Ten Myths Conservatives Believe About Progressives

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kyred
 


I didn't see a reply to your post so I think I will give it a go. I like to think of myself and more conservative than liberal. I used to think of myself as a Republican but no more. At least until they truly become the party they were meant to be.

Anyway, in understanding business, I believe that the 'Rich' being referred to are the super rich 'businesses' that get the massive amount of tax breaks. Mainly from paying the politicians that write up the laws to give the tax breaks. That is where the 'rich' come from. Not the individuals that make a certain amount of money. The LARGE corporations.

Just thought I would put that in there.

Anyway, I actually like the post because it does touch on some of my more liberal views. The swing that I have made over the past few years.

However, what I have truly learned is that it is simply another message of division. Left vs. right. Conservative vs. liberal. Instead of a message of unity where everyone simply sits down at a table as Americans.




posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by grover
 

This is exactly your point with this thread grover. It isn't fair for either of us to be generalized like we are. You're thread only mentions how liberals are unfairly judged, but it's just as prevalent on the other side.


I agree with you... perhaps it should be said that not all on the right are conservatives in the classic sense which you and I have discussed before but should be more accurately described as nihilists in that they negate anything that does not agree with their views.

For the record a true conservative is someone who is not against change per say but rather is someone who would rather that change be taken slowly and judicially with a focus on preserving what we already have.

Any society that embraces change for change sake ultimately loses all authenticity and ultimately its reason for existing.

Taken in this light you can be a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative but the likes of ann coulter, michael savage and mush loosebowels have nothing to do with these fundamentals but rather negate anything other than their exalted opinion of their opinions.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Yeah that's a good point. I suppose by logic the title perpetuates untruths about groups perhaps more than those lodged against "progressives."

Hey elevatedone who was off topic? These moderators are really breaking canollis lately, sheesh! Oops there we go with generalizations again



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


There you have it grover!

I think we have reached an agreement.




posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moonsouljah
These moderators are really breaking canollis lately, sheesh!


Not me, I'm diabetic.


I am seriously impressed by the dialog here. The board and America needs such. Kudos to you guys.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by mattifikation
I need only point out threads like this one, and the inevitable "Ten myths progressives believe about conservatives" that will be popping up any minute now (this exact same thing happened before on ATS.


During the election I posted several threads on the same subjects... one for Obama, one for McCain in an attempt at fairness.


You missed my point entirely. This whole "Liberals vs. Conservatives" is nothing more than the "Us. Vs. Them" mentality that is ripping our country in half.

Think about it with half a degree of logic and critical thinking. If you support gay marriage, does that mean you support abortions? No? Well this is a two-party system, buddy, so you either better change your mind about something, or pick which issue you care about more.

I could have picked any of a million examples, but if you can't figure out the silliness behind falling for divide and conquer, then I don't know what the point would be in continuing.

I'm sure this post will go unanswered, in a sea of liberal vs. conservative trash talking that serves no point whatsoever except to further the agendas of those behind the conspiracy to rule the world.

Ironic, considering this is supposed to be a web site for unmasking conspiracy theories.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I would also add that the Republican party abandoned its principles in its embrace in the late 60's of the racist elements of the old south (coming from there I know), religious funnymentalism and dumping Main street for Wall street. Small business, which is the real backbone of our economy is not the same as big business and their interests are often polls apart.

As for the Democrats they abandoned their principles in their abandoning of the working class for big business money and in a blind push to a middle that the opposition had no intention of meeting.

As a consequence the Republican right came to dominate the party over its moderate and liberal branches in an unholy alliance between religious extremism and big business and the Democrats essentially neutered themselves by trying to become conservative lite in order to compete, or so they thought.

Consequently the Democratic failure was not in their ideas but in their push to become conservative lite they deprived voters what they really want more than anything else... real viable choices... in short why bother voting for them when all they are trying to be is a watered down version of conservatism?

The way I have been phrasing it lately is that I have no faith in the Democrats but I have less faith in the Republicans.

This in my opinion has been the downfall of the parties and a main reason why Obama did as well as he did... by hook or by crook both John McCain and Barack Obama offered the voters a real choice this time around.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
I'm sure this post will go unanswered, in a sea of liberal vs. conservative trash talking that serves no point whatsoever except to further the agendas of those behind the conspiracy to rule the world.


I personally reject both parties as philosophically two branches of the same ruling coalition with one wing more right or left than the other but essentially the same.

The thing is if we had multiple parties it would be the same thing no matter who they claim to represent.

All political parties represent the ruling class period. Here in the United States the primary difference between the two is the amount of crumbs they toss to the rubes.

I have no faith in either but I am also philosophically opposed to sitting on the sidelines wringing my hands though that is about all I can do.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Apparently we have fallen into some bizarro world where we agree on everything grover.



I myself have tired of the party system here in America. In fact I came out with such a statement in a thread I started today (which can be found in my sig).

I'll no longer lend my name to either party, but neither will I stand by and let them ruin this country.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I should note that in the above posts I gave my personal definition of a true conservative as


someone who is not against change per say but rather is someone who would rather that change be taken slowly and judicially with a focus on preserving what we already have.


and then went on to discuss conservatism as a political movement within the Republican party... they are not... I repeat are not the same thing.

