Question for left wingers

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Liberals "You can't do anything without OUR help!" Conservatives "You can do it on your own and we can show you how."  Those are broad geralisations but it clearly illustrates the basic core philosophies of each camp.

I see liberals as more left than a typical Democrat though...liberals never take responsibility for their actions, its always someone elses fault.  I actually have the utmost respect for Democrats and I'm very glad their is a two-party system though we could really use a strong 3rd party to get these politicians working hard for us, and non-partisan.  But liberals are out there on a limb, and I'd like that limb cut off the tree so that the tree may broaden and grow.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hey banana, for the record, you're a democrat, you're the farthest thing from a Liberal I've ever met (unless you are indeed porking that blow up sheep you had!)

I'm a liberal, Rip. But I'm not your typical stereotyped liberal. I am pro-life and pro-capital punishment. And, as much as I hate guns and violence, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that war is an unfortunate neccessity sometimes. Unlike some of the "Hippy Dippy" liberals, I am smart enough to know that a military armed to the teeth can prevent war just as well as faithful negotiations.

I do have some common ground with conservatives, but only on a few issues.

My perception of you is of a conservative, but not the garden variety, "tow the party line" reactionary type like say, Martlet or Yeager is.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
we could really use a strong 3rd party to get these politicians working hard for us, and non-partisan.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana
I'm a liberal, Rip. But I'm not your typical stereotyped liberal. I am pro-life and pro-capital punishment. And, as much as I hate guns and violence, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that war is an unfortunate neccessity sometimes.

I do have some common ground with conservatives, but only on a few issues.

My perception of you is of a conservative, but not the garden variety, "tow the party line" reactionary type like say, Martlet or Yeager is.

You're not a true liberal banana. Sorry to burst your bubble.  You might think so per the dicitionary description (marked by generosity; given or provided in a generous and openhanded way; broadminded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms, lacking moral restraint, licentious but by U.S. definition of voting, you're not.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're not a true liberal banana. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I may not be a liberal in your narrow definition, but I do consider myself to be mostly liberal in my views. I don't really like labels, but in this forum we seem to be unable to discuss issues without name calling, so for the sake of argument in here, I ally myself with the liberal camp.

That's the one thing that bugs me about *most* conservatives. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to name calling and dehumanizing their opponents. Why? To me, it's because their arguments don't stand up to the logic test. So they have no other recourse than to sling hate and invective.

[sonofagun]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

Seems to me that the right is constantly looking for ways to legislate morality.

You got it backwards, bud.  Morality is not being legislated, but legislation is based on sertain moral principles, whether it be in the States or elsewhere.

Those moral principles are what the liberals have a problem with.  You would prefer an amoral world so that personal responsibility, and guilt, for that matter, for your actions no longer exist.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana
That's the one thing that bugs me about *most* conservatives. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to name calling and dehumanizing their opponents. Why? To me, it's because their arguments don't stand up to the logic test. So they have no other recourse than to sling hate and invective.

But if you watch the "talking heads" these days, it just the opposite of what you imply. Its the left doing the slinging...desperation is at hand, since the conservatives control the house, senate and presidency. (If you're talking at a BBS level, well, my slinging is well-rehearsed and propagated to get a reaction )

[Yeager]

You want to plop me into the garden variety conservative?

Thats fine, just dont call me a republican.

I was probably a pro military democratic leaning centrist before Klinton took power but once I saw what he and those other fake humans were trying to do to my ability to own guns I learned to despise them powerfully.

I honestly look for a good person to vote for but until one shows up (if ever) I will have to vote republican just to *try* and preserve my rights without needing to actually fight for them.

Stupid idiotic people.  Democrats have had such wonderful opportunities but they keep allowing those moronic soclialist freeballers to hijack the good party of the working class.

Some of those a**wipes should prolly swing from a rope (and I dont mean playground).

Anyway....have a niceday

[Erlkonig]

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

[Sandman]

Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
You got it backwards, bud.  Morality is not being legislated, but legislation is based on sertain moral principles, whether it be in the States or elsewhere.

Those moral principles are what the liberals have a problem with.  You would prefer an amoral world so that personal responsibility, and guilt, for that matter, for your actions no longer exist.

This is fallacy. Liberals are not necessarily immoral simply because their morals do not equal your own. For me, it's not about personal responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for their actions. Still, I have absolutely no use for the biblical moral compass that seems to motivate the right. I have my own. I've never been arrested. I pay my taxes. I provide for my family... and I haven't hurt anyone in doing so.

Oh... and I'm not a democrat.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Umm, could I use Rush Limbaugh's webpage for a reference in what makes a Liberal? Would make as much sense as using "Little Havana"  (we like to call Berkeley) as a reference for Conservatives..

[sonofagun]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This is fallacy. Liberals are not necessarily immoral simply because their morals do not equal your own. For me, it's not about personal responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for their actions. Still, I have absolutely no use for the biblical moral compass that seems to motivate the right. I have my own. I've never been arrested. I pay my taxes. I provide for my family... and I haven't hurt anyone in doing so.

Oh... and I'm not a democrat.

Read again.  I didn't say immoral, I said amoral.  I meant without a moral compass.  Morality is not always based on bliblical principals, although the Bible does provide a solid foundation.

[Yeager]

Liberals are generally athiest but many seem to actually hate the concept of god.  Poor bastards......

[JBA]

Originally posted by banana
That's the one thing that bugs me about *most* conservatives. Instead of debating the issues, they resort to name calling and dehumanizing their opponents. Why? To me, it's because their arguments don't stand up to the logic test. So they have no other recourse than to sling hate and invective.

The exacted opposite is true. When you listen to liberals the first words out of most liberal’s mouths when referring to conservatives are, “extreme, racist, homophobe, McCarthyism, stupid, uncaring, anti-environmental, anti-civil rights.” History, and voting records have show that Republicans have voted in greater numbers as a percentage of delegates in favor of all these issues then Democrats.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by sonostudmuffinun
Read again.  I didn't say immoral, I said amoral.  I meant without a moral compass.  Morality is not always based on bliblical principals, although the Bible does provide a solid foundation.

Same thing... liberals aren't amoral simply because their morals don't equal your own.