User Tag List

First 1234513 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 375

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Really interesting, from everybody...

    My views:

    Now, my political bent is far-left. I admire a democratic socialism.

    I asked the question originally because I was hoping to see why a genuinely nice person would embrace Republican values as they are RIGHT NOW (not an idealistic version).

    It was sort of answered for me, but I was hoping for a more personal approach (JacktheMotie gave me one, but even he is for past values, not necessarily the present-republican reality).

    My main concern is: Why wouldn't anyone want to support major social safety nets like universal healthcare or a safety net for the least among us? Being an F it doesn't make any sense to me. If your society is crumbling around you, so what if you have tax cuts to make you (a wealthy-ish person) even wealthier? What's good about despotism?

    So I just don't understand why nice people are republicans in the US NOW. I can see why a sociopath would be one, easily. But someone who has feelings and understands that we all affect one another? It's hard for my mind to grasp deciding to choose what's best for the top small percentage, halt progressive infrastructure and social projects, and watch more and more poor people fall into dire poverty.

  2. #22
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    This is pretty much spot on. It's gotten to the point where I am embarrassed to admit I have personal conservative values, because I am then compared to the fruitcakes and irrational nutjobs. I think it's dead. Regional party at best, from now on I think. Oh well.
    Well conservative economic values aren't going to be popular anytime soon. And conservative social, domestic, and foreign policy is near dead in my opinion. For Republicans to be viable again, they have to become a little more liberalized, just as they did after they got beat up during the Civil Rights movement. Our society keeps becoming less and less conservative as the years progress, and they have to adjust.

    Maybe it's time to switch sides? We have facts, science, and numbers over here, it's awesome.

  3. #23
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maliafee View Post
    Really interesting, from everybody...

    My views:

    Now, my political bent is far-left. I admire a democratic socialism.

    I asked the question originally because I was hoping to see why a genuinely nice person would embrace Republican values as they are RIGHT NOW (not an idealistic version).
    Oh naive one. Values and principles don't change if you ever really had them. The values and principles that used to draw people to the republican party are still the values and principles those with true integrity have. The political MACHINE (party) has moved away from those values and principles. People still turn to the party who has left them behind because that in the only party that is SUPPOSED TO represent those values and principles, whether they do so in the present or not.

    It was sort of answered for me, but I was hoping for a more personal approach (JacktheMotie gave me one, but even he is for past values, not necessarily the present-republican reality).
    Those who stand for what the current republican party DOES are those who believe in what they do. Those people are a distance from the people who put value in the old ways. They are of two different mindsets.

    My main concern is: Why wouldn't anyone want to support major social safety nets like universal healthcare or a safety net for the least among us? Being an F it doesn't make any sense to me. If your society is crumbling around you, so what if you have tax cuts to make you (a wealthy-ish person) even wealthier? What's good about despotism?
    You will only understand this by understanding history, and how an economy works. Nobody in the world can answer your question in any way you'll be able to fully comprehend if you don't know a few things for yourself. Why no safety nets and healthcare for all? Because all of that stuff takes money and resources, something that is finite and limited in the physical universe. It is EXPENSIVE to give everyone everything they could possibly want. It is expensive to the point of being unsustainable. Everything in the world has a price. What the left wants to do is to take from those who have wealth and give it to those who have less. What it always does is make people less industrious because they don't get to keep what they earn or choose what they want to give back to society. The government makes those choices for them. It also applies to healthcare where massively socialized systems tend to yield poor quality healthcare that is difficult to obtain, and again, puts a heavy burden on the government and the population to pay for it all.

    The idea of giving the rich breaks. It stems from the fact that the rich pay the most taxes, far more than any other class, and also give far more to charities than any other class of their own FREE WILL. The rich create the jobs and the industries that makes an economy go (particularly a free market economy). Letting the rich keep their money to invest, build companies, create jobs, give back to charities, and put their wealth back into the economy in ways that adhere to free market principles (by virtue of the fact that people will spend money where it interests them the most) is what maintains economic prosperity and innovation. Socialism is inherently lacking in that.

    All of this has been demonstrated historically. One side of the debate ignores it, one doesn't.

