Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:12 AM

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:20,120
Points:464,545
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
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,924
Points:3,551,745
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 11:43:07 PM

sgm said: "Nah, that's backwards. Liberals don't mind having gay babies. It's conservatives who would suddenly find a rationale for getting rid of those "perverted" or "deviant" babies. Suddenly abortion would be a "good and moral thing" for the former pro-lifers."

--Understand that I'm STRONGLY pro-choice. I think the limitations on abortion are a bit overly restrictive, but I'm not necessarily in favor of NO limitations. That said, I think your characterization of the anti-abortion movement as also being anti-homosexual out of hand is disgusting and un-called for. But this is what we expect from the hard left. Shoot from the hip, and don't care much who it hits.. much like gang-bangers in shootouts here in South Central.

And to bring a counterpoint to your example - what about Dick Cheney's daughter? She's lesbian, and she and her "partner" had a baby. Dick and Liz were thrilled at the arrival of their grandbaby. If what you say were true, then why haven't they disowned their daughter and her baby? Or had you considered that while you were shooting your mouth off?

[Edited by: AC-302 at 1/30/2015 11:43:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 3:50:15 PM

I tend to partly agree with both positions Steve mentioned.

Unions, at one time, did a lot of good. Today, they've become just about as 'bad' as what they were originally formed to fight. Some are worse than others.

But the "greed of powerful employers" still exists and still needs to be opposed.

Unions are just a reaction to that greed. Their excesses are also from greed.

Which leads us back to: some greed is good. Too much does harm.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 10:11:32 AM

Wow, I actually agree with semisteve. Although, I wouldn't go so far as to say: "Conservatives maintain that unions were once a good thing to combat the greed of powerful employers".

Productivity was accomplished through back breaking work prior to the early 20th century. Didn't make any difference if you worked for an employer, owned a farm, ran a plumbing business. all that easy work today with machines was accomplished with hand tools and muscle 70 years ago. Unions and WWII helped change that.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,778
Points:1,593,370
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 10:05:39 AM

Steve
You put that in a nut shell.
Union had a place in history.
Everything they accomplished is now law.
Now Union only intimidate & they are the Fat Cats with the big wad of cash for the politicians.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,120
Points:464,545
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2015 9:56:45 AM

Looks like one's position on unions is a fundamental difference in liberal and conservative views.

Conservatives think unions are bad. Liberals think they are good.

Conservatives maintain that unions were once a good thing to combat the greed of powerful employers; but unions went bad and now are nothing but a bunch of thugs threatening business with labor stoppage for ever more concessions.

Liberals think the power of big corporations still needs checks and balances of labor representation and that unions are still relevant and needed.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 1/30/2015 9:57:51 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 12, 2015 12:39:13 AM

gas_too_high - "You are still the Master of Projection."

Which is just more projection on your part.

"What you fail to realize is that the 2 parties compete more than they collude, and that they compete over real issues."

What you fail to realize is that those issues that they "compete" over are generally minor issues, and that they're "competing" just to make it look like there are real differences between them.

"So while you sit on the sidelines throwing your vote away, the competition between them is resolved, each election, each race, without you."

While all your vote does is insure that nothing of any significance changes.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,869
Points:2,658,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 11, 2015 9:36:43 PM

rjhenn: "Which only demonstrates your refusal to consider views other than your own."

You are still the Master of Projection.

"And the gullibility that goes along with that blindered vision is what both parties count on."

What you fail to realize is that the 2 parties compete more than they collude, and that they compete over real issues.

So while you sit on the sidelines throwing your vote away, the competition between them is resolved, each election, each race, without you.

But since you're a liberal, so much the better. :-)

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 10, 2015 4:16:30 PM

gas_too_high - "Since you're a liberal, please feel free to go ahead and waste your vote. :-)

In this case, your refusal to consider views other than your own will work to my advantage."

Which only demonstrates your refusal to consider views other than your own.

And the gullibility that goes along with that blindered vision is what both parties count on.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,869
Points:2,658,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 8:19:07 PM

GTH: "If those candidates and their parties are not credible, your vote for them pressures no one. The parties have to be built into something bigger than fringe groups."

rjhenn: "Which isn't going to happen as long as your view that voting for them wastes votes is the dominant view."

