What's with all this "liberal" nonsense?

[GoSlash27]

Every time somebody says something that attacks the president or states any fact that makes Republicans uncomfortable, they're immediately labeled as liberals. Either that, or it's assumed that they were lied to by the "liberal media".
What's the deal with that?
Do you automatically dismiss every fact that's reported by the "liberal media" as a lie? They say that we have invaded Iraq. Is this not true?
And supposing for a second that I really *am* a liberal. What difference does that make? Does that automatically mean that everything I say is a lie?
Is the Republican party incapable of misleading you? Everything they say must be true? Bush himself said that he declassified certain parts of the NIE. Therefore that's true, right?

I'll tell you what I think it is: A cheap stunt to avoid discussing the issues. Easier to find a way, any way, to dismiss an argument without actually refuting it.
I find that sort of behavior reprehensible; a display of willing ignorance.
I assume that I'm being lied to from all sides (after all, they're politicians) so I check into things. And regardless of how much you wish I was, I'm not a liberal.
You want to tell me my conclusions are false then at least attempt to present a counter-argument instead of plugging your ears and throwing a tantrum.

 

[blume357]

You are right

I find it funny at the least that most folks on these gun list blame all gun control laws on liberals... yes it's generally true but not always. keep in mind the first thing our present conservative government did when they 'freed' the Iraqi people was take away their right to defend themselves... and we can see what good that did.

with that said, I consider myself a conservative republican's worst nightmare:

A gun totten' liberal.

 

[Handy]

It is a method of attack some forum members use when they are unwilling or unable to debate a point on its merits with facts and logic. So they resort to this sort of official name calling.

The heart of the problem is the number of people who simply are unable to believe that every issue or view doesn't fall into one of two neat categories. Binary brain syndrome. Media outlets, especially the more base conservative ones, exaggerate and enforce this nonsense.

 

[Leif]

It's because the liberals are (gasp) ... the "Others!"

Not to be too postmodern about it, but much of the conservative vs. liberal contest in the US boils down to the social construction of otherness. People that fall within the hazy category of the "right" decry those with whom they disagree as being "liberals," whilst those that fall within the nebulous group of the "left" castigate those with whom they take issue as being "conservatives." Sometimes the labels have meaning, usually when used by their own advocates or proponents, but more often than not it's about as complex of an issue as "us vs. them" (especially for people who adopt an absolutist/black-or-white perspective on the world) and using that as the basis from which to construct images of their perceived adversaries, real or imagined. Sometimes those descriptions possess the merit of fact, but more often than not they reflect a mixture of fact and fiction, deliberate or otherwise.

I've got no problem being labeled as a liberal, as most of my political leanings are to the left. However, I know myself well enough to know that I am not an unthinking ideological zealot blindly walking in lock-step with whatever party/candidate/agenda I happen to support at the time, and that success in American politics usually is about comprimise, not ideology. I also know that political conversations often fall into one of two categories: 1) preaching to the converted, and 2) ideological hand-wringing between opponents who probably never will see eye-to-eye on the issue at hand. Sometimes legitimate dialogue and debate exists, but more often than not, this is the way of political conversations and interactions these days.

 

[invention_45]

Here's how I see it.

Conservatives lash out at liberals because they've painted themselves into an unenviable corner.

What conservatives want is a return to the "old" values. These values include adherence to the bible's teachings, blacks in their place, latinos in their own countries, jobs easy pickins for the typical white joe six-pack, women in the kitchen. Unfortunately, a lot of these values have been found to be at odds with the constitution with its bill of rights. The people conservatives would like stuffed back into pandora's box have some rights.

Trouble is, the same constitution that guarantees them the RKBA they feel they need to be the last bastion defending the "old ways" is the one that gives the "undesirables" their rights as well.

The logical inconsistency cannot be overcome, so a moral conservative has to pick and choose what parts of the constitution he likes and dislikes.

This leaves the only a few tools to use for argument. One is to scream liberal. Another is to quote from books from obscure or known-biased authors.

