I noticed nobody touched this with a ten foot pole....I love irony...Hoo: will you at least clarify your position or do you stand by your assertions that Fox is HATEMONGERS and your other assertion that the south is racist, poor, uneducated and homophobic?
I am am hobo phobic...and I also have a fear of midgets as well ...sorry it was typing fats and watching another screen...but you get the gist
My, what wonderful assumptions you make. How do you know what I read, who I listen to, or how I pick my friends? You don't. If you are illogical and loud mouthed, I would prefer not to listen to you whether we agree or not. If you are prone to insinuation and demagoguery, I would prefer not to listen to you whether we agree or not. If you have nothing of value to say and are only trying to score points, I would prefer not to listen to you whether we agree or not. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing ideologies. It has to do with the fact that TV is a poor medium for discussing anything of substance, and it attracts too many people with shiny white teeth and empty heads- on both sides of the political aisle. I gave Fox as an example because they seem to find the most outrageous clowns, but it really applies across the board. If you want to reasonably present your point of view, that's great. If you want to disagree reasonably and in logical manner without resorting to ad hominem or patronization, no problem. My favorite periodical, The Economist, is pro gun control and anti capital punishment- stances I strongly disagree with. I have friends on all wavelengths of the political spectrum; in college I dated a die-hard democrat. we disagreed on just about everything, and it was actually a lot of fun. It's not the different point of view that I tune out, it's the combination of arrogance + ignorance, which is almost impossible to get away from on TV these days. And it's unfounded assumptions, like the one in your reply, that make me tired. The cliche is based in truth: the typical conservative thinks left wingers are stupid, and the typical left winger thinks conservatives are evil. Why? Because liberals are more prone to seek emotional validation from their positions, and they are more likely to evaluate decisions through feelings: showing that they are sensitive to the needs of others, showing that they care. In the long run it is more important for the liberal to care, or to be seen as caring, than to actually get positive results. It's the only sane way to explain mass ongoing failures like the public school system, LBJ's great society, minimum wage laws that harm more than they help, etc etc. And because conservatives regularly place self interest and pragmatism above showing that "care," liberals think they are evil, or at least portray them as such. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to either think pragmatically or think in terms of duty. They are pro-work ethic and anti-handout, and generally resent those who are not. In both cases there is a strong sense of individual responsibility- either responsibility to self or to some higher ideal (family, country, God, etc). Thus a conservative does not see handouts as helping, he/she sees them as degrading and demoralizing. When conservatives look at liberal works, they don't see the caring and the warm intent- they see the crappy results, and it drives them nuts because they see getting positive results as the whole point. So they reason liberals have to be dumb, or intentionally blinding themselves, to keep supporting ideas and policies that don't work (and never did). Conservative walking down the street sees a bum on the street corner. Thinks to himself, "if I were that bum, I would find a halfway house or a soup kitchen, clean myself up, and do whatever I could to get a job." As he passes, the bum asks for money. The conservative gives him the address of a shelter downtown and keeps walking. Liberal observes the whole episode, shakes his head at how heartless some people can be. Crosses the street, gives the bum five bucks, and walks away with a warm feeling of moral superiority. Instead of going to the shelter, bum takes the cash to seven eleven instead. Chugs a bottle of night train, gets completely faced, and later that night electrocutes himself after falling off a subway platform. Who was more compassionate?
Go back and re-read your post that I first responded to. If you are honest, and objective, you will see a few unfounded assumptions and ad hominem technology used. In reality, when it comes to politics and social issues, it is mostly opinion on how to exercise power. We swing to the left of center, the right cries foul. We swing to the right of center and the left cries foul. Those who take a posture that because we have swung from one side or the other, makes the side now in power right by virtue of being in power specialize in rationalization and ignoring the nature of the history of humankind. Unlike a math problem that we can all agree on, those who can speak with certainty on the issues of mankind and how to address our problems with an absoluteness for others are usually extremely egotistical when they begin to know what is right for others based on their own philosophy or belief systems. If what you say is true, that some people argue from feelings, and some argue from cold logic, it would seem to me that one who used both feelings and logic, a moderate, would come closest to the truth when it relates to mankind, as man is a mixture of both logic and feelings. I have never seen a bird fly on its own with only one wing, have you? If you really spend some serious quality time with most people, and ask them to boil down all the political and social issues that cause problems in this country to their most basic elements you will normally find a belief system without evidence or fact to support it. With most right wingers, you will end up with "because the Bible said so." With most left wingers you end up with "live and let live." Funny thing is, my Bible says to live and let live. Go figure.
