|
ANSWERS
@n.DieJokes
What's the strongest part of the Republican platform?
I sometimes imagine both parties as two individuals reading that line on the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal . . ." The Democrat sees merit in that line and finds his fulfillment in creating equality throughout life. The Republican finds merit in that line, but finds fulfillment in maintaining equal POTENTIAL for all, while reveling in the infinite ways that individuals will fulfill or squander that potential at their leisure.
I guess I'm saying this in a weird way because I feel like I should have some lofty notion to impart here. My point is, Republicans are ready to legislate, enforce, and fund the laws and mechanisms necessaary to feed, clothe, and educate the entirety of the U.S. But as we do that, we are constantly trying to find ways to lessen the imposition on the rest of the country, not because we're all rich fat cats, but because we want to preserve the possibility to be a rich guy, or a starving artist, or whatever the hell you want.
Democrats are very quick to pass new laws making it harder for banks to charge you high interest rates or mandate health insurance for everyone, etc. All of these things sound great, and I imagine many of the people who vote Democrat do so because they see that party as a generous provider. But they are notoriously stubborn in refusing to ask whether there might be a good reason why someone would willingly choose not to carry insurance or whether a bank could charge those interest rates but simultaneously provide benefits that aren't generally found in the banking world.
I guess as I'm writing this, I'm deciding on my own most favored part of the platform. Republicans try to maintain the safety net while maintaining as much room as possible for individual success or failure. The ability to fail and have it hurt in a meaningful way, be it to your pocketbook, your esteem, whatever, is a very important thing in a growing society. It takes willpower and conscious effort to not squander future opportunity in order to create a temporary cushion over which there is no real such thing as success or failure.
Sorry, it's getting late. I'll read this tomorrow and possibly want to revise the response. I hope I'm coherent.
|
ANSWERS
@Roe
1. Do I consider current social conservatives "real" conservatives?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I will say that I think there is a liberalizing tendency as all societies progress, but then again, there is also a tendency for societies to collapse at some point in their progression. Each generation manages to pass along a good portion of their understanding of morality and how the world "should" be, but there is an element of rebelliousness which doesn't allow for static understandings. Nerds might call it "social entropy".
2. Why would I go to a liberal arts school?
The women, of course. But seriously, there wasn't much of a political calculation involved in choosing Millsaps or Tulane. Both are extremely liberal places, but I was that guy that I'm sure you've all had in your classes. You know, the one that would annoy you by arguing with the professor. You'd all be pissed at him until you realized he'd managed to eat up the entire 90 minutes without anyone having to read or do anything. I enjoyed it, anyway.
Law school was much worse. I had civil rights professors calling me a racist to my face, sending out emails to various organization heads telling them I was a trouble maker, etc. The students weren't particularly bad, but the professors were ridiculous.
|
ANSWERS
@sam!zdat
Thank you for the kind words, but you'll have to be a bit more specific on the consumer culture question. Or at least let me get a few hours sleep first. Work in . . . four hours now 
@Hnnngg
1. Do women find my views offensive?
I think the thing that offends them the most is I don't respect the distnction of "women's issues". As a person who has endured a girlfriend telling him after the fact that she aborted his very-much-desired child, I can tell you that abortion is very much a PERSON issue. The birth control thing that got played up with Rick Santorum is sort of a woman's issue, but it's more like not an issue, since no one is trying to outlaw contraception. I imagine they'll carve out a religious exemption as always when it's all said and done.
For the most part, I think women respect conviction as much as men do. There is certainly a higher percentage of liberal women than men, but after fifty years of hearing nothing but an echo chamber on how Republicans just want to own their ovaries, you can't really blame them. Before Obama hit the political scene, it was the same with African Americans. Except that made even less sense, given the Democrat track record on race issues pre-1964.
The bottom line with so-called women's issues, and in fact, with many Republican stances, is that they are easily twisted into sound bytes which are effective on an uninformed audience. Abortion is not a constitionally-protected right = Republicans hate women and want them to just use clothes hangers in dark alleys. Employers are allowed, but not required, to give women who take maternity leave credit towards tenure in additon to full salary = Republicans stick it to women to help make rich men richer. It goes on and on, and no amount of facts or debate will stop the practice.
