I can't stand by and listen to this both sides at fault for mudslinging crap. The polarization of this country lies IMO firmly in the lap of the Republican party and started during the Clinton administration. Does anyone think that he wasn't hounded mercilessly by the right in a way that wasn't even close to what Democrats did to Reagan or Bush I. Does anyone think the Republicans would've been as quiet about the 2000 election results as the Democrats have been (and please don't put up some ridiculous strawman anarchist or actor to knock, down I'm talking mainstream Democrats). Even before a 911 Bush got his honeymoon he got his tax cuts. After 911 he got everything he wanted except maybe a few judges. Democrats were all lets go along on terror issues (I'll grant you perhaps a political calculation) and then got screwed royally with the political use of that issue in the 2002 to election. Now finally there is intense anger on the left. The Republicans are ruthless polarizers, the Democrats just never fought back before. I'll grant you Democrats have done a few sleazy things in politics (Bush's DUI on the eve of the election) but the Republicans are orders of magnitude beyond this.
Why are conservatives angry? (American politics)
- Thread starter Little Raven
- Start date
- Status
Mark1031 said:
Personally I think it is a trend that predates Clinton, and perhaps even Reagan. The Iran-Contra affair and the Bork nomination both gave Republicans a healthy dose of what they would eventually feed Clinton. Before that, Nixon was pretty much hounded out of office.
But wait, you say, those were perfectly justified and were legitimate targets of investigation. You might believe that, but then again Republicans would say the same thing about Clinton.
DumbPothead has made the same observation as you, and while I agree with him to the extent of thinking the Republicans may be better at employing sleaze (particularly in the Karl Rove era) I don't think they have a monopoly on it, and in particular the Swift Boat issue seems to be a partisan mirror of the investigation into Bush's National Guard service.
NeOmega said:
Padma said:
Excellent way to distort the truth! The most "anti-American" Americans I know are on the left side of the spectrum: Everything that is wrong in the world is America's fault! (Sometimes they will specify "Bush's fault".)
Did I say anything about the left not hating America?
Way to distort my statement.
When someone says that 'they' hate what 'we' do, 'they' hate x. The logical assumption is that 'they' and 'we' are basically opposites. So, when someone says that 'they' hate x, the other side of it would be 'we' don't hate x. So, it certainly seems it was implied to me.
Free Enterprise
The return stroke.
Little Raven said:
You are right however the conservatives are really not (or might not be) blaming the liberals for the lack of rightism or conservatism (American conservatism seems like a major misnomer) of the current administration. Conservatives do not want the left in power so they stress that the left must not win however they probably (as you stated) think the left is in a sense getting its way partly through Bush's acquiesce or perhaps even acceptence of many leftists ideas (though he is more rightist than leftists as a whole). Therefore it is sort of like time is working against conservatives so they are still unhappy and believe that the situation is still dire. Of course some liberals (like American conservativism another misnomer) are unhappy too as are some or perhaps many socialists, some greens, some basic free market rightists, some or perhaps many libertarians and others.
Duke of Marlbrough said:
In a very rigid one dimensional political spectrum, where one is either die hard liberal or die hard conservative. Truly not in any way the face of American opinion.
I already tapped this subject in my "Revolution in America" thread. In fact, the right won handily as the most likely to revolt... even though both sides "hate America" while in the same breath professing "love for America".
Neomega said:
Your post implies you are talking about, or view it as, a rigid one dimensional political spetrum. Otherwise, as written, your points do not support your conclusion.
i personally am a conservative because
1. i want to conserve our right to vote, protest, and purchase pornography and weapons
2. i support the war in iraq and any later war for the sake of libeating oppressed people
1. i want to conserve our right to vote, protest, and purchase pornography and weapons
2. i support the war in iraq and any later war for the sake of libeating oppressed people
Duke of Marlbrough said:
I didn't say anything about drugs, guns, economy, literature and culture, foreign policy etc... so exactly how did the 6 issues I mentioned become the benchmarks of a left-right spectrum?
Even more so, how does logic indicate that just because a group sees itslef as "us" and the other side as "them", does it make it true.
Every one in America is American.... and both sides sometimes have a problem with it.
IN NO WAY, DID I IMPLY THE LEFT DOES NOT HATE AMERICA.
That was a strawman set up by Padma to try and make me look like a liar...
the truth is, both sides are very angry.
