| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.Sometimes one person's "too much" is another person's "not enough."
Similarly, it's possible to read the same data and reach different conclusions.
Without a doubt. I find it overall disturbing that people are upset that the government isn't interfering with their lives enough.
Hee hee!
Spoilered for pedantry:
|
Without a doubt. I find it overall disturbing that people are upset that the government isn't interfering with their lives enough.
It's mostly that people want interference they agree with and not interference they don't.
After all, most people say they want police protection, and that is most certainly interference in their lives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.
I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
It may help you if you don't equate Democrat with "left." In a true political spectrum the entirety of the U.S. is right leaning or further to the right.
Use this scale to adjust your "boat balance" and live your life free of capsizing fears. (At least to the left :D )
Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.
Without a doubt. I find it overall disturbing that people are upset that the government isn't interfering with their lives enough.It's mostly that people want interference they agree with and not interference they don't.
After all, most people say they want police protection, and that is most certainly interference in their lives.
Do you get police protection where you live? I don’t and my next door neighbor is a cop. I imagine if something goes wrong I might be able to get them to help get things sorted out, but they don't stand by my house to make sure things don't go wrong.
And since people can't ask for raises or look for better paying jobs it makes sense to force employers to pay more.
And since people can't work out pay as you go deals directly with doctors it makes sense to force everyone to pay into an insurance pool to cover everyone.
And since big corporations love government protection it makes sense to keep it in place.
And since it's been proven time and again that government spends money responsibly it makes sense to keep dumping money into it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.
I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
It may help you if you don't equate Democrat with "left." In a true political spectrum the entirety of the U.S. is right leaning or further to the right.
Use this scale to adjust your "boat balance" and live your life free of capsizing fears. (At least to the left :D )
Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.
It would be interesting to see a similar layout put forth by someone on the right. Both sides believe they are the moderates and the other guys are the extremists. Anyone who says otherwise is on one of the sides.
arguments
Yet there are legitimate arguments the other way too; and your disagreement with those arguments doesn't make them invalid. Nor does someone's disagreement with yours make them invalid.
Hence, the need for discourse.
It would be interesting to see a similar layout put forth by someone on the right. Both sides believe they are the moderates and the other guys are the extremists. Anyone who says otherwise is on one of the sides.If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.
I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
It may help you if you don't equate Democrat with "left." In a true political spectrum the entirety of the U.S. is right leaning or further to the right.
Use this scale to adjust your "boat balance" and live your life free of capsizing fears. (At least to the left :D )
Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.
concentration of power is a right wing goal.
Diffusion of power is a left wing goal.Using politics as a source of power is a right wing goal.
Removing politics as a source of power is a left wing goal.
In the current party system the republicans get 2 checks for right, and the Democrats get 1 right check and 1 left check.
argumentsYet there are legitimate arguments the other way too; and your disagreement with those arguments doesn't make them invalid. Nor does someone's disagreement with yours make them invalid.
Hence, the need for discourse.
Surely, because otherwise it just becomes an echo chamber. I certainly don't expect anyone here to agree with me on this topic just based on previous posts. I'm certain it would be better for my sanity to not read some of the proposals put forth here.
The police better be doing something! My rare collection of slightgly used Beanie Babies arent gonna protect themselves! There is only so much the guard tower does without the moat! G&*+!+n kids! Dig faster!
It would be interesting to see a similar layout put forth by someone on the right. Both sides believe they are the moderates and the other guys are the extremists. Anyone who says otherwise is on one of the sides.If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.
I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
It may help you if you don't equate Democrat with "left." In a true political spectrum the entirety of the U.S. is right leaning or further to the right.
Use this scale to adjust your "boat balance" and live your life free of capsizing fears. (At least to the left :D )
Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.
From what I've seen, none of the parties can even agree on what it means to be a member of their party, hence claims of DINO, RINO, centrist, left wing kook, right wing denying fire and so on.
