of those on the extreme has created an environment where the minor differences in people's opinions are enough to induce those in arguments to label one another as the most horendous descriptors imaginable, the liberal and the conservative, while there exists no substance to be argued and thus no difference in those that find insult in these terms.
The fix is real partisanship. The fix is stepping out ad saying damn well nearly everything you think is true. Maybe its not, but if you dont say it how would you know.
I don't know what's worse: your bigotry if you are so mired in stereotypes that you think all conservatives are bad or your dishonesty if you are playing dumb and hijacking my thread.
I've not made any accusations on conservatives as people or individuals so don't bend my words. I've been clear as a bell. A liberal would consider conservative politics 'bad' and a conservative would consider liberal politics the same.
I've not made any accusations on conservatives as people or individuals so don't bend my words. I've been clear as a bell. A liberal would consider conservative politics 'bad' and a conservative would consider liberal politics the same.
That isn't what you said. You said a conservative by definition can never do a good job. That is stupid.
Hmm. You know, BR's question begs a similar one: Why even root for our nation or rich nations like us? What about those starving kids in China our mothers always warn us about? Are we not rooting for our own prosperity, largely at the expense of poorer nations? Yes, I think so. ....
Well that's where you are wrong. Wrong minded liberals like you always think that for one person to win another person must loose. That's wrong. Fact of the matter is that the situation in China has little to do with the situation here. If China wanted to they could dump their broken system for one that works better. But they'd rather keep the broken system and so their people starve. Don't blame the poverty of one on the prosperity of another.
See, you don't understand the quote either. I clarified it in a later post but you guys don't want to discuss, you'd rather deflect and pretend.
A liberal doesn't like the conservative decisions a conservative makes just as a conservative doesn't like the liberal decisions a liberal makes. It has nothing to do with a blanket rejection because of a political affiliation which is what BR is suggesting.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
it's just that what some people consider a good job is so far from anything that Bush has done, and frankly would never do since he's a conservative.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm afraid you just don't get it. It's not partisan when a liberal disagrees with a conservative.
It is partisan to say he could never do a good job because he is a conservative, however.
Conservatives and liberals are at odds because the success of one group is defined as failure by the other. The two ideologies are mutually exclusive. So for Bush to 'succeed' via conservative means to a liberal that he's failed. It means that he is doing exactly what you're so pissed about BR. It means he's screwing up the country.
So for a liberal to want Bush to 'fail' by definition means that the liberal, from the liberal's perspective, wants the country to succeed. And the reverse is true for conservatives. Everybody wants peace on earth there are just different means of getting it. This war in Iraq is a great example of how to not get peace on earth as a liberal would define it. A conservative would say we're now closer to peace than we were a year ago.
It has nothing to do with party politics which is an entirely different beast altogether and equally ugly for any political party.
Originally posted by alcimedes
i blame the damn liberals for all this partisan crap.
what a suprise... Republicans are NEVER overly political... ooohhh never ever.
And you're right... it is wrong to say a conservative or a liberal could never do a good job.
Originally posted by rageous
It is partisan to say he could never do a good job because he is a conservative, however.
No, I think I cleared this up in my previous post (that happened after you wrote this but before I read this.)
By a liberal's definition Bush wouldn't be a conservative if he were doing a good job. He's be moderate or liberal. By being conservative his very actions are contrary to what a liberal believes is good for America.
It's not partisan though, it's just polarity.
Originally posted by bunge
No, I think I cleared this up in my previous post (that happened after you wrote this but before I read this.)
By a liberal's definition Bush wouldn't be a conservative if he were doing a good job. He's be moderate or liberal. By being conservative his very actions are contrary to what a liberal believes is good for America.
It's not partisan though, it's just polarity.
I know this does sound partisan but he does have a point.
Originally posted by Harald
Edit: WOAH. I wrote 'cunt' and the BB didn't censor it. So I did.
No you didn't
Originally posted by bunge
No, I think I cleared this up in my previous post (that happened after you wrote this but before I read this.)
By a liberal's definition Bush wouldn't be a conservative if he were doing a good job. He's be moderate or liberal. By being conservative his very actions are contrary to what a liberal believes is good for America.
It's not partisan though, it's just polarity.
Stop kidding yourself that there are huge differences between today's centrist-pandering parties.
You've missed the point from the very beginning. Whether it is on purpose or not determines what kind of person you really are. I don't know what's worse: your bigotry if you are so mired in stereotypes that you think all conservatives are bad or your dishonesty if you are playing dumb and hijacking my thread.
In response to the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, William Blake, religious but most definitively an intellectual, suggested that the concept of synthesis was inherently anti-intellectual. There is no reason to pursue common ground, because the goal of any discussion should not be to create agreement but to stimulate and improve further discussion. With the middling of american politics, the synthesis, if you will, of the popular left and right policies, and the corollary demonization of those on the extreme has created an environment where the minor differences in people's opinions are enough to induce those in arguments to label one another as the most horendous descriptors imaginable, the liberal and the conservative, while there exists no substance to be argued and thus no difference in those that find insult in these terms.
The fix is real partisanship. The fix is stepping out ad saying damn well nearly everything you think is true. Maybe its not, but if you dont say it how would you know.
Originally posted by BR
I don't know what's worse: your bigotry if you are so mired in stereotypes that you think all conservatives are bad or your dishonesty if you are playing dumb and hijacking my thread.
I've not made any accusations on conservatives as people or individuals so don't bend my words. I've been clear as a bell. A liberal would consider conservative politics 'bad' and a conservative would consider liberal politics the same.
Originally posted by bunge
I've not made any accusations on conservatives as people or individuals so don't bend my words. I've been clear as a bell. A liberal would consider conservative politics 'bad' and a conservative would consider liberal politics the same.
That isn't what you said. You said a conservative by definition can never do a good job. That is stupid.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hmm. You know, BR's question begs a similar one: Why even root for our nation or rich nations like us? What about those starving kids in China our mothers always warn us about? Are we not rooting for our own prosperity, largely at the expense of poorer nations? Yes, I think so. ....
Well that's where you are wrong. Wrong minded liberals like you always think that for one person to win another person must loose. That's wrong. Fact of the matter is that the situation in China has little to do with the situation here. If China wanted to they could dump their broken system for one that works better. But they'd rather keep the broken system and so their people starve. Don't blame the poverty of one on the prosperity of another.
Originally posted by BR
That isn't what you said. You said a conservative by definition can never do a good job.
That's BS, BR. That's not what I said, quote me if you can prove me wrong.
it's just that what some people consider a good job is so far from anything that Bush has done, and frankly would never do since he's a conservative.
ok, there you go.
Originally posted by alcimedes
ok, there you go.
See, you don't understand the quote either. I clarified it in a later post but you guys don't want to discuss, you'd rather deflect and pretend.
A liberal doesn't like the conservative decisions a conservative makes just as a conservative doesn't like the liberal decisions a liberal makes. It has nothing to do with a blanket rejection because of a political affiliation which is what BR is suggesting.
Originally posted by alcimedes
actually i understand what you wrote, i'm just playing stupid games in this thread. it's never going anywhere productive.
Yes it is! If you'd just let go of your idiotic conservative/liberal partisan blinders and LOOK!
Cheers
Scott
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Anyone who hates teams probably was the last one picked at kickball while growing up.
Nick
Stop being so partisan.