mplsjocc wrote:1. Why do people harbor so many aggressive feelings towards President Bush? Whenever things happen, it seems like the public in general will do a hurdle over other people who may have been the ones who screwed up something and blame him directly.
To put it simply "The Buck Stops Here". As President he ultimately bear responsibility for all of the actions of the government, for good or ill. While this administration has gone out of itw way to avoid any responsibility or culpability (a fact even its most ardent supporters acknowledge), that does not change the fact that George W. Bush, like every president back to George Washington, is still the man who must accept responsibility in the end. Just as the Captainof a ship will take the blame for running a ship aground instead of the navigator, so must the President accept responsibility for the government. The responsibility for how the power of that office is used is the price of weilding it.
2. How come most Hollywood and entertainment media are primarily left-wing? How did that start and why does it continue?
This comes down to a flawed premise - that just because one disagrees with some o the values of conservatism, they must disagree with all of them and thus be a liberal. That is patently false. Art is based off self expression, and self expression requires individual freedom. This obviously runs counter to the currently popular subset of conservative thinking that is trying to legaly enact its standards on the whole group (eg laws banning gay marriage, academic standards teaching religious beliefs in science class) and is thus oppossed. The simplistic black and white thinking that because they reject one specific subset of extreme social conservatism, they must reject all forms and philophies of it and thus be ultra liberal. So ultimatley it comes down to the fact that they are primarily left wing unless you choose to narowly and specifically define what it is to not be left wing.
3. I read an article that said Liberalism mainly supports and exercises the freedom of religion. This sounds respectable and it takes the American constitution in a more literal sense like it should be, but why always attack Christians? Doesn't that tie a knot in the very concept they're trying to stand up for?
Why is following the law a more literal interpration then it should be? Again, you are starting from a flawed premise. Futher, how are christians under attack? Are churches being blown up? No, that's abortion clinics. Are they having swasticas painted on them? No, thats synagogues. Are they being burnt down? No, that's mosques. The simple fact is that Christianity is in fact not under attack. What is happening is that Christianity is simply losing its ability to maintain a hegemony over life in America, and extremists are lashing out. To envision it, think of a small child's birthday party and a cake. The child (christianity) is spoiled and wants to have it all. However, the grownups (politicians) recognize that the other children must also have fair slices, and are trying to divide the cake equally between it and the other children (other religions). Naturally, the brat (extremist evangicals) throws a fit over it (see any of Robertson's, Dobson's, or Falwell's rants). It simply a case of those having pow being afraid of losing it.
4. Why are Liberals and Conservatives constantly at one another? I know that Conservatism represents a much older and traditional mentality of America while Liberalism represents a new refined concept, but I've watched alot of debates and the fights always ALWAYS tend to start whenever someone Liberal affiliated says something offensive that isn't true and it upsets a Conservative. What's the point in blurting things like that? Several even admit to "pushing political buttons" just for the fun of it. What's the point?
Again, a flawed premise. The ideas of liberalism trace back to the anchient greeks, as do those of conservatism. There is nothing new or tradtional about either. (In fact, a true traditional American mentality is armed rebellion against imperialists named George) Nor do the debates start when a liberal is intentionally dishonest, I would point out that the clear bias and flawed premise of these questions are a mark of intellectual dishonesty on the questioner's part. As for pushing buttons, I can readily point ot as man on both sides who do this. The answer for that is simple - to obscure the actual issue. While Terry Prachet co-opted the phrase for his humorous books, the idea of "When there are 2 sides to an issue, quickly turn it into 20" has great merit to a dedicated politician. Most people are moderates - fiscially conservative, socially liberal, whose main concern in the day is not "Merry Christmas vs Happy Holidays" or "Save the spotted owl", but instead "remember to get milk and pick up the kids from soccer practice". By putting windbags from both sides on the air, the politicians can bamboozle the populace into ingoring what they are doing. It is unfortunatly successful too, look at the presidential elections - the debates, rather then being an open source for the discussion of ideas so that a well educated populace can select the politician whose plans will best serve the country and remedy problems, are scheduled late in the process when most people have already decided who they will vote for, and are under such strict rules that they are not even debates, simply gloified speeches where the canidates present soundbites to try to win over the last undecided voters.
