Asymmetry in political thinking

[dank69]

Right there, we have disagreement that will prevent any compromise.

Government is wholly responsible for giving those with money the power they have. Look behind the most hated wealthy people and you'll find government providing their money and power.

Government is the problem that bills itself as the solution.

Fuck you. GOP appointed judges gave those with the money power. Liberal judges voted against it. You are just too blinded by your IDEOLOGY to ever see it even though these are FACTS. You were probably raised from a child to know that "liberals just want big gubmint" and you haven't figured out how to cut through all the bullshit and make up your mind for yourself.

 

[BoberFett]

Fuck you. GOP appointed judges gave those with the money power. Liberal judges voted against it. You are just too blinded by your IDEOLOGY to ever see it even though these are FACTS. You were probably raised from a child to know that "liberals just want big gubmint" and you haven't figured out how to cut through all the bullshit and make up your mind for yourself.

You believe their wealth and power is based on campaign finance rules? How amusingly naive.

 

[BoberFett]

All I can tell you is one party tried to keep money out of politics and one did not. You can draw your own conclusions and pretend they are no different.

Keep money out of politics? Politics IS money. You don't even understand the game being played, why are you so bent on supporting a particular team?

 

[dank69]

Keep money out of politics? Politics IS money. You don't even understand the game being played, why are you so bent on supporting a particular team?

Right, and one party actively tries to limit the amount of influence money has over our politicians and the other actively tries to remove the limits. Exactly the same as each other.

 

[Incorruptible]

Gotta love how these liberals keep crying for big government yet these idiots are upset that it has consequences such as money in politics.

 

[BoberFett]

Right, and one party actively tries to limit the amount of influence money has over our politicians and the other actively tries to remove the limits. Exactly the same as each other.

Why are you so focused on one relatively meaningless thing? You have terrible tunnel vision, all you can think about is campaign finance rules. Changing campaign finance is pissing in the ocean. It's not going to change anything.

When you have a government that can hand out trillions of dollars, rest assured that people who already have wealth and power are going to make sure they get more.

Who are politicians friends? You? Me? Or are their friends billionaires? Who do you think is going to benefit from the governments ability to hand out massive amounts of money? Some random schmuck, or the politician's buddy?

They all scratch each other's backs, if you believe changing campaign finance will change that then you're just gullible, lapping up the Democrat koolaid.

 

[fskimospy]

Gotta love how these liberals keep crying for big government yet these idiots are upset that it has consequences such as money in politics.

Resorting to insults as usual, not surprised at all.

lol.

 

[dank69]

Why are you so focused on one relatively meaningless thing? You have terrible tunnel vision, all you can think about is campaign finance rules. Changing campaign finance is pissing in the ocean. It's not going to change anything.

Right, keeping money out of politics is meaningless. No wait, campaign finance is just a meaningless piece in a much larger puzzle. So fuck it, right? Might as well just open the floodgates and bitch on the forums about the state of things.

Let's move away from that lazy thought process and move to the real point I am trying to make, and the one you will never admit has any meaning. If keeping as much money in the system as possible is in both parties interests then why are the "liberals" constantly voting against it? I'm sure you think it is some sort of ploy. The Dems are just trying to make it LOOK like they don't want that kind of campaign finance.

When you have a government that can hand out trillions of dollars, rest assured that people who already have wealth and power are going to make sure they get more.

Who are politicians friends? You? Me? Or are their friends billionaires? Who do you think is going to benefit from the governments ability to hand out massive amounts of money? Some random schmuck, or the politician's buddy?

They all scratch each other's backs, if you believe changing campaign finance will change that then you're just gullible, lapping up the Democrat koolaid.

Making things better will never be a simple process, it takes decades to undo simple fuckups. I never claimed reversing CU will make everything better. I'm talking about not making things worse. One party tries to stop these bad policies and the other openly campaigns for them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Your characterization of the paper is a bit dubious.

I would also point out, that the surveys it relies on calls conservatives concerned with "ideology" and the other part of the survey "group benefits" (not "outcomes").