Since you're a liberal, please feel free to go ahead and waste your vote. :-)

In this case, your refusal to consider views other than your own will work to my advantage.

GTH
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,876
Points:155,775
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 7:36:34 PM

the only difference exists in the voters minds.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 4:55:51 PM

SoylentGrain - "I agree with you on the abortion position. But, where did you get that hormone imbalance theory from? Hormone imbalance is a fabricated term used in the lay public. If there were any hormone metabolism issue involved, that would be determined and controlled genetically by DNA and RNA. That the way the human body works."

Statistically, the chance for males to be born homosexual increases with the number of biological (from the same mother) older brothers they have.

Hormones are not completely controlled genetically. There are environmental influences as well.

I shouldn't have said "almost entirely due to". I meant that for those cases where SSA is truly inherent. Other cases may be psychological instead of inherent.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,817
Points:3,118,820
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 2:29:56 PM

"The day a gay gene is identified is the day the movement starts to ban abortion."

Nah, that's backwards. Liberals don't mind having gay babies. It's conservatives who would suddenly find a rationale for getting rid of those "perverted" or "deviant" babies. Suddenly abortion would be a "good and moral thing" for the former pro-lifers.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 2:19:59 PM

"Actually, this fits in quite well with their opposition to abortion, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with gays. It doesn't seem likely that "gayness" has a genetic marker. Current evidence indicates that it's almost entirely due to hormone imbalances during gestation."

I agree with you on the abortion position. But, where did you get that hormone imbalance theory from? Hormone imbalance is a fabricated term used in the lay public. If there were any hormone metabolism issue involved, that would be determined and controlled genetically by DNA and RNA. That the way the human body works.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 1:08:11 PM

Panama19 - "The primary difference between conservatives and liberals is the ability to think rationally.

Liberals function emotionally rather than rationally."

Which is emotional thinking. There are plenty of conservatives who cannot or refuse to think rationally, and function almost entirely on emotion.

What seems more accurate is the idea that the further you are from the middle, the more likely that you're functioning emotionally. That applies to both liberals and conservatives.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 1:07:28 PM

SoylentGrain - "I'm a pharmacist. The DEA and FDA establish what goes on the Controlled Substance Act schedules. A congressional committee, in some cases, might have to sign off on changes. But, on a federal level, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made this predominately a bureaucratic decision. An executive pen or phone call is all it takes."

Even for 'normal' drugs, there's an entire process that has to be followed. "An executive pen or phone call" might get the process started, but wouldn't automatically make the change happen.

"Another undeniable assumption. but, the only reference to abortion in the Republican platform is and was using federal dollars to pay for abortions. This and forcing insurance companies to pay for abortions are reasonable stances on the subject."

So why are you trying to limit the discussion to what's in "the Republican platform" instead of what Republicans are actually doing?

"Really? Think out 10, 20, 30 years. Researchers find a genetic marker for gayness. It then becomes possible to identify potentially gay babies with a simple test. They can then be selectively aborted. The 2012 republican platform address this. If the republican party were really against gays or abortion, why would this be included?"

Actually, this fits in quite well with their opposition to abortion, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with gays. It doesn't seem likely that "gayness" has a genetic marker. Current evidence indicates that it's almost entirely due to hormone imbalances during gestation.

So this issue in the platform is probably just another anti-abortion stance.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 1:06:01 PM

gas_too_high - "Your criteria are colored by your worldview, your basic assumptions about what is more important, which (in you or others) is not necessarily ideology. And what you call "bias" in me are different opinions, a differnet worldview and set of assumptions. That is perfectly normal in a heterogeneous society."

While true, your worldview and assumptions seem to be dominated by a fixed dogma, without any capacity for change.

"If those candidates and their parties are not credible, your vote for them pressures no one. The parties have to be built into something bigger than fringe groups."

Which isn't going to happen as long as your view that voting for them wastes votes is the dominant view.

"With people like SemiSteve, MiddleTownMarty, btc1, RNorm, not to mention the Canadian GBers who are to the left of the American center, there are no shortage of liberals on GB."

Marty appears to be one of the few of those who could qualify as "extremist liberal". There are any number of posters who appear to be "extremist conservative", with just as little actual logic behind their views as there appears to be behind Marty's.

"THe Libertarian and Green parties who regularly get candidates on Ohio's ballots but not in Ohio's offices are not much better."