We do it too. The Democrat positions just don't always lend themselves to such easily summarized talking points.
2. Do I watch FOX News?
Absolutely. I hope to be appearing on it sometime this week in fact, though they may send someone from the national campaign to bump me. I won't argue that the network doesn't have a conservative spin, but I would respectfully submit, that with the incredible amount of bias in most other non-internet media sources, even perfectly down the middle reporting would appear extremely conservative. Fox is definitely right of center, but nowhere near as much as the Media Matters crowd would have us all believe.
I do watch the MSNBC line of talkshows. They are remarkably effective at predicting exactly what someone will be yelling at me about the next day.
|
Hey you know if Conservatives and Politics in general responded and explained things the way you do...we'd all be in a better place.
I am in no way a conservative but I can definitely respect someone that has a thoughtout and intelligent reason for thinking the way they do. I also realize in the sad darkness that is my cynicism that...explaining things the way you explain them isn't the way you win elections. With the way it works now you need BIG TALKING points and FLASH POINT issues to draw in your crowd and it makes me sad that this sort of thing is never actually...brought up. The only thing that bothers me about you is the way you used Occama Razor  That explanation for believing in God always struck me as odd but hey whatever.
So anyone to my one question. Conservatism is pretty heavily linked with religion these days. While I realize that the USA as a whole is religious in general the media definitely portrays the right as the "religious ones." I'm curious if this is actually a fundamental part of the conservative platform or if this is just one of those things to help someone win an election.
|
If you do appear on Fox News, will you give a shoutout to Teamliquid.net? :D
More seriously, have you read Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason and do you or not agree with its primary argument?
|
On April 26 2012 15:00 Kopo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 14:55 Coramoor wrote:
how can you support and campaign for a candidate that is so incredibly flip floppy on every issue and clearly wants nothing more then power And this is why we can't have nice things. Great blog idea by the way. I like the idea of open communication as it relates to politics. Try not to let obvious inflammatory posts like this get to you.
i'm sorry but no, have you seen the comments he's made and the way he's acted in his political career, it's quite easy to draw these conclusions, and the commentary has been made in the mainstream media worldwide that his only aspiration is power and he's willing to say and do whatever to get it, you could say this of any politician I suppose but Romney is in my opinion an extreme example
thank you to the OP, although i disagree due to the radical shift in views on everything leads me to believe pandering to a certain audience, but that's just me and as I am not American I'll leave it at that.
|
I must say OP I like you :D. Nice answers was nice to read your responses and find I agree with a lot you have said  . (I'm conersative but in no way do I pay as much attention as you, hate politics personally and arguing with people about it haha )
|
On April 26 2012 16:53 SaintBadger wrote:
Democrats are very quick to pass new laws making it harder for banks to charge you high interest rates or mandate health insurance for everyone, etc. All of these things sound great, and I imagine many of the people who vote Democrat do so because they see that party as a generous provider. But they are notoriously stubborn in refusing to ask whether there might be a good reason why someone would willingly choose not to carry insurance or whether a bank could charge those interest rates but simultaneously provide benefits that aren't generally found in the banking world.
I was going to get out of this, but as a Canadian I have to ask. In what world would a person ever on any planet not want health insurance that will keep said person alive and out of crippling debt so that they can enjoy the short years they have on this planet.
|
I'm pretty sure this isn't a useful comment, but the consent of "rage welcome" inspired me. I have no questions, just a general distaste for Republicans because actions speak louder than words, and that provides them as the greater nuisance in the war of "who can be the most facetious". Their combination of stubborness and disregard for societal advancements hinder my endearment. The extremist ones don't really draw my love either.
My personal opinion given your educational background is that you were one of the guys in my pre-law classes that were so insanely neanderthal and delusional in being a conservative (generally military) that they spewed out reckless antics of why we should practically still be slave owners. Did we have classes? No, simply a way to picture that stereotype better.
There's a distinct possibility I can muster up some questions when it is not close to 6am.
Also, North Carolina, you don't need to campaign in a state with open carry, clay hills, and optional segregation, even if Romney is not a qualified opponent for Obama.
Edit: 6am typo
Second edit: Please don't ruin the good name of genuine conservatives and rename your title to include "neo conservative". I don't see anything to do with the constitution and or Jeffersonian life in Romney's opinions or prior political actions.
|
in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society
"The fuck?" You seriously typed that in and tought.. "Yes, that seems a smart thing to say?"
Or do you mean X-early 20th century europe? Which still would make absolutely no sense to even bring up?
Nowadays inequality is bigger in the US.. You have people living in Tents and iirc 1/8 of your POPULATION is on food stamps ffs...
I won't even go on what you said after because you actually say:
"Stop talking about taxing the rich more because that won't solve all our problems anyway..." "rmblrmbl TOUGH DECISIONS to be made rmblrmbl."
, even perfectly down the middle reporting would appear extremely conservative. Fox is definitely right of center, but nowhere near as much as the Media Matters crowd would have us all believe.
Rofl. Have you actually watched Fox News? If not for certain clips (actually.. probably even with them) you couldn't tell which one wants to be taken serious.. The Daily Show/Colbert or Bill O'Reillies stuff (or however he is written)...
|
For one thing, we're seeng the beginnings of what I think will be a massive restructuring of old Europe. I don't know enough about Norway, but I do know quite a bit about Sweden, and the bottom line is that that system of government is extremely precarious, and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation. I don't think the U.S. can count on someone bailing us out if we ever get out of control.
How did you come to this conclusion? How can you say with so much certainty ''and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation'' when Economics is so underdeveloped. What system of government are we actually talking about exactly?
I almost hate to elevate this to top three status, but I know it is an effective campaign tool. Calling it "class warfare" is too generous to the Democrats, in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society, we have no classes in this country. There will always be those who think the rich don't "need" as much money as they have. To be frank, in the Hierarchy of Needs sense of "need", that's very true. But the morality of this issue is actually quite interesting. Each "rich person" will have to come to peace in his or her own mind about greed vs. charity, but in terms of taxation, it is wrong to pretend that the US can bail itself out with a new Buffet Rule. We've all heard the stats about how if we confiscated all the wealth in the country from the top 1%, it would pay the governement's bills for about two months. I don't pretend to know THE PERFECT TAX SYSTEM, but I do know that we are wasting time dealing with Warren Buffet's secretary trying to score political points when we could be making some prudent investments and tough decisions which would cement the social safety net for a few more generations. The bottom line is, each generation will face its own existential crisis as it ages. So far, our parents have not stepped up.
Class-based society......? There is much greater inequality between Americans than between Europeans.
What's your stance on the inequality in wealth between Americans?
What is your stance on Education? Seeing as how public education is pretty awfull.
|
On April 26 2012 20:24 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +For one thing, we're seeng the beginnings of what I think will be a massive restructuring of old Europe. I don't know enough about Norway, but I do know quite a bit about Sweden, and the bottom line is that that system of government is extremely precarious, and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation. I don't think the U.S. can count on someone bailing us out if we ever get out of control.
How did you come to this conclusion? How can you say with so much certainty ''and a relatively minor depression can send it tumbling toward total collapse without the willing aid of a more prosperous nation'' when Economics is so underdeveloped. What system of government are we actually talking about exactly? Show nested quote +I almost hate to elevate this to top three status, but I know it is an effective campaign tool. Calling it "class warfare" is too generous to the Democrats, in that by the traditional Euro-standard of class-based society, we have no classes in this country. There will always be those who think the rich don't "need" as much money as they have. To be frank, in the Hierarchy of Needs sense of "need", that's very true. But the morality of this issue is actually quite interesting. Each "rich person" will have to come to peace in his or her own mind about greed vs. charity, but in terms of taxation, it is wrong to pretend that the US can bail itself out with a new Buffet Rule. We've all heard the stats about how if we confiscated all the wealth in the country from the top 1%, it would pay the governement's bills for about two months. I don't pretend to know THE PERFECT TAX SYSTEM, but I do know that we are wasting time dealing with Warren Buffet's secretary trying to score political points when we could be making some prudent investments and tough decisions which would cement the social safety net for a few more generations. The bottom line is, each generation will face its own existential crisis as it ages. So far, our parents have not stepped up. Class-based society......? There is much greater inequality between Americans than between Europeans. What's your stance on the inequality in wealth between Americans? What is your stance on Education? Seeing as how public education is pretty awfull.
My questions exactly, so +1 on them. And also the bit about Sweden/Europe being precarious, what about America and the financial crisis? In Norway we barely felt it, while USA almost fell in another great depression.
|
ANSWERS
Sleep is a wonderful thing. Found some massive "their != there" issues with my own writing.
@Jayme
Is religion a substantial part of conservative platform or just pandering?
Depending on the politician, could be anywhere on that spectrum. Both political parties are mixtures of different groups whose interests do not always overlap (e.g. Ron Paul and the religious right). As I've said in earlier posts, I try to have justifications beyond my faith for my stances. I will say that people like Rick Santorum seem to feel their religious convictions with every ounce of the fervor you see on television. But, for every one of him, I imagine there are quite a few who overplay their faith to court that particular population segment.
Mitt Romney has had an interesting history with the religious right. He has lived his Mormonism publicly, but taken steps to not constantly remind the general voter that he is not a Christian. We'll see whether that turns into a more serious issue as November nears.
@SpearWrit
Will I shout out TL on Fox News? Absolutely (if I can do so without getting fired)
Have I read An Assault on Reason? No I haven't, and do not know much about it. But I will add it to the list of things that I either read or get someone I trust to read and then act as if I've read. It's been a busy year, what can I say?
|
What's your take on global warming and what measures are you willing to take?
What's your response to the suffering infrastructure in the USA?
What's your stance on gun control, more or less? Do you see any connection between gun control and homicide rates, school shootings and the general safeness in the society?
|
On April 26 2012 16:32 SaintBadger wrote:
ANSWERS
@Arnstein
1. Why do I believe in God?
If people finally run out of things to ask conservatives, I may make "Ask a Catholic Anything", but by then, I hope to be working at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (we can dream). I really can't do the long answer right now. The short version is that given all the evidence I can perceive, Occam's Razor points me in the direction of some sort of prime mover. As to the Christian tenants, the EXTREMELY condensed version is that the passion story rings true in some preternatural part of my brain, and my gut reaction to things which Christianity holds as virtuous or evil generally validate the teachings. That's a weird answer, but it's a hard thing to write quickly.
I was particularly intrigued by this answer as Occam's Razor is typically used by atheists to explain why they do not believe in the existence of a supreme being.
Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle that states (simply put) that if there are multiple explanations for the same thing, the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.
Now it is clear that our world and our universe behaves according to the law of physics. Gravitation, light, electricity, all follow laws that are well understood and well described. Even for cosmological phenomena, the light from the sun, the expansion of the universe, there are very detailed models that can predict all observations.
So the basic world-model without a supreme being consists of a universe governed by the laws of physics. Adding a supreme being to this model doesn't add any additional explanations, but it does raise the complexity of the model considerably: Where does this being come from? How does it live / think? How can it influence our world? Since there is no experimental evidence for the presence of such a being, the simplest explanation, that there is no such supreme being, is the most likely to be true, using Occam's Razor.
|
ANSWERS
@ Coramoor
Why would anyone not want health insurance?
I'm very glad someone asked this, because it's one of the areas in my own life I think I've really gained from the aforementioned ability to fail. In Novemeber of 2008, my grandmother passed away, leaving my father and myself a good amount of money. Not 1% rich kind of money, but enough that I was able to pay off student debt and still have a comfortable nest egg. I had been self-insured since leaving law school and chose not to renew my health insurance in the next year after this inheritance. My reasoning was that I was 26 years old, in very good health, and suddenly had enough money that if disaster were to strike, I would likely be able to absorb a large hit to the pocketbook. I made an educated economic decision and essentially gambled the cost of several years' worth of insurance on not getting injured or sick.
That didn't work out well for me. The day after Valentine's Day in 2010, I wrapped my car around a tree at interstate speeds and snapped my t-10 vertebrae. A major back surgery and several months of therapy later, and the gifts my grandmother had left me were gone, in addition to a good portion of my own savings. I made a calculated risk and it slapped me in the face. Better believe I was back in the health insurance market before I even left the hospital. But I learned from the experience, and I don't regret the decision that ultimately turned out to be wrong.
That's a long story, I suppose, but I'm going back to the idea of the room to fail being a very important tool for growth. You learn lessons from failure, not from being regulated into safety. Conservative politicians see their obligation to the country as one of allowing everyone to have the opportunity to afford health insurance IF THEY CHOOSE. It is not within our moral or legal authority to force the choice. If I had been rendered bankrupt by my choice to not have health insurance, assuming I was at a level of income that I could have afforded the insurance in the first place, then that's what should happen. I'd neither starve, nor die deprived of medical care, but I'd certainly be in financial ruin because I chose to roll the dice while being unprepared for a loss. That's the reality of personal responsibility, and it is the way we all should live.
As to actually making health insurance affordable, I already suggested one quick and easy step. Unfortunately, everything in the health insurance market is sort of in limbo until June. Hopefully, the high Court will hurry and rule on the insurance mandate.
|
On April 26 2012 18:53 Game wrote:
I'm pretty sure this isn't a useful comment, but the consent of "rage welcome" inspired me. I have no questions, just a general distaste for Republicans because actions speak louder than words, and that provides them as the greater nuisance in the war of "who can be the most facetious". Their combination of stubborness and disregard for societal advancements hinder my endearment. The extremist ones don't really draw my love either.
If you don't have questions or anything constructive to add, it might be a good idea to take your rage and distaste elsewhere.
|
Questions
1) What is the philosophy that informs conservative political ideas in the US?
2) To what extent do you think your own opinions and those of people in the US are affected by biased subversive news coverage and information sources? Your negative opinions on Europe seem based on fictions, and watching US news can seem to me like an Orwellian nightmare.
|
@ Game
Fair enough. Please let me know where North Carolina has "optional segregation" I'll need to look into that.
@ Veir and Recognizable (in part)
1. Why did I make the Euro-class comment? What is my stance on income inequality?
I'll be the first to admit, that sentence showed a lot of signs of 4 a.m. writing. But, please keep in mind that a class-based society isn't only measured in income inequality. It is also concerned with mobility in economics and social status from one generation to the next. Income inequality is a fact of life in a capital-driven economy. I've never once heard someone explain why that should be considered a bad thing. Different people contribute in varying ways and with varying amounts of labor and innovation; it's always seemed very natural to me that they'd be compensated differently.
I realize I'm falling into the dangerous trap of speaking of Europe as if it's one nation, but for the sake of generalizing, the main reason the income inequality is lesser in Europe is because of larger marginal tax rates at the higher ends of income. This is exactly how some in American politics would "solve" the income inequality problem, but for my money, this wouldn't accomplish much. I know liberals like to sell the idea that the poor would be brought out of poverty by taxing the rich, but this simply doesn't happen. By the time each new dollar from the wealthy passes through the levels of government and administration into whatever social program it ultimately funds, only a few cents remain, and the income inequality gap only shrinks because the top make less.
I would suggest that the potential to be at the top end of the income spectrum creates a lot more prosperity than the various ways in which our government would use additional tax revenue. That is a fairly broad statement, but I will defend the specifics as they arise. I don't know why you mock that position, but that's certainly your right.
2. Do I actually take Fox News seriously?
Well, if we're speaking of Bill O'Reilly, I take him like every adult should. That is to say, he's a TV personality in the relatively new "infotainment" business who makes money by presenting issues through one ideological lens. What bothers me about your question is that you omit mentioning the ten or twenty easily recognized liberals on other news networks who do the exact same thing with their own perspectives. But, I honestly believe you and everyone else knows that. Fox News gets targetted because they are conservative. That's perfectly fair. I suppose my answer to you is I take Fox News with the same grain of salt as every other news network, with the somewhat minor consideration that any network which inspires so much hatred from David Brock does occupy a special place in my heart.
|
On April 26 2012 22:01 SaintBadger wrote:
I know liberals like to sell the idea that the poor would be brought out of poverty by taxing the rich, but this simply doesn't happen.
Liberalism
Socialism
Communism
I know the term 'liberal' is thrown around liberally, but as someone involved in politics you should probably know what these ideas actually are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