The police better be doing something! My rare collection of slightgly used Beanie Babies arent gonna protect themselves! There is only so much the guard tower does without the moat! G%+%~~n kids! Dig faster!
Lazy good-for-nothings. You should hear mine complain. "That's too heavy. It's too hot. I'm only four." Excuses, excuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can list platform and policy differences.
Then you can actually look at proposed laws, voting records, and what the candidates actually do when in office.
Yes, the stated platforms are VERY different.
The in-office behavior is depressingly the same.
Perhaps more similar than you would like, but still vastly different.
You cannot pretend that both parties in California are functionally the same. They are not. I should know - I've lived in California my entire life and spent years studying and working in politics.
I'm a "individual libertarian, corporate socialist". I believe in strong personal freedoms and strong corporate limitations. Both parties have shown a remarkable taste for limiting individual freedoms and increasing corporate power. You can claim that Democrats aren't like that, but Obamacare ("You MUST purchase insurance from the insurance megacorporations that have been rendering health care unavailable to many and unaffordable to many more,") is a great example of the similarities.
Which is why one party is frothing at the mouth and generally making clowns of themselves spending years trying to repeal it, right?
The eternal "War on Terror" is another bandwagon both parties have tied themselves to with iron cables.
Which is why one party has committed to reducing our military involvement in the Middle East - and has actually done so! - while the other has all but called the President a traitor for even thinking of reducing troop levels, right?
Nationalized health care is a fantastic Democratic idea. Yet as soon as they met any resistance, they rolled over and passed a strongly pro-corporate "solution".
They didn't "roll over". They compromised, because they had no choice. Look, I get that you're disappointed that we don't have single payer. We all are. But them's the breaks. Democracy is about compromise, and you don't get to tar and feather a political party because they were forced to make some concessions in order to improve things. It was either pass the system that we now have, or go back to what we used to have - insurance companies rejecting applicants for pre-existing conditions; children kicked off their parents' plans before they've found a career; etc.
I understand the party platforms. I see Republicans adhering more closely to their platform than Democrats.
Because the Republican platform is cynical base-pandering. It isn't hard to look like you're adhering to your platform when your strategy is to ensure that nothing gets accomplished by the other side. The Democrats, on the other hand, actually have to get things passed in order to accomplish their goals.
You're skipping straight past all the rational, evidence-based reasons for the lack of progress you're observing, because what you're looking for is cynicism.
In 2008 I actually voted *for* Obama
"I voted for Obama in 2008!" is rapidly becoming the "Some of my best friends are gay!" of party identity politics.
I thought he'd fight for his beliefs, and be a great president. Instead I got, "Well, the Republicans don't want me to do this, so I guess I'll stop trying, or pass a gross miscarriage of what I originally proposed."
Holy balls.
Your perception is that Obama just gave up?
Watching my democrats (yes, I'm in California. Every Democrat won in my district, so my vote was indeed meaningless) continually back down and accept any pro-corporate law that comes along is just depressing. Platform is one thing. Action is another entirely.
Especially when you're not paying attention!
If you look at other countries where there is an actual left, it becomes pretty clear. If Obama is the extreme left, what does that make socialists in other countries?It would be interesting to see a similar layout put forth by someone on the right. Both sides believe they are the moderates and the other guys are the extremists. Anyone who says otherwise is on one of the sides.If this board leans any further to the left it's going to capsize.
I suppose it's not unusual to see the standard "democrats good, republicans bad" gem that is the norm. Also, nice to see that the guy who acknowledged that the parties are nearly identical when it comes to actions gets derided.
Still, I remain amazed that people disapprove of the government because it's not doing enough rather than because it's doing too much.
It may help you if you don't equate Democrat with "left." In a true political spectrum the entirety of the U.S. is right leaning or further to the right.
Use this scale to adjust your "boat balance" and live your life free of capsizing fears. (At least to the left :D )
Tea party wing of Republican Party - extreme right, flirting with fascism.
