Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:52 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fundamental Differences In Conservative And Liberal Views Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:18,551
Points:370,040
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 12:24:31 PM

It may be helpful to recognize the fundamental differences in conservative and liberal views.

We seem to be repeatedly revisiting some of the same basic concepts and spending enormous efforts trying to convince the other side why our view makes more sense.

One of them I have noticed is the treatment of the poor.

Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle.

Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities.

Do you concur?

If so, why do we need to re-argue what has already been covered? This forum is great for learning what makes the 'other side' tick; but would be better if we could move on from the same-old same-old and try to arrive at some solutions or equitable compromise suggestions to send off to our representatives.

What other subjects can you identify the views of both sides on?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 19, 2014 1:56:17 AM

gas_too_high - "...(involving women who, unless they were raped, were in full control of their bodies during the acts that brought these unborn into existence)."

Acts that, most of the time, have no such consequences.

"I'm a little surprised your're whistling past the graveyard on the issue of gun rights, which Obama would not hesitate to take away if he thought for a moment he could pull it off. (That is, pull it off politically, regardless of what SCOTUS thought). Obama actually praised Australia for its gun confiscation. He would love to do the same in the US."

Perhaps, but it wouldn't do any good. I point that out whenever I can.

"I don't automatically vote for the status quo. But I'm in the game. You're on the sidelines, wondering why nothing ever changes."

I know why nothing ever changes. It's because people like you keep voting for nothing to change.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 18, 2014 9:13:46 PM

RJ, I'm not surprised that you are still carrying on your jihad against the unborn (involving women who, unless they were raped, were in full control of their bodies during the acts that brought these unborn into existence).

I'm a little surprised your're whistling past the graveyard on the issue of gun rights, which Obama would not hesitate to take away if he thought for a moment he could pull it off. (That is, pull it off politically, regardless of what SCOTUS thought). Obama actually praised Australia for its gun confiscation. He would love to do the same in the US.

"And yet another lie. How are you going to stop anything from happening when all you do is vote for the status quo?"

I don't automatically vote for the status quo. But I'm in the game. You're on the sidelines, wondering why nothing ever changes.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 6/18/2014 9:15:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 16, 2014 12:33:08 PM

gas_too_high - "Actually not. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. There is no mention of any right to an abortion in the Constitution or its amendments. That "right" was deemed to exist in a series of judicial backflips, including Roe v. Wade."

Of course, you're ignoring the Ninth Amendment. Big surprise there.

Either you're admitting that there's no Constitutional grounds for restricting abortion, or you're saying that women don't have a right to control their own bodies.

Then there's the 13th Amendment. But, then, you tend to regard any sort of sexual activity as a potential crime, guilty until proven innocent and deserving of involuntary servitude.

"Just as a lack of an explicit right does not prevent the liberal legal elite from writing in into the Constitution via judicial fiat, the presence of an explicit right such as gun rights, does not prevent those same elites from writing it out of the Constitution. How stringently is the Tenth Amendment enforced? Most if not all of FDR's New Deal, including Social Security, and almost every federal social program since, violates the Tenth Amendment."

Conservatives also have a long history of ignoring parts of the Constitution that don't agree with their dogma. That's why it needs to constantly be defended from both extremes.

"And the Second Amendment was not enforced prior to DC v. Heller a few years back, in a 5-4 decision that could easily have gone the other way."

Yeah, funny thing that. Most of the gun control legislation in the US, including attempts to ignore the 2nd, had its roots in efforts to control the freed black slaves.

"If the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats wanted to chip away at gun rights, they easily can. Saying "its a Constitutional violation" will not suffice."

Until SCOTUS agrees with you.

"And just how do you, a nonvoter, plan to stop that from happening?"

And yet another lie. How are you going to stop anything from happening when all you do is vote for the status quo? Isn't that pretty much the same as not voting?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 15, 2014 11:02:18 PM

rjhenn: "Because making abortion illegal would be a violation of the Constitution just as much as banning guns would."

Actually not. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. There is no mention of any right to an abortion in the Constitution or its amendments. That "right" was deemed to exist in a series of judicial backflips, including Roe v. Wade.