I'm not liberal. I don't believe people should be able to do any thing their heart desires and avoid any consequences.

I'm not conservative. I don't believe the 50's is the model we should strive to live by and I'm not going to let self-appointed clergymen tell me what to do.

I'm progressive, which the screamers say is a "code word" for liberal. But they're different. Progressive means tending toward progress. If a thing makes life better without hurting someone else, I like it. If it does hurt others, then keep the old ways until something better comes along.

 

[Leif]

invention_45, I hate to say it, but your post illustrates exactly the point I just made in my post. For example, you said:

What conservatives want is a return to the "old" values. These values include adherence to the bible's teachings, blacks in their place, latinos in their own countries, jobs easy pickins for the typical white joe six-pack, women in the kitchen. Unfortunately, a lot of these values have been found to be at odds with the constitution with its bill of rights. The people conservatives would like stuffed back into pandora's box have some rights.

While some conservatives certainly may believe that, many do not. I think what you described applies only to a certain sector of the conservative community, which you then adopt as a blanket description of conservatives. I think of at least one prominent conservative female African-American currently holding a position of power that does not jibe with your description. Nevertheless, this rhetoric often is used to paint with the broad stroke all conservatives.

Likewise, you stated:

I'm not liberal. I don't believe people should be able to do any thing their heart desires and avoid any consequences.

As a liberal, I can tell you with definite certainty that most liberals, with possible exceptions of the extreme-left anarchist types, do not believe this at all; the rule of law remains sacrosanct among the majority of the liberal community. However, your description of liberals is the type of statement that conservatives often use to describe their opponents.

 

[Tamara]

Conservatives lash out at liberals because they've painted themselves into an unenviable corner.

What conservatives want is a return to the "old" values. These values include adherence to the bible's teachings, blacks in their place, latinos in their own countries, jobs easy pickins for the typical white joe six-pack, women in the kitchen...

There's that "binary thinking" Handy was talking about. I'm hardly your model conservative (I wouldn't even call myself "conservative") but most of the people I know are, and I sure don't know any who espouse those beliefs. That's as much of a caricature as (and no more true than) saying that liberals are all granola-munching unemployed college student Marxists.

 

[Leif]

But my Birkenstocks are so liberating!

 

[Pointer]

automatically dismiss every fact that's reported by the "liberal media" as a lie?

If I lie to you, mislead you, decieve you, misrepresent the facts and take an obviously biased slant... against everything you believe in...

Would you trust me to tell you the truth?

Yes, we invaded Iraq... BUT invasion connotes that we weren't welcome, and the LIBERAL media doesn't make any distinctions.

If I crash through the door of YOUR house to save YOUR wife and YOUR kids from an intruder... There is no question that I invaded your home.

The world being what it is... there are times when one must "do unto others" what they would do unto you... but do it first...

liberals are all granola-munching unemployed college student Marxists.

Damn! I didn't know that... I thought they were acadamia nut fruity loones.
Live and learn I guess.

took away their right to defend themselves

They did that only temporaily, and then they rescinded it...
Also their new constituion has supposedly guaranteed their individual rights to "keep and bear" arms.

 

[Wyo Cowboy]

The way I see it. calling each other "consevative" and "liberal" is kind of pointless.

My "right wing conservative" friends like to introduce me as their "lone liberal friend".

My "left wing liberal" friends call me their "only conservative friend".

Rush would probably call me a "whimpy, snivilling, spineless, braindead idiot".

I call myself a;
Christian, American, gun-owner, pilot, nurse/paramedic, part-time LEO, volunteer firefighter, loving husband and caring Dad.

I'm pretty "conservative" on some issues, a little "liberal" on others. I generally vote Republican, but I do not blindly follow them. Gulliani and McCain worry me on many issues. Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton outright terrify me.. on a lot more issues that JUST gun-control. Extremists and zelots on either side worry me. To me the US Constitution is, or at least should be, the basis for all law in this country. Too often both ends are trying to "read into" the Constitution and the Bill of Rights meanings which are not there in order to grant "rights" to certain groups and restrict other RIGHTS which certain people find troubling to their sensitivites.

