Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:43 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:17,597
Points:343,800
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
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 7:00:08 AM

rjh: "Not the Shrub tax cuts. They cut revenue severely for several years, and we never did catch up to where we'd have been without the cuts. They also failed to stimulate the economy."

I must concur with GTH in decrying the derogatory reference. Your highly valid point is quite succinct to stand on it's own merit without the distracting cut. You'd come across better and be more credible without that habit.

It is the mark of enlightened conservatives to concede this point. When tax cuts do nothing but grease the rich it hurts the nation.

Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,389
Points:133,585
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 12:49:19 AM

Sort of like Obama attacking Republicans, then decrying the partisanship in DC.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:34:09 PM

AC-302: "Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy."

rjhenn: "Not the Shrub tax cuts...."

Who was that?? I'm unaware of any President Shrub.

If that was a reference to GW Bush, then you lost the moral standing to criticize anyone who refers to Obama as "Obummer" etc.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:28:46 PM

rjhenn: "Like I said, the Reform party was too identified with Perot. They also don't have an actual strategy to fix things."

THe word "reform" and your pet phrase, "fixing things" and too broad, meaning different things to different people. They are neither a platform, nor an organizing principle for a third party. Try again. Just how are you going to start a third party that can actually attract votes that won't be wasted?

rjhenn: "IOW, you do favor allowing an employer to impose their religious values on their employees. That is, itself, a violation of "free exercise of religion", for the employee."

GTH: "My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it)."

rjhenn: "It says nothing about the right to employer-provided health insurance either."

Thank you for proving my point. There is no 'right' being deprived; therefore, there is no imposition of religious views.

GTH: "But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage."

rjhenn: 'Except that you still haven't any argument that stands up to rational analysis that it is "something fundamentally different from marriage".'

GTH: "You mean, other than a man and a woman can procreate, and a same-sex coupld cannot? ANd, other than a man and a woman can present both genders, and how they relate, to a child, and a same-sex union cannot?"

rjhenn: "Rational analysis: Procreation is not the basis of modern marriage."

Right off the bat, your "rational analysis" fails. There is no such thing as "modern marriage" distinct from traditional marriage. As throughout history, pepople enter into marriage for any number of personal reasons, none of which invalidate the overarching purpose of marriage. (And what overarching princple can same-sex unions have, beyond the convenience and pleasure of individuals?)

"A same-sex family can raise children and do just as good a job of it as the average hetero family."

That assertion is unproven at best, with the study having the largest sample size reaching the opposite conclusion.

But what is clear is what I already said: A same-sex couple cannot present both genders and how they relate to each other, to a child. In other words, such a family is missing either a father or a mother.

"Your insistence on procreation ignores things such as adoption and surrogates."

Adoptive families headed by a married couple closely model an biological family with an intact marriage.

"And any family that isn't totally isolated from the rest of the world has plenty of examples of both genders and how they relate."

Gender models out in the community are not the same as those in the family.

"No, it's completely consistent with freedom to practice your own religion, without violating the rights of others to practice their own religion."

I an unaware of any religion that *requires* those with same-sex attraction to enter into same-sex unions (which in any case are not prohibited).

But most religious groups, at least in North America, define marriage as between one man and one woman. Forcing them to recognize same-sex unions as marriages violates their religions freedom.

You consistently try to invert that into a religious-based "right to redefine marriage" which is utter nonsense.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:28:40 PM

AC-302 - "--Semantics once again. Tell me.. those politicians who do want giveaways.. what party to the generally belong to? And what side do they gravitate to? That's right.. they tend to be Democrat, and they tend to be left, and in particular FAR LEFT of center (those that want the giveaways, that is)."

More appearance than fact. How many "giveaways" have the Republicans actually gotten rid of, rather than just made a lot of noise about?

"Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy."

Not the Shrub tax cuts. They cut revenue severely for several years, and we never did catch up to where we'd have been without the cuts. They also failed to stimulate the economy.

"--OK, so let me get this straight, you are blaming George W. Bush, personally, for all of the economic shambles, 6 years later? Here, now, what about the 1994 Community Reinvestment Act, that forced banks to lend money based on race, rather than based on ability to pay?"

I'm blaming Bush administration policies, which were largely supported by the Republican Congress of his first 6 years.

And the CRA did not force banks to lend "based on race". Loans made as a direct result of the CRA were only a very small part of the problem. The CRA did trigger a stampede to make sub-prime loans to everyone and their uncle by greedy lenders, after they saw Fannie and Freddie making money off them.

"During the campaign, Obama SAID he had the answer. It's now 6 years later. Where is it? I'm not seeing economic prosperity."

Like I said, BO's incompetent. He got elected, and re-elected, on charisma, and the failure by the Republicans to select any kind of real candidate. If all that both parties put up are losers, guess what gets elected.

"The truth is that when we get individuals working again, then the economy and the country will do better. What do we do? Promote businesses to expand. How do we do that? 1) Reduce taxes and 2) Get rid of archaic and choking regulations and 3) promote international trade."

As I've said before, I'm all for reducing both business tax rates and the deductions they get, and for reviewing all current laws and regulations to simplify and get rid of stuff that just doesn't work.

But in order to get the economy working again, we also need to pay the actual workers more, so they can spend more, which will encourage businesses to expand.

"I, for one, believe in the power of the individual to provide for him/herself, and to know what is best for them and their family."

Ideally, yes. The problem there is that too many have been conditioned so that they are no longer capable of making those good decisions.

"Unfortunately, the liberals, and Democrats seem to legislate, based on them knowing better then people, what is best for them."

That's equally true of the other side, especially in the area of 'morality'.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,032
Points:3,207,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 12:34:32 PM

RJHenn said: "There's a core of truth there, but you started off with an invalid premise. It's not "liberals" that "want to provide so much, to so many". It's politicians. And their programs aren't designed to be effective, but to promote dependence on those politicians."

--Semantics once again. Tell me.. those politicians who do want giveaways.. what party to the generally belong to? And what side do they gravitate to? That's right.. they tend to be Democrat, and they tend to be left, and in particular FAR LEFT of center (those that want the giveaways, that is). Now, do Reps also have some giveaways? Sure. Medicare part D was one, and I think that this needed not to be done, as we couldn't afford it, and it wasn't well done either. Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy.

RJ continued: "Unfortunately, much of Obama's overspending is due to the recession and reduced government revenues, which he inherited from Shrub. He's also incompetent, so his spending hasn't really done much to improve the economy."

--OK, so let me get this straight, you are blaming George W. Bush, personally, for all of the economic shambles, 6 years later? Here, now, what about the 1994 Community Reinvestment Act, that forced banks to lend money based on race, rather than based on ability to pay? Gee.. who set this up? Oh yeah.. Bill Clinton and the Democrat House and Senate? That is the root of the problem, my friend. And rather than blaming Republicans solely for the problem, you ought to be looking at your Democrat friends, too. But then again, in '08 we were already seeing problems in our economy with real estate falling. During the campaign, Obama SAID he had the answer. It's now 6 years later. Where is it? I'm not seeing economic prosperity.

The truth is that when we get individuals working again, then the economy and the country will do better. What do we do? Promote businesses to expand. How do we do that? 1) Reduce taxes and 2) Get rid of archaic and choking regulations and 3) promote international trade. I, for one, believe in the power of the individual to provide for him/herself, and to know what is best for them and their family. Unfortunately, the liberals, and Democrats seem to legislate, based on them knowing better then people, what is best for them.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 12:21:11 PM

" I'll say it again, that especially liberals want government to be all things to all people, much like socialism/communism/marxism was."

Still clinging to that exaggeration? It is the same as saying there is no political spectrum; that one is either conservative or they are a complete all-out socialist/communist/marxist.

"The problem is that to make ANY economy work, you must have a fair medium of exchange."

That's exactly the problem with how the elite rich strong-arm the rest and control our government to suit themselves only.

" The problem with liberalism is that they want to provide so much, to so many, that there's really not enough money to go around."

That effect does dilute the buying power of earned money, but to say this is the only factor in a sluggish economy is an over-simplification. It disregards the effect of the greedy powerful hogging most of the currency for themselves which depletes the amount of currency in active circulation and causes sluggish economy with too few having enough buying power to purchase enough products and services.

"But if you're going to complain about unfunded mandates (and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I am AGREEING WITH YOU), then you also have to criticize Obama and his fool government overspending (at present like 4X that of Bush 2), and you also have to then "go after" ObamaCare - which is, in effect, and unfunded mandate. And make no mistake, the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill as it collapses. Mark my words on that one."

Glad we agree on the run-away spending of Bush2 but the situation there is not comparable to Obama's challenges upon taking office. One was handed a rosy economy, the other a shambles.

We all know how much you like to place words in my mouth but you'll just have to let me be the one to decide what I say. The Obama administration has been dealing with high unemployment and low revenue due to the long-lasting effects of the Great Recession. Real estate values have still not recovered and many foreclosures remain bank-held. Those jobs which have replaced the lost ones pay less and offer fewer benefits. Many are forced to work part-time and rely on govt assistance. It appears universal health care arrived just in the nick of time. If it costs the prosperous a bit more to keep feeding the massive greedy insurance industry so those executives can continue increasing their wealth far and above the rest then we have only ourselves to blame for not going with single payer when we had the chance.

Are the poor poor because they are lazy or stupid?

The latest Hightower Report has a scathing assessment of the state of higher education in America. Most college teachers are now adjuncts. This includes PhD's on EBT because college tuition goes to support 6-figure executives instead of actual teachers. Most adjuncts are limited to part-time status, have zero benefits, no job security, and are forced to work several part-time jobs and burn up cars and gas commuting to many campuses and jobs. And, of course, none of their jobs pay travel.

How much respect can college students have for our economic system when they order a pizza and the guy who brings it is one of their professors?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/18/2014 12:23:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 11:54:31 AM

AC-302 - "--Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll say it again, that especially liberals want government to be all things to all people, much like socialism/communism/marxism was."

Like I said, massive stereotyping. There may be some liberals like that, but it's hardly the norm.

"The problem is that to make ANY economy work, you must have a fair medium of exchange. That medium we usually call "money". And the nature of people is that we don't like to work for free, and we like to have consideration for our labors (ie money)."

So far, so good.

"The problem with liberalism is that they want to provide so much, to so many, that there's really not enough money to go around. This is why there ends up being rationing, and why socialist governments tend to have universal poverty. EU socialism not as much, because there's a heavy dose of capitalism. Then again, there are still a WHOLE LOT of folks who want to move OUT of Europe to America to get a bit more capitalism, and improve their standard of living by KEEPING much more of what they make. If it weren't so, then why are many, many more people from the EU coming to the US, vs Americans moving to Western Europe?"

There's a core of truth there, but you started off with an invalid premise. It's not "liberals" that "want to provide so much, to so many". It's politicians. And their programs aren't designed to be effective, but to promote dependence on those politicians.

"--We will always have some of those kinds of "police actions" as situations pop up."

Afghanistan and Iraq were quite a bit more than "police actions". And cost a lot more.

"But if you're going to complain about unfunded mandates (and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I am AGREEING WITH YOU), then you also have to criticize Obama and his fool government overspending (at present like 4X that of Bush 2), and you also have to then "go after" ObamaCare - which is, in effect, and unfunded mandate. And make no mistake, the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill as it collapses. Mark my words on that one."