Other Republicans - very very right, Machiavelli
"Centerist" Independents - very right, Roman Senate
Democrats - right, cautious conservatism.
"Radical Liberal" Democrat - actual political center, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Rachael Maddow.
If your Democrat party moved to Australia they would be considered a mostly right of centre party.
And anything to the right is bad!
Without a doubt. I find it overall disturbing that people are upset that the government isn't interfering with their lives enough.It's mostly that people want interference they agree with and not interference they don't.
After all, most people say they want police protection, and that is most certainly interference in their lives.
Do you get police protection where you live? I don’t and my next door neighbor is a cop. I imagine if something goes wrong I might be able to get them to help get things sorted out, but they don't stand by my house to make sure things don't go wrong.
And since people can't ask for raises or look for better paying jobs it makes sense to force employers to pay more.
And since people can't work out pay as you go deals directly with doctors it makes sense to force everyone to pay into an insurance pool to cover everyone.
And since big corporations love government protection it makes sense to keep it in place.
And since it's been proven time and again that government spends money responsibly it makes sense to keep dumping money into it.
Just curious, could you explain in detail how a middle-class working adult should be able to afford cancer treatment?
Remember, during periods of chemo-therapy some people are unable to work, because in an attempt to live, their doctor is pumping poison into their body. Sometimes that poison makes it impossible to work.
But please explain how someone making say... $60,000 a year who needs to:
1) Save for retirement
2) pay off their home
3) save for their kids education
4) transportation to their job
5) food for the family
6) clothing for same
The cheaper cancers (bladder/prostate) run about $20,000 the first year, with another $3,000 each additional year of treatment (it takes several years to be considered cancer free).
Most other cancers runs around $40,000, with an ongoing cost of $6,000.
Of course, if you're dying of said cancer the final year of life costs about 2-3 times as much as the initial year would for a survivor.
Please, give me the financial breakdown of how a working class family pays for this "as they go". Or is "go" a euphemism for dead?
...Without a doubt. I find it overall disturbing that people are upset that the government isn't interfering with their lives enough.It's mostly that people want interference they agree with and not interference they don't.
After all, most people say they want police protection, and that is most certainly interference in their lives.
Do you get police protection where you live? I don’t and my next door neighbor is a cop. I imagine if something goes wrong I might be able to get them to help get things sorted out, but they don't stand by my house to make sure things don't go wrong.
And since people can't ask for raises or look for better paying jobs it makes sense to force employers to pay more.
And since people can't work out pay as you go deals directly with doctors it makes sense to force everyone to pay into an insurance pool to cover everyone.
And since big corporations love government protection it makes sense to keep it in place.
And since it's been proven time and again that government spends money responsibly it makes sense to keep dumping money into it.Just curious, could you explain in detail how a middle-class working adult should be able to afford cancer treatment?
Remember, during periods of chemo-therapy some people are unable to work, because in an attempt to live, their doctor is pumping poison into their body. Sometimes that poison makes it impossible to work.
But please explain how someone making say... $60,000 a year who needs to:
1) Save for retirement
2) pay off their home
3) save for their kids education
4) transportation to their job
5) food for the family
6) clothing for sameThe cheaper cancers (bladder/prostate) run about $20,000 the first year, with another $3,000 each additional year of treatment (it takes several years to be considered cancer free).
Most other cancers runs around $40,000, with an ongoing cost
Thanks for saving me some time. However, you forgot to mention anything about government colluding with insurance companies and creating regulations that make medical R&D crazy expensive.
And I'm happy for you that you're fine with the money you work for being taken away to provide insanely expensive care to those less fortunate than you. You are clearly a rare and polished gem of humanity. I'd rather not have some giant behemoth of wasteful spending extract my money without my consent so that I could use it on local issues that I actually care about. I'd rather care about my neighbor than yours.
