What's with the lunatic right-wingers here?

[Sundog]

My observations here lead me to the following conclusions:

First, there are a number of intelligent, critically-thinking conservatives here, and a number of equally intelligent liberals. We all enjoy having a go at each other now and then, and I would not for a moment suggest that there is anything morally wrong with any of you. You know who you are.

Then... we have the Others. I'm not going to name names; everyone knows who they are. The ones with a right-wing agenda a mile wide that they want to force down everyone's throat, with sheer abuse and meanness. This kind loves to use speech borderlining on hate-speech and promote things no sane person would advocate.

Why are they ONLY on the right? Where is the left-wing analogue of these hotheads?

My thesis is that conservatives are for some reason FAR more likely to attract hotheads, unintelligent people, and downright Bad People.

I know someone will ring in Stalin or someone, but I'm talking about right here, right now. The abusive, know-nothing loudmouths are almost EXCLUSIVELY in the conservative camp.

Why is that?

[Mercutio]

prediction: one of the un-named others will point out left-leaning extremists.
further prediction: the pointing out will be termed "delusional".
last prediction: I won't get a million bucks for these predictions.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Mercutio
prediction: one of the un-named others will point out left-leaning extremists.
further prediction: the pointing out will be termed "delusional".
last prediction: I won't get a million bucks for these predictions.

Not from me, you won't. :D

The closest thing I can think of to this phenomenon on the left is UCE and his tirade about being glad about 9-11. There's a certain poster here on the right that says equally outrageous things on a daily basis.

[Samus]

Maybe the extreme conservatives just have more time on their hands?

Maybe the extreme conservatives are more computer literate?

Maybe the general population is a little left-leaning, making the extreme right look "farther away" than the extreme left?

Maybe this web site is directly sponsored by commies?

okay, I just threw that last one in there for fun. :)

Seriously, I think you're allowing your picture of the political makeup on this board to be blurred by a very small number of people. That, and I think the extreme left people are sometimes afraid to speak, because the extreme right has a much better propaganda machine. That, and I think the extreme conservatives are simply a lot more vocal.

[Frostbite]

I think everything exists for a reason. You got stubborn right-wing patriots because of attacks at their country and values. You got left-wing liberal folks who see the big picture and cast their hatreds aside, perhaps sometimes ignoring clear and present danger. You got suicide bombers trading their lives for their cause... We must understand and accept that, it's all about our cultural background and context, where we come from.

[Crossbow]

I have noticed since the admissions have been coming out that Iraq may not actually have the things we thought they had, the right-wings types have at least reduced the frequency of their posts.

Case in point, there was one thread about a RPV the Iraqis had that was powered by two small engines and held together with duct tape that some were saying could be used to deliver chemical and/or biological weapons. I, of course, had a somewhat different opinion.

In either case, their lack of volume on this project speaks a great deal about the lack of data to support their convictions.

[BobK]

I voted no.

People are equally misguided at both tails of the liberal/conservative bell curve.:)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by BobK
I voted no.

People are equally misguided at both tails of the liberal/conservative bell curve.:)

Sorry, you aren't free to disregard the question and insert one you'd rather answer. :D

That isn't the question. The question is, why do misguided people on the right have a much higher tendency to express themselves very poorly and become abusive?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I have noticed since the admissions have been coming out that Iraq may not actually have the things we thought they had, the right-wings types have at least reduced the frequency of their posts.


True. Rikzilla in particular doesn't seem to be here shouting "SHUT THE F*CK UP" every day any more.

I figured the war gave him the org*sm he wanted and he's just rolled over and gone to sleep, satisfied.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Sundog

Why are they ONLY on the right? Where is the left-wing analogue of these hotheads?

My thesis is that conservatives are for some reason FAR more likely to attract hotheads, unintelligent people, and downright Bad People.

I know someone will ring in Stalin or someone, but I'm talking about right here, right now. The abusive, know-nothing loudmouths are almost EXCLUSIVELY in the conservative camp.

Why is that? [/B]



you see only what you want to see.......that's my guess.

for every 1 or 2 wacky-right-wing posts there are 8 leftist ones.


I've noticed that leftists are more interested in conspiracy theories and anything anti-capitalist, while trying very hard to mold any conservative into something it simply isnt.

in my opinion, conservatives have a better sense of humor and the liberals are just too easily offended......get really emotional about something they don't have enough experience with yet.

[Sundog]

I don't want to "pull a Win" here, but "no" votes with no explanation aren't very convincing to me. ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog
My observations here lead me to the following conclusions:

First, there are a number of intelligent, critically-thinking conservatives here, and a number of equally intelligent liberals. We all enjoy having a go at each other now and then, and I would not for a moment suggest that there is anything morally wrong with any of you. You know who you are.

Then... we have the Others. I'm not going to name names; everyone knows who they are. The ones with a right-wing agenda a mile wide that they want to force down everyone's throat, with sheer abuse and meanness. This kind loves to use speech borderlining on hate-speech and promote things no sane person would advocate.

Why are they ONLY on the right? Where is the left-wing analogue of these hotheads?

My thesis is that conservatives are for some reason FAR more likely to attract hotheads, unintelligent people, and downright Bad People.

I know someone will ring in Stalin or someone, but I'm talking about right here, right now. The abusive, know-nothing loudmouths are almost EXCLUSIVELY in the conservative camp.

Why is that?

I don't know who you could mean. Nobody is forcing anything down anyones throat. You don't like it, don't read it, or put them on your ignore list.

Besides, the small sampling here on this forum is not large enough for the generalities you are trying to make, IMO.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I don't know who you could mean. Nobody is forcing anything down anyones throat. You don't like it, don't read it, or put them on your ignore list.

Besides, the small sampling here on this forum is not large enough for the generalities you are trying to make, IMO.

I don't mean you. Not usually, anyway.

Point taken about the small sampling, but I find the same thing in the Real World, every single day.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Sundog
I don't want to "pull a Win" here, but "no" votes with no explanation aren't very convincing to me. ;)



in my experience, most conservatives are sick of arguing the same points over and over again with leftists and psuedo-liberals, because it never seems to sink in.

by the time they get around to speaking up, they're usually only willing to just make fun of you.

I have more respect for people who know the benefits of silence and listening rather than running their mouth ALL the time in the hopes of being spanked by someone more intelligent or pulling in another dupe.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog
The question is, why do misguided people on the right have a much higher tendency to express themselves very poorly and become abusive?

I'll answer that as soon as you tell me when you stopped torturing kittens. ;)

[fishbob]

A hypothesis:

Conservatives can be at least partly defined as those folks that want to keep things the way they are or the way they used to be. Therefore conservatives have a pretty clearly defined and common goal.

Liberals can be defined at least partly as those folks that want change, but there are many possible directions that change can go. Therefore, liberals have is less well defined common goals.


Heck - I don't have time to finish this thought - may edit later.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser




in my experience, most conservatives are sick of arguing the same points over and over again with leftists and psuedo-liberals, because it never seems to sink in.

by the time they get around to speaking up, they're usually only willing to just make fun of you.

I have more respect for people who know the benefits of silence and listening rather than running it ALL the time in the hopes of being spanked by someone more intelligent.

Thanks for your input! Good points.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What about being a political knee-jerk reactionary prevents one from being a skeptic?

Hell, from what I've seen of the reactions of some of the more liberal members here to woo woo or even "non-mainstream" claims, putting the jerk back in knee-jerk is not the sole perview of the politically conservative.

As a voice of moderation I'd like to say:

"Conservatives" - please make an effort to sound less like talk radio.

"Liberals" - please make more of an effort to sound like Al Sharpton.

[uneasy]

I'm not going to vote, but I can sort of understand what sundog is talking about. I just started here, but I have some comments on this topic.

Some people tend to make statements and form views based solely on their political beliefs. Every topic from shoes to ships to sealing wax is seen as an opportunity to advance their political beliefs. It seems the flaming liberals here generally post their liberal views on political and economic topics. It seems the staunch conservatives here are looking for any topic to insert their political views into. And people can probably guess who I'm talking about.

Considering who sponsors this forum, I'm looking for less preformed opinions than I've seen so far. And I'll probably be looking at the political forum less.

[Luke T.]

Sundog, I don't really want to name any names, but just off the top of my head, I thought of two "lefties" on here who could be counted among your loose definition of "lunatics." With a little more effort, I could probably come up with more.

But what is the point of this discussion except to inflame the situation, really?

[BillyTK]

What I like best are the discussions where posters pull out some anecdote (it happened to them/members of their family/their friends) as evidence to support their contention. Admittedly, it's not a wholly Conservative/rightist trait.

Anyway, in answer to the thread topic: school holidays?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Sundog, I don't really want to name any names, but just off the top of my head, I thought of two "lefties" on here who could be counted among your loose definition of "lunatics." With a little more effort, I could probably come up with more.

But what is the point of this discussion except to inflame the situation, really?

Truth needs no "point" to it.

And with all due respect, no, you cannot name a single poster on the left who is as insulting and mean-spirited as certain people on the right. Forget naming names; you can't even come up with a quote, I'll bet.

[Dancing David]

I think that we tend to ignore the entertainmaent value. Some people just get a thrill out of causing others distress.

If you visit the R&P forum there are all sorts of fights over things that have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

I think they are just yanking chains to see if they can get a rise.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Sundog


Truth needs no "point" to it.

And with all due respect, no, you cannot name a single poster on the left who is as insulting and mean-spirited as certain people on the right. Forget naming names; you can't even come up with a quote, I'll bet.

I can come up with plenty of quotes. I just don't think it will serve any good purpose except to start yet another flame war.

Listen, Sundog. I am totally with you on the insults you have received in another topic. They are way over the line, and I have stated my opinions about it there. And it is perfectly understandable that you are very angry right now.

But now you have started this topic, and we are in danger of spinning out of control here. All I am asking is that you accept the possibility that this is not a political alignment problem, but an interpersonal one. All I am asking is that you consider the possibility that you are falling prey to stereotypical thinking. Okay?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I can come up with plenty of quotes. I just don't think it will serve any good purpose except to start yet another flame war.

Listen, Sundog. I am totally with you on the insults you have received in another topic. They are way over the line, and I have stated my opinions about it there. And it is perfectly understandable that you are very angry right now.

But now you have started this topic, and we are in danger of spinning out of control here. All I am asking is that you accept the possibility that this is not a political alignment problem, but an interpersonal one. All I am asking is that you consider the possibility that you are falling prey to stereotypical thinking. Okay?

Fair enough. But this morning didn't exactly happen in a vacuum.

And THREE MODERATORS have now decided that Tony's rhetorical flatulence is just fine here, so gee, who am I to raise a stink. I'll just shut up like you want me to.

It won't change the truth one iota. Right wingers are far more prone to this sort of thing than leftists are. Or have you missed the highly edifying "white blood" thread this morning, or Jedi's latest thread, or...

Yeah, I'm just making sh*t up, right.

