Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Do liberals purposely misconstrue conservativ

dhbartlett12
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:52:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
conservative arguments or do they not understand them.
I was watching Barbara Boxer on C- SPAN discussing how Republicans want to "take away" specific coverages for women. I could figure if she was playing dumb or was dumb. I say liberals aren't dumb, they just purposely mis represent conservative arguments before they refute them.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:52:14 PM, dhbartlett12 wrote:
conservative arguments or do they not understand them.
I was watching Barbara Boxer on C- SPAN discussing how Republicans want to "take away" specific coverages for women. I could figure if she was playing dumb or was dumb. I say liberals aren't dumb, they just purposely mis represent conservative arguments before they refute them.

Everyone is guilty of strawmen. Liberal and conservative.
dhbartlett12
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:59:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:54:09 PM, Axiom wrote:
Everyone is guilty of strawmen. Liberal and conservative.

So if liberals are guilty of misconstruing conservative arguments, that begs the question why? Can they not defeat conservatism in an honest debate?
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:01:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sometimes, for news anchors and biased news channels (both liberal and conservative) it is easier to set up a strawman and knock it down. Political parties aren't intrested in the truth. They're interested in the votes.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:52:14 PM, dhbartlett12 wrote:
conservative arguments or do they not understand them.
I was watching Barbara Boxer on C- SPAN discussing how Republicans want to "take away" specific coverages for women. I could figure if she was playing dumb or was dumb. I say liberals aren't dumb, they just purposely mis represent conservative arguments before they refute them.

It's more that they don't want to understand them. When it comes to politics, I find that most people are rather close minded.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:36:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I totally agree with the comments so far pertaining to the prevalence of straw men (but no straw women, how on earth are they so numerous?), and a certain degree of close-mindedness. However, I think it's probably worth mentioning that there are two conservatisms: the first as it is often encountered in the American context is a vibrant ideology, which I disagree with somewhat, but which I genuinely respect. The second relates to the more traditional use of the term, merely connoting a position which amounts to, "The past! The past! The past!" - in short, an irrational reverence for and defense of what has come before due purely to the fact that it has. It seems to me any thinking person should view this doctrine with contempt, and seek out more rigorous litmus tests.

The problem is that, especially with religious influence, the two have become a little hybridized, as they coassociate with each other, for no decent reason that I can see beyond the power that it brings them.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 7:47:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:52:14 PM, dhbartlett12 wrote:
conservative arguments or do they not understand them.
I was watching Barbara Boxer on C- SPAN discussing how Republicans want to "take away" specific coverages for women. I could figure if she was playing dumb or was dumb. I say liberals aren't dumb, they just purposely mis represent conservative arguments before they refute them.

Lol, of course they purposesly misrepresent conservatives! And, conservatives do the same! If they didn't, then too many might notice that they actually agree and pursue te same ends. ;)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 10:05:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/2/2012 7:36:10 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
I totally agree with the comments so far pertaining to the prevalence of straw men (but no straw women, how on earth are they so numerous?), and a certain degree of close-mindedness. However, I think it's probably worth mentioning that there are two conservatisms: the first as it is often encountered in the American context is a vibrant ideology, which I disagree with somewhat, but which I genuinely respect. The second relates to the more traditional use of the term, merely connoting a position which amounts to, "The past! The past! The past!" - in short, an irrational reverence for and defense of what has come before due purely to the fact that it has. It seems to me any thinking person should view this doctrine with contempt, and seek out more rigorous litmus tests.

The problem is that, especially with religious influence, the two have become a little hybridized, as they coassociate with each other, for no decent reason that I can see beyond the power that it brings them.

I agree there are 2 main forms of conservatism, and two main forms of liberalism.

To clarify;

Conservatism:
1.) Traditional Conservatism - advocates preservation of the status quo, through protectionism
2.) Liberal Conservatism - advocates preservation of the status quo, through a policy of non-interference.

Liberalism:
1.) Classic Liberalism - advocates limiting government policy to the protection of life, liberty,and property.
2.) Social Liberalism - advocates limiting government policy to the promotion of life, liberty, and property, via social justice.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Erik_Erikson
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2012 9:20:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:54:09 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:52:14 PM, dhbartlett12 wrote:
conservative arguments or do they not understand them.
I was watching Barbara Boxer on C- SPAN discussing how Republicans want to "take away" specific coverages for women. I could figure if she was playing dumb or was dumb. I say liberals aren't dumb, they just purposely mis represent conservative arguments before they refute them.

Everyone is guilty of strawmen. Liberal and conservative.

I disagree. Republicans use their veto powers much more often then Democrats. This is proof that Republicans are obstructionists. It's completely normal for news networks to want both sides to be wrong, but that's only for ratings. To be able to say, "I'm going after Democrats Monday, Wensday, Friday and Republicans Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday" would be a dream come true for them.

Further, the Republican party is imploding because they are not following conservatism. Taxing the poor then giving that money to the rich is not conservative. Invading countries that do not pose a threat to you is not conservative.