Well the hyperbole certainly escalated quickly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.
Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.
Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.
If by "conservative friendly" you mean willing to debate topics with you with corroborating evidence, I disagree completely.
If by "conservative friendly" you mean willing to let you espouse whatever viewpoints you want without evidence to back it up, I'd say you're right.
Well the hyperbole certainly escalated quickly.
There are 13 million people living with cancer in the US right now, or about 4% of the population. Considering this is close to 1 in 20, which means almost everyone alive knows someone who is dealing with cancer means it's pretty relevant to most people. Not exactly hyperbole.
The free market does not prevent people from going bankrupt due to health problems. Anyone who suggest it does is incorrect.
Wait... is the hyperbole in the example using someone who is 'middle-class'? Because we all know the middle-class doesn't exist.
In theory, the staff actually takes a pretty conservative stance on gun control. They refuse to let us even talk about the subject.
Seriously, you want a thread locked? Start debating about gun control.
I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.
There are facets of conservatism and the Republican party that deserve ridicule.
Most of it has to do with attitudes regarding a person's personal life.For example:
We want government out of our lives, but heaven forbid anyone live a different lifestyle, then all of a sudden we need government to pass laws to make their lives hell. Kind of hipocritical, no?
Well the hyperbole certainly escalated quickly.
There are 13 million people living with cancer in the US right now, or about 4% of the population. Considering this is close to 1 in 20, which means almost everyone alive knows someone who is dealing with cancer means it's pretty relevant to most people. Not exactly hyperbole.
The free market does not prevent people from going bankrupt due to health problems. Anyone who suggest it does is incorrect.
Wait... is the hyperbole in the example using someone who is 'middle-class'? Because we all know the middle-class doesn't exist.
I wasn't referencing your post, Irontruth.
Cancer sucks, both of my my grandmothers died from it. My fiancee's mother died from it. I have 2 uncles that have been treated for it and are in remission.I don't think there's anything funny about cancer.
If I ever meet a Libertarian who has anything nice to say about Democrats, or progressives of any stripe, I'd probably explode from the surprise. None I'd ever talk to would own up to any regulation they'd support. And I've pretty much had it up to here with the Ayn Rand worship of the group.Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.With posters like Simon Legrande and Brox RedGloves, Pazio is not liberal friendly. :)
I haven't noticed a strong bias from the staff, other then in LGBTQ issues, perhaps because several of the staff fall in that category. I'm not sure I've ever seen staff take a position on health care, foreign policy, gun rights, elections or most other hot button political issues. The most common attitude is closer to "Will you guys shut up! Or at least keep it down so we can go back to moderating the alignment threads."
That said, there are plenty of libertarian types hanging around who aren't exactly Democrat supporters. Along with a bunch of "A pox on both houses" types.
So far the only kind of libertarian I've agreed with more often than not is Penn Jillete.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.
Well, you know (as do I), so I guess the point for you would be - should you bother posting an opposing political view or leave it as is/take your business elsewhere?
you shall all kneel before me! No matter what your political affliation may be!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you shall all kneel before me! No matter what your political affliation may be!
to quote Dr. Evil: "How about NO!" ;p
I hope he makes it!
|
|
Last I checked, there's no political alignment required to play the game. I've even stopped taking Loyalty oaths from my players!Well, you know (as do I), so I guess the point for you would be - should you bother posting an opposing political view or leave it as is/take your business elsewhere?Except that with posters like thejeff, bignorsewolf, and now, apparently, you Kryzbyn, Paizo is not conservative friendly. At. All. The staff is not conservative friendly, and neither are the majority of the posters.I did and partook in them. I didn't thread crap, though.
Thing is when haveing discussions with people of the opposing viewpoint, you let some inevitable things slide, because discourse.
Correct, there isn't a specific political alignment to play this game, the issue I presented to Brox should he keep coming here to post or to buy product from a company with political views opposed to his own.