What do liberals do when they finally accept that they cannot win an argument?

[seneca_roman]

Quote from killthesunshine:

has a liberal ever lost an argument

The most extreme of either party are unwilling to listen to any other points of view; so you are correct.

To answer your question I need to know what is the definition of a liberal?

Seneca

 

[killthesunshine]

a functional definition might be..

a conservative is someone who prides himself on having been placed out in the middle of field many miles at age of 5 could find his way home.

a liberal having discovered the child's plight would take him in, feed him, and help him find his way back.

so, perhaps the short answer is empathy for another?

 

[Arnie]

I think part of the problem is that many conservatives view the present administration as an extension of Reagan and conservatism, simply because its Republican. The two could not be more different. Liberals on the other hand have never given Reagan his due and don't understand a very important point: For every $1 Reagan increased military spending, the congress increased domestic spending by $1.03. So who is really to blame? One thing about Reagan, he had an unflenching belief in core principles, but he also knew when to punt. He compromised much more than Bush. He understood that politics is really about compromise. And he did so without sacrificing his core principles: a strong military, tax policy that favoured growth and individual liberty. Bush, on the other hand, ran on a platform of no "nation building". Look what that got us! I think there are valuable ideas on both sides. It seems more and more that it is the extreme right and left that are dominating national politics.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from seneca_roman:

Conservatives that I know are certain of their position and are unwilling to even listen.

For example, one group of people I know was and still is convinced that Obama is a Muslim even after McCain said otherwise.

So you are correct, there is no arguing.

Seneca

True story, just yesterday I was talking to an old man who didn't trust Obama because he was Muslim, poor dumb fuck. He said he gets his information from listening to Rush and Hannity. Then he went on to tell me how Bush was the right man at the right time, how Iraq is a success and how the democrats are responsible for all the problems of the Bush presidency and the national debt and how Clinton is also responsible for the current spending problem. There are a large percentage of republicans just as stupid and out of touch as this man. He actually thinks Jesus would vote republican.
Republicans, the stupidity would be funny if they weren't so dangerous.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Arnie B drinking the Ronnie Juice...

Quote from Arnie:

I think part of the problem is that many conservatives view the present administration as an extension of Reagan and conservatism, simply because its Republican. The two could not be more different. Liberals on the other hand have never given Reagan his due and don't understand a very important point: For every $1 Reagan increased military spending, the congress increased domestic spending by $1.03. So who is really to blame? One thing about Reagan, he had an unflenching belief in core principles, but he also knew when to punt. He compromised much more than Bush. He understood that politics is really about compromise. And he did so without sacrificing his core principles: a strong military, tax policy that favoured growth and individual liberty. Bush, on the other hand, ran on a platform of no "nation building". Look what that got us! I think there are valuable ideas on both sides. It seems more and more that it is the extreme right and left that are dominating national politics.

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from killthesunshine:

a functional definition might be..

a conservative is someone who prides himself on having been placed out in the middle of field many miles at age of 5 could find his way home.

a liberal having discovered the child's plight would take him in, feed him, and help him find his way back.

so, perhaps the short answer is empathy for another?

Not bad.
However, IMO, the reason debate is usually futile is that BOTH parties are classical liberals.

Here is one definition from an online dictionary (other non biased sources will be similar):

"
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. "

So IMO being called a liberal is a nice compliment.

Seneca

 

[oktiri]

Quote from bigarrow:


Republicans, the stupidity would be funny if they weren't so dangerous.

David Brooks is starting to float this idea that the party has been hijacked by stupid poor southern rural dumb fucks. if they don't wake up, they'll never win a national election or a majority in congress again.
They have to abandon the immigration issue or they lose the Latinos, and if they abandon the immigration issues get who these new Americans are going to vote for. For the GOP, the future is lose-lose

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

Quote from Gringinho:

Calling someone fascist is easy, just check the trademarks/characteristics and you can easily tell if someone holds fascist ideas. Racist .. well, believing there are racial differences where one is superior to others - then one is a racist.

There are no "races" per DNA, but rather regions and ethnic heritance etc. No "racial superiority" in the mix - nature is very varied and most of the DNA is dormant.

Many are supremacists - or think that they are (ethnically) "exceptional" etc... they are borderline racists in my view.

The human genome project refuted the idea that life started in Africa and the "New, Improved Model" appeared in Europe 50,000 years later. You don't hear about that at all though. Really, it was the biggest news of the last hundred years, was it not? fricking "science" and this culture make me sick...

Liberals used their political power in the last century to take over the schools and the media. Then they bashed Bush 24/7 for 8 years, poured three quarters of a Billion dollars into an advertising campaign and took the White House.. does that prove that they are right about anything? No, they can be, and likely are, completely wrong about every thing but it does not matter to them at all...

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from Fractals 'R Us:

The human genome project refuted the idea that life started in Africa and the "New, Improved Model" appeared in Europe 50,000 years later. You don't hear about that at all though. Really, it was the biggest news of the last hundred years, was it not? fricking "science" and this culture make me sick...

Liberals used their political power in the last century to take over the schools and the media. Then they bashed Bush 24/7 for 8 years, poured three quarters of a Billion dollars into an advertising campaign and took the White House.. does that prove that they are right about anything? No, they can be, and likely are, completely wrong about every thing but it does not matter to them at all...

Do you have a citation for the refutation of the out of Africa thesis?

this article written last year affirms with recent DNA findings the out of Africa theory.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm

Seneca