    So I just don't understand why nice people are republicans in the US NOW. I can see why a sociopath would be one, easily. But someone who has feelings and understands that we all affect one another? It's hard for my mind to grasp deciding to choose what's best for the top small percentage, halt progressive infrastructure and social projects, and watch more and more poor people fall into dire poverty.
    I don't go around calling the eugenicists, the extreme environmentalists who value mother nature over humans, or the democratic types who believe in an irrational fantasy utopia through government control "sociopaths". Why would you venture so close to comparing those who wishes to uphold an economic system that leads to prosperity through the free will of people, and a limited government that doesn't intervene except when necessary, to "sociopaths"?

  4. #24
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    The fact that you say it is "inarguable" is exactly why I won't argue it. Not because I believe it is inarguable, but that I've learned not to waste my time on people who practice dogma over reason. If it truly was "inarguable" then you could have simply demonstrated such with substantiated evidence but your failure to do so lowers your post to level of preaching. I hear your sermon, and while I disagree, I will respect that you are entitled to put faith wherever you see fit.

    9. People become Republicans because they embrace right-wing ideology over reality and practicality.

    It's inarguable because history has proven it. You'd be arguing against historical reality. It has nothing to do with dogma. It's readily apparent to anyone who looks at the world with an open mind. You've seen the facts and figures, but they don't correspond to your ideology, so, CLEARLY, they cannot be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Well conservative economic values aren't going to be popular anytime soon. And conservative social, domestic, and foreign policy is near dead in my opinion. For Republicans to be viable again, they have to become a little more liberalized, just as they did after they got beat up during the Civil Rights movement. Our society keeps becoming less and less conservative as the years progress, and they have to adjust.

    Maybe it's time to switch sides? We have facts, science, and numbers over here, it's awesome.

    That's false. The United States was demonstrably less economically conservative in the mid-20th Century.

    Quote Originally Posted by maliafee View Post
    Really interesting, from everybody...

    My views:

    Now, my political bent is far-left. I admire a democratic socialism.

    I asked the question originally because I was hoping to see why a genuinely nice person would embrace Republican values as they are RIGHT NOW (not an idealistic version).

    It was sort of answered for me, but I was hoping for a more personal approach (JacktheMotie gave me one, but even he is for past values, not necessarily the present-republican reality).

    My main concern is: Why wouldn't anyone want to support major social safety nets like universal healthcare or a safety net for the least among us? Being an F it doesn't make any sense to me. If your society is crumbling around you, so what if you have tax cuts to make you (a wealthy-ish person) even wealthier? What's good about despotism?

    So I just don't understand why nice people are republicans in the US NOW. I can see why a sociopath would be one, easily. But someone who has feelings and understands that we all affect one another? It's hard for my mind to grasp deciding to choose what's best for the top small percentage, halt progressive infrastructure and social projects, and watch more and more poor people fall into dire poverty.

    Because those programs you are talking about are ineffective, and free-market economics = best way to make the country wealthier. We've spent trillions on the War on Poverty in the last 40+ years, and we have similar rates of poverty (it fluctuates up and down). By your logic, millions of people should have been thrown onto the streets after welfare reform in 1996, but poverty actually fell. How do you explain that?
    Last edited by MacGuffin; 04-04-2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason: Merging 3 post(s)
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #25
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Well conservative economic values aren't going to be popular anytime soon. And conservative social, domestic, and foreign policy is near dead in my opinion. For Republicans to be viable again, they have to become a little more liberalized, just as they did after they got beat up during the Civil Rights movement. Our society keeps becoming less and less conservative as the years progress, and they have to adjust.

    Maybe it's time to switch sides? We have facts, science, and numbers over here, it's awesome.
    I've always been socially pretty liberal. To each their own, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

    I've considered switching sides. However I just don't agree with the bureaucratic ideology and governing style. Big government is bad. I've always thought the two sides were inherently contradictory, and could never figure out why they emerged that way, knowing very little about both party histories. Republicans are so "liberal" economically, yet so controlling when it comes to family life. Democrats are all for rigid control and planning of economy, yet you can do whatever you want to do in your own home.

    I can't think of any argument whatsoever that could make me reevaluate my position and opinion regarding big government. I think government should have as little involvement as possible in the daily affairs of people, and the democratic party is, I find, the opposite of that.



  6. #26
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Because those programs you are talking about are ineffective, and free-market economics = best way to make the country wealthier. We've spent trillions on the War on Poverty in the last 40+ years, and we have similar rates of poverty (it fluctuates up and down). By your logic, millions of people should have been thrown onto the streets after welfare reform in 1996, but poverty actually fell. How do you explain that?
    That rather depends on how you want to define poverty and want to adjust overall economic conditions. For example, poverty started dropping before 1996 and started up again in 2000, where it continues to rise.

    I'm pretty sure if you regress factors on poverty, it won't be government programs that have any significant influence - positive or negative. That's because to qualify for help, you already need to be close to poverty. It does next to nothing to improve poverty in and of itself. It's the social net in aggregate, which the US does not do well, that would matter. You can easily compare the US to others 1st world countries, where it falls dramatically behind.

  7. #27
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That rather depends on how you want to define poverty and want to adjust overall economic conditions. For example, poverty started dropping before 1996 and started up again in 2000, where it continues to rise.

    I'm pretty sure if you regress factors on poverty, it won't be government programs that have any significant influence - positive or negative. That's because to qualify for help, you already need to be close to poverty. It does next to nothing to improve poverty in and of itself. It's the social net in aggregate, which the US does not do well, that would matter. You can easily compare the US to others 1st world countries, where it falls dramatically behind.
    The simple fact is that even the poor of this country are RICH compared to many in other countries. American's don't know how good they have it or how much worse it can always be, because they live in a ridiculous bubble.

    As far as the ineffectiveness of our social nets, social welfare and capitalism don't go well together.

  8. #28
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I've always been socially pretty liberal. To each their own, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

    I've considered switching sides. However I just don't agree with the bureaucratic ideology and governing style. Big government is bad. I've always thought the two sides were inherently contradictory, and could never figure out why they emerged that way, knowing very little about both party histories. Republicans are so "liberal" economically, yet so controlling when it comes to family life. Democrats are all for rigid control and planning of economy, yet you can do whatever you want to do in your own home.

    I can't think of any argument whatsoever that could make me reevaluate my position and opinion regarding big government. I think government should have as little involvement as possible in the daily affairs of people, and the democratic party is, I find, the opposite of that.
    Back in the classical liberalism days, I would have agreed with you on economic matters. But since the industrial revolution, private business interests have risen drastically in power and started having much more control and influence over people's daily lives and their standards of living.

    So liberalism, in order to keep upholding freedom as a principle, had to change, and use government and labor power as a check against business power.

  9. #29
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That rather depends on how you want to define poverty and want to adjust overall economic conditions. For example, poverty started dropping before 1996 and started up again in 2000, where it continues to rise.
    That was my point. It's the overall status of the economy that determines such things, not the amount of money the government throws at the problem.


    I'm pretty sure if you regress factors on poverty, it won't be government programs that have any significant influence - positive or negative. That's because to qualify for help, you already need to be close to poverty. It does next to nothing to improve poverty in and of itself. It's the social net in aggregate, which the US does not do well, that would matter. You can easily compare the US to others 1st world countries, where it falls dramatically behind.

    Perhaps, but relative poverty is just that, relative. You can be below the poverty line in the United States and have an apartment, a phone, a car, a microwave. Hell, you're MORE likely to be obese.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #30
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    Back in the classical liberalism days, I would have agreed with you on economic matters. But since the industrial revolution, private business interests have risen drastically in power and started having much more control and influence over people's daily lives and their standards of living.

    So liberalism, in order to keep upholding freedom as a principle, had to change, and use government and labor power as a check against business power.

    Or you could drastically delimit the amount of power the government has over society, which would coincidentally limit the amount of power corporations can wield through legislation. Haven't you ever read Kolko?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  2. Religion... why?
    By wyrdsister in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
  3. Why I am here
    By HilbertSpace in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 01:18 AM
  4. Why?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO