Why does the right want to destroy this country?

[Moonbeam]

That seems to have taken hold of the vast majority of the developed world.

Beautiful.

 

[theeedude]

Third world countries are cheap labor and concentrated wealth as far as Republicans are concerned. That's what GOP wants, so turning the US into a third world country by any means necessary is a top priority.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's pretty sad that all it takes for the resident partisan hacks to come out is a one line troll thread that basically amounts to "I don't like the other party." Who needs news when they can riff of nothing?

This is the state of most of the folk in this forum to riff nothing on something or nothing, it's all the same thing an endless series of nothing riffs.

You come here to stick your fingers in your ears and scream.

This thread is fantastic. A few words out followed by dozens of player pianos clanking out whatever punch roll of paper they were last loaded with.

 

[Moonbeam]

A bigot is a person who can't see he is a bigot because his bigotry consists of the fact in his or her mind that the bigotry is actually THE GOOD.

Only he who is prepared to die to his ego can get free of his bigotry.

THE GOOD is what each of us poor miserable bastards had to substitute for a real love of self when we were put down as children and we had to do this to survive.

We have all become joiners to the winning team, the team that is THE GOOD ONE.

To now admit to ourselves we are fools who have joined something evil would only open the tremendous pain we once suffered. A bigot is somebody who has sold his soul so that won't happen, and the worse the pain we knew the deeper the bigotry.

The madness of this thread is the madness of the world and the world will go exactly the same place this thread is, nowhere. This thread is a mirror of what is.

 

[werepossum]

Are you sure the right wants to keep the country as it is? Seems to me they want to turn back the clock, actually, e.g. disbanding or radically altering entitlements which have been in place for 50-80 years. Or dump the progressive income tax (90 years+) for a flat tax.

Otherwise, I agree with you. True ideologues of both persuasions want what they think is best for the country. Then there are those who are not true ideologues but only pretend to be. They are all about their egos and little else. Those people exist on both sides as well.

Valid points. Specifically, I think the Republicans want to keep America at a 1950s, Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best level, only with today's civil rights and trade policies, rather than preserving America as it currently exists. The only problems I have with that are practicality and relative reality. With a more competitive world, we cannot manufacture most of the world's goods AND have free trade AND still maintain our standard of living AND be the world's sole military superpower; that's not a practical possibility. For the other, that nostalgic time was in some ways a lie. Homosexuals for instance still existed in the 1950s, but they were largely marginalized, largely invisible. Divorces still happened, just less often and with more of a social stigma.

That said, certainly the Republican vision for the country is much closer to anything recognizably American than is the Democrat vision for the country. Democrats could argue that their plans for the country would lead to more resemblance to historic America in certain aspects, such as income distribution across socioeconomic strata, but certainly not that their plans for the country would preserve America in its past or present form. But my point wasn't really so much to argue that than to argue that both parties are working toward a future they think (or feel) is best for the country and the people, but have diverged more than ever in history as to what that vision should be. Even in the great civil rights struggles from Reconstruction up until the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, most Republicans and most Democrats agreed on most societal principles, even if a minority of southern Democrats stopped those principles from being enacted. Today there is no such agreement even in the mainstream of the parties. Republicans believe that fairness is in a lack of external constrains on one's opportunities; Democrats believe government must actively intervene in everyone's lives because otherwise there is not and can never be fairness. Republicans believe that government is significantly too large; Democrats believe that government is significantly too small. These are huge differences, even more so than civil rights for minorities because they affects everyone and also because these positions are the mainstream of the parties rather than being imposed by a minority of a party.

But again, that the two parties are further apart than ever in no way means that one or both does not want what is best for the country and the people, just that they fundamentally disagree on what that is.

 

[woolfe9999]

Valid points. Specifically, I think the Republicans want to keep America at a 1950s, Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best level, only with today's civil rights and trade policies, rather than preserving America as it currently exists. The only problems I have with that are practicality and relative reality. With a more competitive world, we cannot manufacture most of the world's goods AND have free trade AND still maintain our standard of living AND be the world's sole military superpower; that's not a practical possibility. For the other, that nostalgic time was in some ways a lie. Homosexuals for instance still existed in the 1950s, but they were largely marginalized, largely invisible. Divorces still happened, just less often and with more of a social stigma.

That said, certainly the Republican vision for the country is much closer to anything recognizably American than is the Democrat vision for the country. Democrats could argue that their plans for the country would lead to more resemblance to historic America in certain aspects, such as income distribution across socioeconomic strata, but certainly not that their plans for the country would preserve America in its past or present form. But my point wasn't really so much to argue that than to argue that both parties are working toward a future they think (or feel) is best for the country and the people, but have diverged more than ever in history as to what that vision should be. Even in the great civil rights struggles from Reconstruction up until the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, most Republicans and most Democrats agreed on most societal principles, even if a minority of southern Democrats stopped those principles from being enacted. Today there is no such agreement even in the mainstream of the parties. Republicans believe that fairness is in a lack of external constrains on one's opportunities; Democrats believe government must actively intervene in everyone's lives because otherwise there is not and can never be fairness. Republicans believe that government is significantly too large; Democrats believe that government is significantly too small. These are huge differences, even more so than civil rights for minorities because they affects everyone and also because these positions are the mainstream of the parties rather than being imposed by a minority of a party.

But again, that the two parties are further apart than ever in no way means that one or both does not want what is best for the country and the people, just that they fundamentally disagree on what that is.

I agree with much of what you have to say. There are a few nuances on the left side you are missing, namely that you are tending to characterize it in its most extreme form. That form exists, as the left or progressive wing of the party. There are many people on the left who are not that extreme. Some of those people - the ones Craig refers to a corporatists - are probably more like left on social issues and center right on fiscal and economic issues. Many are probably also in the pockets of wealthy interests as Craig alleges. Yet there are also moderate democrats and left leaning independents - myself as an example - who simply have a less ideological, and a more pragmatic approach to policy.

For example, I don't think government is too small or too large. There are cases where government could expand and others where it could retract, based on how effective government is or isn't at a given task, balanced against individual rights and freedoms. I think it's OK for government to regulate industry to prevent dumping toxic waste, for example, but I don't want the government taxing my coca-cola to save me from myself. To me there's a difference between invidiuals and corporations - individuals are entitled to a certain zone of privacy and freedom of choice, the full measure of which ought not to be extended to corporate behavior, because corporations have collective economic power that individuals do not have.

These attitudes are common among mainstream democrats and left leaning independents. There is a certain pragmatism mixed in with some basic principles, and with that pragmatism is a willingness to compromize. For example, a recent poll shows most democrats wanting a compromize of the current budget standoff, while most republicans want their party to accept nothing less than 100% of everything they demand come hell or come high water.

This is a problem I think on the right these days. I'm not seeing the center-right pragmatism that once apparently existed in this country. Whether it has disappeared or gone into hybernation I don't know. This is why I have trouble with your tendency to characterize the left as socialist/communist. Everything exists along a spectrum, and right now I think the American left ecompasses a much broader swath of that spectrum than does the current American right.

Another issue with the right is, of course, it's continued insistence on a religious social agenda. It wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't so contradictory to the right's rather passionate (bordering on self-righteous) disdain for government interventions. Advocating laws prohibiting gay marriage, criminalization of abortion, marijuana, sodomy, dissolving separation of church and state. If one didn't know any better, one might think that many conservatives believe that the *sole* legitimate role of government is imposing their religious values on the populace at large, or that their concern is only in protecting corporations from government, not individuals. If a corporation wants to dump toxic sludge into the local resevoir, sure, let them do whatever they want. "The market" will sort it all out. But if they government wants to control sexual behvaior between consenting adults? Well that's just fine, in fact, desirable.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

I agree with much of what you have to say. There are a few nuances on the left side you are missing, namely that you are tending to characterize it in its most extreme form. That form exists, as the left or progressive wing of the party. There are many people on the left who are not that extreme. Some of those people - the ones Craig refers to a corporatists - are probably more like left on social issues and center right on fiscal and economic issues. Many are probably also in the pockets of wealthy interests as Craig alleges. Yet there are also moderate democrats and left leaning independents - myself as an example - who simply have a less ideological, and a more pragmatic approach to policy.

For example, I don't think government is too small or too large. There are cases where government could expand and others where it could retract, based on how effective government is or isn't at a given task, balanced against individual rights and freedoms. I think it's OK for government to regulate industry to prevent dumping toxic waste, for example, but I don't want the government taxing my coca-cola to save me from myself. To me there's a difference between invidiuals and corporations - individuals are entitled to a certain zone of privacy and freedom of choice, the full measure of which ought not to be extended to corporate behavior, because corporations have collective economic power that individuals do not have.

These attitudes are common among mainstream democrats and left leaning independents. There is a certain pragmatism mixed in with some basic principles, and with that pragmatism is a willingness to compromize. For example, a recent poll shows most democrats wanting a compromize of the current budget standoff, while most republicans want their party to accept nothing less than 100% of everything they demand come hell or come high water.

This is a problem I think on the right these days. I'm not seeing the center-right pragmatism that once apparently existed in this country. Whether it has disappeared or gone into hybernation I don't know. This is why I have trouble with your tendency to characterize the left as socialist/communist. Everything exists along a spectrum, and right now I think the American left ecompasses a much broader swath of that spectrum than does the current American right.

Another issue with the right is, of course, it's continued insistence on a religious social agenda. It wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't so contradictory to the right's rather passionate (bordering on self-righteous) disdain for government interventions. Advocating laws prohibiting gay marriage, criminalization of abortion, marijuana, sodomy, dissolving separation of church and state. If one didn't know any better, one might think that many conservatives believe that the *sole* legitimate role of government is imposing their religious values on the populace at large, or that their concern is only in protecting corporations from government, not individuals. If a corporation wants to dump toxic sludge into the local resevoir, sure, let them do whatever they want. "The market" will sort it all out. But if they government wants to control sexual behvaior between consenting adults? Well that's just fine, in fact, desirable.

- wolf

I certainly agree with you on the social agenda part, and I am certainly characterizing the left AND the right by their more extreme elements. Do you really think a majority of the right is okay with corporations dumping toxic sludge in reservoirs? Hint: We aren't. The right tends to be the rural population, and we care more about the environment to the extent that we can see the damage, although I'd agree that the Democrats have been better on the environment as a party than have the Republicans.

However, as of November 2010 the right included a significantly larger swath of the American populace than did the left. The right is more fired up about the economy, certainly, because the right sees us headed off a cliff whereas the left sees us about to fly if we just spend faster. And yes, I think the concern over Planned Parenthood is silliness over social conservatism, but remember that the Democrats are just as willing to shut down government to continue funding it as are the Pubbies to stop funding it. Social liberalism (i.s. socialism) is just as bad as social conservatism, and usually costs more too.

 

[Moonbeam]

I certainly agree with you on the social agenda part, and I am certainly characterizing the left AND the right by their more extreme elements. Do you really think a majority of the right is okay with corporations dumping toxic sludge in reservoirs? Hint: We aren't. The right tends to be the rural population, and we care more about the environment to the extent that we can see the damage, although I'd agree that the Democrats have been better on the environment as a party than have the Republicans.

However, as of November 2010 the right included a significantly larger swath of the American populace than did the left. The right is more fired up about the economy, certainly, because the right sees us headed off a cliff whereas the left sees us about to fly if we just spend faster. And yes, I think the concern over Planned Parenthood is silliness over social conservatism, but remember that the Democrats are just as willing to shut down government to continue funding it as are the Pubbies to stop funding it. Social liberalism (i.s. socialism) is just as bad as social conservatism, and usually costs more too.

How is it as bad to fund abortion for poor women and how also does it cost more? And think what the real solution would cost. You would have to make sure that every child grows up loved and every child that is born is born to well educated and loving parents. Who is going to join the army and fight wars with a population like that?

The right is just pissed off that the government is better at helping the poor than God is and that the poor will vote democratic for help now rather that wait till they die and go to heaven like they are.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How is it as bad to fund abortion for poor women and how also does it cost more?

almost everyone provides more good to society than they take. On average eliminating the existence of new children, even those of poor people, is bad for us alumni the long run. How about we only pay for abortions for those potential babies for whom a supportive environment can't be found.

Keep in mind that the premise of your argument is that it is better for a child, and thus the adult that child becomes, never to have existed that to be raised in our foster care system. I think there are many foster children that would disagree.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why? Because most Righties are dupes for Economic Royalists, the philosophical heirs of those who tried to bring fascism to the US in the form of the Business Plot in 1933. FDR nailed it down in 1936-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2478176

 

[werepossum]

How is it as bad to fund abortion for poor women and how also does it cost more? And think what the real solution would cost. You would have to make sure that every child grows up loved and every child that is born is born to well educated and loving parents. Who is going to join the army and fight wars with a population like that?

The right is just pissed off that the government is better at helping the poor than God is and that the poor will vote democratic for help now rather that wait till they die and go to heaven like they are.

I'll just skip the part where I point out that you addressed none of my points and go straight into pointing out that you're an idiot if you think that only kids who are unwanted or whose parents were poorly educated and/or unloving join the military. The vast majority of military people I've known have been products of happy homes, people raised with love of country, love of G-d, and love of family. The progressive creed that the military is composed of low intelligence losers who can't compete in the job market and sociopaths looking to kill is at once laughably inaccurate and chillingly evil. And heaven help us if we begin thinking that government can help us more than can G-d.

almost everyone provides more good to society than they take. On average eliminating the existence of new children, even those of poor people, is bad for us alumni the long run. How about we only pay for abortions for those potential babies for whom a supportive environment can't be found.

Keep in mind that the premise of your argument is that it is better for a child, and thus the adult that child becomes, never to have existed that to be raised in our foster care system. I think there are many foster children that would disagree.

Very well said. I am not personally for tax-funded abortion or for the limiting of personal freedoms, but abortion is at best a societal evil necessary for individual freedom. Faced with the choice of growing up in foster care or an orphanage versus never existing, it would be a pretty simple choice for me. I enjoy existing, and I know some people who had hard and/or even abusive childhoods who have become good, productive people.