Attention All Liberals And Leftwingers

[pinko]

I am an early to bed person so don't put too much stock in your theory.

[BubberMiley]

I know! They were almost as bad as the comments found elsewhere when Justin Bieber said he thinks sex before marriage is wrong, and abortion is also wrong.

I don't think those comments reflected an inferiority complex. Though you're demonstrating your own by thinking it was an occasion for yet another left-versus-right etiquette duel.

[Michael Hardner]

I am an early to bed person so don't put too much stock in your theory.

Who was that directed to ? Do we need to have a 'mixed metaphor' thread ?

[bloodyminded]

I don't think those comments reflected an inferiority complex. Though you're demonstrating your own by thinking it was an occasion for yet another left-versus-right etiquette duel.

True, it's an apples and oranges thing.

If Saipan were here, he would now be forced to mention the gun registry, or maybe Chretien.

[betsy]

At any rate, it would be nice if, after his careful and relatively thoughtful post, someone could attempt an actual rebuttal, for purposes of debate.

You go ahead do it. Just be gentle. We don't wanna anything to happen to MLF.

[pinko]

True, it's an apples and oranges thing.

If Saipan were here, he would now be forced to mention the gun registry, or maybe Chretien.

Saipan is busy at another wedsite he visits daily.

[bloodyminded]

You go ahead do it. Just be gentle. We don't wanna anything to happen to MLF.

Well, I was rather thinking about rebuttals from the people who disagreed with him...but refused to offer anything except mockery.

[WIP]

I just love how the Americans dominate your political and ideological landscape. Now I truly understand why America is so important to some Canadians...and "our" way of life.

George P. Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has taught since 1972.

And your point is?

[bloodyminded]

And your point is?

Nationalist tantrums disguised as mockery. That's it, entire.

[GWiz]

Nationalist tantrums disguised as mockery. That's it, entire.

Edited February 20, 2011 by GWiz

[GWiz]

Sorry, wasn't directed at anyone -

sigh, boooring

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, wasn't directed at anyone -

sigh, boooring

That's why we have to spice things up..."nationalism" is a bad thing for one member.

God Bless Canada!

[GWiz]

That's why we have to spice things up..."nationalism" is a bad thing for one member.

God Bless Canada!

MUCH BETTER!! That's more like my American friend...

[WIP]

Just for you...

Well, I completely disagree with typical "right wing" views on abortion, but it should be obvious that from the perspective of someone who opposes abortion, there is a clear difference. Poverty is poverty: an economic matter, while abortion is viewed as killing/murder. Obviously, there are very valid argument to be made against the religious-right view of abortion, but comparing it to poverty is not one of them.

Well, thanks for being the only one on the right so far who's capable of something more than bumper sticker-slogans!

To me, the paradox in rightwing religious thinking about abortion, is that their whole version of morality is solely based on following pre-ordained rules, and does not address actual results or outcomes of applying those rules. Deliberately creating or allowing a system that creates poverty, can lead to unnecessary death from child neglect and malnutrition, greater level of violence, and of course - earlier death from the combined effects of life on the margins of society. Back in the summer, our local newspaper ran a cover story examining the different neighbourhoods of Hamilton -- one of the most shocking results was that life expectancy is 12 years less in two northend, broken down neighbourhoods, than it is in the new subdivisions up on the Mountain. I imagine the same story can be told about most cities across North America. So, doing nothing and taking a laissez-faire approach to poverty...especially child poverty, can also be considered murder, infanticide or manslaughter.

On the other hand...I don't want to waste time arguing this stupid abortion debate that goes on in every forum here, but, like I've said elsewhere, there has to be some point in a woman's pregnancy (I would say very late in pregnancy) where the state deems that a fetus should be protected and allowed to continue living, possibly against the wishes of the woman who has spent months feeding and allowing the new life to grow inside her.

If the state follows the dictates of these whackjob conservatives and declares every fertilized egg to be equal to conscious human beings, then all life is devalued and trivialized. Virtually every form of birth control can be banned for its abortifacient properties (which anti-abortion groups are trying to do) and every pregnant woman who had an accident such as falling down a flight of stairs, and had a miscarriage -- could be investigated and charged with murder of the unborn...and that is also on the books of some of these whackjob pro life states in the U.S.

But, I said earlier that I don't believe conservatives' claims that they are merely following the rules -- I think the results of their anti-abortion/no aid to the poor advocacy leave us with a harsh, patriarchal state where women are back out of the public square to make babies, and the gap between rich and poor is even greater than it is today. This has been how things were done earlier in earlier times, and that's what the leaders of these movements want to return us to again....whether or not the authoritarian followers are smart enough to figure it out.

US military supremacy is critical to maintaining its current place in the geopolitical scheme of things. More importantly, the military (along with police, courts, and a few other services) is something that rightly can only be provided by government according to most/all conservative/libertarian philosophies, whereas most other services (health care, etc) are viewed as being reasonably capable of being provided by private sources.

And there is a larger problem I have mentioned elsewhere, that the U.S. is not going to be able to maintain its military and economic supremacy over the coming decades, regardless of their wishes. Right now, the U.S. is looking like every other flailing empire, anxious to hang on to its advantages. And that "geopolitical scheme" in my way of thinking, includes the economic globalization that has taken off since the end of WWII, and has ramped up our energy requirements, along with needing oil for growing food...something that was totally unnecessary just a few decades ago. And modern, globalized agriculture and food transport is not going to last much longer either, because of the rising cost of oil, and the ecological damage done by destroying topsoil and adding what may actually be the greater portion of human-created greenhouse gas levels.

Ideology aside, the underlying reasons why governments love military spending is because it provides them with the opportunity to project power, and to use against their own people, if they try to overthrow them.....the U.S. started making use of private armies in New Orleans, after Hurricane Katrina; I expect this will be a trend that will continue if the economy declines and there is significant unrest at home. We've already seen through the Bush and the Obama administrations that there is no respect left for civil rights....every individual right can be violated now when the Government sees the need to.

The marriage of the right wing with Christianity is a horrible idea, frankly, since they tended to have very little in common before. It is inherently full of contradictions. Right wing parties tend to represent a range of views: old school conservatives, libertarians, and religious conservatives. Each of these viewpoints had to compromise on things to fit into the same party. This is an inherent problem of any system where the political discourse is dominated by just a couple of parties.

I used to be where you are now, but I changed my views both about conservative/libertarian philosophy and on religion. I don't believe in God or the existence of anything supernatural any more now than I did before, but I do believe that religion can serve to bring out both the best, and the worst in people. It can inspire tolerance, understanding and concern for those who are different; or it can engender fear, loathing and hostility. And, I probably don't need to explain to you what I see wrong with the kind of God, or the kind of religion that's practiced to underline rightwing social and political thinking.

There is a general consensus among historians who track social trends that a rightwing religion got its real momentum when the Cold War got serious, and both socialism and atheism could be tied to communism by rightwing fanatics....like Joe McCarthy for one! They changed the Pledge of Allegiance to add God in 1954...if I'm not mistaken, as a way to solidify this doctrine. There may be a range of views on religion in Rightwing Land, but the atheist wing of this movement, like the Ayn Rand followers, are not leading the parade. FoxNews will call on Yaron Brook from ARI, when they want an ideological argument for rightwing economics or military policy, but they don't let him discuss his views on Christianity. The same can be said of this Tea Party trend in the Republican Party. They said it was all about deficits and taxes, but look at those House Republicans now! They are back to the guns, god and gays agenda.

And fighting socialism meant supporting capitalism; so the historic contempt for the rich, and the accumulation of wealth had to be revised, and they started glossing over all of the condemnations of both in the Old and New Testaments to find a few parables that could be interpreted as justifying materialism....as long as they give their 10% to church of course!

I agree... a political standpoint on a given issue should come from a big picture view of ethics, economics, etc. There are many positions held on both sides that do not seem like they could possibly have been arrived at from a consistent set of principles. For example, you may note the confusion among conservatives about how "liberals" could possibly claim to support, at the same time, women's rights, gay's rights, while advocating for tolerance of cultures that vehemently disagree with these rights and encourage immigration of people from parts of the world where women and gays are viewed as subhuman.

I don't think most on the left will excuse patriarchal cultural abuses that are brought over here with new immigrants...with the exception of some who follow post-modernism, where everything is relative and there is no right and wrong. For most of us, it is more about avoiding the rush to judgment that plagues the right -- where they make no attempt to learn about, or understand people who are different than them, and come from a different background. The big failing of the rightwing hostile approach to Muslim immigration for example, is how well this approach has worked in Europe....where the Muslim-haters here bitch about Eurabia and such, without asking themselves why we don't have a similar situation of Muslim immigrant ghettos over here.

Most people just want what's best for themselves and their families, and do not view themselves as soldiers and cannon fodder for some great religious war. A liberal approach seems risky to people who are fearful and suspicious because it means giving the benefit of the doubt that people who look different, and may act a little different, are still basically like us. The conservative approach in this matter, is to keep them at arms length, and marginalized, just like Europe's example.

Now, as for your quoted article... I got to here and then realized it was complete nonsense:

This, frankly, is a completely unsupported contention. While perhaps some few people derive their view of morality from a patriarchal ideal, I would guess that number is very small. Everything that follows in the article rests upon this completely flawed and unsupported thesis, and thus holds no validity.

Because it doesn't match the thinking of that rare animal - the rightwing atheist! But, I'll point you to the work of people like Manitoba University sociologist - Robert Altemeyer, who published his results from years of study of authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities. The authoritarian types are more aggressive, but actually show higher emotional reactions of fear and hostility even in neutral situations. They are rule-based in their thinking, and that sets the majority of them up for religious fundamentalism...so it's no surprise that the demagogue who's looking to take advantage of these kinds of people gravitate to religious appeals and symbols. They are patriarchal, because their religious and family upbringing is more likely to be patriarchal, or elevate patriarchal virtues if they come from a broken home or such. That may not be your thinking....but you are the exception to the rule, and the outlier in rightwingland.