BOTH parties need to take their parties back from the extreme ends. The Rebublicans have a reputation for pandering to Big Business. Democrats have a reputation of pandering to every fruitloop group out there and Big Labor. How about getting a few non-extreme views and finding a workable middle ground which does not infringe upon our Constitutionally Guarenteed Rights. The first party to accomplish that will dominate the political landscape for decades to come. Unfortunatly I don't see it happening. Taking it out of the "gun debate" arena, just look at the "Illegal/Un-documented Immigrants" issue for example. If you try to say that you are in-favor of securing the borders and work for serious immigration reform to streamline the legal process... you are labeled a racist and a heartless bigot. If you are in-favor of accepting that trying to deport 11,000,000+ illegals is a logistic nightmare and willing to consider a "guest worker" program for those already here with jail time for those who do not comply and no time credit for time in-country illegally... you are lageled a liberal who is in-favor of blanket amnesty and willing to just throw open the borders to anyone. No one is willing to put down the signs and drop the retoric and actually try to find a reasonable and workable solution. Instead, they just stand and scream names at each other. Like I said... kind of pointless.

 

[Rivers]

Almost all of the obscene, airheaded gun control laws with which we have to contend are the direct result of urban, liberal Democrat legislation. It's really just as simple as that.

 

[dfaugh]

I to have lots of trouble with the labels that get thrown around...

For example I would be labeled conservative on many issues, but liberal on a few others.

Whenever you paint with a broad brush, you open yourself up to "bias" or "close mindedness" Better to address specifics than to make generalizations.

 

[GoSlash27]

Pointer,
You *should* mistrust whatever you hear. I'm certainly not advocating accepting what the media tells you at face value!
Just don't dismiss it as a lie without bothering to check it first.

 

[carbiner]

Liberals have become very angry with alternative news such as FNC, or even the anti tax group I belong to in MN. Our tax group has a three hour program on Sat. mornings. We get the facts about tax and spending out to the people who otherwise only have the liberal media to reley on. The liberal media attacks us for provoking thought among tax payers, but we always offer true sources to back the facts. They hate us, we always get attacked by the left, it's liberalism that has installed so many high cost social programs over the last 40 years. They now have us all paying 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation welfare, food stamps, health, drug rehab programs that just keep getting feed more and more tax payer money all the time, and these are 90% liberal developed and run programs.

Gun control is vastly pushed by liberal people.
Of coarse their are afew repubs who back these silly programs, but thats no excuse for the common liberal to use against conservatives. Every time we call for tax cuts it's the same sorry name calling, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, you hate the poor, blah blah blah.

Liberalism is being exposed and liberals don't like it. You can attack Rush, FNC, but they get people to think. The mainstream liberal media just feeds people the same old disinformation and propaganda in hope to keep everyone nice and dumbed down.

High taxes and gun control=people control and thats just what the modern day liberal politician craves.

 

[rlong5]

Liberalism is being exposed and liberals don't like it. You can attack Rush, FNC, but they get people to think. The mainstream liberal media just feeds people the same old disinformation and propaganda in hope to keep everyone nice and dumbed down.

High taxes and gun control=people control and thats just what the modern day liberal politician craves.

With all due respect, carbiner, it appears to me that an equally valid argument can be made by flipping your statement 180 degrees. I think that both viewpoints are correct. Let's see...

"Neoconservatism is being exposed and the conservtives don't like it. Rush, FNC, and others just feed people the Republican propaganda in hopes of keeping citizens from thinking for themselves. The combination of exorbitant deficit spending; tax give-aways to those who least need it; secrecy, denial, and misinformation; all add up to control of the common citizen and the unquestioning allegiance of big business. That's just what the modern day conservative politician craves."

Seriously, I know many people who claim to "think for themselves", but all of their opinions are in lock-step with Rush. Rush isn't right about everything. While I have no desire to be governed by Kerry or Clinton II, the current federal government (both the Bush administration and the congress) has done more damage to our civil rights than the terrorists ever hoped for.

