The "iron" in irony is becoming more ironically ironic by the moment. :noway:
Could it be that some liberals do not see themselves as liberals, or choose to portray themselves as "moderates", "middle-of-the-road", "centrist", etc.? :jawdrop:
One has to think outside the box, even if it means throwing an occasional "Hail Mary." :sheep:The next two are even more disconnected.
"'Sup with that?"
Could be. Could be that some people call people liberals because their working definition of conservatism is a reflection of their own notions and not a larger, objective truth. Every now and then someone posts a test designed to set out where we stand along a range of primary issues. You've probably taken one. I usually do and I've mostly remained about dead center of the moderate range, though I think I've moved a hair to the right overall, but not that's about it and that mostly in response to the left, empowered, acting as arrogantly and hostilely as the hard right had in their heyday. It was disappointing.
Doesn't really make sense unless you're running for office in a closely split district and you don't mind deceiving people...which I suppose fits he bill with politicians. In an environment like TOL it's less understandable. There's no upside to it. People on the hard right are even suspicious of those who declare conservative but don't lock step. The left doesn't care. They're just going to yell at whoever disagrees with them, regardless.
Objectively, no. But it does reflect the liberal patronizing platitude that conservative = ignorant, Bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck.
Usually trying to pigeonhole people according to a biased political spectrum.
Yes, I have. I get many chuckles when I land in the "authoritarian fascist" box.
If you've taken the "test" I'm thinking of (the libertarian one), "dead-center moderate" would equate to mid-range socialist in the real world.
Doesn't make sense to me even if one isn't.
I understand you've drunk the liberal kool-aid and your definition of conservative comes from the liberal idea of same. What you call lock-step are core principles which one abandons at one's own risk. Liberals have no principles, so it is not an issue for them.
Some do. Usually liberals resort to fear and a naive arrogance which comes with their territory.
Indeed so, if one is astute enough to recognize it. Perhaps more importantly, one must reflect on what a person actually does, rather than what a person tells you he does.
Sorry, but as someone who objectively tests out exactly where he thought and said he was but has had to deal with a great deal of self satisfied people on the extreme right declaring me to be something other than what I am, your "Objectively, no" is objectively wrong. That I can credit you with a point but you can't see that you might not have it completely right with that one size fits all response is part of the problem.
Right, because suggesting that you might be partially, but not completely right makes ME patronizing.
As a gun toting guy from the red neck Bible belt I have to say, you've got a problem with that posit, Frank.Which is exactly what you just did by insisting that "objectively" it couldn't be that people on the right tag some as liberal not because they are, but because they aren't conservative enough to suit them.
Yes, what in your posture could be confused with authoritarian?
lain:The problem with your perception is that I've taken more than that one and they agree with each other (except on the libertarian tilt) but not with you. Weird how many non objective tests there are out there, Frank. Apparently (so far) all of them. But thankfully we have non authoritarian you to set them and everyone straight.
lain: Hey, you started it. I don't think, aside from politicians, most people are doing that.
In the same way you "understand" every objective test of ideology is wrong and in the same way you feel fine declaring that and your own part as not being authoritarian.
Well, no. I was reared in the most conservative part of this country surrounded by old money adherents to Birch. But thanks for the attempt at pigeon holing.
No, what I call lock step is the view that to call taxes something other than pick pocketing, for some conservatives, is to be delegitimized as a member of the movement. That sort of thing.
See, that's just objectively unsustainable. You can oppose their principles or the application of them, but it's irrational to suggest they don't have any. Because at the very least those principles could be seen in their opposition to one of yours.
I've seen both sides use the fear stick. Left: they're going to try to control your body/take your rights. Right: they're going to lead the country to ruin/take your guns. And I'd say simplistic approaches to complex ideological turns is both arrogant and ignorant.
That's exactly what I was just thinking, Frank.
I am well-acquainted with the "Yes, in general, but that's not me" riposte.
I can tell you right now. Objective. Now, if you would like to indulge yourself in another liberal ploy of "subjective vs objective", by all means slash away!
You didn't suggest that. You merely gave some ground in order to disarm and negate the posit. Considering socialized medicine is fine with you, I have some trouble believing that.Right, because suggesting that you might be partially, but not completely right makes ME patronizing.
I have no idea. We shall, in the coming battle, find out. (Noted that you said "your right" rather than "our right.")
Deceptive argument. Liberals believe the best way to solve the healthcare problem is to turn it over to the government. That's what they voted for and that's what they got. Government will neither allow competition nor remove regulations until sufficient political pressure is applied.
Liberals do not oppose abortion. They equivocate about it.
:chuckle: I know one when I see one.
There are some who say they are on the "right" who do exactly that. Reminds me of a former congressman in my district whose campaign theme was "I'm the true conservative. My opponent is a right-wing extremist." (He was a liberal Democrat, by the way.)
Nicely done political ploy! :up: But I am not posturing. However, I appreciate the alert notice from someone who is.On tests relating to political ideology.
Yes, what in your posture could be confused with authoritarian?
Let me see. The "tests" are objective because they agree with your vision of yourself. That would mean to me that you and the "test" perpetrator share the same biases. 'Bout sums it up, wouldn't you say?The problem with your perception is that I've taken more than that one and they agree with each other (except on the libertarian tilt) but not with you. Weird how many non objective tests there are out there, Frank. Apparently (so far) all of them. But thankfully we have non authoritarian you to set them and everyone straight.
:darwinsm:
I didn't say "wrong", I said "biased." (Yet another example of liberal argument style.)
Living in a garage doesn't make you a car.
Some taxes are legitimate and necessary. They serve to fund necessary government services which are set forth in the Constitution. Anything else is theft.
:rotfl: Patronizing again?
I like the last line: "Liberalism is an elitist doctrine, not an egalitarian one."
Then stop doing it!
:rotfl: That's the multi-cultural version of :darwinsm:.
'tain't neither, honkey.
As familiar as I am with the empty sleeve of "You're a liberal because I say you are." It's the last gasp of the sort of person I was talking about but didn't at the time believe described you.
I haven't used a ploy, liberal (because you say so) or other.
No I gave you my thoughts on the subject. Your response wasn't reasonable or reasoned and you defend it here by insinuating I was less than honest. I never am. I don't have to fool anyone because the sort of person who wouldn't respect my part and difference isn't the sort of person whose opinion would matter to me.
Actually, what I've said repeatedly on the subject is that I believe we should abolish regulations that, to my mind, inhibit competition that could or should produce affordable healthcare. I'm fine with a plan that is government sponsored to cover those who remain outside of that if there's no other option that will get the job done. And if it was universal healthcare by socialized medicine or not, but millions go without under the not I'd take the thing I don't like to achieve a moral good that overwhelms my objection.
I'm not speaking for you in any context at this point. Reading more than that into it would be odd, considering I'm a gun owner myself and have never, not once in my over 22k posts here supported any legislation to curtail gun rights. In fact, I've spoken against it. I don't believe the solution to evil is to disarm those who aren't.
Not remotely. I've been clear about that for some time. Demonstrate how it's deceptive. I can teach a parrot to call out the word.
Which I don't. Thanks for making my point for me.
So, given I didn't vote for the President and I haven't called for government to take over medicine, there's no deception. You were wrong. Again.
I think we have to distinguish between different liberal camps. The larger one is pro choice and believes the matter rests between the woman and her conscience (or want thereof). Another opposes that particular while agreeing with a majority of social positions taken by the larger group. I know any number of people in my area who are against abortion but by and large support all sorts of other social programs. There's even a pro life movement within the Democratic party.
I believe you believe that, but is it accurate? In my job I've run across many a witness who was sure of one thing or another only to be wrong about what they thought when the facts were pulled together. Unless what you see can be buttressed by an argument allowing others to see it, then all you're really saying is "I know what I know" whether you do or not.
Ah,he ever popular "I know you are but what am I?" gambit.
It's not a ploy. Let me know if you come up with an actual answer.No, but when every test you take (assuming you take more than one or two) comes back with the same result there's more reason to credit than oppose a perception in line with that and no real reason to believe other.
Not without a rational justification for the assumption, no. And it shouldn't for you.
No, you didn't say either. Is that a typical right wing extremist tactic?
And making up/declaring someone else's understanding/source material doesn't make for an argument, Frank.
What taxes do you consider outside of Constitutional authority?
It was an argument. You can call it anything else that suits you. If you can't respond on the point, respond on the person. That's an old, thin tactic, Frank.
Thought you might.
Demonstrate where I have. Quote me. Argue. Try that instead of the self satisfied, "I know what I know" nonsense.
I'm sure that means something to you. :idunno: Just mirroring your point.
:darwinsm: Very subtle ad hominem. I noticed you going personal, which is the finely-honed reflex of an exposed closet liberal.
"Cry me a River" is an old song. I'm sure you will enjoy it.
Continuation of fluster and bluster. (When one has the facts, pound on the facts. When one doesn't have the facts, pound on the table." I remember that from somewhere.)
Ok. We should get government interference out of the medical marketplace then?
Or maybe not. (I believe there is a Biblical passage about perpetrating evil that good might come of it.)
One doesn't buy into socialism as a solution for one problem and not another. It's like being "slightly pregnant."
Already been done, counselor. Let's move on, shall we?
Nice rhetorical gesture.
Really?
Legalistic hairsplitting as a duck to water.
As I said. Equivocation, deception.
I'm sure you have.
Already done and you, apparently, can't see it.
Nice try. If this weren't irrelevant, I might try to contend with it.Ah,he ever popular "I know you are but what am I?" gambit.
Yes, shared biases have a tendency to reinforce one another.
Telling me how and what to think now?
I suspect you are a self-declared expert on that subject.
Hey kids! It's time for our "let's talk down to the ignorant conservative doofus" segment.
Any tax levied in support of a federal social program.
I'm sure it is, as you have demonstrated skill at same.
Already did that. Unfortunately, you decided to impeach the witness rather than respond.
:chuckle: