The American Left

One problem with conservatives is that they misinterpret their complete inability to learn from their mistakes as proof that they are right. I think that from now on they should phrase all of their posts in this fashion:

"Hello, I am a know nothing conservative with an overdeveloped amygdala (fear center of the brain) and an atrophied anterior cingulate cortex (higher thinking region - see psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds). As a result I am unable to reason beyond the stupid idea that (your delusion goes here). Please help me!"

I'm certain this will work out better for everyone.

 

I like how you clarified what an amygdala was. That's cute. We might have mistaken it for Queen Amidala.

I u, Pearl.

 

Perhaps after everyone gets used to the new format we could abbreviate it by having conservatives just add the words "lizard brain" or even just LB to the beginning and end of their posts. Although it might be more beneficial to have them keep typing it out as a reminder.

 

That's not correct. Please re-read the original article. My article that opened this post separated leftists into three groups. I specifically said that there were differences even within each of those groups. I expressed deep affection for the leftist group that I called the "Good Hearts", and I even defended them from some Conservatives who've referred to them with Vladimir Lenin's term, "useful idiots". I didn't even refer to the group I called the "Losers" as "idiots" or "evil". I mentioned that the group included many younger folks who'd had poor educations, and expressed my hope that they'd mature intellectually with age and experience. Others within that group I described as uninformed on the issues, and unable or unwilling to analyze the issues before voting. The only leftist group that I condemned in it's entirety was the "Users", and I explained in detail why I condemned them.

One of the reasons I wrote the article in the first place was to explain to fellow Conservatives that the "American Left" is not an homogenous group whose members hold identical beliefs, have identical characters, nor do they have identical objectives and motivations. I hoped the article would help support my contention that our citizens should be judged as individuals, not as part of some group. In a follow-up post to that article, I explained that to delve deeper into each of the three groups I listed would literally require individual resumes. Hence, I tried to show differences at a reasonable level of detail at which discussion could ensue.

From our exchange of posts, I hope you see my point that if Conservative accusations against the left are viewed as "insults" and not "claims", then so should leftist accusations against Conservatives. My preference is that the accusations made by both sides be viewed as "claims" or "premises", as in classical debate. As such, posters on each side can present evidence to support their claim and to rebut the accusations made against them by the opposition.

 

The problem pearlie was that your study was extremely small, so small in fact that the generalizations drawn from it would apply only to those consevatives attending that particular British university. To strectch so limited a study to make generalizations about conservative severl thousand miles away who grew up in an entirely different culture is so absurd as to need no other refutation beyond what I just supplied. By the way most of the lizards on this board appear to be leftist. By the way I hear by offer my apologies to al members of the class lizard who might no or at some later date be offended by the comparison.

 

You said that they don't/can't use logic.

Yes, you described them as idiots. The last group you described as basically evil.

Then if you want to abide by your own rules, provide evidence.

 

I did say that the “Good Hearts” don’t think logically. I also said that most of them had the best of intentions, and that I loved many of them. You tell us that my accusation that they’re illogical is “insulting”. I didn’t see you opening your mouth in defense of Conservatives and Libertarians when we were accused of being “racists” and “Lizard brains”! You believe that my description of the “Good Hearts” as being illogical thinkers with the best of intentions is equally as insulting as leftist accusations against Conservatives and Libertarians? If so, it appears that YOU don’t think logically!

I desribed the “Losers” in numerous ways. I did not say that each and every individual in that group fit every characterization. Among the characterizations I used were “the incurably stupid”, “many of our poorly-educated youth”, “the self-serving”, “the victim-class”, and “the give-me-what-I-deserve crowd”. They’re not all stupid, and I clearly stated so! Nevertheless, the characterizations I used accurately describe many on the American Left.

I did call the “Users” group “evil”. I stated that this group consists of the “leaders” of the American Left, and I characterized the leadership roles they hold. I stand 100% behind my description of this group!

Since I see by your next statement that you’re continuing to demand evidence from Conservatives and Libertarians while giving the leftists here a free-pass. Apparently, the only thing required of leftists here is that they ignore facts and hurl insults. I suppose that’s all you expect from them?? That’s somewhat insulting to them, don’t you think?

