Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Who Really Gives a Rat’s Patootie – Conservatives or Liberals? Let’s Find Out!

Who Really Gives a Rat’s Patootie – Conservatives or Liberals? Let’s Find Out!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On this page of a previous BC article, I gave what I feel is an accurate description of the liberal view of freedom:

That’s what so many conservatives don’t get – we liberals really don’t give a rat’s patootie what you do as long as it doesn’t adversely affect us. We have ALWAYS supported your right to do as you will…but your right to do as you will ENDS when you use your right in a way that is harmful to other people! Or, to put it more succinctly, your freedom ends where mine begins. YOUR freedom shall NOT infringe upon MY freedom to live, to love, to thrive, to pursue my happiness as I will. And my freedom likewise ends where yours begins. And therein lay my argument: without security from those who care little how their actions adversely affect others, we have NO freedom.

Cannonshop had this to say about my definition:

So here’s where I’m looking, Glenn-your words in reply to my challenge are good, but…I don’t think you actually believe them-either that, or you have an enormous blind-spot called “Party Loyalty” that exceeds your personal ethics.

And Dave Nalle followed with this:

This is a fine statement, Glenn. The problem is that this is what most of the more conservative posters here believe and it is demonstrably not what the political left in this country practices or believes in. Welcome to the GOP.

Ah. So one believes that I’m either lying or stupid, and the other believes that my statement is “demonstrably not what the political left…believes in”. So let’s take a look NOT at the words of the conservatives and the liberals, but at the ACTIONS:

Equal Rights for LGBT’s -
Yes, there’s the ‘Log Cabin Republicans’ and there are many Republicans who really believe that LGBT’s should have all the rights of ‘normal’ straight people…but who is it that comes out strongly against the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ despite the fact that Bush appointee General Petraeus came out very strongly for the repeal of DADT and seventy percent of the military personnel surveyed either supported the repeal or had no opinion either way? Who is it that has fought tooth-and-nail against gay marriage across the country? Who is it that supported the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’? The REPUBLICANS.

Look again at what I said: YOUR freedom shall NOT infringe upon MY freedom to live, to love, to thrive, to pursue my happiness as I will. And my freedom likewise ends where yours begins.

Equal Rights for Women
I think it’s safe to say that when asked, most Republicans would say that they see women as fully deserving of equal rights to men…and most of them would be truthful about what they really believe. In the first forty years of attempts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment since it was first proposed, both Republicans and Democrats officially supported the amendment…but in July of 1980, “During platform hearings, the Republican Party reverses its 40 year tradition of support for ERA. NOW organizes 12,000 to march in Detroit at the Republican Convention. The final Republican Platform officially takes no position on ERA, but candidate Ronald Reagan and newly elected right-wing party officials actively oppose the amendment“.

This opposition to protection for women against discrimination did not end with Reagan. Most of us are familiar with the Lilly Ledbetter Act, a key provision of which “makes it clear that discrimination occurs not just when the decision to discriminate is made, but also when someone becomes subject to that discriminatory decision, and when they are affected by that discriminatory decision, including each time they are issued a discriminatory paycheck“. The REPUBLICANS (and the Chamber of Commerce) strongly opposed the bill…and President Obama’s first act as president was to sign the bill into law.

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • zingzing

    “Who the fuck are you to tell me what’s my strong suit?”

    you suck at psychology, roger. don’t get upset. it’s just true.

    “Do you have a degree in the field other than on the subject of acme?”


    “And come to think of it, I can’t even recollect having a meaningful discussion with you on any subject whatever.”

    ah, memories are short when egos are bruised. we used to have nice conversations until you decided i wasn’t radical enough for you. you’ve changed dramatically. sorry if i didn’t do the same.

    “Who the fuck are you to tell me my response to your comments is proper or improper?”

    don’t get all wrapped up in a word. i can tell you if i think a response is proper in my view. it’s my view, so get over it. the point was what happened between 90 and 91 to get you all fucking mad? you were fine, then you weren’t. maybe you had just figured out that i’d said you’ve been a rather lousy judge of people lately. you have been. but it’s hard to tell if that’s what set you off. it’s pretty specific if you are calling it a “generality.” so maybe not. you just kinda blew up there. i’m not one to arbitrarily decide why that is, so i’ll call it a mystery.

    “Write an article on politics and make a liar out of me, demonstrate the quality of your thought.”

    i have. just not around here. and not under the name zingzing.

    “It’s always a tit-for-tat with you, zingo, schematic thoughts at best, never a full-blown development.”

    that’s as much you fault as it is mine. but i’ll grant you the point in the case of our conversations as of late. you’re the one sputtering like a child at this point.

  • zingzing

    “Are you running a school for manners?”

    did you do that on purpose? or do you really have that hard of a time figuring out what people mean?

  • roger nowosielski

    The feeling is mutual, Chris, as no doubt you’re well aware. The invitation to an open debate, just in case you happen to entertain any illusion as to my motive, was only a come on.

  • Christopher Rose

    Roger, I wasn’t aware the feeling was mutual, although it comes as no surprise. The difference is that only one of us is actually right.

    I’ve no idea how you consider your invitation to debate as any kind of a come on, but whatever it was, it failed.

  • roger nowosielski

    Of course, Christopher, what would you expect? You show open disdain for such fields of study as philosophy and social sciences, the hard science being your only sacred cow, that you can’t possibly allow for even a modicum of rigor or discipline in the fields you so despise. All the while you’re forgetting, of course, Christopher, that all your arguments pro or con are necessarily couched in terms of ordinary language, not physics or mathematics.

    Which poses the following question: on what basis, then, do you regard your ordinary language talk – and let’s face it, most of us here on BC, unless we’re specialists in one field of study or another – as being in anyway free of the kind of biases and prejudices, and not subject to the kind of debunking that you so readily reserve for kinds of discourse, such as philosophical discourse (to name but one)? How is anyone, Christopher, to draw a distinction between your talk and any other kind of talk, a distinction that could stand and pass the muster, a distinction that would show your kind of talk a valid kind of talk to the exclusion of any other?

    At the very least, you ought to introduce the relevant criteria. Thus far, however, you’ve done nothing of the kind. And your argument reduces to saying that philosophy is bunk, Christopher Rose’s expositions are right.

  • roger nowosielski

    The invitation to a debate wasn’t intended to succeed, Christopher And if my ear for English still serves me, the phrase in its noun form includes a “teaser” as one of its meanings. But then again, I shouldn’t be lecturing you on the nuances of your native tongue. I’m just a dumb Pollack, remember?

  • Christopher Rose

    Roger, there you go again with that loose keyboard of yours.

    I have never expressed any disdain for social sciences, only philosophy in particular, especially as it is practised in general these days and most especially in comments, where it seems even more ineffective, irrelevant, possibly even inappropriate. In my opinion.

    I’m glad you’ve noticed that my thoughts are expressed in ordinary language. I do that because I’m not a physicist or a mathematician…

    I don’t consider my words to be free of bias, nor do I want them to be. I do, however, hope they are free of prejudice, as I find that quality offensive and try not to let it in to my thinking.

    In principle and in general I don’t think that what I have to say is more valid than what anybody else has to say, although there are obviously times when it is and, indeed, times when it isn’t.

    I do indeed remember the “dumb Pollack” incident, including who made that misspelled remark; all the debate that followed in the comments space, a debate you participated in; the other people – such as yourself – who also made personal attacks; and your eventual request to do something about it, which I did.

    You then also expressed some unhappiness that I didn’t edit that remark earlier, to which I responded that if I had all of the follow on remarks, including your own, would also have to be edited or deleted, which is what ultimately happened.

  • Christopher Rose

    Oh yes, you also said I had something against you, was prejudiced against you, that we have history, all of which I categorically deny. Wasn’t true then, isn’t true now.

  • roger nowosielski

    I’m sorry to hear, Christopher, that philosophy is of no interest to you. I would have thought that given enough time, anyone would have learned to appreciate it, just like good food, music and art.

    Be that as it may, however, why then dump on philosophers for quality of their thinking, especially since you yourself, for good or bad reasons, refuse to become engaged

  • Christopher Rose

    Roger, why you leap to the assumption that philosophy is something that I have not yet learned to appreciate only you can possibly know.

    In reality, my attitude to it is that what once was originally a powerful tool has now become quite debased to the point that a whole bunch of people just like to word wank rather than use it to determine truth.

    As such is my opinion, based in part on my experience of reading so many diverse perspectives on a daily basis, I tend to discount the views of those who rely too extensively on a corrupted process.

    That is why I dump on “philosophers”, not that I have noticed a genuine philosophical participation on this or any other thread in which you have been participating.

    Finally, I reject utterly – actually, that is being polite, I just think it is utter bollocks, your notion that I refuse to become engaged.

    I am present on this site for many hours every day and always try to respond to any comments when time permits and I feel I have something to say.

    Furthermore, as you have already observed, I am speaking in ordinary language and quite openly stating my thoughts, unlike, say, yourself, who presents quite differently…

    I believe in openness and honesty as preferred modus operandi; as such I consider that my direct response to specific comments is the epitome of engagement, in stark contrast to either the often pointless posturing for effect or the dogmatic circle jerking of some.

    As such, I don’t think it is me that refuses to become engaged, rather that you are too wedded to posturing and affect and routinely fail to be who you are, to put your mouth where your money is, to reverse the expression, to become engaged with us.

  • roger nowosielski

    Christopher, this is going nowhere as we both well knew it would. I responded to your jab, and connected it to your well-documented disdain for philosophy and things unrelated to hard sciences. (Don’t ask me now to look it all up, it’s not worth my effort.) Now you deny it and say that your disdain is only for some of the modern practices and the practitioners, including myself: you do refer to my behavior as posturing. I really don’t care what you think of me, and I’m just as certain the feeling is mutual. I don’t see therefore that under the circumstances we should continue this discussion which, at rock bottom, amounts to nothing else but expressing what we think of one another. There is simply no point. I don’t fancy spending an extraordinary amount of time and energy trying to justify myself in your or anybody else’s eyes, and I’m certain you, too, have better things to do. Verbal arguments are not my cup of tea.

    You speak of “becoming engaged.” First off, the original context in which I used the phrase referred not to personalities but subject matter. And speaking of personalities, true, I’m far from being “engaged” with most everyone – you do speak of “us,” don’t you? – except for the select persons, Cindy, Mark Eden, Silas Kain, Les Slater – in short, people I regard as having sufficient integrity. So yes, on that score I do plead guilty as charge.

  • Clavos


  • roger nowosielski

    That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

  • Christopher Rose

    Roger, to correct only the most glaring of your latest faulty assumptions…

    Your latest invention is the curious notion that we both knew that the conversation would go nowhere. That was never my expectation and if it was I wouldn’t have entered into dialogue with you in the first place…

    My remark that it came as a surprise to learn that you “don’t have patience for somewhat who lacks mental discipline” wasn’t a jab so much as an honest statement as you aren’t really known for your mental discipline.

    There is no relationship between that view and the opinion that philosophy isn’t what it used to be nor your extension of that claiming that I also have disdain for other social sciences, which is pure fabrication on your part.

    You then continue to try and characterise our exchanges as merely “expressing what we think of one another”, which is not my interest or intention, but nice try at diversion there.

    I could go on about the presumably unintentional comedy of your “Verbal arguments are not my cup of tea” line, the coldness of looking to engage in subject matter not personalities whilst simultaneously only wanting to engage with people you select, and on your own terms too, but I doubt it would serve much purpose.

    Where then this mental discipline you prize so highly?

  • zingzing

    “Where then this mental discipline you prize so highly?”

    if roger doesn’t like things, roger doesn’t stick around. even he must admit this is true. how do you bow, roger? by the hip or by the brow?

  • roger nowosielski

    Well, Christopher, sorry to disenchant you but I oouldn’t hold out much hope if I were you. And if it makes you happy, I’ll gladly take my assumptions back. The point still remains that this conversation has reached its natural end; and yes, I find it neither profitable nor worth the effort to engage with you any longer, though I still wish you the best.

    Have a nice day!

  • roger nowosielski

    wouldn’t hold out …