To whit, the paper says this :

"The American left, in contrast, is less an ideologically unified movement than a looser
coalition of social groups whose interests are served by government activity of one form or another and who have found a political home under the big tent of the Democratic Party"

"... liberals are more divided by specific issue concerns"



And of the right :

"... a self-identified conservative movement whose members are united by a devotion to the principles of small government and cultural traditionalism."

In other words -

The left is a loose coalition of special interest groups that want special "group benefits" for themselves through political (gov't) legislation.

The right is a closer knit group who generally reject the idea of special "group benefits" and prefer not to have the gov't interfere in any more aspects of their life.


Summary :

Someone spent a shitload of time writing a 40 page paper to come to a conclusion that anyone with a brain has known for at least 30 years.

Odd how this post seemed to be ignored...

This part was spot on: "I would also point out, that the surveys it relies on calls conservatives concerned with "ideology" and the other part of the survey "group benefits" (not "outcomes")."

"outcomes" to esky and the left is merely a perceived target that once missed is excused with the old "atleast we did something" BS.

 

[dank69]

Odd how this post seemed to be ignored...

This part was spot on: "I would also point out, that the surveys it relies on calls conservatives concerned with "ideology" and the other part of the survey "group benefits" (not "outcomes")."

"outcomes" to esky and the left is merely a perceived target that once missed is excused with the old "atleast we did something" BS.

Of course. It's not worth making things a little bit better if it doesn't make everything perfect, so might as well make things worse or do nothing at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Of course. It's not worth making things a little bit better if it doesn't make everything perfect, so might as well make things worse or do nothing at all.

Figured someone would try to play that game... The problem with your assumption is that is implies that it actually helped at all. When it comes to gov't one could argue that it rarely has a net positive effect, especially when $ figures are put to the failure.

 

[dank69]

Figured someone would try to play that game... The problem with your assumption is that is implies that it actually helped at all. When it comes to gov't one could argue that it rarely has a net positive effect, especially when $ figures are put to the failure.

Trust me when I say you wouldn't know if a policy had a net positive or negative effect on society if your life depended on it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Get over yourself. You fence sitting jackasses that can't tell the difference between the parties when it is staring you right in the face ALLOWED this to happen. Go ahead. Tell me why you think CU would not have ended different if D had been in power since 1980. Or maybe you're even worse than I thought and think CU ruling was good? LOL

Well I'm glad we don't have the NSA listening to our conversations. Oops, we are. Well at least no one lied. Oops they did. The Dems stopped it, or at least they as a whole tried. Oh, no they didn't. Perhaps they put forward a comprehensive care reform, or at least specifics as how to proceed. Nope again.

In fact as a whole there isn't much difference between them in an effective sense. Your "we can fire them at least" is frankly delusional. The same mentality and agenda and ways of doing things follows. The new boss is the same as the old. A new mask on the same face. Occasionally they do the right thing when it suits them, but that last is important. Your party is morally bankrupt. Where is this investigation into the Iraq War and the WMDS? I don't mean looking into the flunkies assigned to promote the agenda, but an actual account of what happened? Oh, that's not important. I said and maintain that Obamacare was a harmful distraction, a "look at me" solution proposed by the Dems. Like aspirin and cancer it doesn't hurt, but it does not address the underlying functional problems. It did look good though when you won, didn't it?

I explained this before, but you completely passed on the deeper subject.

What follows does not in any way change what I think of Republicans, which is not much, but you have had control of the White House with the smiling panderer. You had the bully pulpit and Democrats galore. You of course ignore what you haven't even tried to do.

You are first and foremost a partisan. All you need is for the Democrats to tell you how to think.

LOL indeed.

 

[fskimospy]

Odd how this post seemed to be ignored...

This part was spot on: "I would also point out, that the surveys it relies on calls conservatives concerned with "ideology" and the other part of the survey "group benefits" (not "outcomes")."

"outcomes" to esky and the left is merely a perceived target that once missed is excused with the old "atleast we did something" BS.

It wasn't ignored, it just wasn't an accurate description of the paper (which I'm sure you have not read either)

Here is the description offered by the paper of the differences between conservatives and liberals:

(3) liberals primarily value concrete and comprehensive government action, even if it requires substantial compromise in order to be realized, while conservatives often prize symbolic measures or the obstruction of government activity

ie: liberals care about the outcomes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

ie: liberals care about the outcomes.