I have been abiding by my own rules. I’ve presented evidence to counter every claim made against Conservatives, Libertarians, and the Tea Party. Evidence of leftist stupidty has been provided by the leftists themselves. They’ve shown an ignorance of US history, claiming that virtually none of our founders opposed slavery. When leftists demanded that I list 10 founders who opposed slavery, I listed 20! That was the last I heard from them on that subject. They also presented a study here that they were too dumb to read and properly interpet. They drew conclusions from that study that the study itself didn’t draw! They’re providing the evidence of their ignorance. The leftists were wrong, and this Conservative was right. I’m just pointing it out. So far, the left is batting ZERO here.

 

They aren't the OP, you are, and I did not read through this thread completely.

Why do you keep bringing up what other people are doing as a justification for your actions?

You also stated: "The members of this group are the “sheep” of the intelligent, power-seeking leftist “Users” who tell them what to think and do."

So, stupid outright or too stupid to think for themselves. Or leeches of society. Those are still insults.

Are you calling every single leader of the "Left" (You haven't even defined what this term means to you) a "User"?

Am I talking to any "leftists" right now?

That's anecdotal evidence on a political debate forum. By that standard I would call conservatives stupid racists if we are solely going by a sample size from this forum.

"They" have or one person has?

So... some people were wrong on one example of our history?

They did, or one person did? You seem to have a knack for taking one person saying something and then saying that "they" said it.

 

What a bunch of partisan mullarkey, masquerading as valid commentary. There is no American left, only a slightly less right, as opposed to the bat(*)(*)(*)(*) far right.

 

So, you believe that insults are only relevant when issued by the original poster.... or do you believe that only when the original poster was a Conservative? Intelligent Conservatives now know the answer to that question! And, if you're not going to read the posts made on this thread, perhaps you should quit speaking with authority as if you had. No intelligent person can make a sound conclusion without all the facts. You say you don't know all the facts, as you haven't read what's been discussed.

What other people say and do here is justifcation for my actions.

True, so what's your point?

Try to understand this very simple fact of life. When comments are true, they're not insults, they're facts. When comments are untrue like those presented by the leftists here, THOSE are insults! Get it?

You didn't read the article or you'd know that I did define them. You shouldn't open your mouth before making sure you're right. You just did.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence. It's the extent of anecdotal evidence that begins making a case for a conclusion. You're calling me a "racist"? Brother and Sister Conservatives and Libertarians, the left has LOST the argument once again. The above quote lends additional anecdotal evidence to the case that most leftists are stupid!

The leftist was wrong, and the Conservative was right. That's occured throughout this thread, and it makes my point clearly.

 

Now that is BS Malarkey for ya! Well done Colonel K, show us some more seriously ironic posts.

 

For the record, Tea Party & Libertarian party are two different political beliefs. Can we stop labeling them as if they're one? If you ask me how you are labeling them together, by your very own sentence, 'I've shown that the tea party and libertarians demonstrate their racist bent in the demonstrations with the signs they carry'. The link you provided was the top 10 worst signs at Tea Party gathering, not Libertarian party gatherings. Chose your words properly.

And one more thing, for the record, racism is in all political factions. Regardless of what your beliefs are, there will always be that one bad seed. The only difference is, we shouldn't 'spoil the bunch' because of it.

- - - Updated - - -

All I know is I'm glad he's in Canada with you

 

Both sides, left & right, have become so close together, I can't tell them apart anymore. My stance is libertarianism. I'm so sick of this political debate of whose left, whose right, whose fiscal conservative, whose socially liberal, and all of this other BS. All of them, from every political description you want to give Democrats & Republicans, have aided in destroying this country.

Like one of the other posters stated, my vote was for Gary Johnson. My vote will continue for the Libertarian party. I know their is corruption and greed in all political factions and I know there is racism in all, the only difference is at least I can stand on my moral grounds and state that libertarianism is far less of that as humanly possible. At least you won't hear me saying how Republicans want to pull entitlement programs because they're racist against minorities or Democrats want to disarm all of us but want to rule over our lives.

Unless we cut out this BS, we'll never get anywhere. We'll stay in repeat phase through out time. I'm done playing these political games with politicians and big corporations. We're losing while they're winning, big time. Get your head into the game and realize we're just pawns in their game.

 

You could get lessons on irony from Alanis Morissette.

 

There is no American left? Have you been drinking again?

 

Wake me up when Noam Chomsky becomes president.

US politics has moved ever rightwards over the past couple of decades. Obama is right leaning, for example, carefully authoritarian. No other Western nation's right wing resembles the extremity of the US right. It's glaringly obvious from an outsider's objective eye, not so from the insider's propagandised eye.

BTW, the suggestion that a poster's been drinking is as old as the internet and carries no weight.

 

No, I think that they're only relevant when I am talking to the person making them.

I flat out just said I didn't read the other posts. I'm talking to you about your original post, not what other posters said to you.

YOU started this thread out with flame baiting. You were flamed. You should have expected it.

What evidence have you provided that the claims you made were true? None. You just keep whining about people insulting you after you insulted them.

How is this an answer to what I asked?

No, genius, I'm using your own argument against you. There are stupid "Leftists" on this forum and therefore you think that you can make a broad claim about every single "Leftist" in this country based on what people have said here. Why cannot I do the same? I have seen very racist and idiotic conservatives on this forum.

You continued to claim that "they" had said something when in reality it was one person making each separate claim.

 

Libertarianism is consistent with what most of our founders believed our nation should be. Most of our founders would have been liberal on social liberties, conservative on financial issues, conservative on the interpretation of our Constitution, very Conservative when it comes to "entitlements", and would have avoided foreign entanglements.

You claim that Democrats and Republicans are the same. Each political party contains individuals, both good and not so good. I suspect that the Libertarian party is much the same. One can describe Democrats and Republicans in general terms that relflect the majority-held positions of the indlviduals within each party. When voting, however, the only important considerations are the character and positions of the candidate. I have quite a few Libertarian friends who are Republicans. As you may have noted in this thread, the leftists tend to attack both Republicans and Libertarians with equal hatred. You'll find virtually no Libertarians within the Democrat party, though the Democrats continue to claim they're the party of inclusion.

 

Agreed. However, my stance on entitlement programs is they are needed for the time being. They should be one of the last things we need to look at in order to get back to true libertarianism ways. This is because of the massive amount of corruption that has occurred in politics, it's just a big steaming pile of dog feces. We need to slowly turn back the dial to progress forward again.

Of course, there are good folks & bad folks in every political spectrum, there's nothing you can do about that. However, I think Ted Nugent said it best that the GOP has lost their scrotum. What's occurring today is the GOP is trying to find their stance in this new political area. The Democrats have become more appealing to folks who want more freedom, who usually is where the GOP comes into play. What's occurring is the Democrats have taken on what is generally the more appealing aspect of the GOP and used it against them. Thus, the Repubs side more with the Dems because most of America lean towards the Democratic party. Thus is the reasoning behind my logic. Modern day liberalism & conservatism are two ideals, unfortunately they've blended their logic's nearly identical that's become to a point where it's hard to tell them apart. The only two differences is Dems hold firm on entitlements, Repubs don't, Repubs hold firm on guns, Dems don't. Outside of that, there's not much difference.

In which case, you see folks like Rand Paul & Ted Cruz take on more of the libertarian stance. This is because this is the new wave of political views in America. The GOP needs something new so they are holding onto it. Unfortunately, they combine it with religion & conservatism and it's not the same principles as libertarianism. Thus, most of my stances are lost because of this so, in my eyes, it's become a double edged sword. This is where I will have to defend my position when they talk about various things to separate myself from that thought process. Of course, there will always be those select few who will run with the extremism and label all as such. I let them be as such and roll with the punches.

In the end, I see three parties emerging in the coming elections. If we're able to get onto the debate floor, on a national level, folks will truly begin to see what libertarianism truly means. No more of this hogwash BS that folks, some even on this forum, like to chalk it up into their own ideological views and make it look bad. Even funnier is that the things they fight for is exactly what we fight for. In yet, we're the bad ones. Go figure.

 

Your post was cogent, and you hit upon several important considerations. There are quite a few Conservatives, myself included, that could easily adopt the majority of Libertarian positions on social issues. The biggest drawback to our acceptance is the fear that drug legalization and other socially-liberal programs would not be preceded by social-program reforms. For example, the possibility exists that easily-addicted citizens may become incapable of working, and become a burden on taxpayers because of increased unemployment and healthcare costs. Although our founders may have been open to allowing drug use, prostitution, etc., they would not have embraced taxpayer-provided support for those who suffered from such behaviors. Conservatives see this as a matter of personal responsibility for one's personal behavior.

