Real World Event Discussions

Browncoats and politics...

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, November 5, 2009 04:45
VIEWED: 6856
PAGE 5 of 6

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Conservative in the United States means someone who believes in a variety of political values including but not limited to strong defense, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, pro business, family values, and personal responsibility. Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).

I've heard other conservatives mention these things and it always feels (and is obviously meant to) sound like these are things exclusive to Conservatives, like Liberals do NOT believe in Family Values or Strong Defense... typical conservative googlie talk.

Seems everyone has different definitions/associations with Liberal and Conservative, even within each group.

My Simplified view in terms of Firefly and the crew: Conservatives are the wealthy land owners (Magistrate Higgins, "I only make the people I own use my title"), the Power Brokers/Users (The Alliance ship in the pilot, "It's a Firefly class... they still make those?"), the country club set (Ash, "I own her.").
The crew are the poor and Liberals - by almost anyone's definition - have been the group that is most closely associate with the underfunded.

Anyone see Beck or Limbaugh welcomed onto Serenity?
I can see Ted Nugent and Jayne having long conversations though...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 3:53 PM

Dream, I agree in general with your definition of conservatives versus liberal, however I do think you may be OVERsimplifying all the political identities to fit them into versions of liberal and conservative that I find somewhat too broad.

Here's mine.

Liberals tend to rally around civil rights, establish some baseline equalities then let things run as they will. Socialists like social programs to fix things and often want to MAKE things equal. Conservatives, as you say, want to conserve, hold tight to traditions and values that they fear might otherwise be lost. Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians want to see less big government and are pro-business. Anarchists are anti-government and anti-big business, and are considered extremists because of drastic changes they'd like to see implemented in the socio-economic system.

Neocons have a number of similarity to the tenets of pro-corporatism, nationalism, and government supported economy that are involved in fascism. I don't think the comparison is unjustified. I would even call Neocons right-wing fascists.

Communists already have the nationalism and government supported economy. Increasingly, with the introduction of corporatism, communist nations such as China are becoming increasingly fascist. Though most communist governments actually end up being self-serving, in principle communist governments are intended to be a social program in of themselves, so I consider them left-wing fascists.

KWICKO

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Certain 'conservative' positions make no sense to me,...

Thats because your getting to caught up in the word "conserve".

A political conservative does not mean the person wants to conserve everything anymore then hamburgers are made out of ham.

Which has about as much to do with hamburgers as if you claimed that the city of Hamburg, Germany was made out of ham, or that frankfurters are made out of guys named Frank.

Quote:
Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).

So in effect you're saying that conservatives are anti-labor (they hate working people), anti-education, pro-war (what's the point of having a military if you're not bombing the fuck out of someone, right?), anti-progress, and against central planning (except for "homeland security", torture, warrantless wiretaps, and secret prisons).

Is that what you meant to say?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 7:14 PM

DT, you list me as being "pro" gun control. I think you may not have as clear an understanding of me as you think. To me, "gun control" means hitting what you aim at, and the very best gun control is a steady hand.

I'd like to see RESPONSIBLE gun ownership given some priority, and along with it, some kind of tiered licensing system that would allow you to move up the ladder in what you're allowed to own.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 9:39 PM

Mike,

I listed you as pro-gun control?!?!?

I don't think so, but maybe I was asleep at the wheel. I probably listed Frem as Dobson's protege and a CFR member, said Pirate News was Jewish and Wulf was a civil rights leader.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 9:42 PM

Wow, Im not even IN this thread and I get snarked.

NIKI2

Wednesday, November 4, 2009 10:44 PM

Ago: It was a straightforward question, not maliciously intended. Just what I have observed. But no, your answer does not suffice; you didn't bother to answer the question at all, just expressed your disgust.

DT

Quote:
These people end up in charge of political groups. This is because groups select them for
1) loyalty
2) assertiveness
They need someone who can shepherd the flock, but will never themselves stray.

I agree to a degree; but I don't think never straying comes into it, more that their straying goes unrecognized or instantly forgiven. Interestingly, isn't that just what was postulated by the "Authorities" author I posted long ago?

Hero, I suggest that your views are pretty skewed--from what I see, people who get attacked here are so because of HOW they write, not what they write; tho' in many cases I also see people attacked for stating flatly that something is "so" without any room for dissent, and for stating things so out of reality that it's impossible to respond except for with disdain. I do also see valid arguments attacked, but I don't see what you do.

Limbaugh and Beck are the worst kind of posers; what they do, they do for money, catering to an audience and doing so in the most radical ways possible, to the point of idiocy. I think attacking them is perfectly reasonable. Palin, if investigated carefully, is a joke and nothing more. Whatever she may espouse, it's not what she LIVES and quitting midterm to make money isn't something I admire.

Defining all the various types of beliefs is too complex for me, and since their power is represented by Democrats and Republicans, and those are the only two real choices people have to vote into power, I'll lump conservatives with Republicans and liberals with Democrats, and everyone else as following one or the other in practice.

As to liberals, you obviously leave no recognition for those of us who find value in liberal ideas and conservative ideas, but are not radicals to either side and are of a more liberal bent for a number of reasons. To say Joe Lieberman is a "true believer" goes a long ways to discount your view of liberals for me, as well. What you espouse is way too black and white, as compared to reality, in my view.

