View Full Version : Defined
The following email came from "Z". Initially we had a bit of an argument going back and forth, but ultimately we ended up agreeing on much more than either of us thought we would. I guess you can reason with some liberals - as long as they are not too far to the Left. This is a long thread but I think it is a good one and worth the read. But you did come here to read, so read. :wink:
From: Z.
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:43 PM
To: IHL
Subject: Defined
liberal, adj.
1a Open-minded, tolerant
1b Favoring civil and political liberties
2a Tending to give freely; generous
Your website, therefore, is "IHateTheOpenMindedAndTolerant.com" This speaks volumes. Thank you for revealing in one, simple URL what the conservative right stands for.
I've had people try to use this argument before. It's a specious argument at best.
You can put any label you want on it, call yourselves liberals, Democrats, The Left, or whatever you want. Call yourself cowboys for all I care. The point is, we know what you represent. Tax the "rich", protest war when America is attacked, big government, and social giveaways for those unwilling but able to work.
You know what liberals of today are as well as I do, and they are not what that definition describes. Nice try though. I can't blame you for wanting to put a better face on liberalism these days.
FROM "Z"...
Yes, tax the rich. End the tax havens and loopholes for the corporations that get them out of +/- $800M in taxes every year.
This war was not retaliation against an attack. Iraq did not attack us. This war has no purpose. Iraq does not want us there. Things are worse than when Hussein was in power. Bush declared the war over. So what is going on over there now, exactly? We've got everything under control, is that what I am to believe?
Where is bin Laden? Isn't Bush dedicated to getting him, dead or alive? Funny, how the last mention of him, previous to the most recent tape, was Bush claiming he wasn't too worried about bin Laden, and never really thought about him. You know what would help stop terrorist attacks on us and our people? If we stopped provoking every country we could. Stop making enemies, stop alienating what few allies we have. Stop acting like the world is ours.
No, I don't propose social giveaways. But I sure as hell am against giveaways to corporations and those who run them because they can afford to buy politicians. Like that little freebie to Halliburton. I am in favor of compassion. Kind of like how Bush claims to be, only I mean it. I am in favor of a person's right to love how they choose, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make a bunch of knuckle-dragging, inbred, shotgun toting, shoeless rednecks in Kentucky. I am in favor of a woman having control over her own body. I am not a Democrat. I just support all of the good in the world that conservatives fight so hard to suppress and destroy.
I'm not trying to group you into a stereotype of liberals. The point is that no matter what you call them, the 'liberals' tend to overwhelmingly support the things I described.
I've never understood the argument for taxing our way to prosperity. While I understand there are abuses to the system and changes need to be made, a rich person is not one making 200K a year as the folks Kerry wanted to go after. Especially when you consider the small businesses that file as individuals.
We will not change each others mind regarding the war. But if you think this world is not better off with Hussein gone, then we will agree on little else. While there may not be an absolutely direct link between Hussein and 9/11, Hussein is most certainly a link in the chain of terrorism. I agree with the president that we should not be in strictly a defensive position and only attack those that directly attack us. The argument of preemption is a tenuous one but I think it is necessary. Waiting until we are attacked is waiting for huge trouble. That is not to say we just go in and bomb whoever we feel like. But you certainly can not argue that Hussein was not given fair warning. Over a decade of warnings from the U.N. had no effect on him. The only way he was going to comply was with force.
Bush claiming he wasn't too worried about bin Laden is taken very much out of context. If you look at the rest of his message, his point was that stopping one man, in this case bin Laden, will not end terrorism. You can't just worry about one guy, catch him and think your problem is fixed. This war on terror is much more far reaching than many, especially many liberals, are willing to accept.
And to think if we leave the terrorists alone that they will leave us alone is naive. Bill Clinton did nothing to retaliate against terrorist during his term. The '93 attack on the WTC, embassy bombings, Mogadishu, USS Cole, etc etc. Clinton did nothing. Did the terrorists leave us alone? No, they got bolder and more empowered. Do you really believe you can reason with these people? They have waged a war on us, on our way of life, on our beliefs. They will not stop until they destroy us - or better yet, until we destroy them.
On social issues such as abortion I'm much more liberal than you would probably think. If pressed for an answer I'd have to say I'm pro choice but what a horrible decision to have to make.
Gay marriage is also a tough one and one that frankly I don't have a good argument for. I'm against it, not because the people are gay. No one is denying their right to be gay. But I do believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and the vast majority of Americans from both sides feel that way.
Conservatives don't try to stop good from happening. It's a difference on how it should be achieved. Liberals tend to look at things more emotionally than conservatives.
FROM "Z"...
To: IHL
Subject: Re: Defined
Hmmm...perhaps there is hope for you and I to have a civil discussion. :-)
I have mixed feelings on taxation of individuals. But there is no denying that most politicians, democrat and republican alike, are friends to the ultrarich. And the concept of trickle down economics has been proven wrong time and time again. Ask any economist who is not on the government payroll, and they will tell you that. Where I am most in favor of overhauling our tax system is in regards to large corporations. It's sad how many favors a company can gain and how many millions (sometimes billions) of dollars they can save just by sending a very, very small fraction of profits to the politicians. Again, this is a sad fact that applies to democrats and republicans. I suppose I would be considered a liberal, but I would probably vote for McCain in a hearbeat, because I think he truly believes in campaign finance reforms and ending these kinds of favors to corporate America.
I respect your thoughts on abortion. Personally, I am not as liberal as many in that respect. I am opposed to partial birth and third trimester abortions except in situations where the mother's life is in jeopardy. I feel that in nearly ANY situation, 6 months is more than enough time to make that choice. But like you, I recognize that it is not my choice to make. For good or bad, it is the woman's, and she is the one who has to deal with and live with that choice.
And again, I respect your opinion on homosexuality, if not your position on the marriage issue. You have a better outlook than many. Despite what you said, though, there are many religious zealots on the far far right who DO want to deny their right to be gay. And as far as the "sanctity of marriage" argument that many conservatives use, it's hard to take seriously when this country has a divorce rate somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% (I don't remember the exact number). I think some conservatives fear that the gay population would have a much lower divorce rate, and in a sense it would add legitimacy to homosexuality, which many of them (not you, apparently) fear.
You do have to admit that a lot on the far right have pretty poor track records. You say that conservatives don't try to stop good from happening. But a lot of them have. Look at people like Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond. Even Ashcroft, if I remember correctly, was a strong supporter of segregation and an opponent of civil rights. I'm not saying the democrats are saints But I don't count myself as one of them, either, as you have probably gathered. I just think it is sick that people with such a long track record of racism and discrimination are allowed to hold public office and represent the people.
I don't agree with you that conservatives are less emotional, not as a group. Issues like gay marriage and abortion tend to provoke just as emotional a response on both sides.
As for the war and terrorism...very touchy, and I don't think we are going to come to any agreement. However, I will share my thoughts as you did. Is the world better off without Hussein? Probably. But whatabout the Iraqi people, and where they are now? Are they better off? Is the world better off without the 1000+ American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis? And if we were concerned with the welfare of the Iraqi people, why didn't we show it before? Why didn't we lift the embargos that were doing nothing to hard Hussein, but resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands of children there over the past decade? Again, I'm not taking sides politically. Clinton did nothing to rectify this situation. And what of the other countries where just as bad, if not worse, things are happening? East Timor? Sudan? Saudi Arabia (they are just as guilty of genocide against the Kurds as Iraq was)? What is the criteria for picking our battles? If we want to be the police of the world, it has to be done right. What would you think of a cop who arrests one thief, but ignores another? Or more accurately, arrests one person plotting murder, while ignoring someone actually committing a murder? In some cases, terrorist attacks on us are reaping what we have sown. There is a book by Chalmers Johnson called 'Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire'. Read it. It is especially important right now. Maybe leaving terrorists alone isn't the answer. But neither is provoking them, and creating new ones, which is what our misguided foreign policies often do.
Sorry this became so long and drawn out. But there are my thoughts and opinions. Feel free to write back if you want.
Regards,
"Z"
Of course there is hope for a civil discussion. We conservatives are a wonderful bunch of people. You are welcome anytime.
I'm not sure what I can add to our discussion since we've hit a lot of topics but taxes is one that I'll address. Again, if taxes were the answer, why not raise taxes on everyone and just tax our way to prosperity? The answer is, that taxes tend to cause events to subside. If you tax people too much, their incentive is decreased. There was a time not too long before Ronald Reagan were the highest marginal tax rate was way above 60%. In the 50's and 60's that rate was as high as 90%. Reagan lowered the rate to 28% and increased revenue due to the growth of investment in new businesses, improvements and incentive. How much incentive is there to be successful if 90% of your efforts go to the government. Unfortunately spending was out of control and the increased revenues were gobbled up by exorbitant spending. A whole other issue. I'm not saying there are not tax loopholes and abuses. What I am saying is that many on the left tend to look at corporations as evil entities. This is very true of many unions who hate the very company that signs their checks. Remember the saying "I have never been given a job by a poor man". Tax the corporations too much and I think you create a bigger problem. The CEOs will get their money. The cutbacks will come in the form of fewer benefits, less expansion, and ultimately hurt the workers and consumers.
As I said, I would have to say I am pro choice. I see no time when partial birth abortion should be legal except in cases of risk to the mother but those are extremely rare. With that exception in mind, I don't think a baby of full term should be allowed to be aborted even if the mother wants it. To completely deliver a baby with the exception of the head still being inside the mother, then killing the baby is murder. Some may see it as a judgment call, a 'technicality' that the baby still isn't completely born but I don't see it that way at all. At what point do cells become a life? I don't know. But I do know that a full term healthy baby being killed is murder. That may not stand up in court but at some point common sense has to enter into the argument.
The gay marriage issue is my weakest from a debate standpoint. I see both sides. It's just something inside me that says that in the long run it would be a bad idea. America isn't ready for it yet. I'm sure there will be a day, but it isn't here yet. I think the 11 states that banned it will attest to that.
And then there is terror. I just have to reject the argument that you create more terrorists by rooting out terrorists. Sure, you may have more that sign up, but they are much weaker and much less organized. Let them sign up. They are signing their death warrants. I don't believe we are creating terrorists and I don't believe they will ever leave us alone until they are so weakened, so demoralize that they see their efforts are futile. You asked if a cop arrests one thief and ignores others, is that fair? No. But it happens all the time. Think of speeders on the highway. They know they can't stop them all. They may actually have to pick one out of a crowd of speeders. It doesn't change the fact he was speeding and it sends a message to all those other cars that pass by. And what do they do? They slow down. We need to send a message to terrorists that your days are numbered. To the countries that have plans of terror, like Libya did - your days are numbered too. Will it piss off some? Yes. And if they want to get brave and plot attacks against us, we will kill them. I agree that if people are free and not ruled by bodies like the Taliban, they will not breed terrorists. The Saddam loyalists remaining are expected to fight hard. The only thing they know is being taken from them.
So, you ready to vote Republican next election? :icon_cool
From "Z"...
To: IHL
Subject: Re: Defined
I'll consider voting Republican if they put McCain on the ticket,
depending on who his running mate is. Otherwise, well, we'll see. I'm from IL, so Obama would appeal to me on a Democratic ticket, but most likely I'll still go Green or Independent.
And yes, some conservatives are good people. Some are not. Same as any other cross section, really. You seem to be one of the better conservatives I've spoken with, for sure.
Do you find it at all ironic that your positions on things such as abortion and homosexuality would alienate a lot of your more conservative visitors? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just think it's odd. In my opinion, you are much more moderate than conservative. I respect your views, I just think that a large portion of your fan base would be opposed to them.
I don't think rooting out terrorists necessarily creates new ones, no. But I think many of our actions DO create new ones. You don't think that the parents, children, and siblings of all the innocents who were killed in Iraq, all the relatives of the collateral damage, are going to harbor a great deal of resenment towards us? I just dislike how we as a country seem to think of ourselves as US citizens, NOT world citizens. A lot of times, we only look at how our actions affect us, not the rest of the world. And we end up antagonizing and alienating a LOT of people that way. Capturing and killing terrorists is pointless if we ignore the root causes of that terrorism. As one small example, look at Palestine. Those people as a whole hate us, because for all our talk on peace, they have watched for decades as the Israelis have killed and oppressed them with American money and American weapons. We need to examine our actions much more closely, I think. We are looking at the "war on terror" in the hear and now, and not thinking about how we can keep people from WANTING to attack us. We only want to deal with it now, after things have come to a breaking point, and a terrible attack on our soil has occurred. And again...this is a criticism of our government, not just republicans or democrats.
Well, that's about all I can say, at least about the current topics. Glad we were able to be amicable about this, and whether or not I agree, it was nice to hear some other viewpoints.
McCain might be a common ground we could agree on, but reluctantly for me. I don't agree with McCain on many things and campaign finance is one of them. I think the McCain/Feingold Bill is an abomination. It did nothing to stop big money. Look at the $27 million from George Soros alone. And anyone that sides with Russ Feingold is automatically suspect to me. But, if it means beating Hillary, I'd vote for McCain in a heartbeat.
I'm sure my positions on some topics would alienate some. Frankly, I don't care. The site is mine, I started and created every bit of it myself and if someone likes it great and if they don't that's great too.
This whole website has become a lot more than I thought it ever would. I started it as sort of a joke to someone I was having an email debate with, much like we are except much more heated. I typed in the ihateliberals.com in a browser to send him there as a joke and there was no site and the name had just expired and was available. I grabbed it, threw together a quick site and rest is history. I've since updated things and revamped the site completely but before I knew it, I was getting email from all over - both good and bad. The truth is I don't really like the name and I'd like to change it to something a little less harsh but I haven't come up with a good name.
From "Z"...
To: IHL
Subject: Re: Defined
No McCain's bill did little to stop big money. But I have read up on it, some, and it was VERY much gutted from the original bill that he drew up. I know VERY little about Feingold, so I can't comment on that.
I applaud your willingness to stick your beliefs, and not let yourself be predefined as a conservative. I think many people on both sides claim beliefs that they don't really agree with, because they want to stay in the liberal or conservative mold. And I think that is stupid.
Again, thank you for the interesting, yet civilized debate/discussion.
Take care,
Zach
And this email demonstrates that if two people can respect each others opinions without resorting to name calling and personal attacks, an intelligent discourse can ensue.
This rarely happens. It's usually an initial email of something like "you suck, your site sucks and all conservatives are full of shit.". That doesn't leave much room for discussion.
So the next time you have a debate with a liberal, try using logic. It will most likely fail with them but it's worth a shot. Try to leave emotions out of it.
"Zach" is an exception. He seems to be a good guy. We disagreed on some topics to which we will probably never agree, but the reason I put this long thread on the site is to show that it is possible to have a civil discussion with someone with whom you disagree. If we could get more of this, I think we'd all be better off.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.