[Doubt]

I won’t vote on this because I don’t accept that the right wingers are any worse than the left wingers here.

The right wingers are more prone to personal insults. That is because they are more likely to take everything personaly because of there “rugged individualist” out look.

The left wingers are more likely to attack institutions, whole countries etc.

Sundog's objections tell us more about what pushes his buttons rather than telling us about the nature of other posters.

I find AUP and Jedi to be two sides of the same coin.

This pole is about as useful as asking if liberals are misguided suckers. It is just as unfair of a question.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Sundog


True. Rikzilla in particular doesn't seem to be here shouting "SHUT THE F*CK UP" every day any more.

I figured the war gave him the org*sm he wanted and he's just rolled over and gone to sleep, satisfied.

'Scuse me there Sundog. I have a life. For the last 2 weeks I have been helping my old friends from my days in Frankfurt, West Deutcheland polish off 10 kegs of fine German bier by the lovely (yet sadly rainsoaked) shores of Lake Hartwell, SC.http://www.fahs.org/HartwellVII/pixies/21%20Rik.jpg

Does this look like a raving right wing maniac?? :rolleyes:

I'm a skeptic Sundog...and as such I am skeptical of your motives and biases which have propelled you to pose this question in the first place. I think it's instructive to look at the results you have gathered.

As it stands now, most of the "low key and thoughtful liberals" you describe as inhabiting this board have voted that a conservative political bent does not mean that there are more "bad" people gravitating to the right wing.

Honestly Sundog, if you look at the far left who hate Israel for percieved injustices...and the far right who hate Israel because it's merely full of Jewish people...there really isn't much practical difference. In the end they both want to kill Jews. I believe that this example shows a curious meeting of the left and right at it's extremes. I prefer to look at it in another way; not left and right, but between normal thoughtful people, and activists/extremists. It's easier to see the differences that way...and you don't even have to involve their politics!

You have named me out loud Sundog as one of your "evil" right wingers, yet I am pro-choice...pro-gun control,...non-Christian,... and a paying member of NORML. Some right-winger. :rolleyes:

I believe it is my patriotism that you object to. I consider that to be more your problem than mine. Yes, I am ex-military and I love my country. I welcomed one friend home from Iraq at Lake Hartwell...while four more were sorely missed at the party because they are still now living the dangerous life in Iraq.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail my dear friend an Army Major "Cliff" sent after the war started:


First; I am fine, I crossed into Iraq about a day before the war 'started'.......things are starting to settle in our AO but I will probably move in the next couple of days (hell they have a signal unit here with internet.....I CAN'T stay much longer! heh heh

As for your suspicions and voicing them......keep it up, hell that is why we do this stuff, so that people CAN question the Govt. That is the American way.....having said that, without going into details (some too painful, some too verbose and others too confidential), you and everyone in America needs to know that this place has been like Nazi Germany for the last 20 years. These people have endured oppression of the worst kind.....they are like dogs that have been beaten their whole lives...it is really really sad.

If you watch 60 Minutes Two Wed night, they did an interview with part of my team...and our CG (BG Stultz).

Talk to you soon as I can....

Cliff


You see Sundog....patriotism is one thing, pure politics another. Just because some of us are patiotic and do our duties does not mean that we are bad people, or want to push some sort of agenda.

Cliff's a great guy and I've known him a long, long time. He's in Iraq, and his observations, and my own reading/research has gone a long way towards informing my opinion. Just because you personally dislike me does not mean that I am a bad person. You simply do not know me. (I challenge you to show where I ever shouted obscenities at you) Also by your posting of this poll you underline your own biases for all to see. To find an example of a boor of the left my friend, you have only to seek out the nearest mirror.

Good day,
-zilla

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Doubt
I won’t vote on this because I don’t accept that the right wingers are any worse than the left wingers here.

The right wingers are more prone to personal insults.

For such an unfair question, you seem to have answered it rather unequivocally.

The thing about liberals attacking institutions is preposterous. Visit one of JK's threads some time and see how much he generalizes about the things he hates.

[jj]

Originally posted by Doubt
I won’t vote on this because I don’t accept that the right wingers are any worse than the left wingers here.

The right wingers are more prone to personal insults. That is because they are more likely to take everything personaly because of there “rugged individualist” out look.

The left wingers are more likely to attack institutions, whole countries etc.


You have some of the right wingers I know down pat. Unfortunately, some of the left wingers I know are JUST as prone to ad-hominem, presuming of intent, etc.

I voted "no". There are ***holes on all sides, of all kinds, in all places.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by rikzilla


'Scuse me there Sundog. I have a life. Good day,
-zilla

You know perfectly well that it's your well-known tendency to scream at people I'm referring to. I'm glad you seem calmer now.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Sundog


Fair enough. But this morning didn't exactly happen in a vacuum.

And THREE MODERATORS have now decided that Tony's rhetorical flatulence is just fine here, so gee, who am I to raise a stink. I'll just shut up like you want me to.

It won't change the truth one iota. Right wingers are far more prone to this sort of thing than leftists are. Or have you missed the highly edifying "white blood" thread this morning, or Jedi's latest thread, or...

Yeah, I'm just making sh*t up, right.

Sundog, I just wanted to let you know that I reported Tony's posts to the moderators. And it is the first time since I joined this forum that I have ever reported someone. But the Nambla insult was just over the top, in my opinion.

I am an anti-censorhip person, but since this forum has become more and more censored, I believe as you do, that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and that is what prompted me to report Tony.

Tony, if you are reading this, I am sorry, but that is the way I feel. And I don't believe it would be right for me to hide behind the anonymity of a "report" to a moderator. If I can't say it in public, then my convictions are weak.

I just don't believe it has anything to do with political alignment. Some people are just hotheads.

I have been personally attacked out of the clear blue sky in the past by posters who have strong leanings to the Left. I never took that to mean that the Left was any more riddled with hotheads than the Right.

I suppose when you hang around somewhere long enough, there will always be someone who chafes, you know? It's a personal thing. Bad chemistry.

I can name people who are skeptics here who are also hotheads, and I have no idea what their politics are because they never post in Politics. And there are believers who are hotheads, too.

No group is immune. But to say that one group has more than another is not accurate, IMHO.

It is likely that there are more right-wing posters here than left-wing. And if that is the case, there will be more right-wing hotheads. But that doesn't mean being from the Right means a person is more likely to be a hothead.

Sundog, even though you are from the other end of the political spectrum than me, I respect you a great deal. I hate that you feel the way you do right now.

I have a lot of feelings about this forum and the directions it has taken over time. I am very tired this morning, or I would spend time elaborating on that. But all I can say for now is that I hope nobody leaves, and that everybody shed off the "negative waves" they are carrying around and try to remember that we have all become friends over time. And sometimes friends fight.

Just don't forget we are all friends.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Doubt

Sundog's objections tell us more about what pushes his buttons rather than telling us about the nature of other posters.


What pushes my buttons is personal abuse. Does that seem strange to you?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Sundog


For such an unfair question, you seem to have answered it rather unequivocally.

The thing about liberals attacking institutions is preposterous. Visit one of JK's threads some time and see how much he generalizes about the things he hates.

I am not trying to justify JK and you know that.

Your ability to find one type of extremist more palpable than another is your problem. Your poll was no more fair than one JK would come up with. I used to think you had some redeeming qualities. Not anymore. Your just another political partisan with no objectivity.

My unwillingness to vote in an unfair poll will not keep me from expressing my opinion.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Doubt


I am not trying to justify JK and you know that.

Your ability to find one type of extremist more palpable than another is your problem. Your poll was no more fair than one JK would come up with. I used to think you had some redeeming qualities. Not anymore. Your just another political partisan with no objectivity.


I hate to let you in on this, but I couldn't care less about what you think of me.

And until you provide some sort of reasonable argument why it isn't a fair question, it remains one, regardless of your prejudices.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Sundog


You know perfectly well that it's your well-known tendency to scream at people I'm referring to. I'm glad you seem calmer now.

Taking a long well thought out post, and copying just one truncated sentence??? Then presuming to speak for me?? This is how you provoke such behaviour Sundog....you have become a troll!

...and an obvious one! You have not one example handy of me being abusive do you??? The real skeptics here are all skeptical of you now doggy. You have become our poster-child of an abusive leftist troll

Congratulations! :rolleyes:

-z

[Sundog]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Taking a long well thought out post, and copying just one truncated sentence??? Then presuming to speak for me?? This is how you provoke such behaviour Sundog....you have become a troll!

...and an obvious one! You have not one example handy of me being abusive do you??? The real skeptics here are all skeptical of you now doggy. You have become our poster-child of an abusive leftist troll

Congratulations! :rolleyes:

-z

You win by default, Rik. See ya.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Sundog


You win by default, Rik. See ya.

I don't want to win anything....just point out to you (as others here are trying) that your poll is based on your own biases...not on any facts. You want to win an argument with skeptics? Do it with facts, and don't try to brow-beat them with your own unsupported biases....they'll eat you alive every time.

-z

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Sundog


And until you provide some sort of reasonable argument why it isn't a fair question, it remains one, regardless of your prejudices.

It is unfair because it was only designed to look at one possible aspect of the character of a group. There is no balance in the question. The options are not good, even, or bad. Just bad or not bad.

You went looking for a specific response. A ligament attempt to find out the opinion of others would not limit people to a negative or neutral response. Anybody who had psych 101 in college knows this is not a fair question.

Now if you wanted to really slam somebody, here would be a good list for a fake poll during an election.

Do you know if candidate X beats his wife?

*yes
*no

Do you know if party X wants to misspend your money?

*yes
*no

Do you know if candidate X has a criminal record?

*yes
*no


Get the idea now?

[ssibal]

Both 'sides' have "hotheads, unintelligent people, and downright Bad People." I see no evidence that one side is more likely to draw them than the other. By the way, I think this whole "liberal vs conservative" fiasco and people who see the world in those terms are both stupid.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Doubt


It is unfair because it was only designed to look at one possible aspect of the character of a group. There is no balance in the question. The options are not good, even, or bad. Just bad or not bad.

You went looking for a specific response. A ligament attempt to find out the opinion of others would not limit people to a negative or neutral response. Anybody who had psych 101 in college knows this is not a fair question.

Now if you wanted to really slam somebody, here would be a good list for a fake poll during an election.

Do you know if candidate X beats his wife?

*yes
*no

Do you know if party X wants to misspend your money?

*yes
*no

Do you know if candidate X has a criminal record?

*yes
*no


Get the idea now?

I'll leave it to someone whose opinion you respect to show you the flaw in your logic. There is nothing unfair whatsoever about the question; you just don't like the answers.

And now I will bid you fine people adieu. :)

[NoZed Avenger]

Sun:

I did not see the threads that provoked this -- I do not hang out much in the politics area because the opinions there are so polarized and there is very little "new" discussion going on.