The Libertarians and Greens are both pretty locked into fixed ideologies.

"Understandable, but that means you are throwing away votes."

And so are you.

"There are differences enough between Democrats and Republicans to justify making a choices between the 2 in at least most elections."

Most of those differences are cosmetic, and appear to be designed just to get people to stick with one or the other. In terms of actual problem solving, there doesn't seem to be much difference between them.

"Even a choice for the "least bad" candidate still makes a difference. I at least make a difference, while you stand on the sidelines whining about how bad things are."

You only think you make a difference, but what's actually changed as a result of your votes?
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:31,354
Points:3,272,110
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 1:56:08 AM


The primary difference between conservatives and liberals is the ability to think rationally.

Liberals function emotionally rather than rationally.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,924
Points:3,551,745
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 1:17:59 AM

My I remind you that the Reform Party under Ross Perot garnered like 20% of the electorate's votes. That was, what? '96?

Here's a fundamental difference - Liberals bow down to the global warming "god" without questioning the rather unscientific science used to explain the phenominon. Conservatives are asking to see conclusive proof before having the world spend and spend and spend it's treasure needlessly.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 9, 2015 12:11:29 AM

""Besides, Mr. Obama can simply issue and executive order or make a phone call to the FDA and change the schedule of any drug he wants."

Since many of those schedules, such as for pot, are set by law, no, he can't."

I'm a pharmacist. The DEA and FDA establish what goes on the Controlled Substance Act schedules. A congressional committee, in some cases, might have to sign off on changes. But, on a federal level, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made this predominately a bureaucratic decision. An executive pen or phone call is all it takes.

"Yet, despite that, we see an increasing number of restrictions and back-door attempts to ban it."

Another undeniable assumption. but, the only reference to abortion in the Republican platform is and was using federal dollars to pay for abortions. This and forcing insurance companies to pay for abortions are reasonable stances on the subject."

"IOW, pretty meaningless and irrelevant. "

Really? Think out 10, 20, 30 years. Researchers find a genetic marker for gayness. It then becomes possible to identify potentially gay babies with a simple test. They can then be selectively aborted. The 2012 republican platform address this. If the republican party were really against gays or abortion, why would this be included?

The day a gay gene is identified is the day the movement starts to ban abortion.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,869
Points:2,658,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 9:25:02 PM

rjhenn: "My criteria is "solving problems, instead of ranting about ideology". And that's just your bias showing."

Your criteria are colored by your worldview, your basic assumptions about what is more important, which (in you or others) is not necessarily ideology. And what you call "bias" in me are different opinions, a differnet worldview and set of assumptions. That is perfectly normal in a heterogeneous society.

GTH: "If all you do is vote for third party or independent candidates that have no realistic chance of winning, you effect no change at all, All you do is throw your vote away."

rjhenn: "If all you do is vote for candidates from the two major parties, there's no pressure on either to change, so you're just throwing your vote away. The more people who vote for other candidates, the more pressure there is on the two main parties to try to recapture those votes."

If those candidates and their parties are not credible, your vote for them pressures no one. The parties have to be built into something bigger than fringe groups.

GTH: "That's not just my perception. And it is confirmed with you criticize Republicans consistently but Democrats only rarely and reluctantly."

rjhenn: "Again, that's your bias. You notice criticism of Republicans more than you notice criticism of Democrats. Also, this site has more extremist conservatives on it than extremist liberals, so there's more opportunity to criticize Republicans."

With people like SemiSteve, MiddleTownMarty, btc1, RNorm, not to mention the Canadian GBers who are to the left of the American center, there are no shortage of liberals on GB.

GTH: "If you really want to change the 2 party system, then find someone (or be someone) with vision and talent to organize a party around an idea (not a personality like Ross Perot did) that the major parties cannot or will not address, and the time and resources (or ability to raise resources) to make that party a national or even regional contender in politics."

rjhenn: "That's actually a good idea, except that it would have to be a group of someones, otherwise you're just depending on personality again."

Sure, it would need to be a group effort, but a group of leaders -- a leader with vision and other leaders with money and organizational talent.

"The closest I see right now is the Modern Whigs, but I'm not keeping up with what they're doing right now."

I never hear of that group except from you. How many candidates have they elected? THe Libertarian and Green parties who regularly get candidates on Ohio's ballots but not in Ohio's offices are not much better.

GTH: "So are you up to that? Or are you just about talk?"

rjhenn: "Unfortunately, I won't have time for that until I retire. Which is still a few years off."

Understandable, but that means you are throwing away votes. There are differences enough between Democrats and Republicans to justify making a choices between the 2 in at least most elections. Even a choice for the "least bad" candidate still makes a difference. I at least make a difference, while you stand on the sidelines whining about how bad things are.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/8/2015 9:25:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 11:47:26 AM

gas_too_high - "Sounds like you have no criteria, not even in general, and you aren't willing to hold Democrats accountable in the same way you hold Republicans."

My criteria is "solving problems, instead of ranting about ideology". And that's just your bias showing.

"If all you do is vote for third party or independent candidates that have no realistic chance of winning, you effect no change at all, All you do is throw your vote away."

If all you do is vote for candidates from the two major parties, there's no pressure on either to change, so you're just throwing your vote away. The more people who vote for other candidates, the more pressure there is on the two main parties to try to recapture those votes.

"That's not just my perception. And it is confirmed with you criticize Republicans consistently but Democrats only rarely and reluctantly."

Again, that's your bias. You notice criticism of Republicans more than you notice criticism of Democrats. Also, this site has more extremist conservatives on it than extremist liberals, so there's more opportunity to criticize Republicans.

"If you really want to change the 2 party system, then find someone (or be someone) with vision and talent to organize a party around an idea (not a personality like Ross Perot did) that the major parties cannot or will not address, and the time and resources (or ability to raise resources) to make that party a national or even regional contender in politics."

That's actually a good idea, except that it would have to be a group of someones, otherwise you're just depending on personality again. The closest I see right now is the Modern Whigs, but I'm not keeping up with what they're doing right now.

"Until that happens, the 2 party system will not change. The last time we had a new major party founded was long before mass media made national politics insanely expensive and when a big idea -- abolition of slavery -- was ignored by the parties of the day."

Seems the internet should be making national politics a lot less expensive.

"So are you up to that? Or are you just about talk?"

Unfortunately, I won't have time for that until I retire. Which is still a few years off.

"Libertarianism is merely a political philosophy that sounds good but doesn't provide a solid basis for governing."

Well, it's a whole range of philosophies, but I will agree that it "doesn't provide a solid basis for governing."
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 11:39:20 AM

Troller_Diesel - "The only problem I see with the quiz is the question about "corporate welfare."

There is no such thing."

Yet another blind spot.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 8, 2015 11:39:01 AM

SoylentGrain - "Drugs - That could have been permanently addressed with a democratic congress and presidency a couple years ago."

You're assuming that the Democrats are the party you insist they must be, insist of that being a façade, much like much of the Republican agenda is a façade. Both are focused on getting reelected, not solving problems.

"Besides, Mr. Obama can simply issue and executive order or make a phone call to the FDA and change the schedule of any drug he wants."

Since many of those schedules, such as for pot, are set by law, no, he can't.

"abortion - a right granted by the supreme court. Doesn't make any difference how you feel about the issue."

Yet, despite that, we see an increasing number of restrictions and back-door attempts to ban it.

"same-sex marriage - is not addressed in the US Constitution. The only opposition from some conservatives is the redefinition of marriage that impacts the first amendment."

The Constitution does guarantee equal protection of the laws. And that opposition seems to be concerned entirely with a word, not religion or even the actual legal institution of marriage.

"The Republican's did address gay marriage in their 2012 platform by stating that genetic markers should not be used to terminate pregnancy based on genetic predisposition to be gay (should that genetic market ever be identified)."

IOW, pretty meaningless and irrelevant.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,869
Points:2,658,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 9:55:05 PM

ldheinz: "Given the nature of this discussion, has everyone taken The World's Smallest Political Quiz? Personally, I think it defines Conservative and Liberal fairly well. "

I've seen that quiz before. While it makes a valid point about libertarianism being distinct from the liberal-conservative spectrum, that quiz magnifies the importance of libertarianism, which is not a mainstream movement distinct from either liberalism or conservatism. Libertarianism is merely a political philosophy that sounds good but doesn't provide a solid basis for governing.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,869
Points:2,658,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 9:53:41 PM

rjhenn: "When have the Republicans in Congress acted like grown-ups? Maybe, briefly, in the mid '90s. It didn't last long."

gas_too_high - "When, in your opinion, did the Democrats in Congress ever act like grownups?"

rjhenn: "Are Democrats the ones saying “the grown-ups are now in control.”?"

GTH: "For that matter, what behavior constitutes "grownup behavior" in Congress?"

rjhenn: "Hard to say, since it's so rare."

Sounds like you have no criteria, not even in general, and you aren't willing to hold Democrats accountable in the same way you hold Republicans.

"Well, as long as most people, like you, will only vote for a major-party candidate, there's not much chance for change."

If all you do is vote for third party or independent candidates that have no realistic chance of winning, you effect no change at all, All you do is throw your vote away.

GTH: "It's not that I totally disagree with you. But you are trying too hard to be evenhanded, especially since your positions betray an affinity for one party over the other -- an affinity you try hard not to admit."

rjhenn: "That's because that affinity only exists in your perception, which appears to think that any criticism of the Republicans means support for the Democrats."

That's not just my perception. And it is confirmed with you criticize Republicans consistently but Democrats only rarely and reluctantly.

"And as long as people are fooled into only voting for those two parties, there's little or no pressure to change. "

If you really want to change the 2 party system, then find someone (or be someone) with vision and talent to organize a party around an idea (not a personality like Ross Perot did) that the major parties cannot or will not address, and the time and resources (or ability to raise resources) to make that party a national or even regional contender in politics.

Until that happens, the 2 party system will not change. The last time we had a new major party founded was long before mass media made national politics insanely expensive and when a big idea -- abolition of slavery -- was ignored by the parties of the day.

So are you up to that? Or are you just about talk?

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/7/2015 9:57:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:16,043
Points:686,685
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 9:08:24 PM

Gee what do know, I took the quiz and it was in the centrist box.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 7:29:50 PM

I had an issue with that one too.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:2,305
Points:21,765
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 6:57:33 PM

The only problem I see with the quiz is the question about "corporate welfare."

There is no such thing.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,375
Points:3,093,355
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 6:14:32 PM

Given the nature of this discussion, has everyone taken The World's Smallest Political Quiz? Personally, I think it defines Conservative and Liberal fairly well.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,120
Points:464,545
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 5:40:01 PM

We have a combination of capitalism and socialism.

If you think we are 'slipping into socialism' and fear we are going to end up with everybody working for the all-powerful government under a dictator then you are probably pretty far over on the right wing.

If you understand that our real debate is how much socialism is a good thing to mix in with our capitalism and that regulations are required to curtail greed and market abuse and we just have to be careful about how those regulations are created and administered then you have a balanced healthy grasp of our current challenges.

If you think capitalism is the problem and want everybody to share everything then you are pretty far on the left.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 3:24:47 PM

"Drugs, abortion, same-sex marriage. Anything that would prevent them from trying to enforce their version of morality on the rest of us. "

Drugs - That could have been permanently addressed with a democratic congress and presidency a couple years ago. Besides, Mr. Obama can simply issue and executive order or make a phone call to the FDA and change the schedule of any drug he wants.

abortion - a right granted by the supreme court. Doesn't make any difference how you feel about the issue.

same-sex marriage - is not addressed in the US Constitution. The only opposition from some conservatives is the redefinition of marriage that impacts the first amendment.

The Republican's did address gay marriage in their 2012 platform by stating that genetic markers should not be used to terminate pregnancy based on genetic predisposition to be gay (should that genetic market ever be identified).
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 1:17:16 PM

SoylentGrain - "Opposed to over reach and socialist government."

"Over reach" seems to mean "doing their job". And all government is socialist. It's not as if a real economy is either totally capitalist or totally socialist. There are always elements of both. The balance varies.

"Got any examples?"

Drugs, abortion, same-sex marriage. Anything that would prevent them from trying to enforce their version of morality on the rest of us.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2015 1:15:52 PM

gas_too_high - "When, in your opinion, did the Democrats in Congress ever act like grownups?"

Are Democrats the ones saying “the grown-ups are now in control.”?

"For that matter, what behavior constitutes "grownup behavior" in Congress?"

Hard to say, since it's so rare.

"Who else is there? The Libertarians? The Greens? What's left of the Reform party?"

Well, as long as most people, like you, will only vote for a major-party candidate, there's not much chance for change.

"It's not that I totally disagree with you. But you are trying too hard to be evenhanded, especially since your positions betray an affinity for one party over the other -- an affinity you try hard not to admit."

That's because that affinity only exists in your perception, which appears to think that any criticism of the Republicans means support for the Democrats.

"And I hardly think that while there is blame to go around, it does not go around in equal proportions. Not by a long shot. Not for nothing has one party been called the "Evil Party" and the other the "Stupid Party". (Matching nicknames to parties left as an exercise)."

And as long as people are fooled into only voting for those two parties, there's little or no pressure to change.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 10:12:22 PM

"Besides the double negative, it's pretty clear that you're opposed to all taxes, indeed, all government."

Opposed to over reach and socialist government.

"Of course they would, even while they ignore the parts of the Constitution that conflict with their ideology. "

Got any examples?
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:2,305
Points:21,765
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 8:25:13 PM

Simple.

Conservatives believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Liberals believe that they can fix anything even if they don't understand it.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,869
Points:2,658,215
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 8:18:07 PM

rjhenn: "When have the Republicans in Congress acted like grown-ups? Maybe, briefly, in the mid '90s. It didn't last long."

When, in your opinion, did the Democrats in Congress ever act like grownups? For that matter, what behavior constitutes "grownup behavior" in Congress?

"As long as it's just the Republicans and the Democrats running things, that's unlikely to change."

Who else is there? The Libertarians? The Greens? What's left of the Reform party?

It's not that I totally disagree with you. But you are trying too hard to be evenhanded, especially since your positions betray an affinity for one party over the other -- an affinity you try hard not to admit.

And I hardly think that while there is blame to go around, it does not go around in equal proportions. Not by a long shot. Not for nothing has one party been called the "Evil Party" and the other the "Stupid Party". (Matching nicknames to parties left as an exercise).

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/6/2015 8:20:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,120
Points:464,545
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 7:46:56 PM

Got mine from the ACLU.

So I guess you're right.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,375
Points:3,093,355
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 7:09:39 PM

"Sorry, but most conservatives don't pay any more attention to the Constitution than most liberals, when it's in opposition to their dogma. "

I picked up a free copy of the US Constitution at a store recently. It was provided by the local Tea Party. I've gotten them from conservative and libertarian groups, but never from a liberal group.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 3:19:55 PM

SoylentGrain - "Exactly, my point. There's no limit to what liberals will not tax. Cigarettes, alcohol, and medical devices should not have excise taxes placed on them, either."

Besides the double negative, it's pretty clear that you're opposed to all taxes, indeed, all government.

"The people voting in the new conservatives into congress would disagree with that statement."

Of course they would, even while they ignore the parts of the Constitution that conflict with their ideology.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 2:04:12 PM

"We tax cigarettes and alcohol. Was it liberals that introduced those taxes? Should other recreational drugs be treated differently?"

Exactly, my point. There's no limit to what liberals will not tax. Cigarettes, alcohol, and medical devices should not have excise taxes placed on them, either.

"Sorry, but most conservatives don't pay any more attention to the Constitution than most liberals, when it's in opposition to their dogma. "

The people voting in the new conservatives into congress would disagree with that statement.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 1:50:57 PM

flyboyUT - "...syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday he cannot wait for the GOP to take the reigns and show that “the grown-ups are now in control.”"

When have the Republicans in Congress acted like grown-ups?

Maybe, briefly, in the mid '90s. It didn't last long.

"Krauthammer blasted the New York Democrat, calling his plans “so idiotic, it’s almost unworthy of talking about.”<<<"

IOW, he's afraid the oil companies might have to act responsibly, instead of strictly for their own benefit. And that that might cost some Republican campaign funds.

"Nothing to see here folks - move along - just more democrats acting as normal - bloomin idiots......."

Both sides, as Krauthammer demonstrates, act like "bloomin idiots".

"Situation normal fubar for sure."

As long as it's just the Republicans and the Democrats running things, that's unlikely to change.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,120
Points:464,545
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 1:44:09 PM

The KXL would create at least 32 full time permanent jobs.

As it helps to release more carbon than the atmosphere can stand without pushing the environment to the limit of sustainability.

And now we learn that there will be no guarantee the USA will even get the product?

Sounds like a total suck-up to the profiteers.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,549
Points:2,931,605
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 1:42:33 PM

SoylentGrain - "Yeah, it actually does fall into that category. The leftist respons I hear a lot is " make them legal but, tax them." Just like many of our other "rights", you pay for that right."

We tax cigarettes and alcohol. Was it liberals that introduced those taxes? Should other recreational drugs be treated differently?

"The scary "strawman" doesn't go away if you close your eyes. Mudtoe made a extremely valid point."

No, he obsessed on what he wants to oppose, not what I've ever promoted.

"It used to be called the US Constitution."

Sorry, but most conservatives don't pay any more attention to the Constitution than most liberals, when it's in opposition to their dogma.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,287
Points:1,650,430
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 12:31:42 PM

And so it starts - the demos try to destroy every bill that actually makes sense. -- "‘The Days Of Hiding Under Harry Reid’s Desk Are Over’ "
.
.
>>>With Republicans set to take over both chambers of Congress on Tuesday, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday he cannot wait for the GOP to take the reigns and show that “the grown-ups are now in control.” Krauthammer also laid the wood to the Democrats in the minority and President Obama, telling host Bill O’Reilly their “days of hiding under Harry Reid’s desk are over.”

The conservative commentator also responded to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s Sunday comments on the Keystone XL pipeline, in which he suggested adding language to any bill that all of the oil used in the pipeline should be used in America. Krauthammer blasted the New York Democrat, calling his plans “so idiotic, it’s almost unworthy of talking about.”<<<

Nothing to see here folks - move along - just more democrats acting as normal - bloomin idiots.......
.
.
So I guess the game plan now that they cant depend on Dingy Harry ot just throw out anything he doesnt like is to attempt to add idiotic amendments to destroy any bill they dont like. Situation normal fubar for sure.
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 10:37:08 AM

"(you would have to do it in a confined place so that you aren't wandering the streets stoned and be a danger to others)."

Aren't those places currently called "bars"?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,554
Points:2,009,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 10:06:14 AM

SE: "Opium dens?"


Basically yes.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,417
Points:3,906,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 9:47:00 AM

"I'd be in favor of creating places where you could go and indulge in any recreational drugs that you want (you would have to do it in a confined place so that you aren't wandering the streets stoned and be a danger to others). You'd simply have to sign a blanket waiver absolving the establishment of any liability no matter what happened to you while high, and then you could indulge to your heart's content, or until you OD."

Opium dens?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,817
Points:3,118,820
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 9:39:35 AM

"I'd be in favor of creating places where you could go and indulge in any recreational drugs that you want (you would have to do it in a confined place so that you aren't wandering the streets stoned and be a danger to others). You'd simply have to sign a blanket waiver absolving the establishment of any liability no matter what happened to you while high, and then you could indulge to your heart's content, or until you OD."

Just think of all the savings on mental health care!
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,554
Points:2,009,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 9:25:41 AM

rjh: "So you're against our drug laws, because they say "what you can own and what you can do with what you are allowed to own"?"


I do believe that if people want to kill themselves with drugs, they should be allowed to do so. I have no doubt that if we made hard drugs available to those who really want them, we would have far fewer liberals, far fewer people on the dole, and far fewer welfare babies being born because the ones who would disproportionately abuse such drugs and eventually OD would be the takers and liberals in society. While some conservatives would undoubtedly succumb I'm quite confident that they would be far fewer in numbers and percentages than those on the left. Thus it would be net gain for society.

So to answer your question I'd be in favor of creating places where you could go and indulge in any recreational drugs that you want (you would have to do it in a confined place so that you aren't wandering the streets stoned and be a danger to others). You'd simply have to sign a blanket waiver absolving the establishment of any liability no matter what happened to you while high, and then you could indulge to your heart's content, or until you OD.

mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/6/2015 9:26:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SoylentGrain
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:1,446
Points:25,860
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 9:07:33 AM

True, semisteve. However, I have yet to hear a conservative say tax the activity. That's predominately a liberal solution.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:20,120
Points:464,545
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 6, 2015 8:55:03 AM

Legalization is not a straight liberal/conservative issue. Many conservatives support it as many liberals do not.
Post a reply Back to Topics