Unfortunately, much of Obama's overspending is due to the recession and reduced government revenues, which he inherited from Shrub. He's also incompetent, so his spending hasn't really done much to improve the economy. Not to mention that the Republicans have done everything they could to sabotage things so the Dems don't get any credit for making things better.

I don't see how ObamaCare is an "unfunded mandate", though I think it was a bad idea from the get-go.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 11:51:49 AM

gas_too_high - "THat issue turned out to be insufficient to build a party around. If you disbelieve me, please give my regards to the Reform party. (BTW, how many congressmen and senators have been elected by that party, again? How many electoral votes did their Presidential ticket get in 2012)?"

Like I said, the Reform party was too identified with Perot. They also don't have an actual strategy to fix things.

What Perot's original push for President did accomplish was to push the Republicans into the "Contract for America".

"They are attacking "business as usual," which I would have though was your aim as well. But then, you are against both Democrats and Republicans, especially Republicans."

The Tea party doesn't have a concrete strategy either. They're just a fragmented collection of groups against everything. Seems the only thing they've actually accomplished is to support the extremist wing of the Republican party.

"My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it)."

It says nothing about the right to employer-provided health insurance either.

"It is telling that, as a leftist, you invert a right to free exercise of religion, into "imposing your religious views on others"."

It's telling that, as a right-winger, you want to ignore the principle that "your right to swing your fist around ends where my face begins".

"You mean, other than a man and a woman can procreate, and a same-sex coupld cannot? ANd, other than a man and a woman can present both genders, and how they relate, to a child, and a same-sex union cannot?"

Rational analysis: Procreation is not the basis of modern marriage. A same-sex family can raise children and do just as good a job of it as the average hetero family. Your insistence on procreation ignores things such as adoption and surrogates. And any family that isn't totally isolated from the rest of the world has plenty of examples of both genders and how they relate.

"That sounds rational to me. And your position, in elevating a non-family non-child-bearing union to be legally indistinguishable to a child-bearing, child-raising union, is anti-family and anti-child."

As demonstrated, it's not rational, but dogmatic. Your argument here is also not rational, unless you're proposing that any childless hetero marriage ("a non-family non-child-bearing union" that is "legally indistinguishable to a child-bearing, child-raising union") shouldn't be considered a "marriage". Then you want to relegate same-sex families, even those raising children, to second-class status, while providing no argument how same-sex marriage would actually harm either marriage, families or children. Thus it's your position that's anti-family and anti-child.

"There, I fixed your quote for you."

All you did was confirm my argument.

"Then your inhibition fo religions freedom is schizophrenic."

No, it's completely consistent with freedom to practice your own religion, without violating the rights of others to practice their own religion.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,032
Points:3,207,985
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 7:07:40 PM

RJ said: "Massive stereotyping and, like many stereotypes, massively wrong."

--Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll say it again, that especially liberals want government to be all things to all people, much like socialism/communism/marxism was. The problem is that to make ANY economy work, you must have a fair medium of exchange. That medium we usually call "money". And the nature of people is that we don't like to work for free, and we like to have consideration for our labors (ie money). The problem with liberalism is that they want to provide so much, to so many, that there's really not enough money to go around. This is why there ends up being rationing, and why socialist governments tend to have universal poverty. EU socialism not as much, because there's a heavy dose of capitalism. Then again, there are still a WHOLE LOT of folks who want to move OUT of Europe to America to get a bit more capitalism, and improve their standard of living by KEEPING much more of what they make. If it weren't so, then why are many, many more people from the EU coming to the US, vs Americans moving to Western Europe?

SemiSteve said, way below: ""passing unfunded mandates" Like starting wars with no plan to pay for them?"

--We will always have some of those kinds of "police actions" as situations pop up. However, if you will recall, overspending was one of the BIGGEST CRITICISMS I and others had of the Bush 2 Administration. I didn't deny it back then, and I'm not denying it now.

But if you're going to complain about unfunded mandates (and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I am AGREEING WITH YOU), then you also have to criticize Obama and his fool government overspending (at present like 4X that of Bush 2), and you also have to then "go after" ObamaCare - which is, in effect, and unfunded mandate. And make no mistake, the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill as it collapses. Mark my words on that one.

[Edited by: AC-302 at 4/17/2014 7:12:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:27:25 PM

rjhenn: "IOW, you do favor allowing an employer to impose their religious values on their employees. That is, itself, a violation of "free exercise of religion", for the employee."

My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it).

It is telling that, as a leftist, you invert a right to free exercise of religion, into "imposing your religious views on others".

GTH: "But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage."

rjhenn: 'Except that you still haven't any argument that stands up to rational analysis that it is "something fundamentally different from marriage".'

You mean, other than a man and a woman can procreate, and a same-sex coupld cannot? ANd, other than a man and a woman can present both genders, and how they relate, to a child, and a same-sex union cannot?

That sounds rational to me. And your position, in elevating a non-family non-child-bearing union to be legally indistinguishable to a child-bearing, child-raising union, is anti-family and anti-child.

'"Common sense" is usually whatever the one using the term wants it to be. In this case, it's only "common sense" if it conforms to mu opposition to religion.'

There, I fixed your quote for you.

'While promoting smaller government, but asking for more government to enforce religious 'morality' seems to be a very right-wing sentiment.'

Maintaining the age-old definition of marriage will grow government not one iota. Whereas, your ahistorical definition of marriage requires additional government enforcers to silence dissenters and coerce them to accept what their common sense and consciences tell them is untrue.

"Sorry, but I prefer more freedom than either side of the political spectrum supports."

Then your inhibition fo religions freedom is schizophrenic.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:24:35 PM

rjhenn: "The wedge issue is the demonstrated inability of either major party to deal with our current problems."

GTH: "That issue is too abstract. (Ross Perot tried a similar tactic with his Reform Party. But voters were attracted to his personality, not to that issue)."

rjhenn: "Some were, some weren't. Actually, his personality got in the way of the message."

GTH: "A wedge issue needs to be a concrete issue people care about enough to support. It also needs to be an issue that cannot easily be co-opted by either major party."

rjhenn: 'That would be "fixing things".'

THat issue turned out to be insufficient to build a party around. If you disbelieve me, please give my regards to the Reform party. (BTW, how many congressmen and senators have been elected by that party, again? How many electoral votes did their Presidential ticket get in 2012)?

'The Tea Party is trying to take over the Republican party, though they're too disorganized and unfocused to do more than disrupt. Basically, all they've accomplished is even more partisanship.'

They are attacking "business as usual," which I would have though was your aim as well. But then, you are against both Democrats and Republicans, especially Republicans.

GTH
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,444
Points:3,498,490
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:49:30 PM

"Oh, sorry."

No problem. This is one of the more civil discussions in the politics form. I am happy with the effort to keep it that way.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 3:32:01 PM

SE3.5 - "Ask SS. I was quoting his OP."

Oh, sorry. I was reading it as two completely separate statements, with the "they" in the 2nd one referring back to "Liberals", when, in fact, it refers back to "the poor" in the first statement.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,444
Points:3,498,490
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 3:06:32 PM

"What makes you think that liberals think that THEY are poor?"

Ask SS. I was quoting his OP.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:23:22 PM

SE3.5 - "Knee-jerk 'Liberals seem to hold that they are poor...."

What makes you think that liberals think that THEY are poor?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:21:33 PM

gas_too_high - "Good thing that isn't happening."

Yet you still support it.

"In the case of the HHS mandate, there is no right to have one's employer pay for one's birth control. And, as a practical matter, contraceptive methonds (and non-abortifacient ones, to boot) are readily available at modest cost. That is, anyone can buy a pack of condoms at any grocery or drugstore for the price of a pack of chewing gum. No insurance mandate -- or consicence violations -- needed."

IOW, you do favor allowing an employer to impose their religious values on their employees. That is, itself, a violation of "free exercise of religion", for the employee.

"Because making such an articifial distinction, weakens marriage and its ability to enable children to be raised by their mothers and fathers."

And, again, you ignore the inherently anti-family and anti-child effects of your position.

"But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage."

Except that you still haven't any argument that stands up to rational analysis that it is "something fundamentally different from marriage".

"That's not based on religion (even though religion supports that position), but what is (or used to be) called 'common sense."

"Common sense" is usually whatever the one using the term wants it to be. In your case, it's only "common sense" if it conforms to your religion.

"And what's most telling about your position, rjhenn, is that you somehow twist a desire to prevent the government violating my free exercise of religion rights, amounts to "imposing my religious beliefs on others"."

It is what it is.

"That is a distinctly leftist sentiment (yet again)."

While promoting smaller government, but asking for more government to enforce religious 'morality' seems to be a very right-wing sentiment.

Sorry, but I prefer more freedom than either side of the political spectrum supports.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:18:27 PM

gas_too_high - "Whatever issues you care about, they aren't the major issues being contended currently, such as Obamacare, deficit spending or the out of control debt.

On those issues, you, not I, are disenfranchised."

Yeah, like either party is actually doing anything about those issues, other than using them to keep you voting for them.

"That issue is too abstract. (Ross Perot tried a similar tactic with his Reform Party. But voters were attracted to his personality, not to that issue)."

Some were, some weren't. Actually, his personality got in the way of the message.

"A wedge issue needs to be a concrete issue people care about enough to support. It also needs to be an issue that cannot easily be co-opted by either major party."

That would be "fixing things".

"Grassroots support doesn't raise the kind of funding needed to build and develop a third party, independent of the 2 major party network of operatives and big donors. (That, and the general alignment of their issues to the GOP, is why the Tea party, the biggest grassroots political movement currently, is working withing the Republican party, instead of operating as a third party)."

The Tea Party is trying to take over the Republican party, though they're too disorganized and unfocused to do more than disrupt. Basically, all they've accomplished is even more partisanship.

"On the issues above, the candidates I vote for, pay attention to me, at least often enough to make it worthwhile to vote for them. That is, while the Democrats disagree with me virtually all the time, the GOP agrees with me part of the time."

And neither is actually getting any of what you want accomplished.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,444
Points:3,498,490
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 9:04:00 AM

Knee-jerk "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."

Knee-jerk "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."

I do not concur, so I corrected your suppositions for you.

Now I concur.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,668
Points:1,585,165
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:22:01 PM

"What about the straw-man thingy? My observation is that it is used primarily by conservatives here and not so much by liberals. Do you concur?"

Posting this not realizing that what he posted was a straw-man in itself. Talk about just a gross over-generalization.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:17:00 PM

And what's most telling about your position, rjhenn, is that you somehow twist a desire to prevent the government violating my free exercise of religion rights, amounts to "imposing my religious beliefs on others".

That is a distinctly leftist sentiment (yet again).

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:09:36 PM

rjhenn: "However, freedom of religion does not permit an employer, for example, to force his religious values on his employees, which is something you support."

Good thing that isn't happening.

GTH: "Currently, the ones "imposing their religion" (more properly, their anti-religion) are the Obama administration, in forcing insurers to finance abortifacients; and the so-called "gay rights" movement, in forcing others to accept their ahistorical, non-traditional and anti-family definition of marriage."

rjhenn: "IOW, you want to force your religious values on others."

No. Neither issue represents any kind of positive right, certainly not a Constitutional one, as against the explicit Constitutional right of "free exercise of religion".

In the case of the HHS mandate, there is no right to have one's employer pay for one's birth control. And, as a practical matter, contraceptive methonds (and non-abortifacient ones, to boot) are readily available at modest cost. That is, anyone can buy a pack of condoms at any grocery or drugstore for the price of a pack of chewing gum. No insurance mandate -- or consicence violations -- needed.

"And, once again, you fail to distinguish between marriage as a religious institution and as a civil institution..."

Because making such an articifial distinction, weakens marriage and its ability to enable children to be raised by their mothers and fathers.

"...which falls under the constitutional issue of "equal protection of the laws"."

Which is a non-issue, since no arbitrary legal bar to marriage exists. But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage. There is no right to redefine marriage, or have the general public agree to that redefinition.

That's not based on religion (even though religion supports that position), but what is (or used to be) called 'common sense."

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 7:58:42 PM

gas_too_high - "'If enough people start doing it' is a very big *if*, especially since those people have to disenfranchise themselves, with no guarantee they will overturn the 2 party system."

rjhenn: "They, and you, are already disenfranchised. Voting for anybody else is the only way to get their franchise back."

Whatever issues you care about, they aren't the major issues being contended currently, such as Obamacare, deficit spending or the out of control debt.

On those issues, you, not I, are disenfranchised.

GTH: "To have any chance of succeeding, you need a wedge issue, one that neither party is addressing or able to address, and around which you can establish a party. You need a region of the country where this party can take root and elect candidates locally, establishing a beachhead to spread throughout the nation."

rjhenn: "The wedge issue is the demonstrated inability of either major party to deal with our current problems."

That issue is too abstract. (Ross Perot tried a similar tactic with his Reform Party. But voters were attracted to his personality, not to that issue).

A wedge issue needs to be a concrete issue people care about enough to support. It also needs to be an issue that cannot easily be co-opted by either major party.

GTH: "And, you need the resources of a Ross Perot to fund it all, but without the ego of a Perot, who might otherwise capture this party and use it for personal aggrandizement."

rjhenn: "Or grassroots support."

Grassroots support doesn't raise the kind of funding needed to build and develop a third party, independent of the 2 major party network of operatives and big donors. (That, and the general alignment of their issues to the GOP, is why the Tea party, the biggest grassroots political movement currently, is working withing the Republican party, instead of operating as a third party).

'Voting for the ones who are ignoring you, just because they're the "lesser of two evils", is wasting your vote.'

On the issues above, the candidates I vote for, pay attention to me, at least often enough to make it worthwhile to vote for them. That is, while the Democrats disagree with me virtually all the time, the GOP agrees with me part of the time.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 12:20:54 PM

gas_too_high - "'If enough people start doing it' is a very big *if*, especially since those people have to disenfranchise themselvers, with no guaranteee they will overturn the 2 party system."

They, and you, are already disenfranchised. Voting for anybody else is the only way to get their franchise back.

"To have any chance of succeeding, you need a wedge issue, one that neither party is addressing or able to address, and around which you can establish a party. You need a region of the country where this party can take root and elect candidates locally, establishing a beachhead to spread throughout the nation."

The wedge issue is the demonstrated inability of either major party to deal with our current problems.

"And, you need the resources of a Ross Perot to fund it all, but without the ego of a Perot, who might otherwise capture this party and use it for personal aggrandizement."

Or grassroots support.

"So tell me, how are you going to do that? Otherwise, you and any followers are throwing away their votes."

And, again, it's the "a vote for someone who cannot win is a wasted vote"? Voting for the ones who are ignoring you, just because they're the "lesser of two evils", is wasting your vote.

"No, I meant what I said. Citizens are entitled to bring their personal beliefs, on religion or anything else, into the public square and try to persuade whoever they can, to their point of view. Doing so is not "imposing their religion on others"."

That much is true.

"But the "public square" is not entitled to force private citizens to violate their conscience, specially not on matters on religion. Nor is the "public square" entitled to force citizens into silence on matters of religion, any more than it is entitled to do so on other matters."

However, freedom of religion does not permit an employer, for example, to force his religious values on his employees, which is something you support.

"Currently, the ones "imposing their religion" (more properly, their anti-religion) are the Obama administration, in forcing insurers to finance abortifacients; and the so-called "gay rights" movement, in forcing others to accept their ahistorical, non-traditional and anti-family definition of marriage."

IOW, you want to force your religious values on others. And, once again, you fail to distinguish between marriage as a religious institution and as a civil institution, which falls under the constitutional issue of "equal protection of the laws".
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 6:59:09 AM

GTH: "Conservatives take "free exercise [of religion]" to mean just that, and allow citizens to bring their faith into the public square."

rjhenn: "You mean, allow citizens to impose their religion on others."

No, I meant what I said. Citizens are entitled to bring their personal beliefs, on religion or anything else, into the public square and try to persuade whoever they can, to their point of view. Doing so is not "imposing their religion on others".

But the "public square" is not entitled to force private citizens to violate their conscience, specially not on matters on religion. Nor is the "public square" entitled to force citizens into silence on matters of religion, any more than it is entitled to do so on other matters.

Currently, the ones "imposing their religion" (more properly, their anti-religion) are the Obama administration, in forcing insurers to finance abortifacients; and the so-called "gay rights" movement, in forcing others to accept their ahistorical, non-traditional and anti-family definition of marriage.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 6:57:42 AM

GTH: "Voting for an alternative that is no realistic chance of winning over either of 2 viable alternatives, is a much more effective means of disenfranchisement."

rjhenn: "It's the only way of putting pressure on the two major parties. If enough people start doing it, instead of buying into the "wasting your vote" lie, either one of the parties will change to pick up those lost votes, or another party will rise to possibly replace one of the majors."

"If enough people start doing it" is a very big *if*, especially since those people have to disenfranchise themselvers, with no guaranteee they will overturn the 2 party system.

"Or we might actually get a more representative three-party system. Not likely, Americans seem partial to binary partisanship."

To have any chance of succeeding, you need a wedge issue, one that neither party is addressing or able to address, and around which you can establish a party. You need a region of the country where this party can take root and elect candidates locally, establishing a beachhead to spread throughout the nation.

And, you need the resources of a Ross Perot to fund it all, but without the ego of a Perot, who might otherwise capture this party and use it for personal aggrandizement.

So tell me, how are you going to do that? Otherwise, you and any followers are throwing away their votes.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 5:47:49 PM

gas_too_high - "So which is true about adverse Obamacare impacts: "Politically motivated propaganda" or "unforeseen side effects"?"

Both. I tend to agree mostly with the effects on business. Most of the rest are, so far as there's any actual proof, propaganda.

"Often it does. And often it does not."

And often it merely reinforces unrealistic dogma.

"Voting for an alternative that is no realistic chance of winning over either of 2 viable alternatives, is a much more effective means of disenfranchisement."

It's the only way of putting pressure on the two major parties. If enough people start doing it, instead of buying into the "wasting your vote" lie, either one of the parties will change to pick up those lost votes, or another party will rise to possibly replace one of the majors.

Or we might actually get a more representative three-party system. Not likely, Americans seem partial to binary partisanship.

"And I'm not "committed" to the 2 party system. it merely happens to be the least bad alternative, for the moment. You have suggested nothing better."

There are a lot of possibilities. But they're not going anywhere under the current two-party regime. Too much polarization.

"Conservatives take "free exercise" to mean just that, and allow citizens to bring their faith into the public square."

You mean, allow citizens to impose their religion on others.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:45:42 PM

SemiSteve: "Would like to take credit for that one, but it goes to SE3.5, GTH."

You're correct Steve. My bad.

"I bet the conservative overuse of the straw man tactic stems from Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal..."

As a conservative, I dislike Ann Coulter. I find she polarizes and demonizes unnecessarily. That is, she falls into the same traps that liberals often do.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/15/2014 4:48:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:45:37 PM

I bet the conservative overuse of the straw man tactic stems from Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal", in which she professes as much, ie: assume they are lying, nail them on what you think they're saying, etc.

All she really said was:

"Use the Straw Man approach!"

So that's exactly what we se here in the forum.

Another Conservative Myth: BUSTED!
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:24:26 PM

Would like to take credit for that one, but it goes to SE3.5, GTH.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:16:28 PM

SemiSteve: "Here is a fundamental difference when discussing the constitution as it relates to religion. MOST conservatives focus on the "free exercise" clause and ignore the "establish" clause. MOST liberals focus on the "establish" clause and ignore the "free exercise" clause."

Actually, most conservatives (at least the knowledgeable ones) realize that the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment reinforce each other, instead ob opposing each other. After all, an established church is not free -- it is beholden to the government. The Church of England, for example, is not self governing. Parliament (including its non-Anglican and even non-Christian members) approves its internal laws and could even change its doctrine. And the Prime Minister nominates the Archbishop who is appointed by the Queen (that may apply to other bishops as well). Similar situations hold in varying degrees in other European countries with established churches.

Contrast in the US. The government stays out of the governance of any church, since no church or denomination has any privileged status.

The real issue is whether the "free exercise" clause is taken seriously, or dumbed down to just mean "freedom of worship".

Conservatives take "free exercise" to mean just that, and allow citizens to bring their faith into the public square.

The tendency among liberals has been to allow only "freedom of worship": that is, freedom only with the walls of your place of worship; and require believers to disregard their beliefs and their consciences when it conflicts with government laws and regulations.

GTH
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,444
Points:3,498,490
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 3:58:36 PM

"What about the straw-man thingy? My observation is that it is used primarily by conservatives here and not so much by liberals. Do you concur?"

You really expect me to go through the 885 posts on this topic and score the straw-man thingy? I didn't think so.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 3:50:16 PM

Good one, SE3.5. I think you're right.

We all tend to cherry-pick, to some degree, eh?

What about the straw-man thingy? My observation is that it is used primarily by conservatives here and not so much by liberals. Do you concur?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/15/2014 3:51:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,444
Points:3,498,490
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 3:44:26 PM

Here is a fundamental difference when discussing the constitution as it relates to religion.

MOST conservatives focus on the "free exercise" clause and ignore the "establish" clause.
MOST liberals focus on the "establish" clause and ignore the "free exercise" clause.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 3:39:16 PM

gas_too_high - "Even if true, that does not meant that the "practical considerations" are not there. Those considerations are very real, if you ask anyone who has lost their health insurance, or their job, due to Obamacare, or anyone who has higher cost insurance, or higher business costs."

rjhenn: "And, so far, most of that has turned out to be politically-motivated propaganda."

And yet, you go on to say:

"And, again, I think the ACA does have unforeseen side effects, which is why I'd much prefer a true single-payer health insurance system."

So which is true about adverse Obamacare impacts: "Politically motivated propaganda" or "unforeseen side effects"?

GTH: "Actually greed, or self-interest, is a common preference among many of us. That doesn't mean we (and those 0.1%) don't also have principles that are of no immediate benefit to us, which drive our political involvment, including voting."

rjhenn: "The problem with greed is that it often overrides other principles, even common sense."

Often it does. And often it does not.

GTH: "And you have yet to offer a practical alternative, one that doesn't disenfranchise anyone who follows it, in choosing the real alternatives between conservative versus liberal."

rjhenn: "That's because you are committed to the two-party system, which, quite clearly, isn't working, except to keep us from solving problems. Voting for the lesser of two evils is disenfranchisement."

Voting for an alternative that is no realistic chance of winning over either of 2 viable alternatives, is a much more effective means of disenfranchisement.

And I'm not "committed" to the 2 party system. it merely happens to be the least bad alternative, for the moment. You have suggested nothing better.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/15/2014 3:40:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 2:32:04 PM

"passing unfunded mandates"

Like starting wars with no plan to pay for them?

"Those are real considerations, which democrats sought to inflict on us, and Republicans sought to avoid. Those mark a real divide, not an illusory one, as you want to believe."

Oh that's funny. Lower case d for democrats, upper case R for Republicans. No bias there. <s>

***

I see that no conservatives have attempted to claim there is anything incorrect about my contention that conservatives on this forum tend to use the straw man debate style while liberals tend to argue straight-up on exactly what conservatives say.

What is it about conservatives that makes them see liberal points incorrectly?

Is it that liberal views make too much sense to argue on face-value? So conservatives have to first try to turn it into something that's easier to pick apart?

Funny how the liberals around here don't to have to do that. Many of the conservative views are EASY to pick apart.

No straw man required!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 1:31:42 PM

gas_too_high - "Even if true, that does not meant that the "practical considerations" are not there. Those considerations are very real, if you ask anyone who has lost their health insurance, or their job, due to Obamacare, or anyone who has higher cost insurance, or higher business costs."

And, so far, most of that has turned out to be politically-motivated propaganda.

"Those are real considerations, which democrats sought to inflict on us, and Republicans sought to avoid. Those mark a real divide, not an illusory one, as you want to believe."

So where's the actual evidence?

And, again, I think the ACA does have unforeseen side effects, which is why I'd much prefer a true single-payer health insurance system.

"Actually greed, or self-interest, is a common preference among many of us. That doesn't mean we (and those 0.1%) don't also have principles that are of no immediate benefit to us, which drive our political involvment, including voting."

The problem with greed is that it often overrides other principles, even common sense.

"Not anywhere near as much as you want to think."

Much more so than you want to think.

"And you have yet to offer a practical alternative, one that doesn't disenfranchise anyone who follows it, in choosing the real alternatives between conservative versus liberal."

That's because you are committed to the two-party system, which, quite clearly, isn't working, except to keep us from solving problems. Voting for the lesser of two evils is disenfranchisement.

"(You have offered non-practical alternatives, but I prefer to retain my vote, thankk you very much)."

You mean you prefer to waste your vote, but stay within your comfort zone.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,379
Points:2,766,170
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:58:39 AM

Steve, many functions of government can be handled by states or localities. Chief among these is health and education. But the federal government has been trying to get control of more and more of these functions, passing unfunded mandates and standards that must be complied with. Getting the feds out and letting states and localities handle much more would suit conservatives.

Meanwhile, the Postal Service purchases a large amount of ammo, just like other federal agencies. The article points out how it used to be the Federal Marshall Service that would do the actual armed police work for various federal agencies. Now they all want their own people, trained and armed. And expensive.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:37:14 AM

Conservatives on this site seem to fall into the straw man trap. All too often they have a tendency to make things up and try to put them in other people's mouths. I don't see the Liberals doing that nearly as much. Conservatives frequently don't seem to want to argue against what liberals actually say. They often want to make things up and respond to what they made up instead of white liberals say.

The liberals on this site on the other hand seem quite willing to argue against exactly what the conservative say. They don't have to make things up. They can deal with reality head on.

Maybe it is because what the conservative say is easy to pick apart. But what liberals say makes too much sense so conservatives have to try to turn it into something else.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 9:31:39 AM

That's trying, once again, to oversimplify a very complex issue I 75. Government is a very complex combination of many things; it's not just one thing. It's not a matter of how much government it's a matter of how well what we have works.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:22,058
Points:2,155,060
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 8:14:28 AM

"Now as to what to cut - let the politicians figure it out - that is there job after all - to prepare a budget and appropriate money. "

And there is the crux of the matter. They don't do their job...

They like to spend money... heck everyone likes to spend money... Just think if it's not your money your spending.???
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,379
Points:2,766,170
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 8:03:36 AM

Steve, conservatives understand that much of the government bureaucracy is indeed duplicative and therefore unnecessary, and that much of it also is not called for by the Constitution. Yes, I know where it says "Congress may pass laws" and "Congress may levy taxes" but not when it leads government into direct infringement of our basic, stated rights.

Like you said, "Liberals understand that government is a massively intricate complex mixture involving many many many various functions in interweaving layers and depths all trying to accomplish specific functions. It is so big that there is overlap and obsolescence in departments and functions."
For the same reasons conservatives know that too much is too much and just should not be continued at this current level.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,614
Points:2,255,335
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 10:14:20 PM

GTH: "In fact, one side has vigorously pushed the initiative known as Obamacare, and the other side has vigorously opposed it, Obamacare because more Democrats than Republicans won seats in the Congress, and a Democrat won the White House."

rjhenn: "And both sides did that more from political ideology than any practical considerations."

Even if true, that does not meant that the "practical considerations" are not there. Those considerations are very real, if you ask anyone who has lost their health insurance, or their job, due to Obamacare, or anyone who has higher cost insurance, or higher business costs.

Those are real considerations, which democrats sought to inflict on us, and Republicans sought to avoid. Those mark a real divide, not an illusory one, as you want to believe.

GTH: "And as far as the 1%, while the wealthy might figure out how to profit in any environment, that doesn't mean they don't have individual preferences, and exercise those preferences in who they vote for and who they support financially. To think otherwise, is naive."

rjhenn: "The 1% is a misnomer. It's more like the 0.1%, and probably even smaller than that."

Agreed, and I would have been more clear about that, had I thought that detail important enough to mention.

"And many of them have one common preference, greed, which distorts their perceptions."

Actually greed, or self-interest, is a common preference among many of us. That doesn't mean we (and those 0.1%) don't also have principles that are of no immediate benefit to us, which drive our political involvment, including voting.

Cirdan - "Of course, they neglect to mention all of their 1%'ers - Kerry, anyone named Kennedy, Pelosi, Feinstein, Clintons (now, after cashing in), Soros, all the Hollywood elitists, all the upper east side elitists, etc. etc. etc."

rjhenn: "Which only emphasizes the point that the politics of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, is a diversion."

Not anywhere near as much as you want to think.

And you have yet to offer a practical alternative, one that doesn't disenfranchise anyone who follows it, in choosing the real alternatives between conservative versus liberal.

(You have offered non-practical alternatives, but I prefer to retain my vote, thankk you very much).

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/14/2014 10:14:47 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,878
Points:1,263,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 8:02:01 PM

There are times when its hard to tell them apart.

Steve its really not that difficult. Just take the total expenditures of the Federal Government for any reason - on budget, off budget, out in the open or hidden --- whatever and reduce the amount thy can spend this year by 0ne percent. Continue doing this one percent reduction in total spending until the budget is balanced then do it for a few more years until we have a surplus of income over outgo to start paying off the debt.

Now as to what to cut - let the politicians figure it out - that is there job after all - to prepare a budget and appropriate money.

But we will not take no for an answer. Just do it or we will remove them from office for nonperformance of duties.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,597
Points:343,800
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 7:47:48 PM

Conservatives think our massive complex government involving many many many various functions in intricate layers and depths is like a simple commodity. They would like to reduce the discussion to a simple matter of "Do we need more of it or less of it," as if 'it' is all the same. And of course they want less of 'it.'

Liberals understand that government is a massively intricate complex mixture involving many many many various functions in interweaving layers and depths all trying to accomplish specific functions. It is so big that there is overlap and obsolescence in departments and functions. Liberals want to see the inefficiency of all of this minimized so that where functions are needed they are addressed well and not duplicated. The challenge is sorting it all out without putting a lot of people out of work all at once.

Thus liberals have a better understanding of government than conservatives.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 6:20:20 PM

I75at7AM - "RJ, perhaps yo missed the point of that column entirely.
Yes New York housing is expensive. You might think it is expensive because it is worth something, that it is therefore desireable. So why is so much housing there in deplorable condition?"

It's in deplorable condition because so much of it is rentals. Which it is because it's so expensive. Which it is because of the attraction of living in NYC (though I don't, personally, find that attractive).

Basically, the free market in NYC hasn't worked, at least in the area of living conditions. It's only made things worse. As have many of the attempts to 'fix' things.

"The story of Donna and Frank is that they got happy when they got out of there. The move changed their outlook on life and their moods and personality. It literally delineates the differences between liberal and conservative views, and lifestyles. A refreshing change at that!"

It's just another anecdote. They left a mature free-market environment for a much newer one.

That liberal view you're complaining about is the end result of conservative practices.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:71,379
Points:2,766,170
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:26:06 PM

RJ, perhaps yo missed the point of that column entirely.
Yes New York housing is expensive. You might think it is expensive because it is worth something, that it is therefore desireable. So why is so much housing there in deplorable condition?

And yes, NYC is a mecca for business and the free market. That market can be brutal. Some people thrive on that and others tire of the "rat race".

The story of Donna and Frank is that they got happy when they got out of there. The move changed their outlook on life and their moods and personality. It literally delineates the differences between liberal and conservative views, and lifestyles. A refreshing change at that!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:17:15 PM

I75at7AM - "Read, with delight, the story of Donna and Frank."

Isn't NYC a Mecca for business and the free market?

And isn't that why housing is so expensive there, and why things are cared for so poorly?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:16:19 PM

AC-302 - "Fundamentally, the Democrats/Liberals believe that government should be all things to all people - our third parent, our second spouse, and the first place we should look to for help in any crisis or even any uncomfortable situation."

Massive stereotyping and, like many stereotypes, massively wrong.

"It seems to me Republicans/conservatives believe government IS the problem - to quote from Ronald Reagan."

Funny, but somehow government ceases to be a problem when the Republicans are running it.

"Largely and properly, the conservatives believe that people need to look to oneself to solve one's problems,"

Except, of course, when it comes to matters of 'morality', like drugs, abortion or sex.

"and that the government needs to empower people and provide tools to them to allow them to work hard towards their dreams."

Those tools have nothing to do with success, since you do it all by yourself.

"Speaking of ObamaCare, they finally reached the 7 million mark in enrollees. Too bad that over half of them already had insurance that was cancelled because it didn't meet ObamaCare standards. So really, it's not 7 million NEW people who didn't have insurance. Really MAYBE 3 million were "new" who hadn't been insured. They probably did the calculation and found that it was going to be cheaper than the fine."

That's 7 million through the exchanges. Millions more outside the exchanges, who didn't get, or need, subsidies.

And do you think it's a bad thing to have your policy cancelled if it's replaced by one that's both better and cheaper?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,767
Points:2,538,130
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 14, 2014 5:11:02 PM

Cirdan - "Of course, they neglect to mention all of their 1%'ers - Kerry, anyone named Kennedy, Pelosi, Feinstein, Clintons (now, after cashing in), Soros, all the Hollywood elitists, all the upper east side elitists, etc. etc. etc."

Which only emphasizes the point that the politics of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, is a diversion.
Post a reply Back to Topics