("Bush can't tie his shoelaces without an aide." "Clinton couldn't zip his pants, but still had the aide." etc etc blah blah)

Your quoted lines from Tony, however, are beyond the pale. I have insulted people in the past -- usually I post in haste and regret in leisure -- but these comments show nothing but venom and have no place here, no matter how much someone may disagree with your politics. I am uncomfortable with some of the censorship/moderation stuff, so I don't know what call I would make if I were in the mods' position, but I do know that I -- conservative, reactionary b*st*rd that I am -- dissaprove strongly of that tactic.

I doubly think it wrong in that, while I disagree with a number of your political opinions, you have not been hateful or careless in your presentation of your ideas in the posts I have read and I have enjoyed reading your posts in the past.

I do not think -- from my background as a whole -- that conservatives are more prone to being jerks, but I can certainly understand why you feel that way currently.

NA

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Sundog


What pushes my buttons is personal abuse. Does that seem strange to you?

Well, this wasn't directed at me, but I will answer:

Yes, it does seem strange to me. When you asked for a single poster on the left that hurls abuse, the first person I thought of was you. Sure, most of the time you tend to do it is less graphic terms than some of the other posters, but you sling more than your fair share of abuse around here.

As to an answer for the topic, you will probably consider me conservative, so I will just go off that theory. Being conservative, I have to live with being lumped in with Neo-Nazi's and the Christian Right. That's a lot of hate.

But the left is not immune from having hate groups in their ranks - Eco-terrorists, Animal Rights loonies, Communist and Socialist Revolutionaries, etc....

As a general blanket statement, the hate on the right is towards people, while the hate on the left is toward corporations, capitalism, etc.... The funny thing I find about people on the left is the denial that behind these corporations and capitalism are people!. But that is for another thread.

So, neither group is more immune from stupidity and hatred. And you have to expect this when most people (note I said most) make their decisions on the polarizing issues that make you either "left" or "right" are usually made for emotional reasons, not rational ones.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Sundog


I'll leave it to someone whose opinion you respect to show you the flaw in your logic. There is nothing unfair whatsoever about the question; you just don't like the answers.

And now I will bid you fine people adieu. :)

1.) Feel free to come back and point out the flaw. Not doing so does not support your position.

2.) Leaving? Becasue of a p*ssing match with one poster? Read that thread again and pay attention to the response Tony got from others. Was it postive of negative? If you cannot handle it, then you do have a problem.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diezel


Well, this wasn't directed at me, but I will answer:

Yes, it does seem strange to me. When you asked for a single poster on the left that hurls abuse, the first person I thought of was you. Sure, most of the time you tend to do it is less graphic terms than some of the other posters, but you sling more than your fair share of abuse around here.


Let me stop on the last train out of town to call you a g*ddamned LIAR. If you can come up with ANYTHING I've ever said that's on a level with what you see in my sig line, I will give you a thousand dollars on the spot. Hal has my e-mail address.

The fact is, the moderation of this board is bent to the right. You have the NERVE to say that I am an abusive poster? Liar. You simply don't like what I post.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Moderators should keep their personal opinions to themselves. You are a very bad moderator.

Bye. I'm sure you'll find the forum a better place without me.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Doubt


1.) Feel free to come back and point out the flaw. Not doing so does not support your position.

2.) Leaving? Becasue of a p*ssing match with one poster? Read that thread again and pay attention to the response Tony got from others. Was it postive of negative? If you cannot handle it, then you do have a problem.

I am leaving because I've felt for a while now that I was unwelcome. Now I'm sure of it.

Enjoy yourselves.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog


And now I will bid you fine people adieu. :)

Pardon me while I sneeze: hoorssesh*tt! That would be way to much to hope for, but if true don't let the door hitya where the lord splitya.

Try commiesRus.com for more of your pc'lib buddies and have a group grope to simultaneous orgasms.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk


Pardon me while I sneeze: hoorssesh*tt! That would be way to much to hope for, but if true don't let the door hitya where the lord splitya.

Try commiesRus.com for more of your pc'lib buddies and have a group grope to simultaneous orgasms.

Nice parting example of what I mean, hammy. You people talk this way every day but I'll bet Diezel doesn't consider YOU abusive.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Sundog


Nice parting example of what I mean, hammy. You people talk this way every day but I'll bet Diezel doesn't consider YOU abusive.

I'm not here to consider ANYONE abusive, that's Hal's job. But you can't see that by calling me a LIAR (not just a liar, but a LIAR) and other unwarrented insults is not abusive too? I can also dig up the first exchanges you and I had on this board, filled with abuse.

And, like I told you before, I could care less if I agree with anyone on this board. I'm only pointing out that you call everyone out for "abuse", yet you fail to see it in your own posts.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Sundog


Let me stop on the last train out of town to call you a g*ddamned LIAR. If you can come up with ANYTHING I've ever said that's on a level with what you see in my sig line, I will give you a thousand dollars on the spot. Hal has my e-mail address.

The fact is, the moderation of this board is bent to the right. You have the NERVE to say that I am an abusive poster? Liar. You simply don't like what I post.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Moderators should keep their personal opinions to themselves. You are a very bad moderator.

Bye. I'm sure you'll find the forum a better place without me.

Why does it have to be on that level? Is it abuse if you call me a liar? What about a LIAR? What about a g*ddamned LIAR? What about a right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR? What about a white bread right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR? What about a retarded, inbreed, capitalist, baby killing, mother-f*cking, white bread right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR?

Just because some people choose to meter their abuse, or wrap it in colorful rhetoric, does not mean they are not guilty of abuse.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diezel


Why does it have to be on that level? Is it abuse if you call me a liar? What about a LIAR? What about a g*ddamned LIAR? What about a right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR? What about a white bread right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR? What about a retarded, inbreed, capitalist, baby killing, mother-f*cking, white bread right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR?

Just because some people choose to meter their abuse, or wrap it in colorful rhetoric, does not mean they are not guilty of abuse.

OK, so I'm as valueless to the forum as Tony, JK and others who spout abuse - in fact, according to you, I'm one of the worst. So you honestly see no difference in the things I say and the sort of things in my sig line. You've made all that clear. So can we drop the subject and let the train leave the station now?

The fact that so many of our local righties are having a field day today, in the midst of you calling me an abusive poster, is a rich irony. I wonder if there's anyone left who will see it.

But I no longer care.

:)

[hal bidlack]

OK, that's enough drama for one thread.

Sundog, you reported posts, I PMed people. Since you want to take this public, fine.

I find Tony's comments, now so cleverly quoted in your sig, to be vile and offensive. BUT THEY DO NOT VIOLATE THE RULES! Shall I add words to the 'forbidden list' each time a poster is offended?

There is no right on this forum NOT to be offended. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but compaired to what I have taken abuse-wise, I can't get too worked up over your troubles. In a forum that seeks to moderate with as light a hand as possible, there will be offensive posts to a person that do not violate the rules. This is, I think, the cost we must pay to have a reasonably free exchange of ideas.

As to your many posts about leaving, may I ask if you wish me to immediately delete your account? Having turned off the PM option, I must do this publically.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Sundog
If you can come up with ANYTHING I've ever said that's on a level with what you see in my sig line, I will give you a thousand dollars on the spot. Hal has my e-mail address.

Posted by you in this thread:http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14738&perpage=40&highlight=Sundog%20AND%20Diezel&pagenumber=2


What mud? Look back over your posts here, and then tell me in what way they are superior to any of the posts you are complaining about? You have revealed yourself to be a very loudmouthed, mean-spirited person. I can't think of anyone else here who has ever made quite such an ass of themselves in quite as short a time.

You are one of these hair-trigger personalities that bites blindly whenever someone disagrees with you. (I await your analysis of my Universe-as-Dog theorem.) You are exactly the kind we DON'T need more of around here.(emphasis mine)


Of course, your defense will be that it is not "on the level" of what you are talking about, so I don't expect my $1000.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
OK, that's enough drama for one thread.

Sundog, you reported posts, I PMed people. Since you want to take this public, fine.

I find Tony's comments, now so cleverly quoted in your sig, to be vile and offensive. BUT THEY DO NOT VIOLATE THE RULES! Shall I add words to the 'forbidden list' each time a poster is offended?

There is no right on this forum NOT to be offended. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt, but compaired to what I have taken abuse-wise, I can't get too worked up over your troubles. In a forum that seeks to moderate with as light a hand as possible, there will be offensive posts to a person that do not violate the rules. This is, I think, the cost we must pay to have a reasonably free exchange of ideas.

As to your many posts about leaving, may I ask if you wish me to immediately delete your account? Having turned off the PM option, I must do this publically.

This is beautiful. I'm so unwelcome that Hal goes to the trouble of publicly asking me if I'd like to be deleted. A first for the forum, I think?

Yes, since you ask, Hal. I'm sorry you have taken up arms against me.

Thanks for showing me I made the right decision, everyone.

A word of warning. In shutting up those you don't like, you run the risk of not hearing things you really need to hear.

Who's next in the Great Purge?

[Skeptical Greg]

Sundog,

I'm really disappointed that you find yourself in a pissing contest, with and over Tony.

Someone, who hasn't even managed to rise to the level of oratorial retardation exhibited by JK, though he seems to be studying hard.

Surely you can find a more worthy adversary, on whom to blame your disenchantment with these forums.

If you can't see that this poll was inflamatory troll bait, you are really overdue for a reality check.

Don't go fishing if you're not prepared to deal with what you reel in..:)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Diezel


Why does it have to be on that level? Is it abuse if you call me a liar? What about a LIAR? What about a g*ddamned LIAR? What about a right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR? What about a white bread right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR? What about a retarded, inbreed, capitalist, baby killing, mother-f*cking, white bread right-wing whacko g*ddamned LIAR?

Just because some people choose to meter their abuse, or wrap it in colorful rhetoric, does not mean they are not guilty of abuse.

Well,

I can only offer an observation from experience. You whine that Diesel is a LIAR...yet he has never lied about anything to my knowledge. To the contrary...I had a bet with him over the superbowl that he carry on his sig line for one month anything (non-obscene) that I cared to dictate.

Well he lost...and it would have been easy for him to welch...yet he actually prodded me to send him the sig line, which he carried with every post for a full month.

The man has integrity....something you used to fake fairly well Sundog. This forum has done nothing more than present you with a length of good strong rope....you have dutifully hung yourself from it.

-z

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Sundog


OK, so I'm as valueless to the forum as Tony, JK and others who spout abuse - in fact, according to you, I'm one of the worst. So you honestly see no difference in the things I say and the sort of things in my sig line. You've made all that clear. So can we drop the subject and let the train leave the station now?

The fact that so many of our local righties are having a field day today, in the midst of you calling me an abusive poster, is a rich irony. I wonder if there's anyone left who will see it.

But I no longer care.

:)

I've never said you were valuless to this forum. I answered your question of who on the "left" in this forum spouts abuse. I'm only trying to point out that, while you are not as graphic as they are, you do your own abusing. If you want no abuse on this forum, then the first person you should start with is yourself.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diezel


Posted by you in this thread:http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14738&perpage=40&highlight=Sundog%20AND%20Diezel&pagenumber=2

(emphasis mine)


Of course, your defense will be that it is not "on the level" of what you are talking about, so I don't expect my $1000.

Ooh, what a terrible person this Sundog must be!!!

Laughing all the way out of town. Bye, folks.

[hal bidlack]

Sorry if I misunderstood, SD, but based on your earlier dramatic departure, and your several posts about leaving now and not coming back, I just wanted to know what you wanted me to do.

May I assume from your post below that you do NOT want your account deleted, as you do not intend to leave now? I do hope you stay, though I doubt you will believe that.

Please advise.


Originally posted by Sundog


This is beautiful. I'm so unwelcome that Hal goes to the trouble of publicly asking me if I'd like to be deleted. A first for the forum, I think?

Yes, since you ask, Hal. I'm sorry you have taken up arms against me.

Thanks for showing me I made the right decision, everyone.

A word of warning. In shutting up those you don't like, you run the risk of not hearing things you really need to hear.

Who's next in the Great Purge?

[DavidJames]

A number of members have drug and pushed this forum into the toilet. The moderators interprettation of the forum policy have no problems with that. So be it. It's just a shame. Such is the price of freedom of speech when combined with the ability to hide behind a NATed IP address. I would hope that most people will recognize that the way an opinion is presented often reflects more about the author than of the value of that opinion.

This might be quaint or even naive, but consider how you would state your argument when you are with your children or your mother instead of sitting in front of a monitor hidden from the recipient of your words.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Sorry if I misunderstood, SD, but based on your earlier dramatic departure, and your several posts about leaving now and not coming back, I just wanted to know what you wanted me to do.

May I assume from your post below that you do NOT want your account deleted, as you do not intend to leave now? I do hope you stay, though I doubt you will believe that.

Please advise.




You hope the drama queen stays? Why do I doubt your sincerity?

I know the score now, and I know better than to hang around somewhere where I'm intensely disliked. Go ahead and delete me, and please don't be so unprofessional as to make further remarks about me in public.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Sundog


Ooh, what a terrible person this Sundog must be!!!

Laughing all the way out of town. Bye, folks.

Well, I'll miss you Sundog.

But seriously, you are way to sensitive. I can not think of one poster on this board that re-acts so strongly to things said against them as you. Seriously.

And yet you do dish it out too.

To the extent of vileness you rec'd it today? No way.
To the extent that you violate your own standards? Yes, definitely.

This is my honest opinion, not meant to inflame you more, I swear. You can take it on board and think about it, or you can dismiss me as another example of people attacking you, but in all honesty, it is merely my observation.

Anyway, I wish you all the best and I hope you reconsider and stick around :)

Adam

[Skeptical Greg]

P.S.

Sundog,

The quotes in your sig are examples of disgusting teeny bopper attempts at being nasty.

I'm disappointed that the moderators didn't choose to act in some way to have Tony edit his posts or be suspended.

Your choosing to repeat those quotes over and over for all of us, is no less disgusting..

Like I said, I'm disappointed..

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diogenes
P.S.

Sundog,

The quotes in your sig are examples of disgusting teeny bopper attempts at being nasty.

I'm disappointed that the moderators didn't choose to act in some way to have Tony edit his posts or be suspended.

Your choosing to repeat those quotes over and over for all of us, is no less disgusting..

Like I said, I'm disappointed..

Sorry. I'll delete them.

Sorry to everyone here for what a bad, awful, mean person I am without even knowing it. Now you can move on.

[Tricky]

Please don't go, Sundog. Just chill a little.

Hal, isn't there a mandatory "cooling off" period before an account is deleted?:cool:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Sundog


Sorry. I'll delete them.

Sorry to everyone here for what a bad, awful, mean person I am without even knowing it. Now you can move on.

sheesh! Go or stay as u wish, just do it and stop yapping about it! Honestly, it's just a forum Sundog....get some help wouldja? Everybody here has got problems too,...the rest of us just (rightly) don't expect anyone else to care about them....you OTOH... :rolleyes: Shake it off and go get a life.

-z

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by Sundog


You hope the drama queen stays? Why do I doubt your sincerity?

I know the score now, and I know better than to hang around somewhere where I'm intensely disliked. Go ahead and delete me, and please don't be so unprofessional as to make further remarks about me in public.

Um, does anyone else see a bit of a cognative disconnect here? ;)

[asthmatic camel]

Hmmmm, things seem to be getting rather heated, perhaps this little ditty will serve to lighten the atmosphere somewhat;

To the tune of I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Major General
I Am the Very Model of a Usenet Personality
by Tom Holt

I am the very model of a usenet personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.
Addresses I have plenty of, both genuine and ghosted too,
On all the countless newsgroups that my drivel is cross-posted to.
Your bandwidth I will fritter with my whining and my snivelling,
And you're the one who pays the bill, downloading all my drivelling.
My enemies are numerous, and no-one would be blaming you
For cracking my head open after I've been rudely flaming you.

I hate to lose an argument (by now I should be used to it).
I wouldn't know a valid point if I was introduced to it.
My learning is extensive but consists of mindless trivia,
Designed to fan my ego, which is larger than Bolivia.
The comments that I vomit forth, disguised as jest and drollery,
Are really just an exercise in unremitting trollery.
I say I'm plain and simple, but that's merely lies and vanity,
The gibberings of one who's at the limits of his sanity.

If only I could get a life, as many people tell me to;
If only Mom could find a circus freak-show she could sell me to;
If I go off to Zanzibar to paint the local scenery;
If I lose all my fingers in a mishap with machinery;
If I survive to twenty, which is somewhat problematical;
If what I post was more mature, or slightly more grammatical;
If I could learn to spell a bit, and maybe even punctuate;
Would I still be the loathsome and objectionable punk you hate?

But while I have this tiresome urge to prance around and show my face,
It simply isn't safe for normal people here in cyberspace.
To stick me in Old Sparky and turn on the electricity
Would be a fitting punishment for all my plain simplicity.


I seem to remember some wise person advising me that many things in life are more important than internet message boards when I joined this forum; it appears that a goodly number didn't bother to read this.

Regards,

asthmatic camel

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


You hope the drama queen stays? Why do I doubt your sincerity?

I know the score now, and I know better than to hang around somewhere where I'm intensely disliked. Go ahead and delete me, and please don't be so unprofessional as to make further remarks about me in public.


Sundog, take a deep breath and repeat after me:

"I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain."

You should be feeling better now -- no charge...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Sundog
I know someone will ring in Stalin or someone, but I'm talking about right here, right now.

*coming in after the drama is over to stir it back up again* ;)

"I was amazed. And when we asked him about communism, reading all those books, he says 'But even Stalin, was he a Communist? Stalin used communist party as a tool to stay in power. To govern the country, to defend his country. And we have other tools.'

'It's not a matter of an ideology,' he says. 'A statesman usually uses an ideology here and there to stay in power, to govern the country.' So that is why he thought that Stalin was more a nationalist than a communist. " - Dr. Mahkmoud Othman talking about Saddam Hussein

Stalin was not a liberal.

At any rate in America most far right people have worldviews fully created by lies and deception. They are living in a false reality, which is fragile. In order to protect that false reality they have to deny facts.

This goes to the nature of truth. When a human is introduced to a truth that does no fit with their current view of the world the first reaction is ridicule, then violent opposition, then acceptance.

Given this liberals will ALWAYS be received violently because liberalism is the process of exposing new truths.

So the reaction that we see from conservatives is their reaction to the truth. The truth to conservatives is kind of like Holy Water for vampires ;)

Conservatives are always holding on to outmoded views of reality, and are often the ones who believe most in social misconceptions, lies, and propaganda.

All truth passes through 3 stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident".

- Arthur Schopenhauer

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
This goes to the nature of truth. When a human is introduced to a truth that does no fit with their current view of the world the first reaction is ridicule, then violent opposition, then acceptance.

Given this liberals will ALWAYS be received violently because liberals is the proces of exposing new truths.

So the reaction that we see from conservatives is their reaction to the truth. The truth to conservatives is kind of like Holy Water for vampires ;)

:rolleyes: Watch out whenever anyone starts talking about "truth" as if they have a monopoly on it.


Conservatives are always holding on out outmoded views of reality, and are often the ones who believe most in social misconceptions, lies, and propaganda.

How about citing what you consider to be 2 or 3 of the best examples of this?

[corplinx]

From now on, I would appreciate when people say "farewell" if they didn't continue to post 20 times after they do.

People on this forum have more false farewells than comic book villians.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Given this liberals will ALWAYS be received violently because liberalism is the proces of exposing new truths.

So the reaction that we see from conservatives is their reaction to the truth. The truth to conservatives is kind of like Holy Water for vampires ;)


Don't you think that you exaggerate now?

Come on , start a new thread, if you wish, to point ONE thing worth mentioning in History that leftists have achieved.
In Europe, everything worth remembering was introduced by the conservatives.

Conservative people usually have a higher education, they have studied History and they love to get involved in debates.

You know how debates in Internet are. They can get easily out of countrol, don't make assumptions judging a whole political group by its appeareance in Internet Forums.

Yes, we have quite a hot temper! BUT...

"If you cannot stand the heat... leave the kitchen" ;)

[corplinx]

I think fringe right wingers come off bad because they have zero tact usually. They exclaim, they bluster, they make awful strawmen.

Fringe leftists are usually more nonchallant. They use mockery instead of brute arguements. They come off as much less caustic merely because of their tone. Of course, leftists have SNL, the Daily Show, and other outlets to learn how to be a calm heckler of right wingers.

Perhaps if the fringe right had some better humor outlets they would learn how to look less like jackasses.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think fringe right wingers come off bad because they have zero tact usually. They exclaim, they bluster, they make awful strawmen.

Mostly, they debate like they learned how from Joe Goebels. Sorry, but that's how it looks here, it seems like nothing but the old "big lie" over and over again.

Perhaps if the fringe right had some better humor outlets they would learn how to look less like jackasses.

Wait a minute, Bill and Rush aren't humor? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by corplinx

Perhaps if the fringe right had some better humor outlets they would learn how to look less like jackasses.

I heard an essay on NPR about how humor is the only outlet that the left has, I mean really corplinx, how mant rihjtists media shows do you want, I seem to rcall humor usually being evenly spread.

It's not like Jimmney Carter and Slick Willy haven't recieved thier share of humor.

R. Reagan just is such a goldmine.....

[Malachi151]

Come on , start a new thread, if you wish, to point ONE thing worth mentioning in History that leftists have achieved.
In Europe, everything worth remembering was introduced by the conservatives.

Conservative people usually have a higher education, they have studied History and they love to get involved in debates.

What? Are you serious?

Let's look at a list of "liberals" from history.

Jesus: possibly not a real person, but still a liberal of his day.
Galileo
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Charles Darwin
Karl Marx
Susan B. Anthony
Albert Einstein
Carl Sagan
Issaic Asimov
Ghandi
Mark Twain
Marie Curie
Bill Gates - He's damn near a Marxist! :p (He's big on redistribution of wealth, and supports many anti-con agendas with $$$$. has a foundation specially working to preserve the estate tax, etc)

Okay, thats just off the top of my head.

Conservatism is essnetially the preservation of the status quo, liberalism is challenging the status quo.

So, where is you list of conservative envelope pushers :p

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Given this liberals will ALWAYS be received violently because liberalism is the process of exposing new truths. ... or new lies?

Really, when one uses such an argumentative definition for either conservativism or liberalism one muddies the waters.

Even in my short life I've seen both liberals and conservatives proposing radical reforms. On both sides some ideas have been for better and some for worse.

Walt

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Perhaps if the fringe right had some better humor outlets they would learn how to look less like jackasses.
Yeah. It's a pity that Andrew Dice Clay was such a bust. 'Course you still have Dennis Miller, even though he wanders all over the spectrum.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yeah. It's a pity that Andrew Dice Clay was such a bust. 'Course you still have Dennis Miller, even though he wanders all over the spectrum.

Dennis Miller is lame, no matter whose side he switches to.

[jj]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
... or new lies?

Really, when one uses such an argumentative definition for either conservativism or liberalism one muddies the waters.

Even in my short life I've seen both liberals and conservatives proposing radical reforms. On both sides some ideas have been for better and some for worse.

Walt

You know, Walter, I rarely come across a statement that I can support enthusiastically with absolutely NO modification, but you've just written such a thing.


HEAR! HEAR! HEAR!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Dennis Miller is lame, no matter whose side he switches to.
[lighthearted flame]
Yes, he's more popular with erudite people.
[/lighthearted flame]
:p

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx


Dennis Miller is lame, no matter whose side he switches to.

Politics de jour Dennis, you say?

It's sad that Bob Hope had to get old (well, beats the alternative, of course, but I'd have to call him basically conservative, and he could be extremely funny by reflex).

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by jj


You know, Walter, I rarely come across a statement that I can support enthusiastically with absolutely NO modification, but you've just written such a thing.


HEAR! HEAR! HEAR!

Damn it. I tune in for a fight and reasonableness breaks out.


NA

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

[lighthearted flame]
Yes, he's more popular with erudite people.
[/lighthearted flame]
:p

The Dennis Miller comedy formula. Compare something to an obscure literary character then use the f word.

Such witty banter.

Erudite? Yeah, the people who watch him just because they "get" all his references and they feel good because they think no one else does are lame too.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Sundog


Nice parting example of what I mean, hammy. You people talk this way every day but I'll bet Diezel doesn't consider YOU abusive.

Ah, but I don't mind in the least being abusive.

If I wanted to be abusive how about "Last time your mama was giving me head she did mention how uptight you are since she has no idea who your father was." There, how's that?

Now why don't you just go away if you are still hanging around. Either that or shut the fu*k up, f*ckup.

[DanishDynamite]

Sundog:Why are they ONLY on the right? Good question.

Braindead leftists have made their presence known on the JREF forum, albeit I don't recall seeing them in the P&CE. One example is the eco-freak David Wilson who for a short while inhabited the R&P forum.

However, I agree with your basic premise. The P&CE forum is usually overrun by extreme rightist hotheads. I suspect it is because a position of "kill anything which affronts you" is an easy attitude to take. It requires no mental deliberation, just primal instincts. It is an easy position to take.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Come on , start a new thread, if you wish, to point ONE thing worth mentioning in History that leftists have achieved.
In Europe, everything worth remembering was introduced by the conservatives.

Conservative people usually have a higher education, they have studied History and they love to get involved in debates.

What? Are you serious?

Let's look at a list of "liberals" from history.

Jesus: possibly not a real person, but still a liberal of his day.
Galileo
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Charles Darwin
Karl Marx
Susan B. Anthony
Albert Einstein
Carl Sagan
Issaic Asimov
Ghandi
Mark Twain
Marie Curie
Bill Gates - He's damn near a Marxist! :p (He's big on redistribution of wealth, and supports many anti-con agendas with $$$$. has a foundation specially working to preserve the estate tax, etc)

Okay, thats just off the top of my head.

Conservatism is essnetially the preservation of the status quo, liberalism is challenging the status quo.

So, where is you list of conservative envelope pushers :p

Still waiting for the "conservative" counterparts to these world changing individuals.

[Cleopatra]

Malachi, cheri, it seems to me that you are more Platonic than Marxist :)

Your list consists of personalities who contributed mostly to the World of Ideas...

We were talking about action here...

Action... results... that make your life more civilized and comfortable... we were talking about institutions like Parliamentary Democracy, expansion of education to the masses,establishment of institutions of higher education( I hope that you know that the first Universities in the world were esteblished by the Catholic Church), Unions that changed the face of the world like my nose... EU for example...

All the above and many many more ( I must work on that , be patient,if you wish and interested , of course) were created by the conservatives and not by the leftists who opposed everything!!!

What Karl Marx created, for God' sake!!!!!

[azidhak]

I'm just jumping in her to talk about leftist ACTION! Leftist action #1 Suffragettes! Without them Cleo you would not have been able to vote and would have stayed behind the kitchen instead of having been in the IDF. They operated not inside the system but instead (as leftists often do) made such a nuisance that they were impossible to ignore. #2 The unions and the Socialistic movements. Because of the pressure they utilized, they got the working class some concessions from the industrial leaders and governments like 8 hour workdays, right to holidays, pension planning, health care (yeah I know you backward americans don't have govermental health care, but here in Europe almost every country have it), etc.
Just 2 nice examples of leftist action. Gove me more time and I'll come up with more!!
Haakon the Eurocrat!

[Dancing David]

I think that Ghengis Pawn has made Sundog's point by blaming the WTC bombing on political correctness.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by azidhak
I'm just jumping in her to talk about leftist ACTION! Leftist action #1 Suffragettes! Without them Cleo you would not have been able to vote and would have stayed behind the kitchen instead of having been in the IDF. They operated not inside the system but instead (as leftists often do) made such a nuisance that they were impossible to ignore. #2 The unions and the Socialistic movements. Because of the pressure they utilized, they got the working class some concessions from the industrial leaders and governments like 8 hour workdays, right to holidays, pension planning, health care (yeah I know you backward americans don't have govermental health care, but here in Europe almost every country have it), etc.
Just 2 nice examples of leftist action. Gove me more time and I'll come up with more!!
Haakon the Eurocrat!

Well, I could be just a backward American, but in this country I believe the 8-hour workday and 40-hour work week were instituted by Henry Ford, not as a concession to the left, but as a capitalistic means to give his workers enough free time to actually have a need for an automobile that he could sell them. Oh yea, he also established a minimum wage of $5 a day for the same reason (which was unheard of at the time.)

[DanishDynamite]

Diezel:Well, I could be just a backward American... Indeed, you could. :D

Completely off-topic, I just noticed your signature. Mind if I ask its origin and what you feel is its point?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Diezel: Indeed, you could. :D

Completely off-topic, I just noticed your signature. Mind if I ask its origin and what you feel is its point?

It is a quote from the movie "A Few Good Men". To me, it shows the dual perception people have of the military. You would really have to see the movie to understand it fully though. Basically, the military men (and women) are neither pure and noble, nor bloody thirsty killers. Yet some people can only see either one or the other.

Glad you asked. :D

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Diezel


It is a quote from the movie "A Few Good Men". To me, it shows the dual perception people have of the military. You would really have to see the movie to understand it fully though. Basically, the military men (and women) are neither pure and noble, nor bloody thirsty killers. Yet some people can only see either one or the other.

Glad you asked. :D Thanks. It seemed to me that it was implying that military personnel should be given carte blanche in regard to their behaviour because they were nobly protecting everyone. At the risk of hijacking this thread, nothing similar applies for the police force.

BTW, I haven't seen the movie, although I saw the trailers.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that Ghengis Pawn has made Sundog's point by blaming the WTC bombing on political correctness.

Don't bring my name into this. I think that political correctness had something to do with 911, yes. Like airport screeners being too terrified of political correctness to scrutinze young Arab-looking men boarding planes - the very type of person we KNEW was out to get us.

Your reaction will be to nitpick what I have said -- how do you know who is "Arab-looking", Genghis?, and so on -- or you will just restate the aims of political conrrectness, arguing that it is wrong to use simple and obvious factors like this to help protect ourselves.

I am no rightwinger.

I am pro-choice, pro drug legalization, pro gay marraige rights, and so on. Nice broad brush YOU are painting with.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Malachi, cheri, it seems to me that you are more Platonic than Marxist :)

Your list consists of personalities who contributed mostly to the World of Ideas...

We were talking about action here...

Action... results... that make your life more civilized and comfortable... we were talking about institutions like Parliamentary Democracy, expansion of education to the masses,establishment of institutions of higher education( I hope that you know that the first Universities in the world were esteblished by the Catholic Church), Unions that changed the face of the world like my nose... EU for example...

All the above and many many more ( I must work on that , be patient,if you wish and interested , of course) were created by the conservatives and not by the leftists who opposed everything!!!

What Karl Marx created, for God' sake!!!!!

Oh please, you can't be serious? Where would we all be without the liberals? Back in some cave still eh? To say the least we would still all be slaves of the Catholic Church, rotting away in Europe on our flat earth at the centre of the universe.

Liberals have always been the ones to illumiante new knolwedge, and almost always rediculed for doing so. There are still many Americans who do not believe in evolution! I think the last poll I saw showed that 35% still don't think its real. I can guess that hardly any of those people are liberals.

Without liberals women would still have no rights, blacks would still be slaves, there would have been no Delcaration of Independance, we would still think that all animals were created individually by "god", for heaven's sake, w/o liberals we would all still be in the dark.

What did Karl Marx do? What as stilly thing to ask. He organized labor, he viewed the world in a new light, he showed the flaws of capitalism, he gave new understanding to society and how we all function together, he gave new meaning to history and new ways to predict future social and economic events. He redefined economics, and even economists like Keynes and Samuelson (prominate western capitalist economists) thought so.

As for the 8 hour work day and Henry Ford. No, Ford was not the origionator the 8 hour work day, though he was one of the first Americans to claim to use it, it was mostly a marketing ploy to get workers. Ford's 8 hour work day was not 8 hours. Ford was hugely anti-union, and very anit-liberal. I'll give the nod to Ford as a conservative that helped change the world and bring progress.

http://www.bluesarthouse.com/ford/uaw.htm

The following issues led to the Local's organization: Ford's definition of an 8-hour work day, unfair time keeping, unhealthy and unsafe working conditions, no recall rights, no Supplemental Unemployment Benefit and no relief man.