I think both sides are very angry because they stopped really talking to each other a long time ago, and now neither can accomplish anything because the other does everything in their power to block it. The two party system is failing, and I hope we manage to realize the problem before it completely undermines our political system.
bigmeat said:
Lol. Not yet anyway. What I mean is that lack of respect for our politicians isn't exactly convincing more Americans to vote, which undermines the very concept of democracy.
Neomega said:
The topic is about 'conservatives'. You use the terms 'they' and 'we'. 'they' would be the concervatives in that context, 'we' would be an opposing group. In a two party system, there is really only one other opposing group.
That establishes the 'who' you are talking about.
Neomega said:
Again, it's implied by your statements. 'they' hate a, 'they' hate b, 'they' hate c. In a two party system, if one group hates a, b, and c, typically the other group supports them. The use of 'we' supports that by saying that 'they' hate what 'we' support. This establishes the idea that what one group hates the other supports.
So, then you go to the conclusion that 'they' hate x. Therefore, 'we' support 'x'.
Neomega said:
So, it could have been implied from what you posted, thus the response addressed it as such. An apparently unclear original post being responded to as such is hardly a 'strawman' response. All that would have been needed is clarification to the original post, instead of accusations.
The polarization of the two political parties has led to a 'switching' of policies and proceedures. So, rather than just going down the same road and disagreeing which radio station should be on, there is fighting over which road to actually take.
That leads to programs being started by one administarion, then cut by another; in the end just wasting resources along the way.
At some point people may just decide to not go on the trip anymore.
That leads to programs being started by one administarion, then cut by another; in the end just wasting resources along the way.
At some point people may just decide to not go on the trip anymore.
All media is biased. Claiming the opposite is basically being untruthful. The only honest thing to for the media do is to openly tell the audience of their political alignment and if they are associated with any political parties or organisations. This way you know from what eyes the stuff you read may be coloured from.
This is how it works in for example Sweden, at least when it comes to newspapers. Most newspapers have a political alignment and are open about it. Almost every newspaper is rightwing though, with a few exceptions.
There is nothing wrong by media being biased and there's no danger in it as long as they are open about it. The true danger appears when all/most media are biased towards the same direction and when a few corporations control the majority of the media.
For instance, some criticise Michael Moore for being biased. Well, of course he is, and he isnt claiming otherwise. But the side Michael Moore represents has noting near the same resources and means of media distribution as the opposite side have. And the opposite side are also biased.
I think the US conservatives are angry because their arguments are bad and they are a minority of the US population and they know it.
This is how it works in for example Sweden, at least when it comes to newspapers. Most newspapers have a political alignment and are open about it. Almost every newspaper is rightwing though, with a few exceptions.
There is nothing wrong by media being biased and there's no danger in it as long as they are open about it. The true danger appears when all/most media are biased towards the same direction and when a few corporations control the majority of the media.
For instance, some criticise Michael Moore for being biased. Well, of course he is, and he isnt claiming otherwise. But the side Michael Moore represents has noting near the same resources and means of media distribution as the opposite side have. And the opposite side are also biased.
I think the US conservatives are angry because their arguments are bad and they are a minority of the US population and they know it.
Duke of Marlbrough said:
HAd the topic been why is the left angry, I would have replied accordingly.
But this thread was about conservatives. It seems every time a side is asked about itself, it begins to point fingers at the other side as an answer.
In other words, ignores the question.
When you reply with a 'they' and 'we' argument you are bringing both sides into it. So, not only did you answer the question, but you also pointed fingers at the 'other' side. 
Duke of Marlbrough said:When you reply with a 'they' and 'we' argument you are bringing both sides into it. So, not only did you answer the question, but you also pointed fingers at the 'other' side.
I pointed fingers at the left? Or is that what everyone else was trying to do, to avoid the question. I answered the question, and pointed a finger at the side in question, not the "other side".
Not in a negative light, but a positive one. You did point fingers at 'we' as examples as to why 'they' hate 'we'.
Duke of Marlbrough said:Not in a negative light, but a positive one. You did point fingers at 'we' as examples as to why 'they' hate 'we'.
I pointed fingers at "us" indeed.... but that was niether a negative or positive light. It was a matter of fact. I said nothing of "us" loving America.. Or nothing of "us" being angry.
And once again, us could easily mean everyone in AMerica who engages in any one of these behaviors... and indeed, many conservatives see it that way.... and it is exactly what I meant when I wrote it since, I AM NOT A LIBERAL
Did you ever see the revolution in America thread?
- Status
Similar threads