Another issue that divides Conservatives, Liberals, and Libertarians is abortion. Particularly among Libertarians there are some wide divides on position. The key basis for the division is the individual determination as to whether abortion is or is not the taking of a human life without due-process. The liberal position on the issue is pretty solid, as is the Conservative position. Libertarians appear more conflicted on the issue, with some taking one position and others the opposite. I do my best to base positions on logic as opposed to religion. I oppose abortion, but not on religious grounds. I see abortion as another matter of personal responsibility for one's actions.

Rand Paul is an unusual politician. He seems to have effectively combined his father's Libertarianism with some basic, Conservative principles. He's done so in a way that's led many Conservatives to support him. The liberal's favorite whipping boy, Glenn Beck, has also been embracing a more Libertarian view on the issues. There appears to be some behind-the-scenes' attempts by both Conservatives and Libertarians to find common ground. Your thoughts?

 

Glad it's thought provoking, I'm always willing to engage in an intelligent, civil conversation with anyone. However, I'll address each statement separately and we can draw things out from there.

In the case of drug policies, I can see where yours and Conservatives could have a serious stance on that. However, you have to look at the overall cost of what it is doing to society. For instance, if someone decides to inject themselves with heroine and they get locked up for X amount of time, how much of a burden have they already become to the tax payer by being in prison? From there, they've become a repressed member of society who is now labeled as a 'criminal' and will probably have a hard time looking for work. Tack on the damage they've probably done to their body through the usage of heroine, it becomes more of a burden to them.

As I discussed this issue with Unifier, whose also a big Conservative, why not look into adopting a policy like Portugal? If they're going to be a burden on my tax dollar, I'd rather give them help to quit the addiction then throw them in jail and not doing anything else for them. What is the drugs really doing to me? Nothing really. You can legalize all drugs today, doesn't mean I'm going to do them. I think the same moral stance can be stated for a lot of folks. If folks do decide to do one of the drugs, if they become legal, it's already been in their mind they'd want to do it, no law is going to stop them from doing it.

I'm in the same boat as everyone else with the same views, I don't believe in socialized programs. However, allow me to defend my stance here, I believe because of the sheer amount of punishment folks have gotten, through the ridiculous government regulation, these type of programs are needed. I don't use them, so it doesn't effect me if they're gone, so it's not like I'm advocating for something that I use and need it to be propped up for whatever reason. I know there are folks out there that need the help because our economy isn't working the way it should. I account this for the massive amount of regulations/legislation that has given big corporations the ability to completely control & dictate the goods that are on the market. As of right now, more companies are getting into the defense contractor aspect, because there is Scrooge McDuck money out there, that there is no need for them to do anything else. That's why I, also, oppose unnecessary wars. Wars do have reasons, at given times. Not when we become the policemen of the world.

I agree that this is a great political divide among all political spectrum's. I was once pro-choice, since my daughter & son came into my life, I've become pro-life. However, where I draw the line at is where I feel like I should support legislation to deny someone the right to abort a child. Of course you can say that the child was killed without due process, but I look at it from the aspect that once the child is born, we assume the responsibility to the parent. Why is it different when the child isn't born? Wouldn't the child be held in the same respect if they were alive?

With that, this is going to be hard to really curb. I believe a child should be given the opportunity to be adopted versus being killed. I'll be the first person to tell you that. Where we can look to curbing this is by getting rid of the safety nets for those who wish to have an abortion. What I mean by that is by having those folks pay for it, not through public funding. Thomas Sowell, a very smart man, has several videos on his stance and I agree 100% with his thought process. Illegitimacy is aided by subsidies. Through these subsidies, folks feel like they have nothing to lose. Just like I asked Unifier, if I told you could spend all of your money at Las Vegas and I would reimburse you every penny you spend there, would you burn all of your money in Las Vegas? Same goes for folks who, through probably no fault of there own (Unless they didn't take the necessary precautions to not get pregnant (IE: Condoms, contraceptives, and/or IUD's), get pregnant and wish to abort the child. Take away the safety net, people will begin to think differently.

