Liberals and Conservatives explained

[Ecthy]

Where's the biting and scratching that amuses us so much?!

[Boris Godunov]

*Bites and scratches Ecth*

No Rabies jokes, either.

[Arrian]

The article was amusing, so long as you understand (as is clearly stated) that it was written by a conservative. By and large, the premise is true: conservatives think liberals are misguided fools (and state this in the most condescending way possible), and liberals think conservatives are evil. If they find those who aren't, it's strange and worthy of discussion.

This isn't particularly earthshattering news. These are two opposed ideologies. Accordingly, they must demonize one another (see: The "Evil Empire" vs. the "Imperialist Capitalist Pig-Dogs").

-Arrian

[Ecthy]

I'm talking about biting and scratching between opposing "debate" sides, opera singer.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh...and I thought it was foreplay. Sorry!

[Ecthy]

Yes, that too. Foreplay of the banning spree

[Kepler]

There are plenty of intellectual, ethical, and emotional shibboleths used by both sides to make them feel superior about themselves and demonize or infantilize their opponents, but pure conservativism and pure liberalism amount to the same thing: paddling in circles. Only balancing them moves the canoe ahead.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, she didn't. Everyone shouts out about her advocating censorship. She advocated warning labels so parents could judge the content of the CDs their kids bought.

This is a full listing of what she advocated:

1) "questionable" lyrics were printed and provided with their respective recordings

2) "objectionable" album covers were sold in plain brown wrappers (or sold in areas segregated from other albums)

3) rock concerts were rated

4) MTV segregated "questionable" video recordings into specific late night viewing slots

The group she founded has also argued that argued that virgin minds were being poisoned by "hidden messages and backward masking."

[Bosh]

Silly editorial, he really misses the point. More of a difference between absolutist vs. more relativistic systems of morality and the difference between a rather a rather simple-minded insistence on calling X people evil and leaving it at that and an often mushy-headed insistence in trying to control all the factors that supposedly contribute to badness. You can see this in the recent corporate debacle, Bush in a classical conservative moves wants to lock up the "bad apples" which supposedly will get the job done (which it won't too many systemic problems, american capitalism has horrific agency problems) while liberals want to regulate thing (which probably won't work much better).

[orange]

two posts in a row that 'skipped'

I sense a glitch in the matrix

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, Dino... much more than warning labels.

Hell, why do you think artists such as Twisted Sister were in such outrage over it? And it was deemed even censorship by acts that weren't targeted. I remember Bob Denver appeared before the commission to argue against Tipper and censorship message.

But Boris would rather close his eyes and accuse the right of censorship while the left is free of faults .

[Ramo]

The Democrats believed in liberal economy, while the Republicans were for subsidizing big buisness and for big government.

Ermm... the Democrats essentially supported feudalism. I wouldn't exactly call them advocates of a liberal economy...

Yes, and the democrat and Republican parties eentually switched places. What's your point?

Saying that the Democrats and Republicans of the 19th century are politically related to the Democrats and Republicans (switched or not) today is quite absurd. Besides maybe Strom and Jesse, I don't think anyone supports feudalism any more , and both parties tend tend to support protectionism/corporate welfare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, the Democrats of 1860, who had become more Southern, were opposed to tariffs that the North supported. Also they were for less government and more state power. That is fairly liberal for the age.

[Ramo]

But they supported feudalism! I consider them to farther away from from liberalism than the Republicans...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Republicans were for subsidizing big business. They were pre-Socialists. The Democrats were the liberals of the country. Any 'liberal' in the nation was a member of the Democratic Party. Two words: Thomas Jefferson.