Enough already!
How about if the neocon dittohead warmongering extemist redneck ultraconservative rightwing nutcases quit calling anyone who disagrees with their political views wacked out liberal saddam loving US hating traitorous commie pinko leftist weirdos and the wacked out liberal saddam loving US hating traitorous commie pinko leftist weirdos quit calling anyone who disagrees with their political views neocon dittohead warmongering extemist redneck ultraconservative rightwing nutcases?

I will if you will...

Holy smoke, talk about run-on sentences

 

 

You're discriminating Libertarians by leaving them out.

 

 

How come conservatives (like myself) don’t mind being called conservatives and look at it as a compliment but liberals hate to be called liberals and think its some kind of name calling?

 

 

01, you've missed the point.
For example, whenever I say something you don't agree with, you call me a wacked out liberal, when by now you ought to know I ain't. I respond that you're a nutcase neocon, which by now I know you aren't really. From there everything degenerates into a name calling insult fest, which does truly get boring after a while.
All I'm saying is, let's agree to disagree and stop with the personal insults and name calling. It's starting to get out of hand.

cheers, dude!!

 

For what it is worth, I always liked the term Neo-conservative. I am a little befuddled as to why this is supposed to be bad.

When I was a younger man, a conservative was one who for example did not like what Martin Luther King stood for, or JFK, or such, and they tended to like the likes of Goldwater or Wallace.

People my age, could see through some of the ill-conceived ideas that older conservatives had, but still felt that an ideological basis for one's political beliefs and actions was better than an pragmatic one, and that certain values were worth defending. These were intellectual conservatives, who understood that racism is morally wrong, and on the basis of their morals, oppose(d) it. George Will, and others, my favorite being those who write editorials for the Wall Street Journal, express these views well. Generally, they express views that are well thought out, have some continuity with their past views, and are not opportunistic. E.g. excessive government spending is always bad, even when it is Republicans who are doing the excessive spending (unless the spending is to protect our bacon, and I do not mean pork! )

So, why do those of you with a liberal views of the world hate neoconservatism so much?

Just a question. I think you may have noticed that while I am conservative, I am not one to generalize viciously about those who do not agree with me.

TS

 

These days, it really seems to me that the ones who are thinking more along the lines of the traditional meaning of 'liberal' are the conservatives. They are the ones that are questioning the status quo. The conservatives want to change public school funding to improve the schools (contemporary liberals do lip service, but where the schools are bad, you almost always see the marks of liberal educators trying out their latest gimmick and the kids do worse and worse...)

The conservatives think that blind allegience to abortion rulings are not necessarily in everyone's best interest, especially the baby. Conservatives are the ones that said, okay, enough fooling around in the middle east, let's shake it up so that some progress might be possible.

These are just my opinions. I do not trust people like Kerry or Clinton or Gore or Dean because they seem to have no heart values, or the strength of character to stand up for the values I hold dear. This is not intended to be a flame, but it is how I see it. I disagreed with going into Iraq, but having done it, I support my President, and believe that good is coming out of it. I wasn't president at the time, and he was. Had it been put to a vote, I would have voted against it. But I will vote for GWB, because his decisions, even when I would not have supported them, are better than the opposition's, and I therefore support the man.

My voting record is not one I am proud of. Heck, I voted for Carter in 1980, I voted for Perot in 92. Both decisions were bad. Still, I trust Bush's judgement is better than mine, and I think despite bad press, that the move is working out to our advantage.

I guess I have said enough for now!

 

In Canada there are two major political parties federally and many mostly minor ones. The current ruling party is The Liberal Party of Canada. The main opposition party is The Conservative Party of Canada. I personally have never in almost thirty years voted for the Liberals and in that same time I have voted Conservative exactly once and that was because I had a great deal of respect for the candidate as he had fought in parliment like a pit bull for my electorial area.
In British Columbia, the current governing party is called The B.C. Liberal Party and they are so far to the right that they make 01 and O.W. look like ultra leftwing dems.
My point? I don't vote for political parties, I vote for the person I feel best represents my interests and I absolutely hate being labelled! I would be just as pissed being called a conservative as I am being called a liberal.