Paul Krugman in his book "The Conscience of a Liberal" makes the distinction by describing it as movement conservatism which Source Watch defines as:


Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the "conservative labyrinth," and common to all its elements is a theology of "free markets," an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn.


www.sourcewatch.org...

These are not the same thing... one is an ideology of caution and the other a framework in essence of the pillaging of America.

The BIG lie of movement conservatism is that it represents the other. It does not.

At its heart movement conservatism is a form of fascism as defined by Mussolini as:


Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.


And as such is antithetical to the American ideals.

It is movement conservatism at its most greedy and crass that brought us the whole financial mess that we are living through now and the vehicle for doing that was the Republican party and its allies in the Democratic party... at no point did either represent the interests of the American people.

It is this movement conservatism and its stranglehold on the Republican party that I take umbrage to.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


The party system sucks. It divides people into categories and accentuates differences instead of similarities. I bet we have more to agree on than disagree, but due to the party system, no one would ever know that.

Not many of the founding fathers wanted a party system - let alone a two party system.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
I bet we have more to agree on than disagree, but due to the party system, no one would ever know that.


I think you're right.

Luckily though we've been finding that out about each other. There are many of you here that I have grown to respect and learn a lot about, as I'm sure you have me.

I've found that most of you aren't the drooling liberal idiots that some may find you to be. Hopefully you have also found that I'm not the backwards conservative moron that some may find me to be.




posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Wait wait. How did you know I drool?



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 


Just a hunch.


Seriously though, it's a perfect example of how stereotypes and generalizations can tear us apart rather than bring us together.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I only drool when I sleep. And when I see a pretty girl... but sometimes I drool when I hear a bell but God knows why.


[edit on 26-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


I told you to stay away from Pavlov...



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
More from source watch about Movement Conservatism:

www.sourcewatch.org...


The G.O.P. was once a respectable political party, giving voice to cautious citizens who saw much to protect in the affairs of the nation. The Democratic Party offered a forum for less sanguine citizens to disagree and seek reform, and in the healthy conflict between the two a robust democracy served the nation well.

Neither party was rigidly ideological, driven passionately to impose a set of beliefs, as the Taliban, say, imposed Islam in prewar Afghanistan. Both parties respected democracy.

Except in their Orwellian rhetoric, the Republicans no longer do, and the G.O.P. has withdrawn from serving the nation at large. About 25 years ago it became the political arm of "Movement Conservatism," and today it promotes not the general welfare but the commercial interests of corporate enterprise...

...Taking shape in the late '70's, Movement Conservatism became a sort of economic Taliban, absolutist in conviction, righteous, and anxious to impose its ideology on the American people. It found its vehicle in the presidential candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, and over the next eight years Movement Conservatism and the Republican Party came to be coterminous.

There was little resistance. Since the Republican Party traditionally has been the party of commerce and finance, Movement Conservatism had only to sell an appealing ideology to a receptive constituency. As the pursuit of "free markets" came to mean "corporate well being," the transaction was consummated. The Republican Party took on the ideology, and also assumed a commercial function: marketing public policy as a product. It became the G.O.P., Inc., and forfeited its role as a party of the people.

President Reagan's agenda came almost whole-cloth from the Heritage Foundation. His massive tax cut slashed current revenues, but Reagan shoveled trillions of dollars to corporations in the defense industries anyway. In so doing he added twice as much to the national debt as all his predecessors combined, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter.

This was the first shot from the most vicious and despicable weapon in the arsenal of Movement Conservatism: pile more and more indebtedness onto future generations so that debt service increasingly forecloses public expenditures for anything else. The stupendous deficits of George W. Bush preordain a starving public sector for decades to come.


In 1988 the Democrats learned how effectively corporate financing can facilitate television-based campaigns. A lot of money can make Willy Horton a household name. And so by 1992, dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democrats veered sharply toward the center, seeking corporate financing for the Clinton campaign. Clinton delivered, enthusiastically embracing "free trade," a global version of the free market fantasy. The Democrats were flirting with their own transformation to corporate status, and they continued in 2000, running free-trader Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, once chairman of the DLC.

Ralph Nader's Greens couldn't see much distinction between the G.O.P., Inc., and its Democratic emulators, and they high-centered the election. The Supreme Court, sporting a couple of Movement Conservatives on the bench, did the rest.

Some Democrats today are openly critical of a centrist, corporate-friendly stance for the party. Others still cling to it: the threat remains.


It is more than anything Movement Conservatism that has fostered the poisoning the well as it were of honest and open political discourse with loaded hate filled rhetoric to convince people to essentially vote against their own best interests.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover.

It is more than anything Movement Conservatism that has fostered the poisoning the well as it were of honest and open political discourse with loaded hate filled rhetoric to convince people to essentially vote against their own best interests.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by grover]


Hate filled????

www.youtube.com...

If you lie down with dogs expect to get a few fleas.

[edit on 26-11-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
michael savage is an ass. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

He is a prime example of what I have been talking about.



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I agree that these myths about liberals are just that...myths, propaganda tools of deception.

But, and here's the big but: You forgot listing the myths spread about conservatives and are therefore part of the Propaganda Machinery.



top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join