GTH: "So you wouldn't mind if your right to keep and bear arms were taken away? And you wouldn't lift a finger (or pull a lever in the voting booth) to keep that from happening?"

rjhenn: "Again, violation of the Constitution."

Just as a lack of an explicit right does not prevent the liberal legal elite from writing in into the Constitution via judicial fiat, the presence of an explicit right such as gun rights, does not prevent those same elites from writing it out of the Constitution. How stringently is the Tenth Amendment enforced? Most if not all of FDR's New Deal, including Social Security, and almost every federal social program since, violates the Tenth Amendment.

And the Second Amendment was not enforced prior to DC v. Heller a few years back, in a 5-4 decision that could easily have gone the other way.

If the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats wanted to chip away at gun rights, they easily can. Saying "its a Constitutional violation" will not suffice.

And just how do you, a nonvoter, plan to stop that from happening?

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 6/15/2014 11:03:15 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 10:26:40 PM

gas_too_high - "So you wouldn't mind if abortions were made illegal? That's not the position you have taken previously."

Because making abortion illegal would be a violation of the Constitution just as much as banning guns would.

"So you wouldn't mind if your right to keep and bear arms were taken away? And you wouldn't lift a finger (or pull a lever in the voting booth) to keep that from happening?"

Again, violation of the Constitution.

The opposing position on both has no benefits and no Constitutional grounds. Both are irrational, because there's no rational basis for either. The only use of either 'issue' is to keep people divided.

Thanks for playing the division game.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 9:43:39 PM

GTH: "So you don't care what happens to abortion rights or gun rights, to pick 2 examples?"

rjhenn: "Abortion is a non-issue, played up to keep people divided."

So you wouldn't mind if abortions were made illegal? That's not the position you have taken previously.

"Since, in over 50 years of looking, there's been no evidence that gun control laws do any good, gun control is another non-issue."

So you wouldn't mind if your right to keep and bear arms were taken away? And you wouldn't lift a finger (or pull a lever in the voting booth) to keep that from happening?

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 8:15:01 PM

gas_too_high - "Tell the Supreme Court. In their view, restricting campaign donations is restricting speech. At the very least, money amplifies speech."

So we need a constitutional amendment that says that money is not speech.

"No, I have voted for independents before. WHen I do that though, I weigh the risk of what could happen."

Meaning you only vote for independents when you think your vote won't 'count'?

"So you don't care what happens to abortion rights or gun rights, to pick 2 examples?"

Abortion is a non-issue, played up to keep people divided. Since, in over 50 years of looking, there's been no evidence that gun control laws do any good, gun control is another non-issue.

More specifically, guns are not the problem, violence is. And going after guns won't do anything to reduce either violence or violent death.

"It's not quite that bad. In at least some states (although likely not the 2/3'rds required to convent a constitutional convention), popular pressure can yield results."

Meaning nothing will happen.

"And while Steve and Tower have presented their plans, I still haven't heard rjhenn's plan for changing the 2 party system."

Yes, you have. Convince people that they're wasting their votes by voting for either of the two major parties.

Though most people are so well-indoctrinated that that's likely going to have no effect.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,063
Points:3,318,345
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jun 14, 2014 2:01:13 PM

sgm said: "Some conservatives think it is ok to tell people how and with whom people can have sex or form families, or how to pray and what religious beliefs are more worthy of government protection than others."

--You might be surprised that I agree with you, having run into some religious right folks who are WAY to the right. Some of these fools even go so far as to say that the 1st Amendment was only written to keep one Christian belief from dominating and "freezing out" the others - therefore it doesn't apply to Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc. etc. Now, would I call this even 1% of all Christians or Republicans? No way. I wouldn't say that at all. But I would say that there are a few idiots on the far, far religious right to believe this drivel. But they are a minority within a minority of Christians. So, no, I wouldn't blame all Christians, nor characterize their belief this way.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 9:44:35 PM

gas_too_high - "Plus, they restrict the free speech of anyone who is not in the mainstream media."

rjhenn: 'Money is not "speech".'

Tell the Supreme Court. In their view, restricting campaign donations is restricting speech. At the very least, money amplifies speech.

