It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A contrast in how liberals and conservatives regard each other.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by iwilliam

I guess some people just can't get past believing what they see on Faux News. (Or CNN, or MSNBC, for that matter....)

Why would you use an insult for Fox News (faux news) and not an insult for CNN or MSNBC? I think that line in your reply is a good example of what the OP was talking about in the first place.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:30 PM

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer

"Liberals see conservatives as evil, conservatives see liberals as wrong."

Conservative ideology is based on self, personal responsibility, personal growth, personal resources.

Liberal ideology is based on hate. In order for a liberal to exist, it must need an enemy. Be it smoking, eating meat, the wealthy, Caucasians, gun-owners etal.

How can you even say that with a straight face? Both ideologies have a defined enemy and SOME maybe even most within both view the other as evil. In actuality both are largely the same only separated by a few issues, most of which come under only two categories, social justice and religion.

Both grow government whether they mean to or not, both favor authority while simultaneously screaming about loss of liberty.

I will admit that it may been a bit harsh. But I see conservatism as a life choice and liberalism as a "movement".

Another way of saying it is, conservatism is like eating meat. If you do? Fine. If not? Fine also. It's an individual choice that requires no other person(s) to develop it.

Liberalism is a movement. It is more of a political orientation. It is a "pole" of a magnet, thus requiring another, opposite pole.

I have many friends that are politically liberal, but are conservative. There is no "cookie-cutter" shape for a conservative. I'm anti-abortion, but pro gay marriage. I'm all for the legislation in Oregon and Colorado, yet hate higher taxes.

Liberalism is more rigid in it's definition and requirements.

Again, no source, just a humble opinion.

You are comparing the two extremes of either side. You picked two random websites who have absolutely no basis for their postings... as someone said previous, you are comparing two trolls to each other. I can find just as many instances of conservatives saying vile and terrible things about liberals as I can find liberals spewing hate against conservatives. The internet does not have censorship.. people can post what they want. just travel to a conservative website like the blaze and you will see some of the vile, disgusting lies which continue to be spread by openly racist conservatives who feel the president is a Muslim Manchurian candidate sent to destroy the white race...

As one poster said previously, you are only adding to the division of our country by giving websites like this a voice... I am a liberal when it comes to social issues... I guess you could call me a lefty moonbat who believes most drugs should be legalized, I support gay rights and the right for gays to get married.. if they want to deal with that crap then let them... but I am fiscally conservative.. where do I fall under your per-defined groups? I consider myself quite liberal in most respects but I have the ability to listen and understand some of the very valid points certain conservatives bring to the table...

Does this make me a leftist nut? I certainly wouldn't consider myself one ... no one I know well has ever brought it up to me.

We are only as divided as we let the media and the powers that be make us... we are all custodians of this planet and citizens of our respective countries.. we need to act like it sometimes.

I am not a very religious man but I thank god that we have the ability to transfer power peacefully between leaders... that is a commodity which is virtually unobtainable in many parts of the world.

The only time I have seen our country come together is in the aftermath of 9/11 ... that is a sad sad statement to the state of our country.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:18 PM
Let us deconstruct the Original Post:

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Recently I commented in a thread where someone referenced Rational Wiki as its main source. I investigated the source material and found it to be extreme left-wing, which I stated in the thread. I was refuted and told that it was not, and in fact started by people who were kicked out of Conservapedia "for wanting it to contain those pesky things called 'facts'". I don't know if that is true or not.

So I investigated Conservapedia and it struck me that the two websites - one allegedly conservative, the other allegedly liberal - handled their subject matter quite differently, and I thought it might make for a very telling thread in which to have spirited discussion.

Let's look at the same entry in each website:

So far so good. An opinion, nothing more - maybe some hearsay involved.

On to the 'same entries'. First off one entry is on Clinton and the other Reagan - hardly the same entry. Perhaps our OP meant 'a random president' entry rather than a specific president's entry.

Now let's look at those carefully selected quotes:

Conservapedia Entry on Bill Clinton


Bill Clinton (formally William Jefferson Clinton; born William Jefferson Blythe III) (b.August 19, 1946),was president of the United States, elected in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Previously he had served as governor of Arkansas. His administration was characterized by sustained prosperity, a budget surplus, free trade internationally, military interventions in southeastern Europe, reform of the New Deal welfare system, and an impeachment.
The preceeding was fact, verifiable in multiple domestic and foreign sources. Everything that follows is opinion and spin and can be expected to differ based on an analyst's point of view and purposeful spin.
While Clinton takes economic credit, most of the success in his era can be traced to Republican majorities in Congress that crafted welfare reforms and a budget surplus.
Back to verifiable facts: but do note the sense of distain towards the Senate's actions - the Senate would fail - rather than the Senate absolved/acquited (not sure of the proper terminolgy hence making a factual statement into an opinion of the outcome of the impeachment.
The House of Representatives would impeach Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury, while the Senate would fail to convict, and he served out his term.
I have no idea of the facts of the following statement - I would want supporting facts about each issue - being found in contempt (who is the judge and date of the order, etc) and the disbarrment (that would be an entirely separate action). Should be two separate sentences. This is poorly written.
Clinton was later found in contempt by a federal judge for lying under oath and he subsequently was disbarred for ethical violations.
Opinions and spin to follow:
Clinton, a policy wonk, was (with Ronald Reagan) one of the two best campaigners in recent decades. Although a mediocre speaker Clinton became known as "the Great Campaigner." His discursive style is personal and intimate, yet, thanks to television, was vicariously enjoyed by large audiences. Like Ronald Reagan. Clinton used his rhetorical skills to achieve political success; he survived despite legislative defeats, repeated scandal (he was notorious as a womanizer) and an actual impeachment.[1]

And now on to the following rubbish that was specifically chosen by our OP to make her point. Not a crime by any means but OP could have been more subtle.

Rational Wiki Entry on Ronald Reagan:


Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan, aka: Grandpa Caligula, Teflon Ron, or Ronnie Raygun (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was a god among men B-movie actor with a long career of destroying free societies.
If you want to know why the United States has become an international laughingstock in recent years, here's a pretty good place to start.

edit on 20-1-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Journalism, as it was conceived and practised (to the best of one's ability to put opinion to the side) only reported verifiable facts. The Who, What, When, Where and How of things, leaving the reader to come to their own conclusion. We now know there is always a bias in how one sees things - but it is very important to sort out fact from fiction. It is one of the failings in out educational system and in the internet and in media.

edit on 22-1-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by iwilliam
I can only wonder why some of you seem so intent on dividing people and perpetuating the media's "liberals versus conservatives" propaganda.

Read the sources. Tell me WHO is being divisive here.

This is in black and white for all to see. There is no debate over how these two organizations conduct themselves.

Nope. You're being divisive. You picked two websites, neither of which fully represents the group for which they claim to speak, and you used them to make a sweeping statement about how the two sides view each other. I'm not sure what the political equivalent of racism is, but it's clearly a divisive tactic that doesn't represent reality. There are many reasonable sites that represent both sides. There are also many over the top extreme sites that badly represent both sides. You picked a relatively middle of the road conservative example and an extreme example on the liberal side. I wonder why that is?

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in