I almost agree; in proper alignment, emotions and logic should work in concert and reinforce each other. However, even in concert the roles are still distinct: if emotion is the engine, logic is still the steering wheel. (Your reference to logic as "cold" also suggests a bias towards emotional thinking... self-restraint and stoicism are not the same thing, and it's quite possible to be logical and passionate at the same time.) I have to disagree strongly with your last paragraph- for one thing you fail to distinguish between fiscal and moral conservatives, for another thing you insult intelligent moral conservatives (they may be a minority but they most definitely exist), and last but not least the left wing creed is far from live and let live- it's more like "if you can't beat 'em, hate 'em."
I have seen the political candidate talk about birds needing two wings to support his view. I have seen others make this statement and now I have seen it on elitetrader. what is going on? has the marketplace of thought started to crowd out liberal ideas. Perhaps americans are now seeing more clearly since 9/11. I remember thinking wow I wonder how many others are going to see the light like Rosie O'Donnell. Perhaps Americans see that we can no longer safely tolerate feelings instead of logic ---cold or passionate. (to follow Darkhorse's line of thought. I suspect this two wing thing is going to be the mantra for govt regulated use of broadcast rights. We will soon see equal time demanded by the left. The ballons have been floated and soon Daschle will speak on a Sunday talk show. I find this amusing, self serving, specious and heartwarming. A bird may need two wings but I am starting to see that the donkey knows his goose is cooked. Pardon the mess of metaphors.
The implementation of communism in China by Mao was quite logical, efficient, and very unemotional. The problem most of us Americans have with his "logic" is that we don't agree with some basic premises of communism. That really is the problem. Logic is only a means of reasoning, but requires a starting point to reason from. There is where most of the debates either begin or end up. What really is best for the individual and society as a whole? What premise is the right premise? The framers of the constitution knew the need for balance of power, as they lived under the rule of a single monarchy and saw the dangers of power unchecked. We pride ourselves in this country by our protection of the rights and freedoms of our citizens, even if the citizens happen to be in a minority group. The "majority rules" concept does not extend beyond the rules of law, or else we would still have lynch mobs. This is because we know that both the right and the left are human, and subject to emotionalism. Divorcing ourselves from feeling in making policy is a very dangerous process, as it opens up the door for utilitarianism, which often promotes action in a manner that runs roughshod over the needs of the human feelings. Political logic is often only focused on the immediate and lacks the perspective of the long term consequences. We need balance. Were we as a country thrown off balance by 911? To be sure, and anyone could witness the reactionary response, which is still in effect to some greater degree. The first reaction was fear, then anger, then the need for control, etc. It is a classic cycle that humans go through, and if recovery is ahead of us, the processing of these feelings are needed to arrive at a balance of what we can actually control, and what we cannot. Iraq is an example of a reactionary response, born mostly out fear. We did a great job of overthrowing their government, but the job of winning the peace will take a long time, my guess is a generation or more. Until the peace is won, we really won't know that we did the right thing there. Solving these problems require a balanced approach, listening to different points of view, and finally implementing reason and common sense as we tackle the unknowns that are the properties of the ongoing war on terrorism. Those who would have a one party system in this country because of their hatred of the other side, in order to be "logical", need to spend some time reviewing history where you had only a one party system. A balanced human being is open both intellectually and emotionally, and a healthy nation reflects on the health of the people in power, and those who vote them in.
Hate has never been a hallmark of the left, but a reaction of the growth of the right wing naturally generates fear among the left. This fear may come across as "hate" but it is really any different than the "hate" by the right wing in the 60's of the left, as the right saw a revolution in attitudes toward war, women, minorities, sexuality, religion, etc.? Have I insulted intelligent moral conservatives? Hardly. As you mention, they are likely in the minority and my comments, (if you read my comments carefully you will see that I) state "most" not all have beliefs that are grounded in a by rote belief system. Very few people have a well developed belief system that they came to on their own. Most simply swallow according to personal taste and spit it up when called upon. The process of finding a person's bottom line belief is really quite simple. When they say something is so, just ask why. Keep asking why, and eventually you come to the first premise, and first assumption.