"So either they get your vote, or you aren't voting. Pretty much the same thing."

No, I have voted for independents before. WHen I do that though, I weigh the risk of what could happen."There are differences between the 2 parties, on issues that are important. They are not the same."

"Those differences are largely superficial, and on issues that the two parties use to increase partisanship."

So you don't care what happens to abortion rights or gun rights, to pick 2 examples?

theTower - "The only real way to force change like what gets talked about is for the states to call for a constitutional convention, write and agree to the amendment, get enough of the states to then ratify it, thus FORCING the will of the people for change onto the government."

rjhenn: "You'll never get that to happen either, because all of the states are run by the same two political parties."

It's not quite that bad. In at least some states (although likely not the 2/3'rds required to convent a constitutional convention), popular pressure can yield results.

And while Steve and Tower have presented their plans, I still haven't heard rjhenn's plan for changing the 2 party system.

GTH
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,392
Points:2,834,370
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 1:47:55 PM

Some liberals think it is ok for the government to tell people what to eat, what to drive, etc. (although one example, Bloomberg, was nominally a Republican). They think it's ok to make sure that people comply with directives on how to save energy, no matter what coercive tool they come up with to enforce the directives.

Some conservatives think it is ok to tell people how and with whom people can have sex or form families, or how to pray and what religious beliefs are more worthy of government protection than others.

They all make me mad. But they are not all conservatives, nor are they all liberals.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,085
Points:1,377,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 10:50:17 AM

Yabut RJ - I'm correct and your wrong - it says so right here in my little book.....
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 10:36:47 AM

flyboyUT - "The real answer is easy and still true ---"

There are other viewpoints. For example:

Liberal:
Liberals - Goooooood!
Conservatives - Baaaaaaad!

Libertarian:
Liberals - restrictive a-holes!
Conservatives - restrictive a-holes!

Rationalist:
Conservatives - Dogmatic followers
Liberals - Dogmatic followers

[Edited by: rjhenn at 6/13/2014 10:37:07 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,085
Points:1,377,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 10:04:41 AM

The real answer is easy and still true ---

Conservatives Goooooood -
Liberals - Baaaaaaad!

Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 9:59:42 AM

gas_too_high - "Plus, they restrict the free speech of anyone who is not in the mainstream media."

Money is not "speech".

"They can't count on it."

Yet you said: "Only one party has any chance at my vote. The other, virtually never."

So either they get your vote, or you aren't voting. Pretty much the same thing.

"And the party that won't get my vote, could do so, if they changed their principles."

Which is why one should vote for a third party, to demonstrate that and give them a clue as to which direction to move.

"There are differences between the 2 parties, on issues that are important. They are not the same."

Those differences are largely superficial, and on issues that the two parties use to increase partisanship. That's a major reason why there's seldom any actual movement on those issues.

"But you want to throw away your ability to influence the outcome of those issues. That includes issues you profess to care about, like abortion rights on the one hand, and gun rights on the other."

How do you influence the outcome by always (or almost always) voting for the same party? All you're doing is perpetuating the problem.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 13, 2014 9:57:58 AM

theTower - "The only real way to force change like what gets talked about is for the states to call for a constitutional convention, write and agree to the amendment, get enough of the states to then ratify it, thus FORCING the will of the people for change onto the government."

You'll never get that to happen either, because all of the states are run by the same two political parties.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2014 10:59:08 PM

Steve, interesting proposals.

Campaign finance "reform": As cirdan pointed out, limits on contributions are protection for incumbents. Plus, they restrict the free speech of anyone who is not in the mainstream media.

Besides, I don't understand how "ten times the minimum wage per donor per year" helps. A yearly salary at minimum wage is over $15,000. Ten times that figure is $150,000. The individual donor limit is $2000 per donor per candidate, which is already a lot less than your proposal.

Term limits have been discussed. Good luck getting the Congress to term limit itself. That was actually proposed under Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" in 1995 and never got out of the House.

Instant Runoff Voting would indeed be a good way to allow third parties access to the ballot. But again, good luck getting that passed, either by Congress or by the states (the states actually run elections).

