(04-14-2020, 03:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 02:28 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2020, 03:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]... Communism has been replaced by an odd hybrid of capitalists oligarchs running the equivalent of corporations and autocrats dominating the government.
Close, but it needed some minor fixing.
Same thing. Some people are interested in calling them something different, but they play the same role. They own the means of production and profit over the labor of the workers.
The only difference is how the assets were obtained. Oligarchs tend to seize control, often by extra-legal means. Capitalists legally obtain their booty. I'm not 100% sure it really matters, since the capitalists have jiggered the system to allow them the same freedoms under cover of law. You're right; the results are the same.
(04-14-2020, 10:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]... Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all?
I won’t answer all of those questions, but the one about moral difference stands out. Are you able to sense other’s peoples problems, have sympathy, and try to do something about it? If not, there is a lack. If you look at the rural - urban divide, it would seem the people in the middle of the country have a lack in spades.
I don’t think it an absolute lack, but attribute it to tribal thinking. They care, but only about people like them. They are ready to throw people with skin pigmentation differences, people who immigrated more recently, or minorities in general, to the wolves.
I see it as one aspect of the red blue divide. It seems to be part of the S&H theory. The Unraveling is a time of maximum selfishness, of minimum commitment to the country, to the common good. Things change after the Trigger.
H-m-m-m. I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
(04-15-2020, 12:13 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]A progressive as you say should be ahead of me. A progressive as you shouldn't prefer minorities over whites. A modern progressive should have NO racial preference. A progressive shouldn't ignore or remove laws that pertain to illegal aliens only. Now, you can use the term and pat yourself on the back too and tell me how great you are because you're a progressive and I'm a lowly conservative and all that. I don't care and the other side doesn't seem to care either.
Here's a thought exercise. Society acts to disadvantage a group of people, and it does that over several generations. The disadvantaged group is now much poorer, less healthy and less able to change either of those conditions relative to the majority who weren't disadvantaged. They got where they are through no fault of their own, or the fault of their forebears either. What does society owe for the screwing they've gotten? Would you feel the same if you and yours were in that group?
(04-15-2020, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 10:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]... Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all?
I won’t answer all of those questions, but the one about moral difference stands out. Are you able to sense other’s peoples problems, have sympathy, and try to do something about it? If not, there is a lack. If you look at the rural - urban divide, it would seem the people in the middle of the country have a lack in spades.
I don’t think it an absolute lack, but attribute it to tribal thinking. They care, but only about people like them. They are ready to throw people with skin pigmentation differences, people who immigrated more recently, or minorities in general, to the wolves.
I see it as one aspect of the red blue divide. It seems to be part of the S&H theory. The Unraveling is a time of maximum selfishness, of minimum commitment to the country, to the common good. Things change after the Trigger.
H-m-m-m. I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
And yet the preamble to the Constitution says the government would and should "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". The conservatives as tribal thinkers have traditionally fought this aspect of what it means to be American.
(04-15-2020, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]H-m-m-m. I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
What makes blues think/feel they deserve our support? What have you done to deserve it? What do blues fund with our contributions? So, how many charitable organizations are there competing with the big government blues for support these days? Is big blue government legit? According to you and your pitch, it must be legit? How many America people trust big government these days? Do you ever think before you pitch? How many Americans are smarter/wiser/more knowledgeable about the big picture than Cortez or any other third rate liberal politician like her? I'm going try and make something clear to you, blue America doesn't represent half the country these days. Red America actually represents most of it these days which is why I tend to refer to them as Americans. You should gulp. I spent a few years peeling away traditional Democratic support for so called blue America or France for a better term or any other European or European influenced nation with a parliamentary form of government that isn't anything like ours or nearly as strong as ours as history has shown us with Hitler and Putin and Venezuela and Turkey and Egypt and so forth. Red American actually represents a unique blend between two dominant philosophies. That's the truth. Now, a nation like England or Norway or Sweden or Japan with an idle monarch who still has control over an elite military can dabble with Marxism without many concerns.
(04-15-2020, 04:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]How many America people trust big government these days? Do you ever think before you pitch? How many Americans are smarter/wiser/more knowledgeable about the big picture than Cortez or any other third rate liberal politician like her? I'm going try and make something clear to you, blue America doesn't represent half the country these days.
I would wonder about ‘these days’. You are spouting the Unraveling ethic, and we are now in post Trigger Crisis. Many at this time shift to the new ethics which involve leaving the old selfishness behind and working for the common good. Watch the parade of front line medical professionals on Rachel's show for examples.
Many, not all.