I'm with Sig and Magon in what I see here by way of values and "parties". I do agree, however, that Mal wasn't an atheist, he rejected religion CONSCIOUSLY (but I'd say not subconsciously) because he felt God abandoned him. As well, I see the Alliance as the "conservative" aspect of Firefly, in that they are the ones in power, representatives of big business,pro-military might, in favor of using labor with no regard to its quality of life, class based, and energetic in stifling dissent.

I also agree with Story, in that I see at least as many absurd arguments from the right as from the left, if not more. I'm not sure what you consider "substantive", but I'm pretty sure it's not what I consider it, nor even close.

I, too, wonder why some of the posters here watched the show...or CAME here, for that matter, but I would add PN at the top of the list. For Hero to say it was the most conservative show on TV blows my mind, and shows how differently people see things.

For me, your choice of name and signature, Hero, says a lot about you, as does what you write. I usually find you less offensive than the hard-corers, but pretty much as close-minded.

Quote:
Conservative in the United States means someone who believes in a variety of political values including but not limited to strong defense, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, pro business, family values, and personal responsibility. Liberals are folks that are pro labor, pro scoial programs, anti-military, progressive values, and central planning (of many different things).

I have difficulty with this definition. From what I have seen, "strong defense" is more often "strong offense", "pro-military", and "pro-war" in the ACTIONS of the party that is considered "conservative". I have seen "low taxes"

KWICKO

Thursday, November 5, 2009 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

I listed you as pro-gun control?!?!?

I don't think so, but maybe I was asleep at the wheel. I probably listed Frem as Dobson's protege and a CFR member, said Pirate News was Jewish and Wulf was a civil rights leader.

Believe it or not, you really did. I thought it was a bit jarring myself, because you included Wulf as well. And Wulf may be many, many things when it comes to guns, but "control" isn't a word I'd use in association with him.

Relax, Wulf; I'm just snarking you a bit more for pointing out that you got snarked via drive-by in this thread!

Quote:
Posted by DreamTrove:

[emphasis added is mine, and I quoted the whole section just for the sake of context.]

To us, Australians seem very conservative. I suspect you identify with Labour from your UK days, but the actual perspective, everyone is probably a mix. I would say that I would identify both Mike and Frem as moderate conservatives, but liberal on some issues. Mike probably as a democrat and I'd guess Frem would vote third party if at all. I say this as opposed to people who I think of as solidly liberal here, like Rue, Sig and Niki. I'd say River is a conservative, fairly solidly, though not a the GOP's vision. I'd say Geezer is very conservative, more so than Hero, who I think is generally conservative, but much more republican than conservative. I'd also identify Byte as more conservative than Frem or Mike, probably pretty close politically to myself. I don't know what Wulf is, he doesn't state any ideological political positions. He supports gun control, but so does Mike, and as you said, it's not really a conservative issue, just one that the republicans have taken up. He also opposes black people. I don't think there's a party for that ;) (Again, Ironically, blacks are overwhelming democrats, but I'm not sure why. After being the Slavery/Klan party, I would think they would never get a black vote, just like they seldom get a native vote because of the indian removal act. I know that the GOP lost the black vote over the speed at which civil rights reforms took place. More irony: The republicans started the reforms under Eisenhower, but I would grant that they prefer slow change, and the Democrats came along with faster change. I suspect that this is more economic than political, blacks are lower income, and generous social programs benefit them more. Wealthy blacks are no more likely to be democrats than the general population.)

I'm not offended or anything, it just threw me a bit. I was like, "Whoa - who's the 'Mike' guy he's talking about?"

And then I saw Wulf's name in there as well, and I was REALLY wondering what posts you'd been reading!

Anyhoo, no worries at all. You and I have no problems, just minor quibbles about a few things. We're in agreement on far more than we disagree about; just thought I should point that out, since we seem to be disagreeing more lately than usual, at least on things political.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

KWICKO

Thursday, November 5, 2009 12:41 AM

Quote:

I also agree with Story, in that I see at least as many absurd arguments from the right as from the left, if not more. I'm not sure what you consider "substantive", but I'm pretty sure it's not what I consider it, nor even close.

Well, what passes for "substantive" debate among the "conservatives" I've heard basically amounts to Limbaugh referring to Obama as "boy", saying that it doesn't matter whether Obama actually WROTE the fictional hoax thesis that Limbaugh quoted for more than half his show because Limbaugh knows that Obama actually THINKS it, and Beck saying that Obama hates white people. But you know, as long as they're just attacking him on "the issues", and not attacking him personally, it's all good. :)

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, November 5, 2009 12:50 AM

Quote:
To us, Australians seem very conservative. I suspect you identify with Labour from your UK days, but the actual perspective, everyone is probably a mix.

Actually, most Australians would be considered well left of your centre - regardless of what political party they support. To us the American right (neo con) seems very, very far right and libertarians seem a bit crazy.

As a nation, we did drift more towards the right after 9/11.

My point was - most people have a hotchpotch of views like mine - we don't sign a creed of beliefs at 18 (do we?) trying to polarise them one way or another is really counterproductive.

I did say that my definitions of liberal and conservative were basic definitions. I pretty much agree with Bytemite's definitions