 

I think that not wanting to be labeled is a result of not wanting to be forced to believe anything, as well as possibly not wanting to be lumped in with those considered loopy. I think that is an honorable desire. It is sort of like just wanting to be free to be yourself.

Having said that, one generally lines up with a lot of other like-minded people. At that point, it is not hard to apply a label as, say, a conservative, or a hawk, or a dove, or a goat herder. If it quacks like a duck...Hey, I am conservative, and think that is nothing to be embarrassed by.

When it comes to race relations and immigration policy, I tend to line up more liberal minded than many (in the current sense of the word), but in most other areas I am pretty conservative. I think character matters in my friends, in my boss, in my subordinates, and in my president. So I tend to be for those whose character I respect (I respected Carter, was a little scared of Reagan, although I generally supported him once he was in office). I especially regret voting for Perot because it was due to people like me that Clinton got elected. Big mistake.

TS

 

Conservatives want to do away with public schools. That is the basic premise behind school vouchers after all.

Public school education, just like any education, is what the parents and the students make of it. There are plenty of bad teachers out there. It is up to the parents to drive them out of their kid's schools and to become involved. Sitting back and waiting for your elected officials to do it is a waste of your time and mine.

Where the schools are bad I see uninvolved parents. In the inner city it is because both parents have to work or are just not around. In the suburbs it is because the parents don't care. The people ultimately responsible for a kid's education are the kid's parents. The blame begins and ends there, nowhere else.

Liberals think government should stay out of the bodily processes of private citizens. Next thing you know the government will be telling me I can't have a heart transplant because it will result in the death of my old heart. If you don't like abortion that's fine. I am not a big fan of it either. But instead of trying to legislate what people can do, how about persuading them that you are right?

People will always disagree with you. Do you think it is right to make laws to tell them what to do when it doesn't affect you? What happens when they disagree with you and start making laws that interfere with your life?

Liberals are asking two questions:
1. Why stop at the Middle East? What about Africa? What about South East Asia?
2. Does this shaking up have a plan? Will you accomplish anything by shaking things up or do you just want do something rather than sit around? Are you sure the results will be positive and that you aren't, perhaps, just shaking up a hornets nest?

On that we agree.

Clinton did a lot for this country on a domestic level. He cut welfare, balanced the budget and was paying down the national debt. Morally he was no winner but then again neither are Schroder, Chirac or even Bush.

Just because they do not agree with you does not mean for a second that they have no heart values or strength of character. I especially liked Dean because he was as angry with Washington as I am and thought this country could use a change from politics as usual.

I don't like Kerry because I do not believe he has any convictions other than whatever will get him elected.

And it is not taken as a flame. Quite the contrary.

I don't understand how you can say "But I will vote for GWB, because his decisions, even when I would not have supported them, are better than the opposition's" when the opposition's decision would have been not to invade Iraq which you seemed to feel was the right decision in the first place.

Carter could not have won in 1980 because of the oil embargo and because of the hostage situation. Could a Republican have done better in either situation though? In the end it worked out well because Carter went on to do a lot of good after leaving the presidency. Although I disagreed with a number of his policies, I respected his education and his intelect.

This sent a serious message to the Republicans and the Democrats that this country is not afraid to vote outside the parties if they don't listen to their constituents. While he may not have won, it was good for Democracy and did give us a pretty damned good economy for a few years.

The only person's judgement you can trust is your own. Don't let someone else think for you.

-Don

 

Wow that post was so much longer than I realized. Sorry about that.

-Don

 

Well said. Vote for a person and not a party. Vote for the guy you agree with and not the guy most likely to get elected or who you want to have a beer with (unless you happen to agree with those people )

-Don

 

"Clinton did a lot for this country on a domestic level. He cut welfare, balanced the budget and was paying down the national debt. Morally he was no winner but then again neither are Schroder, Chirac or even Bush."

I suppose he did all of that in spite of the Republican controlled Congress. It just happened on his watch.

The one thing he did for this country was set a new standard of what sex really is....

Oh and he gave us Hillary, "It takes a Village" . The belief that consensus is the only way to raise your family. Everyone together knows your family better than you, so you can lay to rest any parental responsibility for the childrens' education. Your new "Presidential Candidate for '08. Ain't it Great!!!!"

Don't get me wrong , I agree with your morals but Clinton????