Asymmetry in political thinking

[momeNt]

I am guessing because you know how insane it will sound.

No, more because I know you wouldn't be willing to understand the idea, so I'm not willing to waste my fingers and increase my risk of carpal tunnel at your expense.

Have you read anything from an anarcho-capitalist?

 

[kia75]

Conservatives obstruct government because they want less of it.

Liberals are willing to compromise on increasing government, because they are just ending up with a smaller increase.

I am not sure why this needs to be complicated.

The Religious right conservatives wants a smaller government? Is that why they pass "religious freedom" laws and anti-sodomy laws that increase government power?

The anti-immigration conservatives want smaller government? Is that why they want a large-scale government construction project on our border? And more border partrol?

The small business conservatives want smaller government? Is that why they're always advocating government sponsored small business loans and small business projects?

The states rights conservatives want smaller government? Is that why they push power to the states, despite doing so increases government 50 fold?

The national security conservatives want smaller government? Is that why they push to increase the military and domestic spying?


The paper says that conservatives tend to be ideologues, but not all conservatives share the same ideology. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Nehalem, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. The Conservative\liberal divide is complicated, and if you back the wrong conservatives because they're for "small government" you might just end up with domestic spying, 2 wars, and a trillion dollar deficit.

Even though ideologues are unwilling to compromise on their own ideologies, they're content to pay lip service and compromise on those conservative ideologies that they don't hold.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Wrong.

That's what the outcomes are, because the paper is talking about what these two constituencies prefer from legislator behavior.

This is why you should read things before making comments. Knowing you I'd be surprised if you even opened the PDF.

Staring you right in the face and still refuse to acknowledge it... go figure. If you don't understand that "action" and "outcomes" are two different things then there is no use continuing. "Action" was used for a reason yet you continue to attempt to redefine/twist it into meaning "outcome".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right, so nothing is better than even tiny bit of progress. Looks like you fit squarely in the conservative group when it comes to school of thought. Once we've established that it is worse than nothing, we can start rationalizing why it is worse than nothing. Millions with pre-existing conditions can now get coverage? That doesn't make up for the hoops you have to jump through to get someone their insulin pump.

Actually I'm thinking how sad today's so called liberals are. Back eons ago there were crazy people running around not taking handouts and licking the politicians hands as you are today. If you personally had to invest what those who I could respectfully call liberals blacks would still be in the back of the bus. Oh, yes you would compromise and work with people so blacks could use the same bathroom, and that's progress! To suggest it wasn't enough would be the inabilty to compromise, to be "conservative".

But this is today, and things are so much more complex. To actually demand substantial change even if you had to go out and protest for it? To call out your representative if they are Democrats? Heaven forbid!

Conform or be cast out.

I'll tell you right now the main difference between "conservatives" and "liberals". Both have an idea they want to have anyone other than themselves be a part to. They both side with their party and make excuses. They both love pandering and expressions of "right thinking".

The difference? Oh, that's which party you pick, to back up your spineless selves.

No, compromise as surrender is NOT a good thing when there needs to be more. Specific actions like continuing coverage and exclusions could have been passed while working on real changes. Hell, that could have been done with Obamacare, but you never once, and I mean you, never ever said "This simply isn't good enough. You in DC work for all of us. Where are your ideas, your self accountability?"

Never, not once. You aren't talking about compromising, you are talking about least resistance, justification of mediocrity. You do indeed compromise on what is right and what is best. You should be yelling as loudly at both parties as those in the 60's did, love beads and all. The Left has become what it hated. Conservatives? Ok, here's what they've become. They have forgotten what it is to be free in this nation. They've reduced all that to their wallet and getting angry without much consideration for what happens next. Stupid creatures.

You are just as mindless, but haven't yet settled on your purse. You pick your vanity and platitudes instead. No compromise on those "principles."

At least I've proposed things, raised a ruckus with representatives even when I knew it made no difference because it was the right thing to do. I didn't compromise myself, which is what you are really advocating. Get your own house in order and be something I can once again respect if not always agree with. Conservatives, that message is for you too.

 

[fskimospy]

Staring you right in the face and still refuse to acknowledge it... go figure. If you don't understand that "action" and "outcomes" are two different things then there is no use continuing. "Action" was used for a reason yet you continue to attempt to redefine/twist it into meaning "outcome".

Or... you know... I used the end result the study was talking about (which you obviously didn't read).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Or... you know... I used the end result the study was talking about (which you obviously didn't read).

Or you are ignoring reality and now trying to make the subject about me. I did read it and you are wrong. Action/=outcome Try one more time to grasp that idea.... if you can.

 

[fskimospy]

Or you are ignoring reality and now trying to make the subject about me. I did read it and you are wrong. Action/=outcome Try one more time to grasp that idea.... if you can.

I'm quite sure you didn't read it and I'm right. Regardless, I have no desire to argue definitions with you. Weren't you the guy who went on for like five pages raging about how people were using the actual definition of progressive taxation instead of one you made up?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm quite sure you didn't read it and I'm right. Regardless, I have no desire to argue definitions with you. Weren't you the guy who went on for like five pages raging about how people were using the actual definition of progressive taxation instead of one you made up?

"Or you are ignoring reality and now trying to make the subject about me."

Figured as much. I did read it and you are wrong. action!= outcomes

 

[fskimospy]

"Or you are ignoring reality and now trying to make the subject about me."

Figured as much. I did read it and you are wrong. action!= outcomes

lol. Same as ever.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol. Same as ever.

Yep, you just can't admit it so you duhvert. Try reading the study again. Really try to analyse it this time without your biased glasses on. You might actually learn something.

<- not holding breath as libs love to believe that intentions are what matters, not actual outcomes so likely no hope for understanding the reality of what I've pointed out.

 

[Moonbeam]

This thread is about an important topic that goes, I think, to the heart of democracy, what happens when people who are actually spiritually undeveloped and easily manipulated are allowed to vote. In such a circumstance what people produce as posts on the topic reflect what they have already programmed themselves to believe. They are actually unaware of motives that drive their opinions. What is happening, I believe, is that people with different moral values argue at cross purposes, each rightly convinced of the importance of their own moral foundations. The very same issues the OP's link raises are themselves, at a deeper analysis, based on differences in moral values already recently described in left right mental differences as I have described in numerous threads.

However, and importantly, I think, none of this penetrates. We remain in the dark as we are, unwilling to hear other people, anxious only to propound our own opinions. This forum is a battleground of defensiveness. "I have the truth, no I have the truth, no listen to me." Unless folk are at the end of their rope or deeply interested in truth, there is nothing really to say. You can't pour new tea in a full tea cup. The world is a mess and it will stay that way until folk learn humility. Who wants to know he or she doesn't know anything.

It's a beautiful day in my back yard. It rained last night so the air is fresh and the sun is out and the birds are singing. Everything is perfect and because it is we don't have to take ourselves seriously. Best wishes.