As those who post a lot in political threads might have noticed I tend to put most of my posts on the side of conservatism, and mostly supporting Bush, or at least, defending him. In all actuality, I don’t like Bush or Kerry, and I wont be voting for either. I tend to post this way mostly because Hatrack seems very biased to the left lately. Maybe you disagree, not really the point, it’s the way I see it so that’s how I act. Think of me as the self-appointed counter-balance.
Well I just wanted to let those on the left side of middle know that recently I became a liberal for a while. Let me tell you, Indiana, especially the religious part of Indiana, is not heavily biased to the left! So when people started insuinating that you can't be both a good person and vote for Kerry, I stood up as a liberal and did battle. Just though you should know, I’m kind of on your side.
Hobbes
[ October 17, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am trying to find middle ground. But I lean more towards the left, it fits my views a bit better and some on the right would dislike certain proclivities of mine. But, the left on some levels is not much different either >.<
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, thinking that George Bush has made some major mistakes during his term as President is not equivilent with being a liberal. Judging the performance of a person from one party or the other as being bad or good does not automatically mean a person is a liberal or a conservative.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't have anything to do with it. As it is, that this is so often true denotes to me a huge problem with the way people think about things.
I'd suggest that it is possible that there have been so many anti-Bush threads due to a combination of there being quite a few "liberals" (whatever the heck that even means anymore*) here and there being so many instances where President Bush has screwed up.
---
* The terms liberal and conservative used to be concerned with the types of views someone held. I think that the more contemporary usage as supporting one candidate or party is another sign of the cheapening of American political discourse.
[ October 17, 2004, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
On an economic level and international policies level, no... I get freaked out when I agree with Pat Buchanan.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...there have been so many anti-Bush threads due to a combination of there being quite a few "liberals"..."
Or it could be that the people who post here read more, pay more attention to the world's news than average.
[ October 17, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Squicky, I just liked the title, I wasn't making a real claim about my political leanings. Or the fate of American discourse either. I'm not "a liberal" or "a conservitive", both terms seem way too limiting. I mean I might say I'm "economically conservitive" but that's even to general, though a little closer. Just as "socially liberal" covers about half of my social views, while the other half swings wide left of center.
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I keep making such threads because I am VERY frustrated and disgusted by what has been happening over the last three years... It makes me angry and I shouldn't get angry. I start to punch the walls when I am angry. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*cough* Or we could stick to the light-hearted intent of this thread for 3 more posts...
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok.
One.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Do we really need to run down the list again? Here's a short summary for economics:
tax cuts not predicated on spending cuts trade barriers spending increases bureaucracy increases (prime causer of the one directly above) delayed impact bills to avoid political consequences of economic consequences decreased market information availability (the free market only works when information on products is abundantly available; in this case I'm referring to the removal of required reporting of various kinds) et cetera
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Do we really need to run down the list again?
No.
Hobbes Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Woah, corporate reporting has absolutely increased during this administration, mainly as a result of huge economic problems caused by lack of reporting during the .com boom across most industries.
Dagonee
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I don't really understand most of that list.
Sorry. Guess I can't argue it then.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hobbes, Not meant as an attack really, rather a reflection on how a lot of people seem to see things. I'd expect you to have a much more complex view of things. Also, I think you have a typo where you said "people started insuinating that you can be both a good person and vote for Kerry". I think you're missing a negative in there somewhere.
Oh, and I got semi-dragged to a debate last night and I tore into the poor PA state rep who was there representing the Democratic side when all he really wanted to say was "John Kerry - though personally not anywhere near my choice - is a better choice than George Bush."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was thining of reporting of peripherals, such as pollution, not fiscal and monetary activity.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You're selection tool probably just missed the "n't", my edit a few seconds ago was entirley unrelated to changing "can" to "can't" ... ::whistles innocently::
Hobbes Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was thining of reporting of peripherals, such as pollution, not fiscal and monetary activity.
Ahh, OK.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The problem is that your defintion only bears a passing resemblance to the world. The issues are only slightly about how much money is in government, but they mostly concern where and to what end we spend it.
[ October 17, 2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
just because something's not conservative doesn't mean it's liberal or left. There're plenty of things which are just idiotic, for instance.
My assertion isn't that these things are liberal or left, bu that they aren't conservative.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I don't know what my assertation is. It's all a blur. I've become confused myself. Anyway, I don't care if it's left or right...matters more if it's right. That at least I can argue ^^ .
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I like traffic lights.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I am not a Liberal, in the American political sense of the term, but I am against Bush's policies. In fact, both my Liberal and Conservative sides are united on that point - Bush contradicts both of those political philosophies pretty directly.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
As those who post a lot in political threads might have noticed I tend to put most of my posts on the side of conservatism, and mostly supporting Bush, or at least, defending him. In all actuality, I don’t like Bush or Kerry, and I wont be voting for either. I tend to post this way mostly because Hatrack seems very biased to the left lately. Maybe you disagree, not really the point, it’s the way I see it so that’s how I act. Think of me as the self-appointed counter-balance. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)