Do you think the Dems have ideals as strong as the Pubs?

[napi21]

Just heard on Nightline that when either side appoints someone to the SCOTUS they are equal ideologies and neither would budge.

Do you believe we are as uncompromising and idealogical as the Pubs are?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. No.

But it wouldn't hurt if we gave them a few years of their own tactics. In the name of comity, of course.

[leftofthedial]

2. you asked three questions

1. Do Dems have ideals as strong as the Pubs? FAR stronger. Their only ideals are those that serve at a given moment to enrich them or give them power.

2. Are Dems as uncompromising as Pubs? No. That's laughable, unless you consider gross inconsistency in the name of political expediency as so often demonstrated by the bushgang as "compromising."

3. Are Dems as ideological as Pubs? The repuke party has been completely taken over by the neocon ideology, which is far more focused than any movement on the left, except perhaps the radical environmental movement. I don't think the lack of a single-minded, clearly articulated ideology on the left is evidence of the utter lack of ideology, but I think the neocon pukes are more in ideological lockstep.

[BattyDem]

3. No ...

Liberals listen to logic, facts and reason - that's just in our nature. We believe in fair play and we respect differences of opinion; we don't hate people just because they may disagree with us. We don't judge people just because they have a different culture or worship a different God. We have strong beliefs, but we aren't so arrogant that we refuse to listen to others. We are secure enough with our beliefs that we can handle a challenge to them without "destroying" the challenger. It's brains over brawn. :-)

[napi21]

7. Those are my thoughts too, and I guess DU isn't the place to ask.

I just don't think we have as many radicals as the Pubs do. With them, it seems to always be "My way of the highway".

The conversation on Nightline was what kind of people would each candidate nominate to SCOTUS. I think I know shrub would only appoint an extremist. I also think Kerry would appoint someone who knew the law and would make judgements in accordance with that law.

I do however know we Dems have at least a few radicals on our side too. It just doesn't seem to be as many.

[Shadowen]

4. No.

Members of the Democratic party tend to have ideas, not beliefs. You believe something you're told, even against evidence; ideas hatch from things you know, and are easier to chance if what you know turns out to be inaccurate.

[BattyDem]

6. That's a very good point.

:toast:

[kiahzero]

8. That's a tad bit of misuse of the language.

Knowledge requires, at the very least, justified true belief (the person holding that the proposition in question is true). The key is being able to let go of beliefs when one finds evidence that the proposition is false.

[BattyDem]

10. You're right, but ...

I think we're all using different words to make the same exact point. :-)

How's this ...

Liberal beliefs are based on ideas
Neo-Con beliefs are based on ideology


I don't know if that makes any more sense than other explanations, but I tried ... ;-)

[gumby]

5. Maybe that's why Clinton appointed a Repub,

William Cohen, as Sec. of Defense?

Nightline sucks and Ted sucks Rush.

[DivinBreuvage]

9. Democrats have ideals; Republicans have reptilian compulsions

The very nature of liberalism is unselfishness. The liberal actively works to make the world a better place not just for onself, but for others. One of the purest examples of this is the Ohio abolitionist John Brown, a free man who chose to sacrifice his own comfort and prosperity to fight for those who were not free; and who, when the time came, gladly laid down his own life for people that most of the country despised and ignored.

The very nature of conservatism is selfishness and fear: others must be deprived so the conservative can hoard; others must be chained so the conservative can feel free; others must suffer and die so the conservative can feel momentary release from the fear that has driven it since infancy. Whether the pathology concerns money, lifestyle, security, or what have you, at the very bottom of it all conservativism is motivated by fear. In its essence the conservative has the heart of a rabbit and the soul of a worm, and when it finds itself in a position of power it strikes at the weak with the senseless brutality of a maddened ape.

[caffefwee]

11. The Pugs are intolerant

They have a lot in common with those evildoers Bush keeps talking about.

[depakid]

12. Clearly no

But of course, if you're looking for the truth of the matter, you won't find it on nightline. You have to study the judges and read their decisions.

If I can pigeonhole, the difference bewteen the right and the left with respect to judges is that the right is close-minded, completely lacking in integrity and willing to give the state police powers over even the most intimate areas of citizens' rights.

The left, on the other hand, thinks critically- and will sometimes rule for the state, and sometimes not. They will compromise on positions (because they're less ideological?) and they will actually apply the law and respect precedent in reaching their decisions.

[Skittles]

13. our ideals are just as strong

but we have consciences too

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. Our ideals are just as strong....in fact, I would argue that there...

...is FAR greater substance in what we believe as opposed to what they believe.

Our problem...until now...has been an unwillingness to support what we believe with real cash and physical action.