What is Digg?122 Comments
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29Politicians = Hypocrisy.
I don't think we need an article to tell us this. - PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I'm a conservative and I'd have to agree with many of the points made in the article, excluding the "all conservatives are this way" kind of tone. I am very dissatisfied with many conservatives who proclaim to love freedom as much as I do and say that they adhere to "the principles of freedom they expound," but fail to meet many of those requirements in their actions. For example, I think the lack of initiative by the Republicans in Congress on the Illegal Immigration problem is pretty sad. They had (and possibly still have) a great opportunity to actually get something done, but nobody is willing to risk their seat for it. I was too young at the time to recognize it while he was in office, but I think that Ronald Reagan was the last President to come close (although there was still room for improvement) to my beliefs.
That said, do not confuse my dissatisfaction with rejection. Elected conservatives may not be as good as they should be, but they are certainly better with regard to my beliefs than most Democrats and liberals. - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28You can't put things into black and white like "All laws are an enforcement of morality, get over it. If you're not supposed to legislate morality, then we need to repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, and everything else." because there is a middle ground between believing that morality is either purely objective or relative.
Rape, murder, etc are clearly wrong, but other issues are more complicated. Can we legislate against obscenity? Who defines that, when the standards can differ so much from one person to the next? You can't tell me that you equate that issue with murder. - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Wait wait wait, it's LIBERALS giving away freedoms to protect the children? Last I checked, it was the conservative government enacting laws that remove our civil rights to make us feel safer. Last I checked, it was conservative family groups complaining bitterly every time something offended their pure morals, so that we can no longer enjoy what we choose to as adults, because some child, somewhere, might see it and become corrupted.
Don't fool yourself. This loss of freedom we've experienced in the name of safety and security was perpetrated by the conservatives in power. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22The article puts things nicely. The only difference between liberals and conservatives today is in what they'd prefer to foist on the rest of us.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Plenty of liberals are hypocrites. Plenty of conservatives aren't. Both sides have their good and bad, big deal.
The problem is that it seems that the hypocrites from BOTH sides are the ones fighting over control of America, when the people with a brain in their head are the ones left doing all the work and paying for the whole mess. I'm a liberal, and as such I'd say that the conservative politicians are more full of ***** than the liberal ones... but please don't think that by that I mean liberal politicians aren't almost as useless. - messs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15John Stewart said something to the effect of "America is run by crazy people that have nothing better to do. All the normal people are at too busy working to care." The more I think about it, the more this rings true. Sad, but true none the less.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13*cough* WHAT? Iraq is free?!
I'm not a liberal shill here, but if you have paid attention to any halfway reliable news source, you'd see that Iraq is still filled with violence and is on the verge of civil war. The country is still dominated by the same wealthy group of people that controlled it before. I really don't see how the Iraqi people are any more 'free'. The whole "we're freeing them" argument is like nails on a chalkboard. We went in to free the Vietnamese people a few decades ago, right? Oh... wait... - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Both sides fail to live up to their supposed standards. The conservative in me hates the Repub's legislation of morality and the liberal in me hates the liberals who do their best to make the world safe for 5 year olds (without actually doing so) and making the rest of us pay the price with our liberties.
But the thing that shocks me more than anything these days is how many tax and spend conservatives there are. I'm beginning to think more Libertarians are in order. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Look at our growing national debt, wavering economy, a war that wastes our economic resources, and a costly and inneffective disaster relief program and tell me again why you're a conservative.
- bkemper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Yes. "low wage" conservatives vote against their own self interest.
- Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+24Yeah, Bill Clinton got as far away from the ghetto as possible when he moved his offices to Harlem. And all those liberal "Hollywood" people pushing their liberal ideas on us while buying up all those in-style gas guzzlers called Hybrids. And, all liberals live in multi-million dollar homes. That's why I became a liberal. After filling out my Liberalization paperwork while eating Cheato's at midnight with every light on in my house, I only had to wait two weeks, and the MMDHFLF (Multi-Million Dollar Homes For Liberals Foundation) had my new MMDH ready for me to move in, complete with a large pit in back to throw all my styrofome containers in. I drove to it immediately in my vintage run-down Pinto getting 2 mpg, which cost me $200 to fill up. It'd trade it in for a Hummer getting 3 mpg, and costing only $300 to fill up, but honestly, which would scare a conservative more as you speed towards them?
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21Yeah, I agree with you, except for that part you wrote between "Funny" and "possible".
- tachyon2, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20Because we all know that liberals are never EVER hypocritical.
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"What anyone does has fallout, ripple effects. If John Doe is self-abusive, it has an impact on the lives of those around him."
So where does responsibility come in? Personally, I think I'm responsible for how I react to those around me who abuse themselves. If it's something I cannot control (such as drunk driving), then we already have laws in place for those specific consequences. If it's a child, we also have laws to deal with that. I think much of the "ripple effect" is the victim mentality.
"I can't get a job because my parents were potheads."
"If only my husband would stop drinking, I'd be happy. "
"Our marriage would be saved if pornography were illegal."
"I wouldn't be fat if McDonald's stopped making unhealthy food."
"My son would have done better in school if people got life in jail for possession of
drugs."
There comes a time when things get so bad, it's your responsibility as an adult citizen to put a stop to
the so-called "ripple effect" and move on/fix your own problems instead of expecting others to do things like write new laws to protect you from yourself or your willingness to be victimized more than once. - jjtechno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I enjoyed your article. I think I would add another characterization though. A "low wage" conservative is a bit different from the regular conservative.
- danp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This article confuses conservatives with modern Republicans, more often than not they are not the same thing.
- ccran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Well, an awful lot of people still seem to think we have to put up with these maniacs. So, I think it bears repeating.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -22/+29The difference is that liberals usually rail against forcing moral on others, when they do that as much as anyone.
All laws are an enforcement of morality, get over it. If you're not supposed to legislate morality, then we need to repeal laws against murder, rape, theft, and everything else. - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"it's funny how on one hand diggers take Jon Stewart and Colbert seriously, but then degrade O'Reilly and all of Fox as pseudo-journalism."
I understand that there are great similarities between Fox News and Comedy Central, but there are (believe it or not) differences in what they aim for. - forgiste, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13yeah, flag564, I'm a liberal (in some respects) and I don't live in a multi-million dollar home or anything like that. In fact, I reject the idea of hording money, which is something conservatives do. Conservatives revolve their lives around business and business crime, liberals are just as bad but in the other extreme. It's yin and yang. I've come to the conclusion that everyone is both liberal and conservative depending on the subject matter. My goal is to find the middle ground and avoid extremes.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Moderate congressional republicans don't want to be associated with the lunatic fringe that believes in theocracy and thinks the NYT is communist."
What ever happened to you guys? Once upon a time, not that long ago, it was guys like you that had the upper hand in the GOP - and the neocons really were seen as nothing more than a lunatic fringe.
"I bet the NY Crimes is glad there is at least one person out there willing to peddle their anti-American propaganda."
You see this is exactly the problem. In the past no one really paid attention to this idiot element within American society, the uneducated, the ignorant, the self conceited and the 'great unwashed' - in other words the lowest common denominator in any society. We knew they existed, but largely we thought it was safe to ignore them - or at least to act in a way that served their better interests, even if they didn't agree (or know) what their better interests may have been. That after all was the job of the politicians, to act in the best interests of the people, and to have better judgment of what these interests were than even perhaps the people themselves. Generally this meant that the politicians did not pander to the homophobes, the bigots and the religious extremists and the otherwise ignorant in society, even though we knew that the 'majority' of citizens probably held at least some of these views. Instead we felt we should expected our politicians to fight for and protect those things that were best about us and that were best about our society.
However these people who have hijacked the political landscape have taken an entirely different approach and instead of ignoring the 'great ignorant, unwashed/uneducated masses', they have made them their power base. This has been helped I think by the fact that education standards over the last 25 years or so have also seriously declined, so that there is now many more of these kinds of people within society than there ever were before - so it is relatively easy to carve out a power base when not only are these people the majority, but are also (and increasingly) the overwhelming majority. (A fact evidenced by distinct the lack of popular support for any moderate conservative position on these threads).
This presents a problem - because while many of you guys are saying that you wish there was 'another option', two party politics has become entrenched within the American system, so that if you did leave and place your vote elsewhere, this would probably mean that a) your vote would be wasted and b) doing so would only allow the neocons to consolidate their position and their strength from within the party.
So your only option if you do want things to change is to stay and to lobby your (moderate) representatives to try to get them to change things from within.
The whole thing is both scary and daunting - and the vilification of the free press is just one example of this. One other prime example of the vilification of the free press that springs immediately to mind (although there are many others) is the practices of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, where, while the press remains ostensibly free, his constant public attacks and propaganda, alleging a conspiracy and bias in the media against his regime, have bred a deep sense of mistrust of the media among the ordinary masses of that country, so that when he slaps them down or censures them, very few people tend to raise any real objections.
