Now that I've carved out a minute or two and this thread went dormant, I thought I would continue responding to Moon-Crane's comments he made on or about page 11 or so of this subject.
Moon-Crane wrote:In a system where we're arguably living by a mix of the two best approaches from a bad bunch, then i find it inconceivable that you would really believe all liberal policy is useless and all conservative policy is superior in every way - i'd have to lose all respect for your objective integrity towards avoiding political party rigmarole and getting to the important issues.
I don't think that at all. Its just that so much of liberal ideology is pure bunk in my opinion. Not all of it. Much of it at the very- and i mean very - root of it is admirable. Integration of races, concept of tolerance, other means before fighting, etc. I think it is not necessarily the ideals of liberalism that crawl up my ass, but rather the perversion and distortion of them with regards to the truth, accuracy, common sense, practicality, balance, and perspective. That over-reaching distortion is two generations worth over-ripe and is so destructive that we're nearly at a crises point.
Moon-Crane wrote:And that's not being wishy-washy, it being realistic enough to know that the world simply can't be black and white and neatly packaged.
I'll trust my inclination to see and appreciate shades of gray. I'll also trust my inclination to call a spade a spade.
Moon-Crane wrote:Again, i'll come back to the point that whether they're in a Right or Left wing party, they'll close ranks to defend each other at the expense of the general population should the status quo be challenged. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Its ideology that defines me much more than political parties. I'm not a registered Republican. We are pretty pissed at the Republican's (at least some of them) for a number of reasons.
"Crazy Left, indeed. Liberalism: symbolism over substance."
"What about the problems of lack of governmental experience and being liberal?"
"The demoncats best hope would be the incompetent (due to inexperience (not to mention liberalism))Barrack Obama."
"I'm afraid in this day and age of threats to America - including liberalism itself"
"Liberal politics, among other dysfunctionalities, is all about symbolism over substance."
"I have my issues with elements of Southern/midwestern culture, including their near-bigotry against certain religions. But its nothing like the dysfunction of modern liberalism, with its anti-American base..."
"I'll say this, though - at least the Republican landscape is a rich, ideological one. With the demoncrats its all about symbolism and 'style' - hence the obama-RaMa carnival."
"No, liberals are always fed up with [b]sensible right-wing things,..."
Moon-Crane wrote:All these can quite easily be reversed, hence you get upset when anything you see as ill-informed right-bashing is on the cards but are happy to keep putting in the digs against the left. I'm sure you must really like the back and forth, rather than being annoyed by what you see as repetition of so-called old fashioned myths about the right, seeing as you continue to do exactly the same in reverse to keep the flames fanned.
Those things can only be reversed in words. Not in truth. Right wingers are not nearly as guilty of 'symbolism over substance'. Look at Obamarama/Hillary vs. McCain. Two liberal symbols and a 71 year old man of substance. So what if Obama has precious little experience. We NEED to have a first black President. And how is conservatism as dysfunctional as liberalism today? Maybe in 1945 in some important ways, but not now.
Moon-Crane wrote:I'd say all political parties are more style over substance now - they all hire PR companies and marketing for heaven's sake.
Yes but I'm referring to ideology, not political parties. Political parties are the imperfect, grotesque attempt at an outer shell for ideological movements.
Just imagine - a nuclear bomb is about to go off and Joe Liberal won't let us pour some water up Ahmed's nose to try to prevent it. The ultimate expression of liberal destructiveness and insanity.
Moon-Crane wrote:This sort of emotive comment is just as unproductive as me saying that a liberal approach probably wouldn't have caused any anger and resentment towards your nation, from certain factions, in the first place - the Nuke wouldn't be a problem without interfering Conservative agendas towards the rest of the self-proclaimed 'uncivilised' world?
Oh, its not just an empty, emotive comment. It's an extreme scenario that well illustrates the true destructiveness of so much of liberal ideology today. What kind of world view would find something wrong in doing what it takes to get information from people that would bring down 3 jet liners, two sky scrapers and 3000 people?