And IRV is complicated. I bet some groups would see it as attempted "vote suppression".

rjhenn: 'Again, so why should they change, when they know they can count on your vote, no matter what?'

They can't count on it. And the party that won't get my vote, could do so, if they changed their principles.

There are differences between the 2 parties, on issues that are important. They are not the same.

But you want to throw away your ability to influence the outcome of those issues. That includes issues you profess to care about, like abortion rights on the one hand, and gun rights on the other.

GTH
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:14,857
Points:517,625
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2014 10:20:39 PM

"A Constitutional Amendment (s) could help."

You'll never get a proper amendment even started from the corrupt congress we have these days.
It will be asinine from the start.
The only real way to force change like what gets talked about is for the states to call for a constitutional convention, write and agree to the amendment, get enough of the states to then ratify it, thus FORCING the will of the people for change onto the government.
Even if that happened, considering how the constitution is ignored anyway today , my money is on the government flat out not accepting the amendment as binding. That would be an interesting situation were it to occur.

[Edited by: theTower at 6/12/2014 10:21:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:30,063
Points:3,318,345
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2014 10:06:15 PM

Here, now. I just saw something on "All In with Chris what's-his-face" on MSLSD.

One thing that was brought up was the fracturing or rather demographing of America. One survey they put up as evidence was interesting. The question was, would you rather live in a rural area, or an urban area, if you were walking distance to stores? Apparently 22% of "reliable Conservatives" agreed, but something over 70% of "reliable Liberals" agreed. Think about it. The results would suggest that Libs are, generally speaking, happier to live in cities and urban areas, and Conservatives are more happy living in suburbs or country. They talked about a number other such differences. However, they said that with technology today it is easier to store and take and sort this kind of data. It was interesting. I urge you to look for this program (was just on tonight) and watch it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2014 12:46:43 PM

SemiSteve - "A Constitutional Amendment (s) could help.

One that tries to get the big money out of politics:

'The total maximum of political donations shall be ten times the minimum wage per donor per year. Political advertising shall not be permitted.'"

I'd prefer something like "Citizens have the right to contribute to political campaigns only for elections that they can vote in. Organizations of citizens can only spend proportionally to contributions from citizens who can vote in the affected elections. Non-citizens and non-persons cannot contribute to political campaigns."

"'Every elected office shall be limited to two 4 year terms.'

Which will prevent the incumbent advantage and office-holders working more for reelection than the duties of the office."

Too specific. Perhaps "no more than 8 consecutive years in office". That would limit senators to, at most, every other term (unless they're appointed to complete a term of 2 years or less), and require Congressmen to take at least every fifth term off.

"Which will prevent people from feeling compelled to vote the lessor of two evils instead of who they would really prefer."

That would have definite advantages.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2014 12:44:30 PM

gas_too_high - "Only one party has any chance at my vote. The other, virtually never. (Above the local level, absolutely never)."

Again, so why should they change, when they know they can count on your vote, no matter what?

"But why should either party change, if you vote for neither of them?"

Because they want that vote, and changing is the only way to get it.
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,486
Points:136,325
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jun 12, 2014 12:05:06 AM

Campaign finance limits favor incumbents - who have the name recognition. The rule of thumb used to be a challenger had to spend 3X the incumbent to have a chance. Unless the incumbent's actually been convicted of being a child molester, they're probably going to get elected. Only a small % (Eric Cantor?) lose.

So campaign finance laws make it CERTAIN the established insiders will continue to win and dominate government.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,551
Points:370,040
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2014 10:03:55 PM

GTH: "In any case, do you have any proposals on ending the "duopoly"? We already know that rjhenn is prepared to throw away his vote to vote for minor parties and candidates that have no chance of winning. What do you suggest?"

That's a toughie. Of course it would have to be. If it were easy it would have happened already.

So what can be done?

Since we already know it is going to be really difficult we might as well at least talk about some ideas.

A Constitutional Amendment (s) could help.

One that tries to get the big money out of politics:

"The total maximum of political donations shall be ten times the minimum wage per donor per year. Political advertising shall not be permitted."

That way Parties must run on merit, rather than fund-raising and sound bytes.