(04-15-2020, 03:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 10:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]... Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all?
I won’t answer all of those questions, but the one about moral difference stands out. Are you able to sense other’s peoples problems, have sympathy, and try to do something about it? If not, there is a lack. If you look at the rural - urban divide, it would seem the people in the middle of the country have a lack in spades.
I don’t think it an absolute lack, but attribute it to tribal thinking. They care, but only about people like them. They are ready to throw people with skin pigmentation differences, people who immigrated more recently, or minorities in general, to the wolves.
I see it as one aspect of the red blue divide. It seems to be part of the S&H theory. The Unraveling is a time of maximum selfishness, of minimum commitment to the country, to the common good. Things change after the Trigger.
H-m-m-m. I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
And yet the preamble to the Constitution says the government would and should "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". The conservatives as tribal thinkers have traditionally fought this aspect of what it means to be American.
You won't find that tenant written in the Constitution. It may be the preamble of the liberal version of the Constitution that liberals want or prefer instead of the one that's currently in place. I do pay attention to what liberals write and say about all the Constitutional changes that they want to make these days.
(04-15-2020, 05:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 03:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet the preamble to the Constitution says the government would and should "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". The conservatives as tribal thinkers have traditionally fought this aspect of what it means to be American.
You won't find that tenant written in the Constitution. It may be the preamble of the liberal version of the Constitution that liberals want or prefer instead of the one that's currently in place. I do pay attention to what liberals write and say about all the Constitutional changes that they want to make these days.
Liar. A total lack of integrity. Look at the opening paragraph.
Again, your personal ideology takes precedence over truth? This one is clearly provable. Anyone should be able to access the
US Constitution.
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not the same source on my Mac that I originally quoted, but the text is the same.
(04-15-2020, 04:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 04:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]How many America people trust big government these days? Do you ever think before you pitch? How many Americans are smarter/wiser/more knowledgeable about the big picture than Cortez or any other third rate liberal politician like her? I'm going try and make something clear to you, blue America doesn't represent half the country these days.
I would wonder about ‘these days’. You are spouting the Unraveling ethic, and we are now in post Trigger Crisis. Many at this time shift to the new ethics which involve leaving the old selfishness behind and working for the common good. Watch the parade of front line medical professionals on Rachel's show for examples.
Many, not all.
I don't have to watch them when I know them personally. I probably don't know Rachel's guests but I know doctor's and nurses and police and firemen and lots of essential workers. Now, I'm not all that essential right now because the need for residential heating is little and there is no need for residential cooling yet. But, once it heats heats up and gets muggy like it usually does each summer. I'll be out there on the front line doing what I do best and making a living from it. Right now, if there is no immediate need for service or new equipment there is no need for us to put each other at risk during bids or while doing unessential work in peoples homes.
(04-15-2020, 05:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have to watch them when I know them personally. I probably don't know Rachel's guests but I know doctor's and nurses and police and firemen and lots of essential workers. Now, I'm not all that essential right now because the need for residential heating is little and there is no need for residential cooling yet. But, once it heats heats up and gets muggy like it usually does each summer. I'll be out there on the front line doing what I do best and making a living from it. Right now, if there is no immediate need for service or new equipment there is no need for us to put each other at risk during bids or while doing unessential work in peoples homes.
If you know these people personally, you have not extended it into how their duty extends to the politics. According to the Theory, there is less selfishness, more commitment to the community. You have to consider why and what this means.
Mind you, come next Unraveling, the pendulum is apt to swing the other way.
(04-15-2020, 05:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 05:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 03:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]And yet the preamble to the Constitution says the government would and should "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". The conservatives as tribal thinkers have traditionally fought this aspect of what it means to be American.
You won't find that tenant written in the Constitution. It may be the preamble of the liberal version of the Constitution that liberals want or prefer instead of the one that's currently in place. I do pay attention to what liberals write and say about all the Constitutional changes that they want to make these days.
Liar. A total lack of integrity. Look at the opening paragraph.
Again, your personal ideology takes precedence over truth? This one is clearly provable. Anyone should be able to access the US Constitution.
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Not the same source on my Mac that I originally quoted, but the text is the same.
I responded to the way you presented it. You gave me a slice of information and used a slice of information that's relevant to you and the way you think of yourself and us. Like you, I don't have the entire Constitution memorized. Now that you have been so kind as to provide the whole thing for us to read like you should have to begin with. Here's the problem and it's a problem and the problem is that we're going broke and the progressives haven't figured that out yet. We don't have enough billionaires to cover a trillion dollar debt let alone twenty two trillion with more and more being added every minute of the day. Now, if you want to remain part of that statement, you better wise up and start teaching your clueless millenial's and Bernie Bro's the truth. We seem to have an abundance of dumb college people these days.
(04-15-2020, 06:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 05:49 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have to watch them when I know them personally. I probably don't know Rachel's guests but I know doctor's and nurses and police and firemen and lots of essential workers. Now, I'm not all that essential right now because the need for residential heating is little and there is no need for residential cooling yet. But, once it heats heats up and gets muggy like it usually does each summer. I'll be out there on the front line doing what I do best and making a living from it. Right now, if there is no immediate need for service or new equipment there is no need for us to put each other at risk during bids or while doing unessential work in peoples homes.
If you know these people personally, you have not extended it into how their duty extends to the politics. According to the Theory, there is less selfishness, more commitment to the community. You have to consider why and what this means.
Mind you, come next Unraveling, the pendulum is apt to swing the other way.
It doesn't or shouldn't, they're just doing their jobs the best they can with what they have to work with right now. I'm glad Rachel does what she does instead of what they're doing because Rachel couldn't handle being in the situation that they're in.
(04-15-2020, 06:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I responded to the way you presented it. You gave me a slice of information and used a slice of information that's relevant to you and the way you think of yourself and us. Like you, I don't have the entire Constitution memorized. Now that you have been so kind as to provide the whole thing for us to read like you should have to begin with. Here's the problem and it's a problem and the problem is that we're going broke and the progressives haven't figured that out yet. We don't have enough billionaires to cover a trillion dollar debt let alone twenty two trillion with more and more being added every minute of the day. Now, if you want to remain part of that statement, you better wise up and start teaching your clueless millenial's and Bernie Bro's the truth. We seem to have an abundance of dumb college people these days.
I have an app on my Mac’s Dock that provides the text for the US Constitution. It comes in handy several times a year to address some point on this site. That was where I got the quote, though I knew the Constitution well enough that I knew more or less that it said what it did. When you questioned it, casting doubt on my truth and integrity, I used Google to search ‘US Constitution text’ and followed the first of many links it provided. This took all of 20 seconds, at most, to confirm the quote and have the link to it. You could have done the same. You didn’t. Instead, you placed your ideology ahead of the Constitution. You lied. You showed your lack of integrity.
I do note that many of my posts do provide links to sources, while few of your posts do. You spout lies off the top of your head. The quote I provided was so easily confirmed that I did not think it necessary to create a link. Silly me.
I hardly question that both party’s members of Congress have passed some very expensive but necessary Coronavirus legislation. I am troubled that Congress is better at spending the money that saying how they would pay for it. I am open to suggestions. I am not aware of the Trump administration giving a long term financial plan. He is apparently too busy trying to save face. I am anticipating we will have to wait for another administration. I anticipate a variation of the progressive era tax and spend. I have said as much on other posts. I have suspected that even the conservatives will accept high taxes for a while to pay the very real bills.
Rachel got her start as an AIDs activist, trying to get another conservative administration to wake up. Now this pandemic is quite different from others in living memory. The Coronavirus requires more of those on the front lines than has recently occurred. Rachel is playing a different part… well.
(04-15-2020, 05:16 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 03:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 10:52 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-14-2020, 06:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]... Do you have a moral advantage over me? Do you REALLY have any advantage over me at all?
I won’t answer all of those questions, but the one about moral difference stands out. Are you able to sense other’s peoples problems, have sympathy, and try to do something about it? If not, there is a lack. If you look at the rural - urban divide, it would seem the people in the middle of the country have a lack in spades.
I don’t think it an absolute lack, but attribute it to tribal thinking. They care, but only about people like them. They are ready to throw people with skin pigmentation differences, people who immigrated more recently, or minorities in general, to the wolves.
I see it as one aspect of the red blue divide. It seems to be part of the S&H theory. The Unraveling is a time of maximum selfishness, of minimum commitment to the country, to the common good. Things change after the Trigger.
H-m-m-m. I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
And yet the preamble to the Constitution says the government would and should "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". The conservatives as tribal thinkers have traditionally fought this aspect of what it means to be American.
[quote pid='51641' dateline='1586988970']
You won't find that (tenet) written in the Constitution. It may be the preamble of the liberal version of the Constitution that liberals want or prefer instead of the one that's currently in place. I do pay attention to what liberals write and say about all the Constitutional changes that they want to make these days.
[/quote]
At a risk of seeming excessively and vehemently arrogant, you are completely wrong.
First there is no "liberal" or "conservative" version of the Constitution, as the Constitution was written before the liberal-conservative divide existed. There is but one Preamble. What constitutes the "general Welfare" has changed over time as technology and morals change; at one time the "general Welfare" implied that was good for the slave-owning Southern agrarians (non-interference in slavery) was the practice. It used to be moral to send small children into mines and factories to do dangerous, life-shortening work to supplement the meager pay of parents who had gotten much the same start in their careers and were wrecks by age 35 and dead by 45; we would never see such as moral again.
Hunger, infectious diseases, and workplace deaths are not freedom. Ronald Reagan may have compromised workers' freedoms on behalf of corporate profits with the best of intentions, but Donald Trump has taken such to a preposterous conclusion. We are discovering the hard way the flawed virtue of working while sick with infectious, communicable diseases. With a President as callow as Trump, something is likely to go horribly wrong.
I look at the conduct of the President and his assertions of despotic power. The Constitution clearly separates powers. The President is not the boss of Congress -- House or Senate -- or of the Supreme Court. He cannot order State governors or state legislatures about. He cannot censor the media -- and effectively you and I have become part of the media. If you want the President to have such powers, then maybe you want a dictatorship. The President does not have unlimited powers as President and as the boss of an increasingly-totalitarian political party.
If you want to see what our Founding Fathers believed about power, then check this out.
(04-15-2020, 10:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 06:59 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I responded to the way you presented it. You gave me a slice of information and used a slice of information that's relevant to you and the way you think of yourself and us. Like you, I don't have the entire Constitution memorized. Now that you have been so kind as to provide the whole thing for us to read like you should have to begin with. Here's the problem and it's a problem and the problem is that we're going broke and the progressives haven't figured that out yet. We don't have enough billionaires to cover a trillion dollar debt let alone twenty two trillion with more and more being added every minute of the day. Now, if you want to remain part of that statement, you better wise up and start teaching your clueless millenial's and Bernie Bro's the truth. We seem to have an abundance of dumb college people these days.
I have an app on my Mac’s Dock that provides the text for the US Constitution. It comes in handy several times a year to address some point on this site. That was where I got the quote. When you questioned it, casting doubt on my truth and integrity, I used Google to search ‘US Constitution text’ and followed the first of many links it provided. This took all of 20 seconds, at most, to confirm the quote and have the link to it. You could have done the same. You didn’t. Instead, you placed your ideology ahead of the Constitution. You lied. You showed your lack of integrity.
I do note that many of my posts do provide links to sources, while few of your posts do. You spout lies off the top of your head. The quote I provided was so easily confirmed that I did not think it necessary to create a link. Silly me.
I hardly question that both party’s members of Congress have passed some very expensive but necessary Coronavirus legislation. I am troubled that Congress is better at spending the money that saying how they would pay for it. I am open to suggestions. I am not aware of the Trump administration giving a long term financial plan. He is apparently too busy trying to save face. I am anticipating we will have to wait for another administration. I anticipate a variation of the progressive era tax and spend. I have said as much on other posts. I have suspected that even the conservatives will accept high taxes for a while to pay the very real bills.
Rachel got her start as an AIDs activist, trying to get another conservative administration to wake up. Now this pandemic is quite different from others in living memory. The Coronavirus requires more of those on the front lines than has recently occurred. Rachel is playing a different part… well.
I knew that it wasn't accurate the way it was presented. I didn't lie. You did the right thing. You corrected yourself. Good job. Where did you get that snip it from? I assume that you picked the parts of it that mattered the most to you and left out the rest of its obligations. Only you know if that's what you did or whether you passed on an inaccurate snip it by accident. As I mentioned a while back, Bush II had a choice between Hoover and FDR and he chose FDR. I never signed on to be the police of the world or signed on to welfare or signed on to fighting wars in Korea and Vietnam or the UN or making it so a bunch of Europeans break a thumb while sitting around twiddling them while bitching about us and go to a hospital have it fixed for free. So, why did we go in and confront the evil that be to stop Bosnian's from being slaughtered by Serbs while the so called greatest countries on earth with greatest people on sat around twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing and bitching about us.
Like I said, the working class Democrats will go along with anything as long as they're convinced that they're not on hook financially. I'd say old tax and spend is pretty much done. Bernie screwed up by being upfront and honest. Biden will have to be more tricky about doing it like Clinton. I lost a lot of tax deductions despite being promised that he was only going to increase the amount of taxes on those who made 250 and above. Back then, a person paid less in taxes if they were married. Back when I was single, I paid more tax that the married person making the same wage. Once I was married, I paid less tax than a single person. After Clinton's tax bill went into law, I was back to paying the same amount as a single person again. You're right about tribalism playing a role what you don't seem to understand is the red tribes are spread out right now. You might have a member of the red tribe who owns a mid sized business or small business or a bunch of red tribe millionaires or large red tribe contractors currently residing or working in your state.
(04-15-2020, 12:29 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a thought exercise. Society acts to disadvantage a group of people, and it does that over several generations. The disadvantaged group is now much poorer, less healthy and less able to change either of those conditions relative to the majority who weren't disadvantaged. They got where they are through no fault of their own, or the fault of their forebears either. What does society owe for the screwing they've gotten? Would you feel the same if you and yours were in that group?
I don't owe them anything. I didn't screw them. My ancestors won the war that freed them and me parents supported the party that ended Jim Crow. The Democrat party probably owe them something. So, how much of the wealth associated with your social security and medicare and your wife income and retirement do you want us to give them? You're on the side with all the guilt. The black folks on our side don't want it and oppose it. That's progress.
(04-16-2020, 01:48 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]I knew that it wasn't accurate the way it was presented. I didn't lie.
You did lie. The quote from the Constitution is exactly what is said by the Constitution. Even now you are compounding your lie.
If your ideology tells you something, chances are that it is wrong. What are you trying to do? Channel your inner Trump or Fox News? Shape reality to fit your imaginings? Much of your ideology tells you what liberals are, and you try to sell it to real liberals. Do you believe you know them better than they do themselves? Other parts of your ideology are easily fact checked. You ought to do so before you are fact checked out of all credibility.
Oh. Sorry. Too late.
(04-15-2020, 03:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]... I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
And yet the preamble to the Constitution says the government would and should "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity". The conservatives as tribal thinkers have traditionally fought this aspect of what it means to be American.
There has been a 40-year pattern of indoctrination that these folks have taken fully to heart. If you argue logic with them, they often get angry. If you argue feelings, they get offended by the liberal mindset. It's unwinnable. Apparently, our generation, as well as the Xers behind us, have to leave the stage before this changes, but I plan on having as good a time as possible on my way out.
(04-15-2020, 04:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2020, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]H-m-m-m. I live in very Red country, so I know many folks with that philosophical bent. I find my Red friends, and I do have them, very generous on a one-to-one basis. They're always ready and more than willing to help those they feel are deserving -- which tends to limit the extent of their sympathy to (1) friends and relatives (2) people they know through church (3) people they hear about through (1) or (2). The idea of abstract generosity to the vast many is like a fish riding a bicycle -- more or less inconceivable. Make it communal (i.e. tax based), and it becomes theft.
What makes blues think/feel they deserve our support? What have you done to deserve it? What do blues fund with our contributions? So, how many charitable organizations are there competing with the big government blues for support these days? Is big blue government legit? According to you and your pitch, it must be legit? How many America people trust big government these days? Do you ever think before you pitch? How many Americans are smarter/wiser/more knowledgeable about the big picture than Cortez or any other third rate liberal politician like her? I'm going try and make something clear to you, blue America doesn't represent half the country these days. Red America actually represents most of it these days which is why I tend to refer to them as Americans. You should gulp. I spent a few years peeling away traditional Democratic support for so called blue America or France for a better term or any other European or European influenced nation with a parliamentary form of government that isn't anything like ours or nearly as strong as ours as history has shown us with Hitler and Putin and Venezuela and Turkey and Egypt and so forth. Red American actually represents a unique blend between two dominant philosophies. That's the truth. Now, a nation like England or Norway or Sweden or Japan with an idle monarch who still has control over an elite military can dabble with Marxism without many concerns.
Your side seems to believe that the rules should be bifurcated: one set for good times and another for bad. In good times, hard work, especially small business ownership, deserves to left alone and keep all their gains, because no one made it but them. In bad times, government must protect the interests of business and "real Americans", so we get massive bailouts. Privatizing profits and socializing losses is crony capitalism at its worst. So, if you're willing to go out of business when the word turns bad, I'll grant you credit for consistency, even though I think it's a bad idea.
(04-16-2020, 09:47 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]There has been a 40-year pattern of indoctrination that these folks have taken fully to heart. If you argue logic with them, they often get angry. If you argue feelings, they get offended by the liberal mindset. It's unwinnable. Apparently, our generation, as well as the Xers behind us, have to leave the stage before this changes, but I plan on having as good a time as possible on my way out.
They provide me a good excuse to repeat my own ideology. If they are left angry and offended, bonus time!