It appears there aren't many liberals, vanishingly few. Instead I see a great many Democrats pretending they care and that makes a "liberal".

 

[fskimospy]

It appears there aren't many liberals, vanishingly few. Instead I see a great many Democrats pretending they care and that makes a "liberal".

You shouldn't confuse 'wanting outcomes that you don't like' with 'not caring about outcomes'.

 

[nehalem256]

It wasn't ignored, it just wasn't an accurate description of the paper (which I'm sure you have not read either)

Here is the description offered by the paper of the differences between conservatives and liberals:



ie: liberals care about the outcomes.

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It wasn't ignored, it just wasn't an accurate description of the paper (which I'm sure you have not read either)

Here is the description offered by the paper of the differences between conservatives and liberals:



ie: liberals care about the outcomes.

Wrong. It specifically says "action" (towards the perceived outcome) and compromise to make "action" happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. It specifically says "action" (towards the perceived outcome) and compromise to make "action" happen.

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.

 

[dank69]

Well I'm glad we don't have the NSA listening to our conversations. Oops, we are. Well at least no one lied. Oops they did. The Dems stopped it, or at least they as a whole tried. Oh, no they didn't. Perhaps they put forward a comprehensive care reform, or at least specifics as how to proceed. Nope again.

Well, at least Obama is proposing less gov't spying. Oops, yes he did. Well, at least the GOP would do the same thing. Oops, that's retarded. Well, if Obama doesn't eliminate the spying 100% then it isn't worth shit, might as well sit on my ass on election day and let GOP take control of the Senate.

In fact as a whole there isn't much difference between them in an effective sense. Your "we can fire them at least" is frankly delusional. The same mentality and agenda and ways of doing things follows. The new boss is the same as the old. A new mask on the same face. Occasionally they do the right thing when it suits them, but that last is important. Your party is morally bankrupt. Where is this investigation into the Iraq War and the WMDS? I don't mean looking into the flunkies assigned to promote the agenda, but an actual account of what happened? Oh, that's not important. I said and maintain that Obamacare was a harmful distraction, a "look at me" solution proposed by the Dems. Like aspirin and cancer it doesn't hurt, but it does not address the underlying functional problems. It did look good though when you won, didn't it?

And what you don't understand and refuse to acknowledge is that Obama wasn't going to get anything better passed. I don't give a shit about winning for winning's sake. I want the Dems to win because the GOP is on a mission to buttfuck all of us and has been for my entire lifetime. The Dems at least try to fix things for the sake of fixing things, even if it isn't with every policy. Every single GOP policy is designed to buttfuck you.

I explained this before, but you completely passed on the deeper subject.

What follows does not in any way change what I think of Republicans, which is not much, but you have had control of the White House with the smiling panderer. You had the bully pulpit and Democrats galore. You of course ignore what you haven't even tried to do.

You are first and foremost a partisan. All you need is for the Democrats to tell you how to think.

LOL indeed.

We're already down the rabbit hole so of course even many of the Dems are corrupted, including Obama. But you don't understand that I know that. Just because I don't blindly attack everything coming from the Dems I'm automatically a partisan hack in the minds of the dim-witted.

LOL indeed.

 

[dank69]

Conservatives obstruct government because they want less of it.

...

Said every hick, everywhere.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You shouldn't confuse 'wanting outcomes that you don't like' with 'not caring about outcomes'.

Well, that's true. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that one might cry at the funeral of someone who was killed by an oncoming car. They would certainly be caring about the outcome. They might call Congress and complain about safety. Of course if they were standing right there the weren't under any obligation to reach out and pull the person out of the way. They cared a great deal though, and the Conservative might not have made that call to their representative.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, at least Obama is proposing less gov't spying. Oops, yes he did. Well, at least the GOP would do the same thing. Oops, that's retarded. Well, if Obama doesn't eliminate the spying 100% then it isn't worth shit, might as well sit on my ass on election day and let GOP take control of the Senate.



And what you don't understand and refuse to acknowledge is that Obama wasn't going to get anything better passed. I don't give a shit about winning for winning's sake. I want the Dems to win because the GOP is on a mission to buttfuck all of us and has been for my entire lifetime. The Dems at least try to fix things for the sake of fixing things, even if it isn't with every policy. Every single GOP policy is designed to buttfuck you.


We're already down the rabbit hole so of course even many of the Dems are corrupted, including Obama. But you don't understand that I know that. Just because I don't blindly attack everything coming from the Dems I'm automatically a partisan hack in the minds of the dim-witted.

LOL indeed.

Well it may be a shocker, but it seems that when competence, integrity, imagination and a respect for those the government is said to serve the public are needed, I don't find half assed at best a great commendation. Having lived around livestock I know that fermenting chicken shit is worse to stomach than fresh bovine excrement. Well perhaps the Republicans are the chickens, but the Democrats are still passing out bullshit.

I used to wonder why partisans can't really go after their parties. I mean Bush pretty much caused the invention of the reasons to attack Iraq, although I'm not sure how much he was duped by others of less repute, such as Wolfowitz, but regardless.

If I trusted someone or a group and it was determined that whether by incompetence, laziness, lack of vision or comprehension or plain evil, I was tricked I'd have a fit. The Republicans and Iraq? They circled the wagons and blamed everyone else.

Now we have had an opportunity to advance real reform, yes "the thing I want" and instead got something which took resources, political, financial, and timewise, and applied without much internal dissent, and gave us very little. Republicans didn't offer anything, but neither did the Dems in terms of specifics. We had this or nothing. We got bullshit.

 

[dank69]

Well it may be a shocker, but it seems that when competence, integrity, imagination and a respect for those the government is said to serve the public are needed, I don't find half assed at best a great commendation. Having lived around livestock I know that fermenting chicken shit is worse to stomach than fresh bovine excrement. Well perhaps the Republicans are the chickens, but the Democrats are still passing out bullshit.

I used to wonder why partisans can't really go after their parties. I mean Bush pretty much caused the invention of the reasons to attack Iraq, although I'm not sure how much he was duped by others of less repute, such as Wolfowitz, but regardless.

If I trusted someone or a group and it was determined that whether by incompetence, laziness, lack of vision or comprehension or plain evil, I was tricked I'd have a fit. The Republicans and Iraq? They circled the wagons and blamed everyone else.

Now we have had an opportunity to advance real reform, yes "the thing I want" and instead got something which took resources, political, financial, and timewise, and applied without much internal dissent, and gave us very little. Republicans didn't offer anything, but neither did the Dems in terms of specifics. We had this or nothing. We got bullshit.

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.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Well I'm glad we don't have the NSA listening to our conversations. Oops, we are. Well at least no one lied. Oops they did. The Dems stopped it, or at least they as a whole tried. Oh, no they didn't. Perhaps they put forward a comprehensive care reform, or at least specifics as how to proceed. Nope again.

In fact as a whole there isn't much difference between them in an effective sense. Your "we can fire them at least" is frankly delusional. The same mentality and agenda and ways of doing things follows. The new boss is the same as the old. A new mask on the same face. Occasionally they do the right thing when it suits them, but that last is important. Your party is morally bankrupt. Where is this investigation into the Iraq War and the WMDS? I don't mean looking into the flunkies assigned to promote the agenda, but an actual account of what happened? Oh, that's not important. I said and maintain that Obamacare was a harmful distraction, a "look at me" solution proposed by the Dems. Like aspirin and cancer it doesn't hurt, but it does not address the underlying functional problems. It did look good though when you won, didn't it?

I explained this before, but you completely passed on the deeper subject.

What follows does not in any way change what I think of Republicans, which is not much, but you have had control of the White House with the smiling panderer. You had the bully pulpit and Democrats galore. You of course ignore what you haven't even tried to do.

You are first and foremost a partisan. All you need is for the Democrats to tell you how to think.

LOL indeed.

To put that bolded quote in context. I'd love to see someone unseat "political lifers" like Nancy Pelosi in the SF Bay Area, even if it is someone within her own party. However the fact is she has the built up decades of political connections and has in place a system of political backed favors locked in tight. Her political war chest would crush any would be opponent. She can out spend anyone within and without her party and crush them with attack ads and 3rd party endorsements built over several decades of being a politician with the insider track within government, her party and outside of it with those in the private sector with money looking to curry her favor.