And this:

"Every elected office shall be limited to two 4 year terms."

Which will prevent the incumbent advantage and office-holders working more for reelection than the duties of the office.

And this:

"All elections shall be of the Instant Run-off Voting system."

Which will prevent people from feeling compelled to vote the lessor of two evils instead of who they would really prefer.

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2014 9:32:34 PM

rjhenn: "Funny, you're the one throwing his vote away by blindly voting for the major parties. Why should they change, when they know they can count on your vote, no matter what?"

Only one party has any chance at my vote. The other, virtually never. (Above the local level, absolutely never).

But why should either party change, if you vote for neither of them?

GTH
Profile Pic
plastic
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:47,692
Points:3,016,200
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2014 1:29:19 PM

SS>"One of them I have noticed is the treatment of the poor.

Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle."

You didn't notice very well then. Conservatives (the ones who actually do help the poor) believe that help should come from the private, local and state levels and NOT the Federal level.
-----

SS>"Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities."

They seem to want someone else to take care of the problem, namely tax payers. Liberals want the Federal government to provide everything.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,085
Points:1,377,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2014 1:25:06 PM

Seems to fit here best.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 11, 2014 12:39:15 AM

gas_too_high - "One party is completely focused on gaining and keeping power, no matter what, while the other party sometimes (not often) acts on principle."

And your opinion of which is which is exactly the opposite of those who believe in the other party.

"We already know that rjhenn is prepared to throw away his vote to vote for minor parties and candidates that have no chance of winning."

Funny, you're the one throwing his vote away by blindly voting for the major parties. Why should they change, when they know they can count on your vote, no matter what?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 10:26:54 PM

SemiSteve: "The two party duopoly is strangling the nation; both of them subservient to big money and greed, and remiss to their responsibility to the people, economy, and the debt."

While that has a lot of truth, that is not the whole story.

One party is completely focused on gaining and keeping power, no matter what, while the other party sometimes (not often) acts on principle.

In any case, do you have any proposals on ending the "duopoly"? We already know that rjhenn is prepared to throw away his vote to vote for minor parties and candidates that have no chance of winning. What do you suggest?

GTH
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:72,663
Points:2,889,970
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 8:13:01 AM

Fly, that last post needs to go in the "How Do You Like 0bama So Far" thread. I'm guessing that the economics professor emeritus (the one whose writings everyone should pay attention to even though he hasn't won a Nobel Prize...) doesn't like BO very well, so far......
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,551
Points:370,040
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 10, 2014 8:04:08 AM

Totally agree, rjh.

The two party duopoly is strangling the nation; both of them subservient to big money and greed, and remiss to their responsibility to the people, economy, and the debt.

Their oligarchy serving budget treatment and shut out of third party voices amounts little more than honor among thieves.

It is disgusting, tragic and unsustainable.

Something must be done!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 11:49:37 PM

flyboyUT - "Instead of taking their role as citizens seriously, they chose to vote on the basis of racial symbolism, glib rhetoric and wishful thinking."

One could say much the same of the motives behind much of the opposition to BO.

"We may be the first to be threatened by self-indulgent silliness inside the gates."

If so, it's because that seems to be all that either party can put forward.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 11:49:11 PM

SE3.5 - "With a little less jealousy and a little more work, you too can be a millionaire."

A million dollars ain't what it used to be (about $125,000 in 1960 dollars).
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,085
Points:1,377,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 7:53:17 PM

Good article by Tom Sowell.
.
.
>>>People are arguing about what the U.S. got out of the deal that swapped five top-level terrorist leaders for one American soldier who was, at best, absent from his post in a war zone. Soldiers who served in the same unit with him call him a deserter.

The key to this deal, however, is less likely to be what the U.S. got out of the deal than it is about what Barack Obama got out of the deal. If nothing else, it instantly got the veterans' hospitals scandals off the front pages of newspapers and pushed these scandals aside on television news programs.

It was a clear winner for Barack Obama. And that may be all that matters to Barack Obama.

People who are questioning the president's competence seem not to want to believe that any president of the U.S. would knowingly damage this country's interests.