Moon-Crane wrote:Why give a shit about what the rest of the world is up to, if they're so inferior that they offer nothing to better your nation. If you leave others' alone they pretty much ignore you too. That horse has bolted, but a policy of interference was never going to lead to fun and happiness. Nobody in the world gives a fuck, in a negative way, about Sweden or South Korea or a number of nations with stable economies and high standards of living.
Seems like just another attempt at the 'blame America' or 'The chickens coming home to roost' view, I'm afraid. I would love nothing more than to leave these inferior, backward, dangerous, America-hating nut jobs alone to wallow in their own pre-medieval existence without encroachment from the West. And I'm not talking about those elements who are Westernized and see the West and America in the proper perspective. Who are actually part of us. But is this sort of isolationism realistic, especially in an increasingly global world? Any 'interference' is going to be resisted by someone , somewhere. And power abhors a vacuum. Pernicious elements love the freedom to act.
Moon-Crane wrote:As an aside, you'll probably also write this off as sounding like one of those scaredy-cat liberals, but why call your example Ahmed? Why not Timothy, for example, if we're looking at the types of people who've caused major internal destruction within your nation? After all Conservatives just point out the facts, rather than content themselves with style and emotiveness over substance, right?
Because Ahmed is much more of a threat. This is an example of the dysfunction that I talk about. It's like the movie plots about Islamic terrorists being changed to white racist terrorists to avoid being guilty of insensitivity to foreign cultures and people of color. No worry that it amounts to a lack of accuracy or perspective on the nature or degree of threat. And its like the law brought up at the 9/11 commission hearings that fined airlines for taking more than two Arab-looking passengers per flight into secondary security questioning.
A Liberal is someone who is so broadminded, they can't even take their own side in a fight....
Moon-Crane wrote::) Not bad. How about: "A Conservative is so narrow-minded that they'd rather die in a fight that killed the other person than avoid the fight in the first place" I don't believe it, in general, but hey, if we're spouting these things...
But that is not nearly as applicable as the liberal/fight line. I don't know many right wingers who would not rather avoid a fight in the first place - as long as the consequences are not too severe. But I know many liberals who constantly put us in more danger because of their supposed 'broad-minded' thinking. Interrogations, CIA operations, Guantanamo, surveillance, getting fined for questioning 3 Arab-looking men before a flight.....
Moon-Crane wrote:I mentioned it somewhere else, but i wouldn't really care who was voted in, if they didn't symbolise so much power on the global front. I wish the US could withdraw from their perceived position of World Police. I actually think it may happen in the not to distant future, during global economic shifts. I think we're definitely on the path to further wars, though. But that's by the by.
'Symbolise' so much power? If we don't' 'police' someone else will look to do so. Power abhors a vacuum. But I do wish we would look after our own interests more. Let the jealous, losing cultures sulk on their own, and only intervene to help in disasters if they let us, and kill them when they threaten us.
Moon-Crane wrote:And, finally, to lighten the load and end on a bit of fun:
I'd love the soccer, hate the liberal world view, have mixed feelings toward the weather, hate the food, love it that I wouldn't have to pay for basic health care (at least not directly), but move back to the good ole US of A when they tell me I couldn't be screened for prostate cancer because it "is not cost effective".
I still don't understand the bashing of the quality of UK food from a nation that gave us McDs, Fatty Arbuckles, TGI Friday, etc, etc.
And, you
can pay for that prostate cancer to be screened and treated if you wish, it just happens you don't have to pay thousands to get it diagnosed in the first place. I'm pretty sure that's not so different from the US, if you can afford it, i just think you're more likely to get some 'free' treatment for it over here if you don't have health insurance? We'll promise to warm that saw and give you a tasty bit of stick to bite on before cutting into you
But why pay out the ass in taxes and also have to pay for the prostate exam? Why not pay quite a bit less in taxes, pursue training and education, get a good job that will provide adequate health care coverage?
Oh yea, and I never said American food was healthy. It just tastes a hell of a lot better!