Liberal vs. Conservative

[D-rock]

I think hedgehog brings up good points. I think in some sense, where that says you are on the spectrum can be a little misleading. It just simplifies too much something that is too complex to put on a chart like that. I think part of the reason is the fact that it is hard to tell what the definitions of things like conservative and liberal mean anymore. Sometimes I think it is just a name they give themselves to oppose the other side. It seems like both sides go against what you think they would normally do in a situation based on their political spot on the spectrum. Is a conservative somebody that just resents change, upholds the laws in a more ‘letter of the law’ sort of way or what? Maybe at one time they did, but they seem to be just as eager to warp past views to their own benefit as the liberals are. Today conservative can seem a bit Orwellian, and it seems that they would be the ones on the front lines protecting peoples right, at least in a society that was founded on the deeply held principles everybody held for civil liberties at it’s inception. The term liberal can be confusing also. The nature of liberalness would seem to create greater freedom, yet again I find when it suits them they can clamp down on things they don’t like just as fast as the conservatives can. Especially in the courts, they have seemed to be the masters at twisting written law to suit some immediate purpose they want to accomplish no matter how far it is from the people that wrote it’s intent. Which might be part of liberalness, but that definitely doesn’t mean they are protecting your rights when they do it so. Liberal to me doesn’t equal more freedoms. It seems we are going towards two competing oligarchies that just have ties to different competing power groups than a clash of actual political philosophies.

I was rated as a strong Democrat or almost socialist and personally I don’t see myself that way. In some ways I am very conservative, if that has a true definition anymore. I have always seen myself as a staunch independent. There is a saying that if you stuck one foot in hot coals and the other you incased in ice then by the law of averages you would be fine. That sums up some of my views on my position and why I consider myself an independent and not a centralist or a democrat/socialist. On some issues I may lean heavily to one side or the other. I always base my decision basses on what I think is best and not some ideological position.

I also think it is important to keep in mind that when concepts such as these where being formulated that economics as we know it didn’t even remotely exist as it does now. I think the economy adds a whole new and different element to the world we live in now. We are not some agricultural society anymore; we have things like super large corporations, vast international trade, and a stock market. I think some of the libertarians and capitalist of yesteryear would think many of the things we let go on now to be pretty stupid. Back then there was nothing like modern medicine either, (otherwise in my opinion it would have probably been considered a human right) and with the exception of the super rich the difference between the abject poor and the middle class and even some of the more well of to do people wasn’t as great as it is today. In a lot of cases everybody lived a hard life and everybody was probably going to die young. Now we have the poor that have to look on at people that are richer than God while living only a short distance away from them.

I should say that I am not against people getting rich, not at all. I just want to see a society where the wealth is distributed not equally, but more justly and by how much people deserve. It seems like we are getting to a point where we are arbitrarily choosing winners and losers in life by the time people are born, unless they luck out somehow. Of course the people at the top are the ones choosing the winners. They are also choosing how our society is run on the social scale also. Saying it is a big conflict of interest would be an understatement. In a society where there isn’t enough to go around and everybody has to go without is one thing. When you have people that have nothing through no fault of their own looking in on the other side of the glass at people that not only have everything, but also thousands of times more than they will ever need is something different. It starts to breed hatred and contempt in people. Thus that is why you have conflicts between the haves and the have-nots.

 

[D-rock]

You know what Prof. You are obviously a very bright and well read person. But you strike me as an ever-so-slightly intellectual bully.
You throw alot of facts and theories out and you type them with a seemingly absolute self assurance that what you say IS right.
I simply wonder if you consider often enough - and little doubt you will state or think that you do - that you may NOT be right; more often then you consider.
Though little doubt you are right far more often then wrong.


But, on this subject, there are few absolutes in economics. Just as there are few absolutes in the world - if any.

I would have to think almost every person believes they are right, why would you say something you believed otherwise. In this respect I don't think he is any different than anybody else in the world. Everybody could be wrong, but I wouldn't want that to keep anybody from writing anything. I may not agree with him on some issues he seems like somebody that thinks through them.

 

[hedgehog]

Agreed. Of course, the problem is war.
Not the actual cost of the war, but the "appeasement" the President must show to Congress[wo]men to get support for it.
Same thing happened under LBJ's "guns'n butter" -- way too much appeasing Congressmen with spending.

Especially when its a war of false pretenses, whether its in the Tomkin Gulf or if its WMDs in Iraq

Some of it wasn't Bush's fault at first.
Luckily the American public isn't as dumb as some Democrat politicians think they are, and clearly showed that in voting.