[WIP]

WIP is, like myself, extremely...conservative (not in the ideological sense) when it comes to justifications for violence.

At any rate, it would be nice if, after his careful and relatively thoughtful post, someone could attempt an actual rebuttal, for purposes of debate.

So far I only found one! But that's because most rightwingers are not in to thinking -- they are motivated by emotion, and do not feel any need or wish to examine anything using logic.

[bloodyminded]

So far I only found one! But that's because most rightwingers are not in to thinking -- they are motivated by emotion, and do not feel any need or wish to examine anything using logic.

Well, as you've noted, you can count on Bonam. We rarely agree, but we get along just fine.

[betsy]

Well, I was rather thinking about rebuttals from the people who disagreed with him...but refused to offer anything except mockery.

Well, he's calling all liberals and leftwingers. Rallying em up for war.

Those who disagree with him fired the first salvo.

[bloodyminded]

Well, he's calling all liberals and leftwingers. Rallying em up for war.

Those who disagree with him fired the first salvo.

Fair enough.

[WIP]

Fair enough.

Have you noticed that these clowns who get their stuff from Foxnews and rightwing radio have been using violent and threatening rhetoric for years now. It's only been since the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the killing of six, that liberals and progressives have been taking it seriously. According to them, standing up to a bully is being violent....just look at Beck's latest stupid crap about a socialist/muslim alliance. An even better example is how these Republican and rightwing clowns are calling peaceful demonstrators in Wisconsin "goons" and "thugs." This is the typical fascist rhetorical approach that likeminded leaders in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen have taken, where even peaceful resistance is declared to be violence, because it prevents the fascist from carrying out his objectives.

[bloodyminded]

Have you noticed that these clowns who get their stuff from Foxnews and rightwing radio have been using violent and threatening rhetoric for years now. It's only been since the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the killing of six, that liberals and progressives have been taking it seriously. According to them, standing up to a bully is being violent....just look at Beck's latest stupid crap about a socialist/muslim alliance. An even better example is how these Republican and rightwing clowns are calling peaceful demonstrators in Wisconsin "goons" and "thugs." This is the typical fascist rhetorical approach that likeminded leaders in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen have taken, where even peaceful resistance is declared to be violence, because it prevents the fascist from carrying out his objectives.

Yes. I have also noticed that a lot of people are getting sick of the deceptive rhetoric. Sometimes I think I sniff principle in the air.

When the Egyptians and Bahrainis are openly scoffing at Obama's tepid "support," (and by implication that of other Western leaders), I find this quite heartening, personally; when Robert Fisk points out that both Western leaders and Islamist extremists were caught totally off guard--partners in surprise and confusion--I find it quite amusing.

Yeah, peaceful demonstrators are "union goons and thugs." Nice. And Glenn Beck! Wow. That people admire him, and take him seriously, is a profound indictment. Seriously.

[GWiz]

Have you noticed that these clowns who get their stuff from Foxnews and rightwing radio have been using violent and threatening rhetoric for years now. It's only been since the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the killing of six, that liberals and progressives have been taking it seriously. According to them, standing up to a bully is being violent....just look at Beck's latest stupid crap about a socialist/muslim alliance. An even better example is how these Republican and rightwing clowns are calling peaceful demonstrators in Wisconsin "goons" and "thugs." This is the typical fascist rhetorical approach that likeminded leaders in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen have taken, where even peaceful resistance is declared to be violence, because it prevents the fascist from carrying out his objectives.

Very sad but quite an accurate analysis...

The Fascists main weapon initially are not Guns and knives but their "propaganda machine"... The American extreme right has that in FoxNews and rightwing talk radio, plus certain print media of course, and now Right Wing Blogs and sites like the Hannity Forums which I've spent considerable TIME on a few years back during the Bush Era...

[bush_cheney2004]

The Fascists main weapon initially are not Guns and knives but their "propaganda machine"... The American extreme right has that in FoxNews and rightwing talk radio, plus certain print media of course, and now Right Wing Blogs and sites like the Hannity Forums which I've spent considerable TIME on a few years back during the Bush Era...

LOL! Does this mean that you are an extreme right wing Canadian? Why would you visit such sites?

[betsy]

LOL! Does this mean that you are an extreme right wing Canadian? Why would you visit such sites?

[Shady]

To me, the paradox in rightwing religious thinking about abortion, is that their whole version of morality is solely based on following pre-ordained rules, and does not address actual results or outcomes of applying those rules.

Completely untrue. My aversion to abortion is based on science. Leftwingers like to pretend to embrace science as a whole. But they don't. They only accept it when it suits their particular cause. That's why one can be fined or jailed for destroying the egg of an endangered species, but get off scott free for killing an unborn baby at say 8 months. They recognize that destroying the egg of an endangered species is tantamount to killing the animal itself. But for some reason, they can't grasp that stopping the heart and destroying an unborn child at 8 months is killing a human life. Go figure.

[Jack Weber]

True, it's an apples and oranges thing.

If Saipan were here, he would now be forced to mention the gun registry, or maybe Chretien.

You forgot the CeeB and the Red Star...