The first video I posted is of the influential Bill Moyers. Perhaps he can explain to you, his fellow conservatives, what's going on. The second video documents an Iowa Republican who. Has. Lost. Her. Mind.

Jon Stewart Shows Why Marco Rubio Will Never Be VP

In case you missed it, Marco Rubio appeared on The Daily Show last night to promote his new book. He also, I assume, made the common mistake that many of his colleagues do: To think they can snow not only the public with their nonsense, but Jon Stewart as well.

Wrong. Unfortunately for Marco, he too has fallen for the image the right has so carefully scripted and crafted about him. He was to be the shining star of the Republican Party. The savior.

Well, had Marco studied up on recent history, he could have saved himself some of the embarrassment: So was Fred Thompson, once upon a time....

This interview shows what some of us in Florida have been telling the rest of the country for years: That Marco Rubio is little more than a walking, right-wing talking point robot with virtually no ideas of his own. For me, it was a struggle to listen to the entire interview because I could almost recite Rubio's script in my sleep at this point. We've been hearing it for years now. But it is worth it to watch Jon Stewart call out his BS for what it is, and tear each part of his party dictated rhetoric apart piece by piece.

In a nutshell it shows you what many of us have said over and over again. Rubio is not Vice Presidential, or Presidential by a long shot no matter how much the Republican base tries to paint him as the magic man who can turn everything around for the party. Nope. He IS the party, that's the problem, and he can memorize a script. That's. It. It also illustrates that even Jon Stewart is probably more qualified than Rubio is.

Shorter Rubio:

"Both parties are to blame for the obstruction" (that doesn't exist on the Republican side according to Rubio. But no. For instance, both sides did not block immigration bills and vote against the DREAM Act. Marco and his party DID).

"Obama isn't the same person he was when he was elected. He had a chance to do something (about immigration) but he didn't do it." (You could just omit the name Obama and insert Marco Rubio here, after all he was the great shining hope of the Republican Party when he won his Senate seat. And yet.....he blocked and obstructed when he had the chance. Obama on the other hand, did do something, which Marco now criticizes.)

"Democrats are divisive!" (No, as Stewart points out, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. Reality, of course, is a place Marco Rubio has never had to inhabit in his sheltered political life.)

Oh, and here's one of my favorites: When asked about the current filibuster issue in the Senate, which Marco doesn't seem to realize he is a part of now, he blames.....the Senate:

"The filibuster is a Senate-ey (? Marco's words) issue." Earth to Marco: YOU'RE A U.S. SENATOR.

Also related to the filibuster was this: "If you don't want to vote, don't run for the Senate." I couldn't agree more. So why did you, Marco??

He goes on to say he isn't responsible for everything that's been blocked, or as he would put it: No obstruction here, what are you talking about? "I've only been in the Senate for a year and a half" (Memorizing my script and collaborating with a ghost writer on my book. Did I mention my book?), and "I don't know what the numbers were before I got there." (Which Stewart slides over to him on a card.)

When Stewart asks if Republicans have ever taken accountability for their part in the blame, Rubio avoids answering.

Asked about the Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act, Rubio uses the repeal and replace party mantra, and says he has put forth his own plan. Here he actually says this:

"Republicans and I have alternative plans. You just never hear about them because the media never covers our plans." and "No one watches C-Span."

Two points here.

1. Nothing got more coverage in the media quite like the long, long road to the :ACA.

2. Many, many of us watch C-Span.

Had there been an alternative, we would know about it. There's no Republican plan. That's why some in his party are starting to panic now at the reality that the Supreme Court may throw out the entire thing. The time for replace may well have arrived, and Rubio and his party have nothing.

For all of Marco's insistence that his party only wants compromise and never obstructs, even in the interview he can't compromise on the hypotheticals that Jon Stewart presents him with. At one point, Rubio actually says:

"I'm not in there so both sides can get something out of it." Exactly the point. For once Rubio is honest.

To much of what remains, Stewart says this, which sums everything up nicely:

"What you're pretending? You know it's baloney."

http://www.beachpeanuts.com...

As soon as the media starts calling out Republican actions for what they are: obstructive, austerity driven and blatantly based on fervent nationalism--we can actually expect a form of conservatism to come shining through.
I know nothing. That is, probably, the first step to true knowledge (I'm not too sure).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 1:47:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:52:14 PM, dhbartlett12 wrote:
conservative arguments or do they not understand them.
I was watching Barbara Boxer on C- SPAN discussing how Republicans want to "take away" specific coverages for women. I could figure if she was playing dumb or was dumb. I say liberals aren't dumb, they just purposely mis represent conservative arguments before they refute them.

They are neither dumb nor dishonest. They see the wold through ideological goggles. It's like the SNL Church Lady who always responded, "Could it be Satan?" Thus any opposition to any Obama program is to them obvious racism. Failure to have the government pay for anything is to them an obvious attempt to hurt the poor. Anything that helps the economy is an obvious payoff to the rich.

It's like religious fanaticism; once you see the divine truth, everything is found to fit the pattern. Smart people are as likely to be fanatics as ordinary people. In fact they are better able to rationalize their beliefs.