RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


OldEd, how does one become "a hard lefty" or "leftie" or(32 posts)

OldEd, how does one become "a hard lefty" or "leftie" or94Nole
Jul 25, 2003 10:35 AM
are you just born that way? These are honest questions in my quest to understand.

Seems that the left has an "all for one and one for all" philosophy. Admittedly, not a student of philosophy nor humankind, the left's philosophy just seems to run counter to the natural order of only the strongest/fittest survive. Only when outside influences are introduced, seems that that fails to hold. That is the natural order in it's purest form, isn't it?

Why wouldn't those on the hard left sell everything and give to the poorest among us, or better yet why would they not just give it all away?

Or is this now just a political game that sides have been chosen (except Jim Jefferts and the fight is to the (political) death of the otherside)?
I swear, I did not write the above post. (nm)czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 10:45 AM
Start w/intelligence, add compassion, root out selfishness...cory
Jul 25, 2003 11:02 AM
...and there you are.
I know your question is for Ed, but I'm a fairly hard lefty, too, so lemme comment.
Seems to me that, like a lot of people, you're mixing up "liberal" and "left" (in the sense of communist, the way Bush wants you to) and equating both with socialism. They're not the same, any more than old-fashioned (pre-Gingrich) conservatism is fascism.
As for liberalism running counter to the natural rules of survival: You could make that argument, but only if you toss out humanitarianism and, for that matter, Christianity. Wouldn't letting the weak and unfit suffer or die (you said "survive," not me) run counter to the teachings of Christ?
The notion of selling everything and giving it to the poor is interesting. Mother Theresa did that, and she's going to be a saint someday. I know some liberals (and some conservatives) who DO give all they can afford to the poor, but the idea that some secret leftist cabal wants to take money from the rich and give it to shiftless, swarthy, perpetually pregnant unmarried terrorists, hard as conservatives try to sell it, is crap. I keep thinking the voters will get smart enough to REALIZE it's crap, but no luck so far.
More questions...94Nole
Jul 25, 2003 11:30 AM
1. Define compassion.

2. Seems that some on the hard left are very selfish, i.e., why doesn't Barbra Streisand open up her mansions and pocketbook and start the largest homeless shelter in all of the Free world rather than finding fault of those who she disagrees with politically? That may not be a good example but hopefully illustrative of what I am trying to say.

3. Why is Ralph Nader, no doubt, wealthy? True, I am making an assumption, but one could only assume such, right? Err, I mean, correct? And does he ever travel in a petroleum fueled mode of transportation?

Maybe I am confusing leftists with liberals.

Is it fair that alot of leftists are atheists or at least agnostic? Are they more intelligent because they want something proven out by the data before they will buy in and believe it? I guess one would say that religion stands on the faith of its believers, that faith being a belief in things hoped for but not seen and the hard left has a problem with that ideology.
And another thing, dammit! No, TWO things.cory
Jul 25, 2003 11:55 AM
Liberalism isn't some kind of disease, and it doesn't indicate a lack of patriotism no matter how hard the GOP tries to paint it that way. Long before I became a liberal, I was a Special Forces medic with a tour in Vietnam, all the minor medals and a small collection of scars. I spit in the face of that draft-dodging, AWOL-going, vets' benefit-cutting Texas fighter jock.
Just wondering, did you support Clinton? (nm)94Nole
Jul 25, 2003 12:07 PM
Me, and a majority of Americans twice. Whereas Bush...cory
Jul 25, 2003 3:54 PM
...had to be appointed by his dad's stooges. Not that I would have brought that up on my own.
Does 43% equal "a majority"? Can you say Ross Perot? (nm)94Nole
Jul 27, 2003 4:23 AM
majority of voters not voting for 3rd party candidate... nmDougSloan
Jul 28, 2003 2:44 PM
Bush Sr. only nominated 2 of the 9 nmDougSloan
Jul 28, 2003 2:47 PM
Doug, don't you know that "facts" don't matter ...Live Steam
Jul 29, 2003 6:14 AM
to "LIBERALS" :O)
Survival of the fittest.Jon Billheimer
Jul 25, 2003 12:21 PM
All you social darwinist, conservative types seem to equate the survival of the fittest with hardy individualism, aggressiveness, militarism, etc. You might reflect on the fact that one of the primary reasons for the success of the human species is our proclivity for co-operation and social organization. As usual, the conservative justification based on the survival-of-the-fittest model ignores the salient facts behind human survival in favour of its preferred mythologies of rugged individualism embodied by the Lone Ranger, John Wayne and other Hollywood stereotypes. Liberalism in fact probably enjoys a firmer social-darwinist utility than the damn-my-neighbour brand of conservatism.