And of course as we have seen, we already have many people within the USA itself who would now happily continence the arrest, trial and possible execution of members of the press and the media, regardless of how trumped up and ridiculous the charges may in fact be. So clearly this tactic is not only being put to effective use in Venezuela - it is currently active within the borders of the USA too. It is nothing short of a de facto attempt to control the media through fear - and that fear is what might become of them if they do not comply with the wishes and interests of the government.
But not all of us are blind to the good things that Republicans have achieved in the past, or to their often noble and proud history. Once upon a time, Republicanism stood for being socially and scientifically progressive, in favor of a strong education system, of equality for people of all persuasions, while being fiscally and ethically conservative. It was after all in large part the Republican party who helped make possible the vast expansion of American industry during the first half of the 20th century, through enthusiastically embracing science, education and innovation, Republicans were also instrumental in introducing many new civil liberties bills and they helped make America the rich and powerful nation it is by encouraging intellectualism and not by only pandering to the religious extremists and the uneducated working class.
But now things are so very different - and the Republican party has changed almost beyond recognition. Perhaps the only way things will change back again for the better is not if an entirely new party is formed but rather there is shock that comes from within the party, where the moderate wing of the party formally break away from the neocons - and by doing so, once again marginalise them and place them back on the fringes where they have previously always belonged? It will of course be painful and is likely to take some time - and may even result in Republicans loosing the next couple (or even few) elections - but if you have a cancerous growth this is often painful, as the only way to deal with may be to cut it out, before it consumes both you and everything else in it's path that you hold dear.
Otherwise I fear that the American project itself may ultimately be doomed and that the nation may soon tear itself apart - and in doing so that it may allow all of its most ardent enemies to succeed in their most cherished objectives. After all if our enemies are jealous of our freedoms, surely the answer is not to surrender those freedoms; in the hope it seems that when we finally have no freedom left, that perhaps they might not hate us so much any more? - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@kindrobot
This is why we need new laws:
Smoke a joint in your own house: go to jail
Pressure a friend into drinking so much he gets alcohol poisoning: nothing - FCon4, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@bgoodknight: Always? Really?
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Drink/do drugs and drive: go to jail.
Drink/do drugs and abuse children: go to jail.
Why would we need new laws? - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Unwilling. We are fully able.
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Is spelling/grammar communist too?
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Wait wait wait, it's LIBERALS giving away freedoms to protect the children?"
Modern liberals only have themselves to blame for this common misconception. They're constantly
trying to win political battles by seeing who can be the most conservative/family values oriented liberal on the block instead of defending our rights and freedoms. Is it any surprise when the right uses this against them?
Best example of this was a Marilyn Manson fan I met (in a big way) that blamed liberals for trying to censor music/tv/internet. That's what happens. The minute liberals started trying to out-conservative each other, they created kids like that. It's nearly Orwellian in it's perfection. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think you meant to type conservative there, not liberal.
Conservatives are the ones ranting and raving about "protecting the kids". - Moleculor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Laws are not enforcement of morality, they're enforcement of rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Remember those? Rape, murder, theft, those violate those rights. You can look at -almost- every law out there and link it to the protection of either those rights, or rights outlined in the Constitution 'o the US. At least, you can for US laws. There are a few that don't fit this trend, and it's THESE laws that are mere 'enforcement of morality', such as gay-marriage bans and prostitution bans.
- bmh129, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The trouble with this article is that it wishes to classify all people as conservative or liberal, with the few who don't fit neatly into those two categories classified as moderates and then ignored. But that's a false dilemma.
People are unique and they all have their own perspectives on life and politics. There are anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, classical liberals, modern liberals, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, environmentalists, communists, socialists, fascists, etc. Some people are even a mixture of two or more ideologies. And some ideologies that have similar names are not made up of people that agree with each other (i.e. classical liberals and modern liberals). No two people in one group is exactly alike. - adam84a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Interesting article, as a conservative I agree with much of it. This just highlights the real problem in politics. Both Liberals and Conservatives just do not care what the people want. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative that doesn’t agree, at least in part, with this article. The problem is that conservatives have no viable recourse… vote in a liberal that will go completely against your wishes, or vote in a ‘conservative’ that may actually do what he says he’ll do, but probably not.
This really speaks to the problem America as a whole is facing. The people are unable to keep their leader's accountable. - Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10gee, maybe it has something to do with the massive tax cuts that Bush gave to, almost entirely, the rich? Perhaps?