Previous to organization of Local 325, a Ford eight-hour day began sometimes at two in the morning, when a man could b roused out of bed on an emergency call and report to work for no extra pay. They would officially be punched in for an eight-hour day although the workers would have to be there a half hour ahead of time to stock their jobs. The timekeeper took down the shortest time a man could do the job in, not the average time, and increased the speed accordingly. "With twenty minutes work out of the noon hour and a half hour extra in the morning, the 'eight hour day' began to grow."

Health and safety conditions at the plant were also a major concern. During the summer, temperatures reached over 200 degrees in front of the oven. Fans or air conditioning did not exist. In the winter, the sheds were located outside in weather blow zero. Lacking a union contract, the men continued to work.

Recall rights were also an important issue facing these workers. If you were laid off, you had no recall rights. If you were a friend or relative of someone in management, the company would call you back. If a foreman got mad at a worker or wanted to hire a relative, the worker would be laid off. Older workers were not wanted by the company; they were laid off and never recalled. Otherwise you appeared at the gate and they would come and get you if they wanted you.

Of course Ford was a fascist and hugely anti-Semitic, he supported Hitler with monitary donations, wrote "The International Jew" in 1927 which helped bring on WWII, and he inspired Hitler's treatment of the Jews and marking the Jews so that they would stand out in society. Hitler had a portrate of Ford over his desk, and gave Ford an honorary medal for his contributions to the Nazi party.

As for people of the military. Many of the worlds great people and great thinkers have been military men, and many of them even liberals. Liberals actually make good military men, they treat their men fairly and with respect and they make good strategists. I have a lot of respect fo military men, they are often more sympathetic in matters of war than non-military men.

Edit: And don't forget the greatest basketball coach of all time, the liberal Phil Jackson! :D

[Malachi151]

Don't bring my name into this. I think that political correctness had something to do with 911, yes. Like airport screeners being too terrified of political correctness to scrutinze young Arab-looking men boarding planes - the very type of person we KNEW was out to get us.

To be fair, at that time no one had said much of anything to airport security, and to be fair, at that time the greatest acts of terrorism in America were perpetrated by white Americans.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Malachi, cheri, it seems to me that you are more Platonic than Marxist :)

Your list consists of personalities who contributed mostly to the World of Ideas...

We were talking about action here...

Action... results... that make your life more civilized and comfortable... we were talking about institutions like Parliamentary Democracy, expansion of education to the masses,establishment of institutions of higher education( I hope that you know that the first Universities in the world were esteblished by the Catholic Church), Unions that changed the face of the world like my nose... EU for example...

All the above and many many more ( I must work on that , be patient,if you wish and interested , of course) were created by the conservatives and not by the leftists who opposed everything!!!

What Karl Marx created, for God' sake!!!!!

Parliamentary Democracy created by CONSERVATIVES!!! We are definitely into ROTFLMAO territory here.

As regards the creation of the first universities, I believe they studied theology and the classics and the people who established them had little or no concept of social and scientific change. It seems misguided to use relatively modern ideas of left and right in such a context.

As for the creation of the ECSC, EC and EU; these were radical concepts and used some distinctly socialist techniques, such as the control of production and subsidies, for political purposes. The objective of eliminating the nation state can hardly be described as conservative!

You seem to be using the word conservative in a rather odd way. Do you actually mean capitalist? or right wing? or what? For example I would describe Hitler as very, very, right wing (despite the party name) but certainly not as a conservative. You might disagree of course.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Don't bring my name into this. I think that political correctness had something to do with 911, yes. Like airport screeners being too terrified of political correctness to scrutinze young Arab-looking men boarding planes - the very type of person we KNEW was out to get us.

Your reaction will be to nitpick what I have said -- how do you know who is "Arab-looking", Genghis?, and so on -- or you will just restate the aims of political conrrectness, arguing that it is wrong to use simple and obvious factors like this to help protect ourselves.

I am no rightwinger.

I am pro-choice, pro drug legalization, pro gay marraige rights, and so on. Nice broad brush YOU are painting with.

Touche, a Ghengis sized brush, sorry, bashing PC is sometimes the provenance of the right wing.
You sure seemed like you were coming off the right, and I have learned something new.

So you really think that the reason they didn't inspect Arab looking types was because of the PC strawman, or because they just weren't inspecting anybody?

I stand corrected,

Personaly I would have been looking out for the russian mob or the Chechyn speratists, I thought that they were more likely to make the bash on our nation. Would searching Arab types have had the desired result? A box cutter is easy to conceal.

[Malachi151]

Oh, and about Universities.

You have to look at a few things.

#1 The Church also destroyed learning among the common folk as well.

#2 Once the Church become a huge part of life many people were a part of it, both conservatives and liberals.

I mean I can hardly credit the Catholic Church with much in the ways of knowledge when it way they who held all the strings and were keeping people ignorant in the first place.

I agree with what Nikk said about Hitler.

Was Thomas Pain a liberal or conservative? I mean it does get confusing when you really get down to it.

[American]

The deal with me (this "lunatic") is that I picture liberals like every character in A Clockwork Orange, enabling Alex to live his degenerate life at the incredible expense of innocent people, giving him endless promises the whole way.


Minister: "We shall see to everything - a good job on a good salary."
Alex: "What job and how much?!"


It's like they want me to sleep with my front door unlocked, or else I should feel guilty and I'm the cause of a bad neighborhood.


I'm nit-picking examples. It's a rather more subtle choice of values that drives us to different politics.

[Dancing David]

Oook , I am the other kind of liberal, the lock him up if he won't change type.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk


Parliamentary Democracy created by CONSERVATIVES!!! We are definitely into ROTFLMAO territory here.

As regards the creation of the first universities, I believe they studied theology and the classics and the people who established them had little or no concept of social and scientific change. It seems misguided to use relatively modern ideas of left and right in such a context.

As for the creation of the ECSC, EC and EU; these were radical concepts and used some distinctly socialist techniques, such as the control of production and subsidies, for political purposes. The objective of eliminating the nation state can hardly be described as conservative!

You seem to be using the word conservative in a rather odd way. Do you actually mean capitalist? or right wing? or what? For example I would describe Hitler as very, very, right wing (despite the party name) but certainly not as a conservative. You might disagree of course.

Hi Nikk,nice to see you again.

I think that the term Right is very missused. People that belong to the Right are definetely conservative but this is where they stop. I mean that they have nothing to do with the extreme right and they must not be confused with that.

The Liberal Right in Europe was the political movement that created Parliamentary Democracy, yes,what's your problem with that?

Liberal right was consisted of people who belonged to the bourgeois class and it was them who introduced us to the Modern Era.

Personally I vote for a party that belongs to the Christian Democrats.If I voted in the States I'd probably voted for Ralf Nader, maybe because he is a colleague ;)or if I was voting in the State of NY, I'd vote for the Republicans. Does this make me less conservative? As for Hitler I agree. He wasn't a conservative, he was an idiot ipsissima verba ( I am waiting for Malachi to another thread to discuss about Hitler)

As for the Universities, I know that this is a point that hurts leftists a lot ( I am addressing to Malachi now). Universities and higher education is the product of the liberal right thinking. It was introduced by the Church but in the hands of the Liberal Right it expanded to what we know today.

Even today... if I am not mistaken, the Ivy League Colleges in the States are run by the Church So what?Don't they produce Science?

[Cain]

Universities only studied six subjects originally: mathematics, philosophy, history, Greek, Latin and theology.

They've evolved quite a bit since, especially in the last 100 years. The liberal-conservative elements today focus more on multiculturalism (African studies?!?)

As for Henry Ford, Malachi's descriptions are right on.

It's amazing how our extremely violent labor history has been white-washed and sanitized. Even condemned by the most right-wing elements at the time, no one graduates from high school (or even college) with any understanding of the bloodshed or the self-sacrifice that has made all of our lives better.

Finally, as for Malachi's list, the historical context is important. Charles Darwin is a thoroughly Victorian conservative, although he fiercely opposed slavery and could be extremely forward-looking at times. In terms of beliefs, I suppose we could call him a radical, but in terms of disrupting the social order, exhibiting proper ettiqute, he was extremely conservative (the perennial gentlemen had Huxley debate evolution by proxy). I'd call him a relatively apolitical liberal.

As for Jefferson, it again depends on how we wish to define liberalism (the meaning changed with FDR). T.J. violently opposed the state, and famously said, if I can get the wording correct, that we need a new revolution every 25 years so the tree of liberty may be refreshed by the blood of patriots. Jefferson opposed concentrations of power and cherished the idea of a small yeoman farmer tilling the land.

I think a conservative is a person who emphasizes tradition and thinks our best days are in the past (which is why consider Hitler right-wing but not conservative).

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Hi Nikk,nice to see you again.

Thank you, nice to speak to you again too.

I think that the term Right is very missused. People that belong to the Right are definetely conservative but this is where they stop. I mean that they have nothing to do with the extreme right and they must not be confused with that.

I would never associate the majority of conservatives or other right wingers with the imbecilities of the extreme right. Thankfully a fairly small group these days!

The Liberal Right in Europe was the political movement that created Parliamentary Democracy, yes,what's your problem with that?
Liberal right was consisted of people who belonged to the bourgeois class and it was them who introduced us to the Modern Era.

See below

Personally I vote for a party that belongs to the Christian Democrats.If I voted in the States I'd probably voted for Ralf Nader, maybe because he is a colleague ;)or if I was voting in the State of NY, I'd vote for the Republicans. Does this make me less conservative?

Of course in the last election in the States to vote for Nader was to leave the field clear for Gore or Bush. Still, I sympathise.

As for Hitler I agree. He wasn't a conservative, he was an idiot ipsissima verba ( I am waiting for Malachi to another thread to discuss about Hitler)

If only he had been an idiot. He wouldn't have moved from nonentity to Chancellor in 15 years.

As for the Universities, I know that this is a point that hurts leftists a lot ( I am addressing to Malachi now). Universities and higher education is the product of the liberal right thinking. It was introduced by the Church but in the hands of the Liberal Right it expanded to what we know today.

For much of their early history the Universities were obscurantist; but yes they and the monasteries did good work translating classic and arabic texts which contributed to the renaissance. I'm not happy aboout trying to fit them into a left/liberal/right political context though.



Even today... if I am not mistaken, the Ivy League Colleges in the States are run by the Church So what?Don't they produce Science?

Are they? Only one or two surely?
[/B]


I think our viewpoints are coming closer now that you are talking about the liberal right rather than just "conservatives". You see here in Britain the whigs (later the liberals) and conservatives are two distinct political entities with different histories and have been ever since the early 18th century. The conservatives (tories) were the party of the monarch and the nobility and opposed the expansion of the powers of the house of commons which benefited the mercantile and professional classes (your bourgeoisie). So to say that the conservatives or indeed the liberal right (who didn't exist) created parliamentary democracy is absurd to someone of my background. Equally to call the American revolutionaries right wing or conservative would be, to my mind seriously misleading. The same could be said, only more so of the French revolutionaries, non?

Needless to say these political forces for social change , which I would call liberal or left wing, were neither socialist nor communist.

Quite frankly I don't know much about how parliamentary democracy and freedom was established in Europe in the post 1848 period. You may be right that the liberal right, in a modern sense, was the driving force . By that time of course industrialisation and socialism were getting up steam and fear of revolution was at the back of the minds of both liberals and conservatives.

By the way I believe that the whole idea of left wing and right wing dates back to the French Monarchy when the favoured nobility sat at the right hand of the king during councils whilst the lower status representatives of the towns and the great merchants sat on the left hand side.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Let's look at a list of "liberals" from history.

Jesus: possibly not a real person, but still a liberal of his day.
Galileo
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
Charles Darwin
Karl Marx
Susan B. Anthony
Albert Einstein
Carl Sagan
Issaic Asimov
Ghandi
Mark Twain
Marie Curie
Bill Gates - He's damn near a Marxist! (He's big on redistribution of wealth, and supports many anti-con agendas with $$$$. has a foundation specially working to preserve the estate tax, etc)

Okay, thats just off the top of my head.

Conservatism is essnetially the preservation of the status quo, liberalism is challenging the status quo.

So, where is you list of conservative envelope pushers

Jesus: Couldn't be remotely described as a liberal, since he was unconcerned with events on this earth. Indeed the thrust of his argument was that suffering on this earth is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. Also said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars", indicating that he wasn't all to concerned about reform of the contemporary political system.

Off the top of my head here's two names:

Isaac Newton: Creationist and fundamentalist Christian.

Abraham Lincoln: Republican president.

Gregor Mendel: Formulated much of what we now call genetics. Was also an Augustinian abbot.

Copernicus: Catholic priest who formulated the theory of the Earth obiting the sun, and not vice versa.

Isn't Jefferson held in awe by limited government types a.k.a. conservatives?

What justification is there for calling Darwin a liberal?

Oh please, you can't be serious? Where would we all be without the liberals? Back in some cave still eh? To say the least we would still all be slaves of the Catholic Church, rotting away in Europe on our flat earth at the centre of the universe.

The Renaissance started in Catholic Italy. Indeed most contemporary Popes were enthusiastic artistic patrons. Indeed one of the Popes was Galileo's patron in an earlier role as a bishop.

Read "Rock of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould. He details how the flat earth theory had very little credence in medieval and early modern Europe, and is largely a 19th century myth.

Oh, and about Universities.

You have to look at a few things.

#1 The Church also destroyed learning among the common folk as well.

Wrong (http://allaboutirish.com/library/bookrev/rev-saved.htm)

Liberals have always been the ones to illumiante new knolwedge, and almost always rediculed for doing so. There are still many Americans who do not believe in evolution! I think the last poll I saw showed that 35% still don't think its real. I can guess that hardly any of those people are liberals.

The Catholic church fully accepts evolution as scientifically established fact.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Sundog
The ones with a right-wing agenda a mile wide that they want to force down everyone's throat, with sheer abuse and meanness. This kind loves to use speech borderlining on hate-speech and promote things no sane person would advocate.

I know someone will ring in Stalin or someone, but I'm talking about right here, right now. The abusive, know-nothing loudmouths are almost EXCLUSIVELY in the conservative camp.

Why is that?
You should read some of Wayne Grabert's stuff. His posts are sometimes radical leftist in nature and are quite funny. He raves like a madman and is totally unaware of how insane he sounds.

I have yet to read a post by a right-winger that borderlines on hate-speech. [Edited to add: After reading what Hammegk wrote above, I take that statement back.]

[Malachi151]

Jesus: Couldn't be remotely described as a liberal, since he was unconcerned with events on this earth. Indeed the thrust of his argument was that suffering on this earth is neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. Also said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars", indicating that he wasn't all to concerned about reform of the contemporary political system.

I'm personally betting that "Give unto Caesar" was added when the religion was adopted by the Romans.

At any rate, Jesus was very much a liberal and a progressive. He was part of a movement against the abuses of the Jewish priesthood, calling the priesthood corrupt and telling people that they didn't need authority figures to communicate with God.

The issue here is that he was revolutionary for challenging the status quo.

Isaac Newton: Creationist and fundamentalist Christian.

Yes, Newton was fundamentalist Christian. I can possibly give a nod to this one.

Abraham Lincoln: Republican president.

LOL, I laugh every time I see people point out that Lincoln was a Republican. As if being a Republican over 100 years ago is the same as now. Lincoln was VERY LIBERAL! I should have had him on my list in the first place. His original ticket was even more liberal, but he was forced to tone down some of this positions to make him more electable. One of the major things that many people had a problem with him on was that he was areligious. He was not a member of any church, did not attend church, and at one time had written a book that said that there was no God, which his friends convinced him not to publish so as not to ruin his career. He was very progressive, supporting freedom of the slaves, supporting woman's lib, supporting secularism, etc.

Gregor Mendel: Formulated much of what we now call genetics. Was also an Augustinian abbot.

And his views were conservative in what way? I know plenty of religious people who are liberal, especially Catholics, because in so many places the Church was a source of opportunity. To say that someone is conservative in their views just because they are a member of Church is not accurate, any more than saying that being an atheist makes you liberal.

Copernicus: Catholic priest who formulated the theory of the Earth orbiting the sun, and not vice versa.

Same as above. At that time virtually any scholar was a part of the Church, so just being a part of the church shows nothing. He was also in contention with the church. He was only with the church becayse he was given a position due to a relative and it gave him the ability to study and focus on his work. He didn't interact with the church, he kept to himself and did his work. His works were later outlawed by the church.

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm

Isn't Jefferson held in awe by limited government types a.k.a. conservatives?

Jefferson was definitely the most liberal of the Founding Fathers. He supported the French Revolution, he was the major opposition to the Federalist Party with his Democratic-Republican party , he was the main one trumpeting democracy, while the Federalists were against it. He was very involved in promoting education for the common man, he was anti establishment religion, he wrote that Jesus was just a Jew and his life a myth, etc.

What justification is there for calling Darwin a liberal?

Because he was one. He supported woman's suffrage, was agnostic and wrote on challenging the views of the establishment, etc.

The Renaissance started in Catholic Italy. Indeed most contemporary Popes were enthusiastic artistic patrons. Indeed one of the Popes was Galileo's patron in an earlier role as a bishop.

Are you really unaware of Galileo's treatment by the Catholic Church, and the reaction to his teachings? Are you unaware that Copernicus was forbidden from teaching his views?

Read "Rock of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould. He details how the flat earth theory had very little credence in medieval and early modern Europe, and is largely a 19th century myth.

Yes and no. Most educated people agreed that the earth was a sphere. Most non-scholars still believed it was flat, something that the Church reinforced.

By the time that Columbus set sail virtually every scholar knew the earth was a sphere and there were accepted estimated for the circumference of the earth. Columbus believed that the earth was smaller then most people. Columbus was wrong, everyone else was right. The reason that people did not was to sail around the world was because they did not know that America existed and their estimated for the distance between Africa and Japan/China were accurate. Based on those numbers they knew that it would be impossible to carry enough food to make the trip.

Columbus made it because his calculations were off. He was a poor geographer and poor mathematician and his mistake led him to believe that the Earth was 7,000 miles smaller then others, which is why he thought he could make it.

Columbus was an idiot that got lucky.

The Catholic church fully accepts evolution as scientifically established fact.

And you point is? First of all the Catholics accept evolution today, the most recent Pope, who is very, very liberal, and they only accept that micro-evolution takes place, they do not accept that evolution is what created all the life forms on earth today. They accept that all life is evolving now, and that God created all creatures separately. That's not accepting the theory of evolution. That's giving in to the obvious.

Secondly, most Americans are Protestant anyway, so who cares?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
At any rate, Jesus was very much a liberal and a progressive. He was part of a movement against the abuses of the Jewish priesthood, calling the priesthood corrupt and telling people that they didn't need authority figures to communicate with God.

The issue here is that he was revolutionary for challenging the status quo.

So he was a Presbyterian?

I'm personally betting that "Give unto Caesar" was added when the religion was adopted by the Romans.

Have you any evidence that led you to this conclusion?

LOL, I laugh every time I see people point out that Lincoln was a Republican. As if being a Republican over 100 years ago is the same as now. Lincoln was VERY LIBERAL! I should have had him on my list in the first place. His original ticket was even more liberal, but he was forced to tone down some of this positions to make him more electable. One of the major things that many people had a problem with him on was that he was areligious. He was not a member of any church, did not attend church, and at one time had written a book that said that there was no God, which his friends convinced him not to publish so as not to ruin his career. He was very progressive, supporting freedom of the slaves, supporting woman's lib, supporting secularism, etc.

He also said something along the lines of "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot enrichen the poor by impoverishing the rich". Hardly a tax and spend, redistributive philosophy.

And his views were conservative in what way? I know plenty of religious people who are liberal, especially Catholics, because in so many places the Church was a source of opportunity. To say that someone is conservative in their views just because they are a member of Church is not accurate, any more than saying that being an atheist makes you liberal.

He was an Abbot in the 19th century Augustinian order. Of course he was a mainstream, conservative Catholic.

Same as above. At that time virtually any scholar was a part of the Church, so just being a part of the church shows nothing. He was also in contention with the church. He was only with the church becayse he was given a position due to a relative and it gave him the ability to study and focus on his work. He didn't interact with the church, he kept to himself and did his work. His works were later outlawed by the church.

The quintessential Renaissance man, Leonardo Da Vinci, was a contemporary of Copernicus. He didn't require a clerical appointment to pursue his scholarly interests.

Jefferson was definitely the most liberal of the Founding Fathers. He supported the French Revolution, he was the major opposition to the Federalist Party with his Democratic-Republican party , he was the main one trumpeting democracy, while the Federalists were against it. He was very involved in promoting education for the common man, he was anti establishment religion, he wrote that Jesus was just a Jew and his life a myth, etc.

But his views on the size and role of government are a lot closer to modern day conservatives than liberals, right?


Yes and no. Most educated people agreed that the earth was a sphere. Most non-scholars still believed it was flat, something that the Church reinforced.

But according to you, most scholars were clerics. So how could the church propogate an erroneous belief?

Are you really unaware of Galileo's treatment by the Catholic Church, and the reaction to his teachings? Are you unaware that Copernicus was forbidden from teaching his views?

Yes, but the church didn't manage to extinguish their beliefs either.

And you point is? First of all the Catholics accept evolution today, the most recent Pope, who is very, very liberal, and they only accept that micro-evolution takes place, they do not accept that evolution is what created all the life forms on earth today.

But then no one full understands what "created" all the lifeforms on earth today. Evolution is concerned with the, um, evolution of present life forms from earlier ancestors over many aeons. Catholicism simply doesn't buy into the fundamentalist Protestant line that the Earth is only a few millenia old, and that the Old Testament is to be taken literally.

They accept that all life is evolving now, and that God created all creatures separately. That's not accepting the theory of evolution. That's giving in to the obvious

Come again?

[Malachi151]

*sigh*

So he was a Presbyterian?

Pointless remark showing you have nothing better to say.

Have you any evidence that led you to this conclusion?

None at all, which is why I phrases my statement the way I did. Its simply an accessment made from understanding the history of the Bible and the development of the Christian religion.

He also said something along the lines of "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, you cannot enrichen the poor by impoverishing the rich". Hardly a tax and spend, redistributive philosophy.

You are serious? Are you really that dense? Do you even understand what liberal means? Whether someone is liberal or conservative is defined in relation to their own time period. Its defined by how progressive they are compared to their peers. PLus, not that I doubt that quote, but honestly Lincoln is like the most misquoted person in history, so unless you have researched that quote its likely to be falsely attributed to him. Lincoln to attempt to use a federal tax to buy slaves from the South and set them free in the North. The South declined. Lincolns was much more in favor of all forms of equality than most people of his time.

A link from one of my sites:

http://members.tripod.com/malachi151/abraham_l.htm

He was an Abbot in the 19th century Augustinian order. Of course he was a mainstream, conservative Catholic.

Proof? I don't really have any reason to doubt this, but you have given no support.

The quintessential Renaissance man, Leonardo Da Vinci, was a contemporary of Copernicus. He didn't require a clerical appointment to pursue his scholarly interests.

Copernicus didn't "require" it either. He had an inside connection that essentially got him setup for life in a position where he had security for living conditions, and where he had access to everything he needed to do his studies. I'm sure he could have done it outside the churhc too, but he was given a position where he had food, and sehelter provided for him, and access to libraries, his own living quarters and such.

The fact is that Copernicus' teachings were outlawed by the Church, which is why Galileo got in trouble, he was found guilty of promoting Copernicus' teachings, which was forbidden.

But his views on the size and role of government are a lot closer to modern day conservatives than liberals, right?

Again pointless. This is so silly, I tell you what, go find some web site that calls Jefferson a conservative. :rolleyes: See my comments about Lincoln.

But according to you, most scholars were clerics. So how could the church propogate an erroneous belief?

You're jumping around to different time frames in different places for one thing, but also it should be obvious that the church made it a point on many issues to "protect knowledge", to keep information secret. They told the public one things while privately acknowledging another.

Yes, but the church didn't manage to extinguish their beliefs either.

LOL, so your defense of Galileo as a conservative comes down to the fact that the Church was not able to totally destroy the man's teachings :p LOL, the man was conviced of heresy by the Inquistion and sentance to house arrest for the rest of this life. He died a convicted heretic who lived out the end of his days as a prisoner; broken, disgraced, and sorrowful.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

His teachings went on though and underground network of liberals who smuggled his works to foreign countries and such and developed a black market of his books and such.

Which is the point, liberals have had to fight to survive and fight to exist all throughout history, and whole time all they have been doing is advancing the human condition. They challenge the establishment, they challenge "conventional wisdom [sic]", they work to improve humanity and take control away from those that use ignorance to maintian control over humanity.

But then no one full understands what "created" all the lifeforms on earth today. Evolution is concerned with the, um, evolution of present life forms from earlier ancestors over many aeons. Catholicism simply doesn't buy into the fundamentalist Protestant line that the Earth is only a few millenia old, and that the Old Testament is to be taken literally.

What exactly are you gettgn you so called PhD in? You said it had something to do with genetics, I find this very hard to believe. The Catholic "line" is that they acknowledge evolution within "species", but they do not acknowledge that speciation is a product of evolution. Now acknowledging speciation as a product of evolution is not acknolwedging the theory of evolution.

Come again?

They acknowledge that evolution is what explain how a strain bacteria becomes resistant to a given anti-biotic, of that a give species of moth may evovle into a lighter shade of grey over time to hide better, etc, but that's it. Not acknowledging that is simply denying observable facts.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
You are serious? Are you really that dense? Do you even understand what liberal means? Whether someone is liberal or conservative is defined in relation to their own time period. Its defined by how progressive they are compared to their peers.

Yes, but the discussion in hand is about present day political labels. Jefferson for one would appear to have more in common with present day conservatives than liberals. Don't forget that many progressive movements and people of times past certainly aren't viewed as such now. Fascism was viewed by many of it's contemporaries as a progressive creed, as was eugenics. Indeed many conservatives opposed erstwhile progressives and their beliefs. Where would we be now without that arch-imperialist Winston Churchill, for instance?

PLus, not that I doubt that quote, but honestly Lincoln is like the most misquoted person in history, so unless you have researched that quote its likely to be falsely attributed to him.

How very true (www.larryelder.com/abraham.html)

Proof? I don't really have any reason to doubt this, but you have given no supportHere (http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/klmno/mendel_gregor.html)

Again pointless. This is so silly, I tell you what, go find some web site that calls Jefferson a conservative.

So am I erring in my belief that Jefferson expounded the merits of limited government? You haven't said.

You're jumping around to different time frames in different places for one thing, but also it should be obvious that the church made it a point on many issues to "protect knowledge", to keep information secret. They told the public one things while privately acknowledging another.

I'm jumping arond different time frames for one thing? What about you?

Have you any evidence that the Church told the public one thing while acknowledging another?

LOL, so your defense of Galileo as a conservative comes down to the fact that the Church was not able to totally destroy the man's teachings LOL, the man was conviced of heresy by the Inquistion and sentance to house arrest for the rest of this life. He died a convicted heretic who lived out the end of his days as a prisoner; broken, disgraced, and sorrowful.

LOL, because the joke's on you! :p I never claimed Gallileo was a conservative.

Which is the point, liberals have had to fight to survive and fight to exist all throughout history, and whole time all they have been doing is advancing the human condition. They challenge the establishment, they challenge "conventional wisdom [sic]", they work to improve humanity and take control away from those that use ignorance to maintian control over humanity.

Thatcher and Reagan challenged the "conventional wisdom" that government intevention in economic affairs and sizeable wwelfare programs were desireable. Are they liberals in your book?

What exactly are you gettgn you so called PhD in? You said it had something to do with genetics, I find this very hard to believe.

Tut, tut, if you're going to rely on ad-homs try to make them original and relevant to thread. Oh and like I said the last time I'd be only too happy to establish my status via a moderator.

The Catholic "line" is that they acknowledge evolution within "species", but they do not acknowledge that speciation is a product of evolution. Now acknowledging speciation as a product of evolution is not acknolwedging the theory of evolution.

Here (www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Qy2)

Pope John Paul has lent his support to the theory of evolution, proclaming it compatible with Christian faith in a step welcomed by scientists but likely to raise howls from the religious right.

But he also said: "Today, nearly half a century after appearance of the encyclical, fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."

www.msu.edu/~hernan94/

The Catholic Church’s position regarding evolution is that its sees no contradiction between the scientific theory of evolution and the Church’s view of man’s creation by God. Both Pope Pius XII in 1950 and Pope John Paul II in 1996 have stated that evolution, so long as it does not attempt to say that man’s soul does not come from God, is not inconsistent with what a Catholic can believe in.

I see no evidence that Catholicism rejects speciation. I don't see how it would, since speciation doesn't really raise any moral or theological questions.

[rikzilla]

You guys are missing the point. The fact is society needs both liberal and conservative elements. Radical elements of the left and right are almost indistinguishable. For example, leftist radicals hate Israel for dispossesing the Palestinians...these radicals swell the ranks of anti Israeli terrorists who of course end up killing Jews. Radicals on the right have a historical hatred of Jews, and thus Israel. They make up the ranks of the KKK and neo-Nazi movements...they kill Jews too. So what is the difference in the end result? If you're a Jew, not much. Either way you're just as dead!

See? It's the radical elemements we should be decrying...not liberals or conservatives. They, no matter their politics, have the most in comon with each other.

As has been noted here, without liberals society would be stuck. Non-evolving. Liberals are the champions of new ideas, without those new ideas we would indeed have never made it out of the caves, much less the dark ages.

But what about conservatives? They are the champions not of ideas,...but of good ideas which have been proven to work. They act as a ratcheting mechanism for society's progress. They are insurance against liberalism's bad ideas. Without conservatives we'd have anarchy. All that has been gained by all the liberals in human history could be gone in an instant of murderous anarchy!

What are conservatives anyway, but the protectors of the ideas of history's liberals that were proven over time to have had GOOD ideas??

Like the yin needs the yang, so society needs both conservatives and liberals. What we need to denounce is not each other, but the radicals who make our lives so damned dangerous these days.

Just MHO.

-zilla

[Dancing David]

RKzila, you post is too moderate and will be reported forthwith to the moderators.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Dancing David
RKzila, you post is too moderate and will be reported forthwith to the moderators.

Thanks...but I do believe I've produced something of a thread-killer! Alas...I was enjoying the darn thing!

-z

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla
See? It's the radical elemements we should be decrying...not liberals or conservatives. They, no matter their politics, have the most in comon with each other.
-zilla

Stated somewhat less politely: Extremists suck. Extremely.

Can't say as I disagree with you on that, Rik.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk



I think our viewpoints are coming closer now that you are talking about the liberal right rather than just "conservatives". You see here in Britain the whigs (later the liberals) and conservatives are two distinct political entities with different histories and have been ever since the early 18th century.


Nikk your post put things in order. I think-I might be wrong but I don't think so- that UK is a unique case in History regarding the way parliamentary democracy was developed and it was good to clarify that left wing or liberals have nothing to do with socialism or worse, communism.

I think that the scene is quite different in the States... where the liberals are the european christian democrats :) ( sorry folks)

So after your post let me rephrase my original idead that upset Malachi so much.

The liberals and the left wing in History were those who were pushing for the social changes but the social changes were actually realized only by the Liberal right.

The reason that the left has never arrived to bring in action any social reform, imho, is that every time they got some power, they were transformed into a regime. Regimes do not like social changes....

Suffering by a sudden krisis of kindness, I'd say that the left is the heart of a society and the right is its brains :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by JAR

[Edited to add: After reading what Hammegk wrote above, I take that statement back.]

Well, damn, the lack of smilies must have thrown you. Better luck next time, ****-****.

[Malachi151]

The liberals and the left wing in History were those who were pushing for the social changes but the social changes were actually realized only by the Liberal right.

What? No, the reason is that change does not happen until a large number of people accept it. Change happens which ideas have been accepted by a larger number of people.

When the "liberals" were puching for women's suffrage most of the population was against them. After about 80 years of of voiceing their opinon more and more people began agreeing with them, until the point when moderates also agreed. When moderates agree is when the change actually takes place, becuase that is when an idea has become acceptable, thats all.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The reason that the left has never arrived to bring in action any social reform, imho, is that every time they got some power, they were transformed into a regime. Regimes do not like social changes....


And that is the situation that the US is facing now.