One of the problems of many fundamentally decent people is that they find it hard to understand people who are not fundamentally decent, or whose moral compass points in a different direction from theirs.
.
.
People who are disappointed with Obama have no right to be. It is they whom others have a right to be disappointed with. Instead of taking their role as citizens seriously, they chose to vote on the basis of racial symbolism, glib rhetoric and wishful thinking.

Moreover, many are already talking about choosing the next president of the United States on the basis of demographic symbolism — to have "the first woman president." And if she is elected on that basis, will any criticism of what she does in the White House be denounced as based on anti-woman bias, as criticisms of Obama have been repeatedly denounced as racism?
.
.
We may yet become the first nation to die from a terminal case of frivolity. Other great nations in history have been threatened by barbarians at the gates. We may be the first to be threatened by self-indulgent silliness inside the gates.

As for Obama, you cannot judge any president's competence by the results of his policies without first knowing what he was trying to achieve.

Many wise and decent people assume automatically that Obama was trying to serve the interests of America. From that standpoint, he has failed abysmally, both at home and abroad. And that should legitimately call his competence into question.

But what if his vision of the world is one in which the wealth and power of those at the top, whether at home or internationally, are deeply resented, and have been throughout his life, under the tutelage of a whole series of resenters? And what if his goal is to redress that imbalance?

Who can say that he has failed, when the fundamental institutions of this country have been successfully and perhaps irretrievably undermined, and when the positions of America and its allies on the world stage have been similarly, and even more dangerously, undermined around the world?<<<

For a long time I did not want to think that the person sitting in the Ovbal Office really wanted to damage the US. Now I am having doubts.

He can give as many pretty speeches as he wants - I no longer listen to them. What I do is to watch the effects of what he does and it is not good.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,183
Points:3,622,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 7:16:36 PM

With a little less jealousy and a little more work, you too can be a millionaire.

(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm)
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,085
Points:1,377,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 7:10:40 PM

Steve you said - "Just as you can work your whole life away making somebody else rich and still be left with nothing."

So who said one had to stay at the same job? Who said that one had to accept substandard wages or working conditions?

Have you not located a job that is acceptable to you? Didn't you have to try on a few different jobs?

No Steve - if anyone is trapped as you say its not my fault - its their fault for not having the intelligence and drive to do better.

Yes going to a whoopdedoo college helps but it is not the sole determinant of success. They have to do the job too. But if one wants to get sufficient education to do well in their chosen field they can - its called opportunity and freedom to take the hard parts to get better in time.

We had some of those folks - the ones from the preferred college. If they didn't do the job I fired them - period. Then I hired someone who would/could do the job and who wanted to work hard enough to succeed.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:22,183
Points:3,622,390
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 6:59:39 PM

The Little Red Hen was a conservative.
Henny Penny was a liberal.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,551
Points:370,040
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 5:06:43 PM

Correct me if I am wrong. My understanding is that Ivy league schools produce more executives than others; and that's where rich kids go to school.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,551
Points:370,040
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 5:02:40 PM

Possible?

It is also -possible- to win the lottery.

Just as you can work your whole life away making somebody else rich and still be left with nothing.

It is far more possible to get rich by being born rich, getting sent to the best schools and there making the best contacts than it is to begin with nothing and work your way up.

Nothing like getting a head start in a race and being given a faster horse.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:27,085
Points:1,377,190
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 4:00:47 PM

Steve I dont remember anyone who didn't work both hard and smart who didn't do well.

Now if your idea of doing well means that one must be in the 1% I think you may just be 'in error'. Doing well means living a good life to me - not being rich. It means being able to pay your bills and have a level of security and have enough assets to enjoy life.

Having tons of money is not included. Having enough to live comfortably and raise your family and own your own home and pay it off etc - that is entirely possible by ANYONE in the US who wants it and is willing to do what it takes to reach it.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:18,551
Points:370,040
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jun 9, 2014 3:01:11 PM

Conservatives think if you just work hard enough you will do well, rise to the top, and become wealthy.

