History simplified

I'm hoping to start a dialogue about what defines today's conservatives and liberals for what they are. Personally, I seem to be all over the place, and don't fit neatly into any pre-formed niche of political viewpoint. I try to take each issue on its own merits and decide what I think will be acceptable position for reasonable compromise. I don't always follow any party line or politically defined agenda. That said, I want to start things of with a stylized, controversial statement on what defines these terms we apply to ourselves and each other, and we'll take it from there.


"An interesting take:

Division of the human family into two distinct political groups began some
12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic
hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains in the summer and
would go to the beach and live on fish & lobster in winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer
and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the
beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization, and together were
the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
Liberals and Conservatives. Once beer was discovered it required grain, and
that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum
can was invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around
waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery.
That's how villages were formed. Some men spent their days tracking and
killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the
beginning of what is known as "the Conservative movement." Other men who
were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned to live off the
conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ and doing the sewing,
fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal
men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as "girliemen."
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the
trade union, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept
of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most
powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the
donkey. Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most
prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish, but like
their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal
fare. Another interesting evolutionary side note: Most of
their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.
Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in
Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the
designated hitter rule in baseball, because it wasn't "fair" to make the
pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for
their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks,
construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate
executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively
outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives
who want to work for a living. Liberals produce little or nothing. They like
to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production.
Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why
most of the liberals remained in Europe, when conservatives were coming to
America. Then the Liberals crept in after the Wild West was tamed, and
created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing.
And you thought history was boring."

any comments?




[edit on 16-4-2005 by Icarus Rising]

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
any comments?

You're a plagiarist and a liar.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Personally, I seem to be all over the place, and don't fit neatly into any pre-formed niche of political viewpoint. I try to take each issue on its own merits and decide what I think will be acceptable position for reasonable compromise. I don't always follow any party line or politically defined agenda.

To which I'll add a conservative plagiarist and liar.



EDIT: Okay, maybe not a liar, but certainly much more biased than you'd like to present yourself as being. That spam piece is real pro-con, anti-lib hackery and you aren't totally blind. Are you?

[edit on 16-4-2005 by RANT]

I should have added that I received the statement in an e-mail from a neo-con sibling. I did put it in quotes, but had no source to attribute it to. I don't agree with the characterizations it makes. I was trying to point out something more subtle with it; how labels are perceived by the labelled and the labellers. It seems people try to attribute all the good qualities to the label they believe in and apply to themselves, and all the bad qualities to those they label as competing or opposing. The labellers smirk, and the labelled lash out.

Like by calling people plagiarists and liars. I wasn't trying to apply these labels to anyone, just trying to have a little fun and shed some light on this labelling business. That's why I posted it here in the conservative political forum. To open a dialogue. If any label applies to me, it is liberal, and certainly not as characterized in the statement I posted. Don't bite my head off for goodness sake! Rant, I'm sorry I offended you.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I wasn't trying to apply these labels to anyone, just trying to have a little fun and shed some light on this labelling business. That's why I posted it here in the conservative political forum. To open a dialogue. If any label applies to me, it is liberal, and certainly not as characterized in the statement I posted. Don't bite my head off for goodness sake! Rant, I'm sorry I offended you.

Not at all. Sorry if I offended you too.

But looks like you did prove your covert point.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
The labellers smirk, and the labelled lash out.

Like by calling people plagiarists and liars.

I was prepared to discuss what's wrong with that oversimplified analogy, but it seems that was never the intention... so we can talk about labeling now if you like.

It is interesting how conservative labellers like to gather all that they perceive to be good about our society under their banner, whether their label can really take credit for it or not, kind of like in that opening statement. Is it some kind of inherent need for validation that is born out of an underlying lack of confidence in their platform? A disguise to divert attention from their true motives, which just may be power and profit at the expense of liberals and everybody else? Yes, we're getting rich off you, but look at all the good things you're getting out of it!

Somehow, we've all got to keep each other in check while we make the world safe for Mom, baseball, and apple pie.

It is also interesting to note that when you point out their questionable use of blatant misrepresentation to promote their selfish agenda, conservatives on this forum clam up like a razorback at low tide.

Apparently the topic is beneath them, as they perceive 95% of the world's population to be, and not worthy of consideration or comment.


with the right-wing fascists that infest the GOP

It's very easy to check and see if this is original material.
Here's a yahoo search of the words "division of the human family"
Just type in the first few words and your search engine will find links to the same article.

Rant pointed that out via Google, and I never took credit for the piece. What are you getting at, other than misdirection?

I have no agenda here. I merely want to show members how easy it is to find sources for articles or other written pieces.
And, if you don't provide a source of any kind, you take credit by omitting an alternative author.

says you.

I didn't know such stringent rules applied to this platforum. Of course, I refuse to play by your rules anyway, other than to the extent it might help me avoid censorship (or a plagiarism suit, I'm so scared).

Is this another way to avoid discussing the real issues of conservative self-marketing?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I didn't know such stringent rules applied to this platforum. Of course, I refuse to play by your rules anyway, other than to the extent it might help me avoid censorship (or a plagiarism suit, I'm so scared).

The rules apply because these are the rules. That work is NOT yours, and by not listing the true author you DO assume credit and are therefore liable. Whether it is here, or elsewhere in life, that is how things work. Try that on a research paper, or a scientific paper, you'd be outta wherever you are so fast you wouldn't know how many horses they used. IGNORING all that, on a privately owned board, you follow the rules of the board. "Nuff said.

Is this another way to avoid discussing the real issues of conservative self-marketing?

No. And, for the record, self-marketing is rarely interesting for anyone at all. What'd be nice would be to quote from this piece in a post about how conservatives are better than liberals, and why they are better.

At any rate, it was amusing. You could, of course, easily write the exact opposite. "Liberals fight for humanity, and advance scientific causes to help the whole of the human race, as well as planet Earth. Conservatives tote guns and marry their siblings." It'd be pretty analogous to what we've got here.

Here's my version:

[UNIVERSE]
............
............
............
............
............

Point well taken.

I just don't want the questionable issue of whether or not I'm guilty of plagiarism (I'm not) to detract from the real point of starting the thread; the propensity of individuals to form organizations and attribute desirable qualities to members (justified or not, mostly not), and heap allegations of undesirable qualities on the perceived opposition (again, mostly unjustified).

I consider this a willful flaw in modern human nature that causes unnecessary polarization of society, to our overall detriment. Competition is one thing, mudslinging hubris defeats the purpose. Kind of like the church of the haughty throwing cracker crumbs at a gay wedding.

Of course, in future threads I will be much more careful to vett my sources before posting a word. This e-mail showed up from my neo-con bro, and I said 'ok now, let's see what this is all about' and jumped right into the elephant's pit here and went to work. It has been fun, and it does swing both ways. Good to hear from you, Am.