Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:I've never claimed to be middle of the road. In fact, I think I'm pretty radical in most instances (free immigration, few government restrictions on the economy, legalized drugs, etc.). However, based on what I hear, from sources other than the big media outlets, most people in the US are not happy about the current state of the government, specifically vis-a-vis the bailout and universal health insurance. Therefore, in that respect I would label myself middle of the road.

The part I have highlighted & enlarged is the key... and very much proves my point.

You see, though that IS the opinion you can readily get from the mass media, polls show otherwise. In fact, though many people come out very much against anything termed "socialized medicine" (not actually as many as you might think based on general media reports), when objective polls are framed in a way to limit media bias/rhetoric (stay away from labels, look at specific outcomes, etc.) then in actuality a majority of people DO favor things like a public option.

For example, many people want the chance to keep their insurance... but if you ask them what they would do should their employer drop them or should they lose their job tommorrow, they often have no real idea of the cost of COBRA, etc. When they realize what it would cost, then they are less opposed to things like public options.

I don't consider you one of those "unthinking radicals". Some of your ideas are radical, some of mine are as well. Neither of us is in favor of violence to put forward our ideas and we each are willing to at least listen to other views, from what I can see are about equally willing and able to seek them out. I think I have much more exposure, though, to conservative viewpoints than you have to true liberal viewpoints. I believe that is true for society in general.

To the extent that it just means people differ .. no big deal. To the extent that terms are actively being redefined and merged .. it matters. That you disagree with Bill Devall or Nome Chaunsky (sp?) is not a big deal (I mean, that's freedom -- besides, I don't like them, either, for the most part.). That you have no idea at all of anything they have put forward, no idea that those ideas even exist and that this is true for most of America.. is a very big deal.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:bump

So I guess this means you weren't planning to fix the options so that they were meaningful or relevant.

No, I'm not changing the options so that liberals can define what is meaningful or relevant, and get the results they want.

No, because you are not at all interested in any real opinions, only name-calling and labels.

As a result, the only ones who will answer are those who are conservative.. who are not supposed to be the target of your so-called "poll" anyway.

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:bump

So I guess this means you weren't planning to fix the options so that they were meaningful or relevant.

No, I'm not changing the options so that liberals can define what is meaningful or relevant, and get the results they want.

Yeah, I didn't think you had any guts either.

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:bump

So I guess this means you weren't planning to fix the options so that they were meaningful or relevant.

No, I'm not changing the options so that liberals can define what is meaningful or relevant, and get the results they want.

Yeah, I didn't think you had any guts either.

Then how does he digest food?

PLAYER57832 wrote:How is the media being biased toward liberalism when they cover the entire gamut (except for perhas the absolute extreme) of the right and only the moderal liberal views? Further, too many folks think what's really middle of the road liberalism is actually radical.

Because it's still too radical for most of what the country desires.

The problem with most of the politicians today is that democrats run as moderates or even conservatives, yet they quickly run to the left to follow their congressional leaders. For republicans, they run as conservatives but then move to the left with their big spending and earmarks. None of them actually keep their words on what they say during a campaign.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:How is the media being biased toward liberalism when they cover the entire gamut (except for perhas the absolute extreme) of the right and only the moderal liberal views? Further, too many folks think what's really middle of the road liberalism is actually radical.

Because it's still too radical for most of what the country desires.

The problem with most of the politicians today is that democrats run as moderates or even conservatives, yet they quickly run to the left to follow their congressional leaders. For republicans, they run as conservatives but then move to the left with their big spending and earmarks. None of them actually keep their words on what they say during a campaign.

YOU are "too radical"?

Yet, I can gaurantee that your views are covered far more widely than REAL liberal views. And I can virtually gaurantee, even just by your statements here, that you have no idea what true liberal ideas really entail. Far worse, you think you do know.

PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU are "too radical"?

Yet, I can gaurantee that your views are covered far more widely than REAL liberal views. And I can virtually gaurantee, even just by your statements here, that you have no idea what true liberal ideas really entail. Far worse, you think you do know.

Does it really matter whether we know what the "true" liberal ideas are? If the moderate ones are not good for the country, then the ones that are further left will be downright horrible.


And don't worry, I have heard about groups like ELF and Weather Underground and their terrorist acts.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU are "too radical"?

Yet, I can gaurantee that your views are covered far more widely than REAL liberal views. And I can virtually gaurantee, even just by your statements here, that you have no idea what true liberal ideas really entail. Far worse, you think you do know.

Does it really matter whether we know what the "true" liberal ideas are? If the moderate ones are not good for the country, then the ones that are further left will be downright horrible.


And don't worry, I have heard about groups like ELF and Weather Underground and their terrorist acts.

Her point is that liberals are not for pointless spending. Nobody is for pointless spending except the corrupt. It isn't like liberals eat babies.

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:bump

So I guess this means you weren't planning to fix the options so that they were meaningful or relevant.

No, I'm not changing the options so that liberals can define what is meaningful or relevant, and get the results they want.

Yeah, I didn't think you had any guts either.

Then how does he digest food?

Before or after he pulls his head out of his ass?

Frigidus wrote:Her point is that liberals are not for pointless spending. Nobody is for pointless spending except the corrupt. It isn't like liberals eat babies.

They just kill them and call it "a woman's right to choose".

Night Strike wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Her point is that liberals are not for pointless spending. Nobody is for pointless spending except the corrupt. It isn't like liberals eat babies.

They just kill them and call it "a woman's right to choose".

We've gone over this in the abortion thread already.

Frigidus wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Her point is that liberals are not for pointless spending. Nobody is for pointless spending except the corrupt. It isn't like liberals eat babies.

They just kill them and call it "a woman's right to choose".

We've gone over this in the abortion thread already.

I assumed. But since that debate is an exercise in futility, I don't follow the thread. I'd just get too frustrated.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU are "too radical"?

Yet, I can gaurantee that your views are covered far more widely than REAL liberal views. And I can virtually gaurantee, even just by your statements here, that you have no idea what true liberal ideas really entail. Far worse, you think you do know.

Does it really matter whether we know what the "true" liberal ideas are? If the moderate ones are not good for the country, then the ones that are further left will be downright horrible.


And don't worry, I have heard about groups like ELF and Weather Underground and their terrorist acts.

I don't (will look it up, though).

And there you go. Though I don't know those groups, they are obviously terroristic. You pull them out as if that is what I meant by the far left. Yet, you call yourself radical and I don't believe you are terroristic.

So, by your definition Liberals=terrorist/want to destroy America and Conservatives = strong minded folks who want to save America.

See, the REAL definition is that Liberals and Conservative EACH want what they believe is best. Some IDIOTS on both (all) sides go to terroristic extremes. They are abberrations abhorred by most. (hopefully)


And as to WHY you should care... becuase the real truth is you don't KNOW what other people think unless you listen. You don't KNOW if you really and truly do object unless you listen to what other people-- people who hold opinions that differ from your own think. You have never considered those other ideas and that makes you closed minded.

It makes you scary because you refuse to admit that is even a fault.

You call me and folks like myself "liberal extremists" because you DON'T know anything further left than us ... not really. You have never heard the many truly radical ideas that I have rejected as either not what I want or not practical. That means you miss out on possibly learning. And note, "learning" does NOT mean agreeing. It means you can at least understand/conceive if why other people think how they do.