It's also interesting that Dubya, being one of the current protagonists of the swashbuckling, John Wayne, cowboy defenders of freedom types, is himself a monstrous fraud and a product, not of hardy, individualistic enterprise, but of inherited corporate wealth and political nepotism.
Survival of the fittest.Jon Billheimer
Jul 25, 2003 12:24 PM
All you social darwinist, conservative types seem to equate the survival of the fittest with hardy individualism, aggressiveness, militarism, etc. You might reflect on the fact that one of the primary reasons for the success of the human species is our proclivity for co-operation and social organization. As usual, the conservative justification based on the survival-of-the-fittest model ignores the salient facts behind human survival in favour of its preferred mythologies of rugged individualism embodied by the Lone Ranger, John Wayne and other Hollywood stereotypes. Liberalism in fact probably enjoys a firmer social-darwinist utility than the damn-my-neighbour brand of conservatism.

It's also interesting that Dubya, being one of the current protagonists of the swashbuckling, John Wayne, cowboy defenders of freedom types, is himself a monstrous fraud and a product, not of hardy, individualistic enterprise, but of inherited corporate wealth and political nepotism. Bush and his friends do not in fact represent individualism and untrammeled enterprise. They represent untrammeled corporate greed buttressed by authoritarian government.
And another thing, dammit! No, TWO things.Live Steam
Jul 29, 2003 6:12 AM
How about spitting in Clinton's face. He dodged the draft and went to the USSR to trash talk the US during your service to our country. Does that warrant your rage or do you only get enraged by conservative traitors? Last I checked, Clinton wasn't a friend of the military. But you did your stint a long time ago and were not effected by the cuts. The gutting Clinton did to undermine our military capabilities, didn't get you as enraged either? Clinton closed bases and cut back on funding that was neede to help our fighting forces. He demoralized our military from within. JMO of course.
Social fantasylands and economic DarwinistsPdxMark
Jul 25, 2003 7:54 PM
American Conservatism seems to come in two main flavors: social conservatives who focus on a 1950s Ozzie & Harriet fantasyland founded on selected (distorted) "Christian" priciples and economic conservatives who tout a Darwinistic economic ideal in which they should not be obliged to pay to support the society that provides their wealth.

For me, liberals are willing to accept that people have a variety of beliefs, and that the Ozzie & Harriet fantasyland is unacceptable to many and never actually existed other than in television a few tiny locations. American Conservatives who feel compelled to judge other people (Amsterdam being cited in one post as some sort of Sodom & Gomorrah) are the perfect example.

Liberals are willing to accept that people make their own life's choices without feeling compelled to judge those choices. A fabulous political irony is that the Republican Party touts itself as the party to protect individualism and against government intrusion into people's lives, when in fact Republicans want criminal sanctions against consensual homosexual conduct, criminal sanctions against legalized doctor-assisted suicide by the terminally ill, etc.

Economic conservatives seem mostly to want the benefits of a modern industrial society that allows the creation of immense wealth without having to pay to support that society. The creation of most wealth in this country is based upon an infrastructure that was built, and was formerly maintained, through taxes.

Narcisstic conservatives believe that they owe nothing to the maintenance of this infrastructure, for the sake of hoarding away a couple percent of their income. Again, the irony is that economic conservatives pretend that the infrastructure than enables their wealth does not exist and need not be paid for.

Liberals are willing to accept that infrastructure must be provided and maintained. That we must at least pay our way, as a generation, to pass on at least as good as we received. Dismantling centuries old transportation networks, education systems, national treasures like national parks, polluting our environment, etc. to spare today's taxpayers a few percent is selfish, greedy, and irresponsible.

So how does someone become a liberal? We accept that others may choose to live differently than we do and we believe that we should pay the actual costs of maintaining our society.

How does someone become a conservative? Try to force others to live by your religious or social beliefs or milk society for all you can at the expense of past and future generations.
I certainly agree that "selected 'Christian' principals"...94Nole
Jul 27, 2003 5:01 AM
have certainly been distorted and more militant (bombing of abortion clinics in teh name of religion, for example).

Let me say that I shift depending on the issue. i am more right on some issues and could be accused of being a liberal on others.

But, I kind of glean a view of conservatives as "they want it but don't want to have to pay for it" as somewhat odd. Most will associate conservativism with those that have greater means (the rich) and, I will agree that there are many who perhaps came to their wealth by way of earlier generations, but there are also many on the left who fit that same mold. Most obvious example is likely the Kennedy clan.

For other posts, one could almost associate greater net worth to those more conservative in their politics. Therefore, they probably already are paying quite a bit, in actual dollars, but from my observations, the left never seems to be satisfied, if at the end of the day, the right still has money left over. Believe me, as a tax accountant, the age old fallacy that the rich don't pay taxes is a bunch of bull dung.

You say "Liberals are willing to accept that people make their own life's choices without feeling compelled to judge those choices." however, the left is constantly calling those on the right any one of a myriad of names and judging their lifestyles and attacking their beliefs. The liberals seem to be given free reign over judgment and freedom to choose. Sort of like the word racist and racism. Whites are racist but by, I guess the grace of God, blacks can't be racists. I've never quite understood that one. What is the act of a fast food worker spitting on a hamburger that is about to be served to a white customer if it is not racism?

Although it was on Rush's morning update (that plays on our local radio station during my drive to work) the other day the contradiction came up in how the NOW is totally supportive of a woman's right to choose except when it came to something like breast implants. Why are is the NOW trying to prevent women from enhancing their breatline? But it is amazing to me that no one seems to care about that. Why is the left so selective?

You end by contrasting how one becomes either liberal or conservative and in your description of the conservative, to me, you run absolutely counter to your point in your description of a liberal.

From reading your post, the left (and you, as I assume your are since you refer to the left as we) doesn't seem to be really accepting of any view at all unless it satisfies their/your own view(s).

Your post seems to have a paragraph play by play of attack conservative, support liberalism, attack conservative, support liberalism.

And if you truly accept that others choose to live differently, you can't rightly attack them for their choice(s) in the way they choose live their lives. Can you?

If I was looking for a camp, I wouldn't join yours because, to me, liberals aren't very accepting of opposing viewpoints.
Dropped at birth, or Take Poli Sci 101moneyman
Jul 25, 2003 12:25 PM
And believe all that crap. That's what happened to me, as I fit the lefty category completely during and just after college. Then I started a business of my own and realized what the world was really about, at which time I saw the light and changed my party affiliation. How anyone who works for himself could be a lefty/liberal is beyond me.

$$
Typical neo-con: If you can't win the argument, attack the mancory
Jul 25, 2003 3:56 PM
ActuallySteveS
Jul 25, 2003 4:27 PM
Actually, he spoke pretty much only about himself and as far as attacking an individual rather than an idea, it is part in parcel of liberal tactics to brand someone who disagrees with their position strongly a bigot, racist, xenophobe, fascist, etc.

I thought liberalism was a phase most people passed through in college and out of in later life. Who knows what causes an adult to be a liberal; alar, DDT, too many drugs and permissiveness towards such, undescended values or rentention of those learned in Sociology 101?