Aye, but here's the problem with Rand Paul, he doesn't understand what libertarianism is. His 'Life At Conception Act' is living proof that his conservative views begins to taint libertarianism. The media will spin how Rand Paul is taking on the libertarian role like his father once did and then they will begin to talk about that policy. I just told you my stance above. With that in mind, you can clearly tell that I oppose this policy. While I agree with the concept, I don't believe government has any right to tell someone they can't have an abortion. What if I told you couldn't own any guns, what would you say to that? You'd probably tell me 'It's my 2nd amendment right', and I'd tell you that no laws define your rights, they just are. As the saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Same goes for abortion and this is where I have an issue with libertarianism mixing with conservatism. That's why my stance is we need three political parties, each having their own views.

As for Glenn Beck, he's just the typical GOP who is looking for something to grasp onto as well. He knows that the GOP of old is no more and needs something new to grasp onto. Thus, libertarianism is the new wave and it's only growing in strength. I also agree that Conservatives & Libertarians are trying to find a common ground. We need the support of each other to pose any type of off-set to the modern day liberals. What's even funnier is that Democrats aren't embracing libertarian ideals at all. Even, in some cases, they feel threatened by us. In the case of Cynthia Chase, they want to make it so miserable for us, that we'll want to leave (http://libertyplanet.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/libertarians-arent-welcome-in-nh-new-hampshire-representative-cynthia-chase/). Either she's completely ignorant to the facts or she is just flat out ignorant. In either case, it doesn't bode well for the Dems, in my eyes, when folks like that come attacking us personally versus politically.

 

Libertarian ForOur Future,
Once again you try to take both sides of the argument. Yes, I know you feel like you need to be compromising and certainly if it's only your stance that remains for you only then it's harmless. But really, all it's doing is saying that you will step back and allow somebody else to work it out. That's what doesn't work for me and that's why I keep correcting you.

For example, you claim to be anti-abortion but at the same time you say you won't support any government control over women to prevent them from having an abortion. In essence, it doesn't matter what you think and if you are representative of any ideology at all then it libertarian and that makes it of no consequence what your brand of libertarians think. Women will continue to have abortions on demand and for the most frivilous reasons possible. Abortion will become easy and women who would take great precautions with birth control will become lax and careless. And lots more babies (fetuses) will be killed.

Once again, you haven't taken the time to think before you open up on an issue. Your libertarians stance won't work. And here's why and here's what will work:

A socially responsible position where women are not interfered with by government but at the same time government takes responsibility for socially responsible positions on abortion. Government involvement in socially responsible programs that educate women to understand the downside of abortion as regards both their physical and mental health. Thereby accomplishing everything at once. Saving babies (fetuses) being the main impact for the anti-abortion crowd.

You have no solutions coming out of your libertarians bent but your attitude literally screams 'liberal'. When yoou mature a little more and forget the pie in the sky stuff, you will become a good and socially responsible person.

You want so much that is right and good but your libertarians dictates are holding you back. And every time you try to adhere to those dictates you will find yourself taking both sides of the debate and thereby making a fool of yourself.

I revel in your words, because my goal is to show the failings of the libertarian agenda. You're accomplishing that remarkable well for me!

 

Again, you continue to show blatant ignorance. Everyone has their own moral beliefs, doesn't mean they should rule over everyone.

I truly tire of this. If JPRD, Unifier, and the many others I've had intelligent conversations with can truly understand my position, I know it's only those who live in their own warped bubble that don't understand life in general.

 

That's fine, but those people don't matter as much as I do. They agree with you and I don't so it's as simple as that. So let's try another tact because I'm not going to go away.

Libertarianism is more a struggle for individual liberties than anything else. We should be able to agree on that at least!

So let's take an example and I'm going to use an unfair example because it's extremist and it doesn't suit your agenda. However, it's only an example that serves the purpose in this instance.

Some libertarians would advocate getting rid of stop signs. Stop signs are government control over their free choice. But the libertarians will gain one small liberty while society will lose a lot of big and important liberty. Foremost, the freedom to live safely while driving a car on public roads.

Now apply this to any libertarian ideal claim of the need for more freedom or liberties.

If we are not going to put libertarianism to the fair tests then it becomes a useless ideology. We must hold it's feet to the fire if it is ever going to attempt to become the law of the land. And you can't keep it just for yourself because your new claimed freedoms are going to adversely affect the freedoms of others.

Now the ball is in your court. Let's get down to the specifics, one at a time, on what you are visualizing as a libertarians turn.

 

We've been over many things and the stop sign fallacy. Here's another meme for you, seems quite fitting: