Nothing Personal
There are people I simply refuse to talk politics with. It has nothing to do with their beliefs as I frequently have long conversations with people who both agree and disagree, or some mixture thereof with me. And some of the people I will not discuss them with are very close to my beliefs.
The problem is:
They take other people's political beliefs personally.
Christians often use the terms "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and it's one of our core principles for dealing with non-Christians and badly flawed believers. We need a similar way to deal with politics, along the lines "Hate the belief, not the believer."
There are liberals that I personally like and conservatives I would rather not deal with, but I have encountered people at both ends of the political spectrum who consider people evil because they disagree with them. Now I have fairly strong political beliefs but I realize there are decent people who disagree with me and some very disagreeable people who do agree with me.
This came from a non-conversation with a person who dislikes people simply from their party affiliation who is only vaguely aware of mine. I just watched him demonize other people, whom he has never met, simply because of their party belief. (And he was a GOP himself.)
Now I may not agree with what, say Hillary Clinton believes, but if I had to risk my life to save hers I would not hesitate. It's not about political beliefs. It's about human values that should transcend politics.
Update: I think I need to clarify. There are people who are simply evil, no questions asked. As far terrorist acts go, I would not hesitate to kill someone I knew was going to kill others as it would save innocent lives.
The problem is:
They take other people's political beliefs personally.
Christians often use the terms "Hate the sin, love the sinner" and it's one of our core principles for dealing with non-Christians and badly flawed believers. We need a similar way to deal with politics, along the lines "Hate the belief, not the believer."
There are liberals that I personally like and conservatives I would rather not deal with, but I have encountered people at both ends of the political spectrum who consider people evil because they disagree with them. Now I have fairly strong political beliefs but I realize there are decent people who disagree with me and some very disagreeable people who do agree with me.
This came from a non-conversation with a person who dislikes people simply from their party affiliation who is only vaguely aware of mine. I just watched him demonize other people, whom he has never met, simply because of their party belief. (And he was a GOP himself.)
Now I may not agree with what, say Hillary Clinton believes, but if I had to risk my life to save hers I would not hesitate. It's not about political beliefs. It's about human values that should transcend politics.
Update: I think I need to clarify. There are people who are simply evil, no questions asked. As far terrorist acts go, I would not hesitate to kill someone I knew was going to kill others as it would save innocent lives.
posted by shoprat at 9:25 PM
19 Comments:
As the philosophy on my blog indicates: "I am not an advocate of censorship as I feel everyone on the Far Left has a God-given right to be painfully stupid -- as I have a right to expose said stupidity."
The best RX for LeftSilliness is to expose it in the light of day.
BZ
I get my fur up sometimes, but it's usually only when something is being twisted.
I can abide most people regardless of party affiliation or political views. I just get riled up when these Socialists attempt to force their views on my country. Still, I wouldn't say that I HATE them, I'd just rather they moved to Canada or France.
That's good BZ I like that...
I've settled down a lot Shop, I've got a very short fuse and zero tolerance for stupidity.
I suppose the best way to explain how I see things now are best relected in what BZ said.
I'd have to hate my Dad if I were to judge folks simply on their political beliefs.
You can have friends of any political stripe you wish, or religious for that matter. The key is to knowing what topics you stay away from with them.
there are some people you just cannot argue (or discuss) politics with, because they have no real political views ... and just spout Mooreisms, or Goreisms or, worse, Sheehanisms.
I know a few die-hard Democrats who really seem to believe Democrats desire to do "good", and I find it hard to have a good political conversation since they never budge, never offer anything new, and therefore such topics are boring.
I will cheerfully admit that I think some leftie standard-bearers sre, or at lest do, evil. I would submit guys like Sharpton and Moore as an example. I cannot think of a term that serves as well as "evil" for folks who agitate for their followers to go out and kill others. But I'll stipulate I don't hate them (or anyone), I just don't want to have to interact with them ... there's enough sane people I'll never have a chance to meet ... LOL.
Finally, you;re a better man than I, thinking you might risk your life to save Mrs. Clinton. I have this life-long belief that "precious" means unique and scarce, and I'e not been able to convince myself that all human life is precious and must be preserved. I would never try to hasten an exit, but would seldom take it upon myself to intrude in such a matter. (My experiences have led me to believe that we're not meant to live forever, and I neither wish to, not wish to force others to ...)
Well said but you're a saint. I don't think I would save Hillary Clinton.
I would have to admit that I would regret it for the rest of my life if I saved hers and she went on to be president, but in my heart I know it is the right thing to do.
On the other hand, if Bush were drowning, how many leftists would throw him an anchor instead of life preserver.