I think that Wyo Cowboy hit the nail on the head. The extreme ends of both parties are running things, and that's not good for any citizen.

 

[Ledbetter]

The fact that the terms "libertarian" and "liberal" spring from the same root demonstrates the problems with labeling or relying on labels.

We are a non-homogenous nation as never before and more so every day. It is these various interests battling with one another (and never for the nation as a whole) which consumes the vast majority of governmental and sometimes societal resources.

Consider: I am in favor of choice, gun rights, the Constitution, freely bid government contracts, the environment, against the predominance of corporate rights over those of the individual, against illegal immigration, in favor of increasing tariffs for China, Mexico and other nations who treat their own workers like cheap machinery, in favor of support for the arts and research into deadly diseases, in favor of same-sex marriage (everyone has the right to be equally miserable ) against censorship, against the abuse of power and interns, and I demand an expedient and workable exit strategy in Iraq and thel cessation of the use of depleted uranium as munitions.

I have no friends in government except at the Springfield Armory and they closed that down. Further, neither of the only political parties available come close to sharing my combination of beliefs. Neither party cares more for US (you & me) more than they care for the scores of new voters scurrying across the border as fast as the Mexican government can bus them to the border.

If you want to join me, I think we should call ourselves the Revolutionaries.

 

[rlong5]

I am in favor of choice, gun rights, the Constitution, freely bid government contracts, the environment, against the predominance of corporate rights over those of the individual, against illegal immigration, in favor of increasing tariffs for China, Mexico and other nations who treat their own workers like cheap machinery, in favor of support for the arts and research into deadly diseases, in favor of same-sex marriage (everyone has the right to be equally miserable ) against censorship, against the abuse of power and interns, and I demand an expedient and workable exit strategy in Iraq and thel cessation of the use of depleted uranium as munitions.

Dear Ledbetter:

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Sincerely,

rlong5

 

[AndrewD]

The way I see it...

Liberalism and Conservativism are two viable philosophies. I think every sane person has liberal and conservative qualities. I lean conservative, but growing up in Northern California has put a liberal tilt on me.

Of late, I have been feeling more and more that there really isn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats. I don't identify with either party, as it seems like a big game of good cop/bad cop to me.

 

[Baba Louie]

This nation was founded by liberals. Conservatives backed George III.

I suppose back in the day of Lincoln, Republicans in the north who wanted to free the Negro slaves were "liberals" and those bad old Democrats from the south were "conservatives". I dunno.

Due to years of conditioning, I now call my semi-automatic only AR-15 (6721) an "Assault Weapon" even tho it has never assaulted anyone or anything and will never fire in F/A mode. It might next become known as a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" or it could become a "Homeland Defense Carbine". Who knows?

A Rose by any other name... still has thorns.

And the pendulum swings back and forth. Back and...

 

[Marko Kloos]

Almost all of the obscene, airheaded gun control laws with which we have to contend are the direct result of urban, liberal Democrat legislation. It's really just as simple as that.

Not really. Almost all gun control laws with which we have to contend are directly attributable to the War on Booze, and later the War on Drugs.

Without Prohibition, there would have been no gangland violence, and no need to find a new focus for all the rudderless revenue cops when Prohibition was repealed. NFA '34 would not have seen the light of day, and you would still be able to buy a Thompson at the Woolworth hardware counter merely in exchange for cash and a handshake.

Without the War One Some Drugs, there would have been no dealer turf wars over artificially overpriced plant products, and there would have been no outcry to "stop the violence". Gun control would be a non-issue, and the 1994 Crime Bill/AWB would never have been legislated.

Did I forget something? Oh, yeah...the 1989 Import Ban on Evil-Looking Rifles, signed by a Republican President, namely George Bush the Elder. Apparently, he agreed that crooks holding up liquor stores with $10,000 PSG-1s was a big enough problem to mandate an Executive Order. (At least Slick Willie had the decency to use the legislative process.)