In the end, there are vast differences in world view and values. For me, I see liberalism as the source of most of the corruptions in society and a general acceptance of crudenss. (notice MJ's use of 'fukwad' a few days ago, probably one of the most crude words used on this board and MJ feels he is a superior intellect due to his euro education). For me, the mecca, heaven, or maybe a rock Nirvana and thus the end result of liberal philosohies is a place like Amsterdam. For many people here, that is probably a perfect society. Not for me, I outgrew my dabblings in liberalism after college. To me, its what liberals would bring to my own neighborhood if everyone accepted their worldview or 'tolerated' whatever they think as today's liberal cause. Thank whatever that is hasn't happened yet.

Oh, Look!! I must be a bigot, racist, xenophobe, homophobe, overgrown microbe.
I think you spoke for your camp quite eloquently. . .czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 4:34 PM
. . .especially that last sentence.

Not everyone becomes frightened, jealous and greedy as they grow older.
"frightened."Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 7:08 PM
At least you have one thing in common. You think? Greedy I don't see as evident either side. Jealous? Who really can claim that mantle? Honestly. You? Who has something you want?
Oops! I forgot "spiteful". (nm)czardonic
Jul 28, 2003 10:59 AM
There is a fair amount of irony in that statement, corymoneyman
Jul 28, 2003 7:22 AM
For the record - my post was not directed at OES. Nothing but respect for him and his point of view. I don't agree with him very often, but I do respect him.

If you can't win the argument, attack the man"\

Thank you. No more needs to be said.

$$
Did not take it as personal against me, $$. nmOldEdScott
Jul 28, 2003 7:27 AM
Stand in awe, my man.OldEdScott
Jul 28, 2003 6:11 AM
I work for myself, own two business besides.
re: For me my political stance isjrm
Jul 25, 2003 12:53 PM
i grew up with the same romantic political prejudices as my parents because i want to say i didnt know any better.

I believe in a existential philosophy whereas my otological outlook is antagonistic or almost dialectic. because of this i think im more of a conservative liberal who still believes in everyone paying their share and indivdual accountablility and responsibility.

I know this is kinda weird but at the same time pretty
The phisiological fact is...Spoke Wrench
Jul 26, 2003 4:27 PM
The left side of your body is controlled by the right side of your brain.

Consequently, leftists are the only people who are in their right mind.
Let me count the ways ...OldEdScott
Jul 28, 2003 5:46 AM
1) Grew up in hardscrabble Southern agricultural poverty. Nothing like sharecropping -- which I doubt you know much about -- to give you a fast education in class economics. If you Repubs want to talk 'class warfare' I can show you the front lines, and the wounds.

2) 'Went' to Vietnam, where I immediately saw we were on the wrong side. The VC (let's leave the North Vietnamese out of the discussion for now) were tough, smart, disciplined, and committed -- everything the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) was not. Social/economic conditions in VC-controlled areas were superior. The ARVN/South Vietnamese government were corrupt as hell, unlike the VC, who seemed austere models of rectitude by comparison. Like many of my draftee comrades, I said 'What's wrong with this picture -- we're fighting agaiast the GOOD guys.' (Take note, Ann Coulter, I just committed Treason. You know who I am, and where I live, and I'll be looking for you and your Political Thought Police to come up the drive shortly).

Combine a sharecropper's keen sense of economic injustice with an admiration for the smartness and toughness of the VC and voila -- you got a hard leftist.

It's a lot more complicated than that, of course, but I tried to boil it down to the two most salient influences.
we need to rename this forum the left/right bashfest--YAWN-nmColnagoFE
Jul 28, 2003 7:24 AM
What topic would you prefer to discuss?94Nole
Jul 28, 2003 9:55 AM
I am not politically astute and I enjoy reading others' views because I find that most of the few people with whom I spend the majority of my time share my moral, political, etc. views.

I enjoy reading well thought out posts that argue this point or that although some I disagree with and are admittedly over my head. I am not a deep philosophical thinker and many who post here seem to be.

With that said, I am sure that there are those who would offer an opinion or comment on just about anything that you would care to post.

Jump in and hang on.
The President's legs? I now understand your boredom (nm).94Nole
Jul 28, 2003 11:14 AM
ha! yeah i came across that reading alt.gossip.celebritiesColnagoFE
Jul 28, 2003 12:34 PM
i figured it had just enough political bent to fit in well here! ;)