Lots of intolerance and downright hatred in these comments. How will we ever get this country back on track when no body is interested in compromise? CP- you had the most civil comment of the guests. Why is there such hatred? Painfully stupid? Short fuse and zero tolerance for stupidity? I guess the GOP must be regular Einstiens. It's funny, but whenever I am at the Gym taking a sauna after working out the conversation sometimes drifts into politics and it is usually (but not always) the case that most think Bush is a terrible leader. It never fails that the Rush wannbes start to shout and attempt to bully everyone to agree that he is a great leader and that Iraq is a beautiful sucess story.
If Bush were drowning, I would save him. I was in the Coast Guard (the lifesavers) and old habits die hard. I have no personal hatred of him.
I just think he is an awful president. Although most people are interested in politics, they do not let it dominate their thinking as most feel genuinely powerless to do anything to change things.
We sometimes bitch about losing a dollar when there are many who wish they had a dime...
Hold on now, Tim I'm nor a Republican or a Democrat.
I consider myself an Indy, and you would find that my arguments on a lot of things are very in line with 'some' of the things you support.
There's other venues I really unload on.
I have never tried to debate anything with you for one reason; I've read some of your comments in the past and don't entirely disagree like a hard chargin Bush Bot would...
I do not align myself with to dang much these modern day so called conservatives are about.
They're not true conservatves.
I've got into more arguments with the Bush is God crowd way more than liberals as of late.
My earlier comment you eluded to?
It was aimed at both sides of the aisle, not just liberals.
Should of said that, but the left has a much better zoo exhibit IMO.
I say what 'I' believe not what others want me too and that includes right wingers.
There's plenty of those that can my kiss a** too.
What good would a potential 3rd party candidate be if he was just another republican Rhino?
I'm done, been done, with the GOP.
I'm a conservative, so voteing what I call barking moonbat liberal is not an option, but there are several good 'moderate' democrats in Washington that are good to go IMO.
This far left liberalism does not represent main stream America, nor does the far right.
That compromise can only be reached if liberals move alot closer to the center, and the extreme right does the same. That's one damn wide gap right there.
It's a nice thought but do you really see it happening Tim?
How?
I'd take a kick in the nuts before I'd listen to Rush too...
I'm very anti- radical thinking camel jockey so don't get that confused with being on the Bush can do no wrong band wagon.
Oh Hell no, or I'd have to write a novel on how I feel about that.
Regardless of who is President, these Islamic nut jobs are still going to have to be dealt with.
Semper Fi!
I agree!! My father-in-law is a conspiracy theorist liberal but he is one of the kindest men I know and I love him for it.
Golly, Tim ... but what's your point? Are you trying to intimate that tolerance is (or always is) a good thing? If so, then I'd have to say that the entire left wing crowd needs to be rolled up and put away wet, since many/most/all seem to be a lot less tolerant of anyone who disagrees with tem than (even) Muslims.
Do you honestly think any bad things ... or things that were ok but became "bad" were solved by tolerating them? When a criminal breaks into your house and brutalizes your family, do you accept and tolerate him? (or her?)
When Rosie O'manhater rhapsodizes about 9-11 being a government plot, do you tolerate her?
Everything in it's time.
We are the sum of our experiences (assuming we learn from them), and I've lived through this tolerance crap for a long time. I lived through Canada "progressing" from a country where everyone got along - because there was one set of laws and (basically) one set of values. Then "tolerance" was dictated at the point of a gun (when the government decides, it has the right to shoot you if you don't agree ... ask the children who were murdered in Waco, ask Elian) and we became "multi-cultural" (that's a word meaning no culture, no class). Suddenly we weren't a nation with one language and one government - we had French shoved down our throats, we had the metric system shoved down our throats, we had minority rights shoved down our throats ... and the ONLY thing not tolerated was being a white European-heritage male. And so much good has come from that, hasn't it. Whereas it used to be at the top of most lists when it came to any survey, now it's a sad mention in the middle of the pack or lower.
By the way, I'm not a Republican, nor am I a Conservative. The Republicans are indistinguishable, mostly, from Democrats in most things, and most Conservatives are far too centrist or center-left for my tastes. I'd consider myself a small "c" conservative tending libertarian. That would mean believing that rights come with responsibilities, and accountability.
And as far as your usual "anyone who doesn't think GWB is evil must be a bushlover" diatriibe ... a little thought might actually make it clear that few people are unidimensional. I'm sure that even Ted Kennedy has at least one redeeming quality ... else why would Massvoters keep sending him to Washington. Personally, I support less than a third of Bush's policies (attempting to stem muslim aggression, and the economy). He's completely wrong, imho, on immigration, on education, on spending, on health care, on trying to appease his opponents, on his lack of loyalty to his team, and his lack of a spine when it comes to the veto pen. Of course, I temper that disgust by noting that, while he spends like a Democrat - it would be worse if a Democrat was in his office. And, to be honest, his out-of-control spending is offset, in large part, by the huge amount of addition revenue caused by his econimic policies.
"anyone who doesn't think GWB is evil must be a bushlover"
I never said that! I just said that Neocons at my gym are the biggest blowhards in the sauna. Golly pete! How are we going to get along when you just barge in here and try to shout me down by practically calling me a socialist, communist, Jesus hating, French speaking, cheeze eating surrender monkey? All that makes me want to do is ignore you, not have a conversation. Some of you (let me repeat that SOME OF YOU)Come out swinging at the slightest inkling that your sacred cows are being attacked. Why this anger? Could it be that your point of veiw is losing steam with the general public a little more every day and you think that if you scream louder you will cow everybody into at least shutting up if they won't agree with you?
You call me a "Liberal" (which is not a cuss word, for Chrissakes)as if you know me. I am independent. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, for Dole in 96. This time, I just checked the box that said "straight Democratic ticket" because I was tired of the incompetant leadership that is running our country into the ground. Do I think that they will screw it up even worse? I really don't see how that is possible. That seems to be republican's new argument: It will be even worse if the democrats get in. Well, I'm willing to give them a try, and so are most others.
This is getting out of hand. My whole point was that there are good and bad people in both parties and both sides of the aisle. Painting the other guys as evil, and some on both sides are, does not help. We should be discussing what would work and what wouldn't, not they're evil, we're good. I believe Socialism is evil but many good intentioned people believe in it. Free Market is good but some people use it in evil ways. We need to concentrate on what works and is good.
Sr- "Socialists" is a loaded term. I don't think US democrats are "socialists" in the way you couch the term. If you called them communists, many may want to fight you. I do not call Neocons "reactionary" or "fascists" because they are not that. Democrats in America are not "communists", either. Sure there are the kooks (3 or 4 out of 435) but most democrats are not Commies, and tarring them like that is not going to get them to cross over to your side and get them to vote for your bill, it's just going to p*ss them off and tell you to go sh*t in your hat. I don't think it's getting out of hand, I think maybe a few people here are finally (a little) setting aside their baggage and trying to see more eye on what we agree on and where maybe we can work together, as fellow Americans. Let's all agree that we hate terrorists, and stop trying to call each other "terrorists" because we don't agree on everything. That's what's wrong right now. Americans are viewing each other as the enemy and that's just wrong on so many levels...
Shoprat ... sorry for being the culprit in letting this get out o fhand. Sometimes I get carried away tweaking noses of (what I consider to be) self-important knowitalls (of which I am as bad an example as others).
I'm afraid do tend to want words to be used correctly, and thus I may have a different idea of evil. My view of evil is not "unintended consequences" such as a drunk running over a little girl, it is acts purposely done to inflict pain, harm and/or death upon others.
As far as socialism, communism, emocracy and all those other terms - they're simply concepts .. or worse, words used as shortcuts to convey concepts. That's certainly the way I use them. Communism, as it has bene practiced in the last century, was a concept that became a culture that evil men used to destroy and kill. I'll submit the USSR, Red China, and Cambodia as hideous examples of Communism and why those who love freedom and rights (and privileges) despite it and the people who practice/condone/abet it. So, I use "commie" primarily as an epithet.
Socialism is a concept that appears to take "the public good" to an extreme - especially as opposed to individual freedoms. Based on what we've seem as a result of creeping socialism (or galloping, in some cases) -- Canada is a very near example -- it can be pretty unforgiving of individual rights and freedoms. Socialist is another epithet, to me.
The only point you make that I disagree with is that some people use the free market in evil ways. Some people may use non free market measures to benefit themselves (tariffs, taxes, monopolies, and the whole government corporate welfare game) - but those would disappear quickly in a freee market. I used to think the US had a much better "free market" approach than Canada - but having lived here for the last decade - I immediately found that there was even more government interference here than there.
Tim, I apologize for "braging in here and trying to shout you down" ... I may disagree with anything/everything you say, but I would never want your right to say something/anything.
I don't go to your gym, and I obviously travel in a very different crowd, because I have never met anyone who tries to shout others down (face to face) over what a president we have. Not when Clinton was in office. Not now. But ... I have seen almost every single blog discussion degenerate into BDS (something to do with being safe-while-anonymous). That's one reason I don't hide myself ... based on my blogname - which I use the same everywhere I roam ... I am very easy to find ... and some BDSified folks have proved when they've publicly posted ny name, address and phone number. LOL.
I wish we could agree to "hate" terrorists ... but that doesn't seem to be the case ... witness the latest House and Senate votes ... our overpaid politicians - especially that complete Democrat blok - care more about political points than making sure we don't lose more than 3000 souls the next time 9/11 rolls around. If they're working that hard for the enemy, it makes it VERY hard not to think of them as the enemy.
Since you think calling folks "commies" or "socialist" is a bad thing ... can you explain "neocon"?
NeoCon "a right wing political movement that opposes liberalism in political, economic and social fields" From Wiktionary.com. It is different from conservatism in the sense that it believes that the promotion of democracy worldwide is paramount (by force, if needed)as is a rejection of the Nixon style of diplomacy that emphasized negotiation and compromise and tends to rely of confrontation instead. It is currently embodied by the Bush administration. This is the salient point of their idealogy, and is very telling as to why the blunders on the domestic front recently have happened. They are basically more concerned with what is going on internationally than the home front, which they think will take care of itself. Wikipedia has an interesting (though not completely objective) article on the subject. They are basically the hard core Bush supporters.
Socialism-"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Basically Communism. The State owns the means of production.
The Democrats are not advocating this. If they were, they would nationalize all private companies and the state would get the profits and re-distibute them as it sees fit. Some democrats on the far left are advocating doing this for the healthcare industry, but not the entire economy. So saying that all Demcrats are Socialists, is like saying that all Republicans are Neo-Cons, which judging by some of the comments here is not the case.
As far as the circles I travel in, I travel for a living throughout the country servicing medical equipment. I am in the airport every couple of weeks, and meet people from all walks of life. Most of them do not support this administration and want us out of Iraq. They are not your enemy they are my fellow Americans (you are a Canadian, I see from your blogger profile. You are hiding your true identity, which I am not. If you go to my blog, you will easily find my last name with a little poking around. I am not affraid to say what I think or am even less affraid of someone finding out who I am).
I really think that you are wrong about :
"I wish we could agree to "hate" terrorists ... but that doesn't seem to be the case ... witness the latest House and Senate votes ... our overpaid politicians - especially that complete Democrat blok - care more about political points than making sure we don't lose more than 3000 souls the next time 9/11 rolls around. If they're working that hard for the enemy, it makes it VERY hard not to think of them as the enemy."
These people were elected to get us out of Iraq. It is what most of us want. If that makes us your enemy, that's too bad. I would say that we are all Americans, but you may not be. Have you become a citizen? If the 8/2008 deadline is finally law, we will have been there for over 5 years without any improvement. I just don't see it going the way you forsee, and niether do most people I talk to.
Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. I try to be civil to all when I comment here.
SR- If I ever am not welcome, please just say the word and I will never darken your door again. Although we disagree on a lot of topics, we both love this country and this state and want both to thrive. Talking and compromise is the only way to make it happen.
Golly Tim ... I'm not aware of ever hiding the fact that I am a Canadian, and that I'm a registered, legal, legitimate resident of the USofA - both because the company I work for wanted me at HQ, and because I'm married to an American (they transferred s here after I'd finished all of the sponsorship papers and fees for getting her Canadian landed immigrant status).
Considering the taxes I pay (I just filed last night and still am upset of the level of taxation), I'd say the IRS and State of Michigan certainly consider me legal. I'm still working on my citizenship papers ... for some reason my wife isn't in a great hurry, since the only change will be that I can vote ... and she's more interested in moving to Alberta after we retire (which is exceedingly strange since she's lived 95% of her life in south Texas and has 2 sons in the US military).
Your opinion is that the Pelosi/Reid crowd was elected to get us out of Iraq? Usually I try to base my opinion on at least a modicum of FACT ... can you steer me to anyone other than a Patty Murray type whpo ran on a stated platform of getting us out of Iraq?? All I ever saw on platforms was "culture of corruption" and "spending." The one thing you did say that I can understand and agree with is "niether do most people I talk to" (sic). When you're talking in an echo chamber, you rarely hear anything different than what you're shouting ...
You are hiding your last name, I did not say that you are hiding that you are Canadian. If you really care about politics in this country, why don't you become a citizen so that you can vote. Who cares if your wife is not in a hurry for you to be a citizen? It's not like you have to give up your Canadian citizenship. I never accused you of being illegal. Further, I think that you should start your own blog. Why have a blogger ID and no blog?
Yes, we all pay taxes, it is not a badge of honor, it's the cost of living here so pointing out that you pay taxes is like pointing out that you have ears. We all do.
It is a FACT (sigh) that the "Pelosi/Reid" crowd ran against the "culture of corruption", and yes, part of that is Iraq. Dems have been talking re-deployment since last summer.
"When you're talking in an echo chamber, you rarely hear anything different than what you're shouting ... "
Golly Pete! You are the pot calling the kettle black...
Post a Comment
<< Home