I'll let this quote stand on its own

If you look at his first 9 months, he walked into a recession and the US growth had been plummetting since 2000Q1.
Every quarter was massively negative except a slight growth in Q2, avoiding a recession even before the election happened.
Then 9/11 did another $400B of damage to the economy.
Again, look at the DIFFERENTIAL in GROWTH between quarters, that is the "trend" that Clinton left Bush starting in 1999.
Jobs are the last to go and last to come back.

Then where the hell are the jobs, not in this country, Bush has an economic policy which does NOT lead to quality jobs. Outsourcing to China and India, the only significan new job growth are in the low wage catagories, i.e. an ever increasing gap between the haves and have-nots.

But I agree with you entirely, it is NOT time to spend.

I didn't say that, we need to spend, on things like education, healthcare, things that make it more attractive for employers to hire workers. I think its foolish to spend $200 billion on a war of choice

Bush did one thing right, tax cuts which have helped the economy.
But you do NOT spend in the hope that the tax cuts will increase income tax revenues as a result of a better economy.
That's just the same, stupid logic that Reagan had too, and W.'s got it.

Not more of this supply side Bullshit. Step away from the Kool-Aid man. Supply-side is a scam, its not trickle down, its vacuumn up, i.e. the wealthy vacuumning up the wealth, and holding it amongst themselves. Tax cuts only favor the wealthy.

It's almost a perfect ratio -- for every new $1 in defense, there are new $3 spent on social services and local Congressional pork.
Again, the "appeasement" non-sense in times of build-up or war.
Same thing happened with LBJ too, a Democrat Congressman.

Actually, most of the increased spending has gone to the American Gestapo, the Dept. of Homeland Security

The ideas behind socialism are sound, utopian and they DO work when they are small enough that everyone is held accountable.
Then the obvious happens, when it comes being about individual choice to work towards a common good, then it becomes communism.
And that fails because you force people to agree on "what is best" and that differs.

You hit the nail on the head there, it is about accountability. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate a communist state, merely some economic fairness

It's ALWAYS been like that, it's just getting worse because we place an income tax those people who make $20,000.
Agreed, which is why they need to stop taxing families of 4 who make $40,000 or less.
Bush's tax cuts came close to that, they pay less than $1,000 in income tax.
The widening gap between wealth and non-wealth is increased income taxes, especially on those at the lower brackets.

The problem is that the wealthy, in general, have ways of avoiding taxes through off-shore tax shelters. And let's not even start thinking about how little corporations pay in taxes. The US tax system is set up so that the more wealth you have the easier it is to hide it. Small business pay taxes, large corporations generally do not.

I believe in the flat tax, even though I WOULD PAY MORE MONEY as a result.
No income tax on the first $40,000 + $5,000/child, then a flat tax beyond that.

The disagree, those of us who are well off have a responsibility, to help those less fortunate than us. A progressive tax system, is merely the most effective method of funding a government which provides the functions we require of it.

Every $1 of discretionary income has the ability to do good for the economy in job creation, and it's ironic that higher income makers who re-invest 90% of their discretionary into new jobs don't get to.
Same deal with those who are at the lower bracket, investments are the key to their wealth, and that means NO TAX on them.

An accurate view if we were still in the 80s or 90s, today, the problem is that the US citizen on average has negative savings. We are spending ourselves into debt, not because of taxes, but because of the cost of living.

The key word is "can" -- you "can" get a better lawyer than the typical pro-bono.
Not necessariliy "will".

Exactly, that's why OJ and Michael walk free. You get what you pay for. The wealthy guilty walk free while every week there's another story of some poor schmuck who was wrongfully convicted. Check out the innocence project for more info on that.

 

[McRocket]

I would have to think almost every person believes they are right, why would you say something you believed otherwise. In this respect I don't think he is any different than anybody else in the world. Everybody could be wrong, but I wouldn't want that to keep anybody from writing anything. I may not agree with him on some issues he seems like somebody that thinks through them.

I am mostly referring to other posts and/or debates I have seen/had with him.
I should have stated that. Or better yet, pm'd him.

 

[titman86]

i gotta say im more a liberal for their views. but in this canadian election i think im gonna lean towards concervative.

 

[Member2019]

You know what Prof. You are obviously a very bright and well read person. But you strike me as an ever-so-slightly intellectual bully.
You throw alot of facts and theories out and you type them with a seemingly absolute self assurance that what you say IS right.
I simply wonder if you consider often enough - and little doubt you will state or think that you do - that you may NOT be right; more often then you consider.
Though little doubt you are right far more often then wrong.
But, on this subject, there are few absolutes in economics. Just as there are few absolutes in the world - if any.

I would ask you to re-read some of my posts.

When it comes to matters such as physics and published numbers from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), things are pretty absolute.

When it comes to my theories of what is good/bad for the economy, you'll note I use a very DIFFERENT set of phrases to show that they are NOT absolute.

E.g., I took the time in the NASA thread to disprove each and every statement that went against the laws of physics. The only thing I did not defend was the crappy video technology of the time. Video can always be faked.

*NEVER* in the case of the NASA thread did I try to make a SOCIAL case like I could have, easily. E.g., that there is a sheer improbability tens of thousands of engineers were behind the biggest lie in the world. Any why? I didn't need to, the laughable theories I read were against the very basic laws of physics.

The same thing can be said of countless scenes used by Michael Moore in his movies. They prey upon the same people who would not know about things taken out of context, especially when you see the original and FULL quotes, and the original and FULL context -- people mis-quoted, people who, when given a chance without editing, stated very different things.

These movies are designed to prey upon people who believe only what *1* movie tells them. Never in my entire life would I trust *1* source. I would seek many sources and do my best to cut through to the reality.

I was called a Reagan apologist, then a H. Bush apologist then a Clinton apologist and now a W. apologist. Whether it's Democrat or Republican, I will defend arguments that are based on incomplete and inaccurate information, especially when they are clearly based on political alignment and not attention to facts and details.

 

[McRocket]

In regards to the NASA thread. 1) I felt you stated nothing that I can recall that changed my mind. And two, you admitted you (supposedly) worked for NASA, I cannot count you as an unbiased source of information on that subject.

In regards to the rest, I will put it more bluntly.

I think you are sometimes rather arrogant. Hedgehog seems every bit as well read as you and yet he never comes across to me as such. Yet you do.
Of course, I am quite sure I come across as such many times as well. And when I do, I hope people will point it out to me, just as I am doing to you now. Just employing some Golden Rule. We cannot improve ourselves without healthy criticism.

Have a nice day.

 

[Member2019]

In regards to the NASA thread.
1) I felt you stated nothing that I can recall that changed my mind.

I'm sorry I was unable to sway your view, given that I:

A) Responded to each and everything, from particles from the engine striking the flag to reflections on the mylar as well as the earth being very bright to angular momentum on the golf ball. I merely laid out principles of basic physics.

B) Furthermore, I even stated that you should seek out someone you personally trust with a background in physics or engineering (as in someone who has had formal physics, dynamics, etc...) and ask them what they think.

Now if you don't want to at least do "B", I don't know what to tell you. I'm a person that when someone says I'm mistaken, I immediately seek out information. If I don't have the background in the matter, I seek other people I trust. Which is why I said ...

C) I repeatedly stated that I understood HOW people couple be "fooled." I explicitly stated that if an Accountant rambled off on the tax code that didn't seem correct, I'd have to check a 2nd or 3rd expert because I am NOT a "tax code expert" myself.

And two, you admitted you (supposedly) worked for NASA,

I love that, "(supposedly)," because I could be lying about that, right?
I mean, we all don't know each other in person, so fair game, eh?

I cannot count you as an unbiased source of information on that subject.

Let me put it to you this way.

If I wanted to be a "biased source of information," my answers should have been something NON-PHYSICS like ...
"There can't be 10,000s of people at NASA who are lying?" or
"Do you really think that a few hundred people at NASA could have fooled 10,000s of engineers?" or
some other "social" answer.

But INSTEAD, I took the time to EXPLAIN AND REFUTE each and every PHYSICAL EVIDENCE as LAUGHABLE from anyone who has a basic understanding of physics. E.g.,

That wind doesn't move a flag, particles in the air do, and the explusion of gasses from an engine in space can strike a flag just like in atmosphere.

That the brightness of the sun's light on the reflection of the 70% water Earth is VERY BRIGHT on the surface of the moon, plus the reflections of the VERY REFLECTIVE MYLAR does the same from the vehicles (including fooling Cmdr Scott in Apollo 15 when it came to a soil sample).

That the "wobble" of ANY object in flight can be caused by MORE than just air particles, but the angular momentum and resulting change in center of gravity in a spinning object) through flight (anyone baseball pitcher should KNOW that when it comes to a curve ball, it's NOT just air).

Now PLEASE take some "due dillgence" to check a 2ND, TRUSTED SOURCE of that information than just a SINGLE MOVIE!
I'm telling you to NOT even trust me! But go ask someone you DO TRUST!

In regards to the rest, I will put it more bluntly.
I think you are sometimes rather arrogant.
Hedgehog seems every bit as well read as you and yet he never comes across to me as such. Yet you do.

I feel strongly about some things, yes.
With regards to NASA and the OMB statements, they are pretty factual.
As far as "Liberal v. Conservative," that's just my opinions, I admitted that.

Furthermore, please remember that I am NOT in just the "minority" here.
I'm in the "2nd minority" because I'm coming from a 3rd view.
It's easy for Democrats and Republicans to agree to disagree, but you throw someone like myself into the mix, someone who can both criticize and praise either Bush or Clinton, and that just doesn't make sense.
The reality is that BOTH Democrats and Republicans CAN find lots to disagree with me on -- so I'm REALLY in a "very small minority."
I just hope to reach the Democrats and Republicans that can see that I do agree with some things they believe regularly.

Of course, I am quite sure I come across as such many times as well. And when I do, I hope people will point it out to me, just as I am doing to you now. Just employing some Golden Rule. We cannot improve ourselves without healthy criticism.

I sure wish you could see the times I am very humble on facts -- including asking you to NOT even trust what *I* say.
Even in the NASA thread, I saw you should NOT trust the movie or myself, but find a physicist or engineer you DO trust!
Tell him/her what the movie and I said, and ask him what makes sense.

And I implore people to go to the Office of Mananagement and Budget (OMB -- http://www.omb.gov), and look at the actual figures and releases of the W., Clinton, H., Reagan, Carter, etc... (since the early '70s when it was formed)!
Growth and recession are pretty clear numbers by quarter, and the figures in 2000 will SHOCK YOU!
Especially the massive rate of receeding growth starting back from late '99.

My opinions are my opinions, and that includes my political and macroeconomic views.
But when you have years of education atop of years of experience in matters such as physics and microeconomics, some things are just reality.

 

[McRocket]

Now PLEASE take some "due dillgence" to check a 2ND, TRUSTED SOURCE of that information than just a SINGLE MOVIE!
I'm telling you to NOT even trust me! But go ask someone you DO TRUST!

The boards of enquiry contained very reputable people on them and came to - to me - logical conclusions. Now you are asking me to disregard them and their millions of dollars and months and months of research and believe the word of a person on a porn chat forum? You have got to be kidding.
Bottom line. NASA screwed up and they are at least partially responsible for those two disasters and the deaths of those astronauts. The boards of inquiry agree. I agree. And you - who supposedly worked for NASA, does not. What a surprise - not.
And besides. You have said nothing that has changed my mind even if you were an unbiased source.

Growth and recession are pretty clear numbers by quarter, and the figures in 2000 will SHOCK YOU!

There is a touch of that arrogance again. You know me not at all. So how do you know what will and will not 'SHOCK' me?
Imo, you are a bit out of touch with reality. Anyone that thinks that the money spent on Hubble is better spent then giving the money to AIDS victims - no matter what percentage ends up getting through - IS out of touch with reality. Though you are by no means alone on this thought.

Look. I think you either think you are better then other human beings because of your impressive knowledge. OR you cannot understand why others cannot understand your way of thinking once you have explained things to them.
One is more arrogant and the other is more naive.

As I typed before. I notice it and I assume you are unaware of it and I am simply pointing it out to you as I hope you will/would point out similar faults with me (and goodness knows I GOT 'EM in spades). How else can we as humans learn otherwise?

Have a very pleasant day.

 

[Ovidius]

Actually, some conservatives are not republicans but rather monarchists, and in the USA most Democrats tends to be republicans. Most Republicans tend to be democrats at least to some extent. Capitalisation is so funny in English.

I am conservative, though not necessarily Conservative, and republican.

 

[Member2019]

The boards of enquiry contained very reputable people on them and came to - to me - logical conclusions. Now you are asking me to disregard them and their millions of dollars and months and months of research and believe the word of a person on a porn chat forum? You have got to be kidding.
Bottom line. NASA screwed up and they are at least partially responsible for those two disasters and the deaths of those astronauts. The boards of inquiry agree. I agree. And you - who supposedly worked for NASA, does not. What a surprise - not. And besides. You have said nothing that has changed my mind even if you were an unbiased source.

Who said I haven't been critical of NASA?
I fact, I've been MORE CRITICAL of the ROOT CAUSES in those disasters than most!
It's easy to put things in non-engineering terms, it's more difficult to explain to people where the engineering model is FAILING AT NASA.
That's EXACTLY what I did, explained how NASA HAS "SCREWED UP."

But if you haven't maintained a product with 100,000 part system for 25 years, you'd just take the simple route, now wouldn't you?
Ask some OTHER PEOPLE, people YOU TRUST and get their opinions.

There is a touch of that arrogance again. You know me not at all. So how do you know what will and will not 'SHOCK' me?
Imo, you are a bit out of touch with reality. Anyone that thinks that the money spent on Hubble is better spent then giving the money to AIDS victims - no matter what percentage ends up getting through - IS out of touch with reality. Though you are by no means alone on this thought.

There is only so much that can be done with money.
Killing NASA and putting that money to AIDS won't help much, although I'd AT LEAST like to see some of it put to Hep-C research as well.
In fact, by your insistence to focus on AIDS, it seems that you don't go very deep into the various epidemics that are REALLY affecting this country -- especially the LESSER KNOW but EVEN GREATER THREATS facing this country.

At what point do you equate one "good" over another?
Who's "values" to you use?
What other R&D to we cut to "save the world with as much money as we can"?
Do we look that far away from our future to try to solve medical and social problems instead?
Even if throwing 3x as much money at something only increases benefit by, say, 10%?
And sometimes, you can actually get a point of diminishing returns with more money as well.

Look. I think you either think you are better then other human beings because of your impressive knowledge. OR you cannot understand why others cannot understand your way of thinking once you have explained things to them. One is more arrogant and the other is more naive.

I'd rather be naive and try to help people understand than not at all.
Laugh at me if you will, but at least respect that try.

As I typed before. I notice it and I assume you are unaware of it and I am simply pointing it out to you as I hope you will/would point out similar faults with me (and goodness knows I GOT 'EM in spades). How else can we as humans learn otherwise?

I think you FAIL to recognize that I DO admit that it's just MY OPINION.

 

[4G63]

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

It's when and how we conduct ourselves, not the title we give our so called "political stance".

 

[Nate1218]

You are a

Social Conservative
(23% permissive)


and an...

Economic Moderate
(55% permissive)


You are best described as a:


Republican


You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (-100, 18)

Ain't much of a surprise here with the final result. I guess I am less of a Republican than I thought I was. Oh well.
Great "Find Your Political View Website" Professor Volumptuary!:thumbsup: Here's the website I am referring to that the Prof was so kind to show us www.OKcupid.com/politics.

 

[Member2019]

Great "Find Your Political View Website" Professor Volumptuary!:thumbsup: Here's the website I am referring to that the Prof was so kind to show us www.OKcupid.com/politics.

It was originally posted by someone else on another board I'm on.

 

[futuresurfer]

Libertarian so im a lil of both both generaly more conservative

 

[freeryan]

People are people no matter what group they're in. A person shouldn't have a group decide what/how to feel. I say "you know what's right so live that way" because life's too short to be a stuck up bore.

 

[BlueBalls]

I lean towards the left, most of the time the far left.



But that doesnt mean I dont have any right wing views, its just that most of the time I see things on the liberal side. :wave:

 

[Rattrap]

Not sure this is quite on the topic, but close enough.

Another amusing e-mail in my inbox today; I'd be curious to know what the accuracy is of the numbers, but I don't have the time to look into it.

Dear Red States:

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Libertyand Empire State Building. You get Dollywood. We get Apple, Intel, Cisco and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Yale. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We
get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You now get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that New California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you
success in Iraq , and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected
health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Peace out,
Blue States

 

[Friday on my mind]

Not sure this is quite on the topic, but close enough.

Another amusing e-mail in my inbox today; I'd be curious to know what the accuracy is of the numbers, but I don't have the time to look into it.

Those numbers I think sound about right.Funny stuff and food for thought.:thumbsup::1orglaugh

 

[Dawn]

Funny stuff, Rattrap

Regarding topic, im a left-winger so liberal regarding the poll. According to Canadian standard, im center-left. According to US standard, im probably somewhere near socialist or marxist

Seriously, center-left. Liberal, but with moderation.