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The evolution of the American voter --- first liberal then conservative and finally independent. Eventually, most come around to realizing that the political rhetoric is just a lot of noise and pandering with plenty of hypocrisy on all sides.
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah... Iraq is free. The latest bombing in the civil war that's going on there killed over 100 people. It's amazing we can't sell this kind of freedom to other countries, and have to invade to bring it to them.
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well said!
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The part about cigarettes annoyed me. The article didn't go far enough. They mention that people should have the right to ingest whatever dangerous drugs they wish as long as they don't infringe on the safety of others, and use cigarettes as an example of a hypocritical excpetion. But cigarette smoking is legal in public and second hand smoke is a huge danger to others - just ask any waiter or waitress.
- MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The difference is that Jon Stewart and the Daily show is comedy, and never claims to be anything but. People get their news and analysis from it because despite its format, it actually is insightful and brilliant satire. It's presented as comedy, but behind it is serious stuff.
Bill O'Reilly is the exact opposite. He's a joke, but takes himself completely seriously, and is basically a douche. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3FYI US Democrats are further right than Canada's Conservative party. America is a conservative country. Canadian Liberals and particularly New Democrats are basically Communists in the eyes of Americans.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, the article confuses conservatives with politicians. The only political party I've seen make sensible and deliverable promises is Canada's Green Party. At least they plan ahead more than 5-year intervals.
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Beautifully stated! Thank you for putting this all in one coherent series of thoughts!
The latter statements about the need for revolution within the Republican Party really rang true for me. Canada's conservative parties, the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties, competed on their varying levels of "rightitude". They've recently merged into one cohesive party which earned the a lot of votes but diminished their focus. I'm sure many people who voted Conservative in the recent federal election did not want to increase our military presence in Afghanistan, for example, or to revisit the supposedly concluded debate on gay marriage.
So is politics really the solution? Maybe North America could benefit from a bloodless civil war of sorts. Lefties live west and righties live east, and each half is governed appropriately. Maybe both sides just need a little quiet time and the opportunity to live in an environment closer to their own ideals. I'd much rather be debating buses vs. cars than the definition of marriage. - KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You're right. It wasen't a news report. It was an opinion piece.
- fakesman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Those kinds of hypocrisies are an inescapable condition of modern life. If you work and you pay taxes, you're probably supporting something that you morally object to -- whether it's war, suppression of civil liberties, or social programs. We live in pluralistic societies. There are a lot of conflicting ideals at work.
What I think is important is the direction of your thoughts, actions and feelings. Wanting the world to be better, sustainable, and more peaceful certainly doesn't hurt anything.
Oh, and all liberals aren't rich. Some of them don't even drive. I'm living proof. - LizardSlayer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8What a pointless ramble.
Simple summary: Anyone that fails to live the principles that they expound is a hypocrite, regardless of their political ilk. - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I thought that applies to people who post in web forums. For example, it seems many call themselves Libertarians, but only .5% of voters actually voted Libertarian. The remaining normal people simply have better things to do than waste their time in political threads
But the real question is, am I wasting my time in threads, or am I just normal and pointing out that everyone else wastes time.... - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Matt
Yes, we agree on that completely. Regardless of how things may be playing out currently, conservatives are far more known that liberals for legislating in favor of specific morality. I just wish I could find more liberals willing to take a stand for rights and freedoms that are a little less politically correct. The main concern is fighting censorship and standing up for privacy. So few seem to be willing to fight for these. And voting conservative pretty much assures that the opposite is guaranteed these days. Voting pure libertarian means saying goodbye to social services, which in some cases can cut down on crime and improve the overall economy. Preventative health care is one you can count on. - KicktheDonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Just checked my pay check stub... Yep. Still a Liberal.
Will there be anything else? - ccran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@helix400
I see one or two libertarian sentiments on this thread at this point. And a simple explanation for libertarians not voting libertarian is that many libertarians don't vote. They don't recognize our political system as legitimate in any way. - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"The reason why drugs are illegal (and does not constitute a violation of individual rights) is because unlike other things, drugs affects those around you."
Every ***** thing affects those around you. Drinking. Smoking cigarettes. Playing WoW too much. Being a born-again Christian (personally, I'd much rather my kid smoked pot than uncritically engaged in the mindless adoration of a Midianite volcano god).
And yes, drugs affect those around you. "if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favour. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years ... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal ***** high on drugs." - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@kindrobot: It's still the conservatives who've done this far more than liberals, but you're right that there are politicians out there who are supposed to be liberal but pander to family groups and social conservatives. They're not doing us any favors either.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is