But this is incorrect. In America you can work your life away making somebody else rich; and still be left with nothing. And the reality is that this happens far more often than hard work resulting in great wealth. A bigger factor in being wealthy is to be born to a wealthy family.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2014 9:37:52 PM

gas_too_high - "If you can't find facts to support your position you twist some to support it. When you run out of facts you can twist you fall back on "baiting," using works like "dogma" and claiming my position is based on "religion" instead of the arguments that I actually present."

And, again, you're accusing me of how you behave. As near as I can tell, you haven't changed any of your arguments from much earlier when you tried to use religion as the justification for your positions. And if you don't have any facts to support your arguments, you create them, or use arguments that others have created to support the same position.

OTOH, you consider facts "twisted" if they don't support your positions.

"On top of all this, as to the actual topic here, you hurl insults at both conservatives and (as if you weren't one yourself) liberals, which is not the same as pointing out concrete differences."

That's because the differences are, generally, in minor details of little significance. In the actual significant areas, like psychology, there's little, if any, difference between the two. Most of the differences being brought up are more imaginary, and self-congratulatory ("See how bad they are. I'm so glad we're not like they are") than real.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2014 8:50:15 PM

GTH: "But you have an almost God-like belief in your own ability to inerrantly determine what is real and true."

rjhenn: "That's more projection on your part, as supported by your tendency to determine whether something is "real and true" by whether or not it supports your dogma. "

In another topic you were called out as having an "antagonistic baiting style". That is dead on. You never stop arguing. If you can't find facts to support your position you twist some to support it. When you run out of facts you can twist you fall back on "baiting," using works like "dogma" and claiming my position is based on "religion" instead of the arguments that I actually present.

On top of all this, as to the actual topic here, you hurl insults at both conservatives and (as if you weren't one yourself) liberals, which is not the same as pointing out concrete differences.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2014 12:35:07 AM

Cirdan - "If liberals have such a broad range of opinions, how come they always parrot the Obama talking points on this board?"

And just who would that be?

OTOH, if conservatives have such a broad range of opinions, how come they seem to post little except talking points from Beck and the Republican leadership?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 8, 2014 12:34:18 AM

gas_too_high - "Actually I have never claimed "absolute" or "inerrant" truth. That sounds like a religious claim. I have specifically disclaimed using religion as an authority for political issues. However, you keep trying to tag me with that claim."

That's because all of your positions start and end with religion, however much you try to disguise it.

"In any case, saying I claim "absolute truth" is projection on your part. You do that. A lot."

I'm not the one who constantly misrepresents the facts to try and get them to fit my dogma.

"Except, that is, for the 2 issues we have spend a lot of time discussing. on abortion rights, you have appealed to "a woman's right to choose," which appeals to rights, not to any truth as such."

And to the fact that your claims about the pre-born usually don't fit the facts.

However, your position is against your claimed basic principle of freedom, which logically includes "a woman's right to choose". That is a fact that argues that your position is not "truth".

"And for marriage redefinition, you favor redefinition largely based on your belief, unsupported by any facts (the studies show no clear consensus) that same-sex couples provide as good a family structure for raising children, than married couples raising their own children."

What "the studies" show is that there's no evidence that same-sex couples don't, on average, do as good a job of raising children as heterosexual couples, on average. While the only study you've presented to counter that belief, the Regnerus study, had nothing to do with the conclusions you insisted on drawing from it.

"And the point is not to re-open those discussions, but to point out that your "testable standard for truth" does not enter into either of those."

Yet it does. The test being that your positions are not based on facts.

"But you have an almost God-like belief in your own ability to inerrantly determine what is real and true."

That's more projection on your part, as supported by your tendency to determine whether something is "real and true" by whether or not it supports your dogma.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2014 11:47:57 AM

"Since this sounds like a made up conservative thing, not sure what this even would be."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

GTH
Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,486
Points:136,325
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jun 7, 2014 11:40:02 AM

If liberals have such a broad range of opinions, how come they always parrot the Obama talking points on this board?
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:69,948
Points:4,113,710
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2014 10:33:40 PM

"That you ignore the PC culture"

Since this sounds like a made up conservative thing, not sure what this even would be.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2014 9:41:07 PM

zimcity: "I concur with Semisteve's opinion of the narrow spectrum of conservative opinions vs. liberal ones, at least as found on this site. I often find myself shaking my head at some of the more liberal posters' comments, while it seems conservative posters are more often in lock step spouting the conservative talking points of the day."

I can only speak for myself on that. Certainly on these forums, there is a fair amount on less than fully intelligent posts, and that applies to conservatives. Much of what is posted by other conservatives here, especially in tone but also often in substance, I disagree with.

I don't usually take the time to post on all the political threads (I have a life, after all) to correct them (or correct liberals, which is a much bigger job). Instead, I confine my political posts to a few topics of interest to me. One area where I have publicly and vigorously disagreed with other conservatives here, was the question of whether or not Barack Obama was a citizen of the US at birth. And other conservatives disputed with the "birthers" as well.

But as to the larger political environment outside the GasBuddy forums, conservatives are all over the place and say what they think. Liberals exercise and enforce political correctness within their ranks as well as on broader society. That you ignore the PC culture is a blind spot Zim and Steve (as well as others) seem to have.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 6/6/2014 9:41:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,258
Points:2,377,295
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2014 9:39:46 PM

gas_too_high - "You are asserting that your positions are nothing more than bias-free problem solving, unlike almost everyone else. Do you have any idea how proud and egotistical that sounds?"

rjhenn: "I'm just your typical rationalist. While you insist that your facts and your ideology are the absolute unvarnished inerrant ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡TRUTH!!!!!!!, yet you don't think you're the least bit proud and egotistical."

Actually I have never claimed "absolute" or "inerrant" truth. That sounds like a religious claim. I have specifically disclaimed using religion as an authority for political issues. However, you keep trying to tag me with that claim.

In any case, saying I claim "absolute truth" is projection on your part. You do that. A lot.

GTH: "So you have succeeded where all the liberals and conservatives in this country have failed? You have the truth?"

rjhenn: "I have a testable standard for truth, not any lock on an absolute truth. I leave that to such as you."

Except, that is, for the 2 issues we have spend a lot of time discussing. on abortion rights, you have appealed to "a woman's right to choose," which appeals to rights, not to any truth as such. And for marriage redefinition, you favor redefinition largely based on your belief, unsupported by any facts (the studies show no clear consensus) that same-sex couples provide as good a family structure for raising children, than married couples raising their own children.

And the point is not to re-open those discussions, but to point out that your "testable standard for truth" does not enter into either of those.

"Not in the least. I don't believe in any God."

But you have an almost God-like belief in your own ability to inerrantly determine what is real and true.

"You, OTOH, consider yourself God's right-hand man."

More projection. You do that. An awful lot. (Not to mention, that was a snarky comment).

(Note: My apologies for misattributing SemiSteve's quote to rjhenn).

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,242
Points:2,657,855
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2014 5:18:53 PM

gas_too_high - "You are asserting that your positions are nothing more than bias-free problem solving, unlike almost everyoine else. Do you have any idea how proud and egotistical that sounds?"

I'm just your typical rationalist.

While you insist that your facts and your ideology are the absolute unvarnished inerrant ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡TRUTH!!!!!!!, yet you don't think you're the least bit proud and egotistical.

"So you have succeeded where all the liberals and conservatives in this country have failed? You have the truth?"

I have a testable standard for truth, not any lock on an absolute truth. I leave that to such as you.

"Wow, what BS. No wonder you never deviate from your positions. You think of yourself as God."

Not in the least. I don't believe in any God. You, OTOH, consider yourself God's right-hand man.

"rjhenn: 'Wow. Am I ever surprised to hear anybody claim this! Liberals are all over the spectrum. Conservatives are the ones who allow less flexibility within their ranks.'"

And you seem a bit obsessed with me, since it was Steve who posted that. 7;-]
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:69,948
Points:4,113,710
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jun 6, 2014 4:24:19 PM

I concur with Semisteve's opinion of the narrow spectrum of conservative opinions vs. liberal ones, at least as found on this site.

I often find myself shaking my head at some of the more liberal posters' comments, while it seems conservative posters are more often in lock step spouting the conservative talking points of the day.
Post a reply Back to Topics