Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Roaming thoughts on discourse

55 views
Skip to first unread message

btpag...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 11:35:44 AM1/30/19
to

Conservative: when you factor in points A, B and C you can see where we really need to have policy D.
Liberal: point A, seriously? LOL

Conservative: we can’t raise money with taxes on the wealthy because it won’t raise enough, you can’t pay for these types of programs.
Liberal: we can’t afford not to, people will be dying in the streets, Republicans don’t care about people.

Conservative: I don’t think government is the solution to every problem, I think we need to look at policies that encourage the free market to fill this role.
Liberal: Look! They don’t even have a plan! At least we are trying to fix the problem!

Liberal: we need to cut emissions because we are killing the earth!
Conservative: I’m not sure I buy that.

Overall narrative: MAGA hat wearing racist xenophobes that are anti-science and anti-knowledge are ruining this country.

Yet the irony is that the vision for “this country” is not yet fully realized. It’s a place they want to be but not a place that “is”. What they really mean is that there is a group of people that value individualism and that value the embodiment of that in our constitution that are standing in the way of their vision of a government taking care of us as a collective.

Ken Olson

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 12:54:26 PM1/30/19
to
Excellent, bro. ;)

walstib77

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 1:29:12 PM1/30/19
to
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 11:35:44 AM UTC-5, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Conservative: when you factor in points A, B and C you can see where we really need to have policy D.
> Liberal: point A, seriously? LOL
Progressive: Points A and B are logically inconsistent, and point C is invalidated by evidence A.
>
> Conservative: we can’t raise money with taxes on the wealthy because it won’t raise enough, you can’t pay for these types of programs.
> Liberal: we can’t afford not to, people will be dying in the streets, Republicans don’t care about people.
Progressive: Taxation doesn't fund spending, silly. When was the last time you conservatives paid for one of your wars before starting it?

> Conservative: I don’t think government is the solution to every problem, I think we need to look at policies that encourage the free market to fill this role.
> Liberal: Look! They don’t even have a plan! At least we are trying to fix the problem!

Progressive: The free market isn't a solution for everything. Business is incapable of self-regulating entirely, and markets are abject failures for delivering necessities in a civil society. Adam Smith even speaks to that, if you care to read it. Let's not pretend that markets solve all problems. A realistic approach to policy is necessary, uncolored by the mythology of the Austrian Economics embraced widely on the right.

Government and business both serve beneficial purposes. Let's not pretend this is binary.
> Liberal: we need to cut emissions because we are killing the earth!
> Conservative: I’m not sure I buy that.

Progressive: That's OK, let's hear from the scientific community

> Overall narrative: MAGA hat wearing racist xenophobes that are anti-science and anti-knowledge are ruining this country.

Progressive: I'm waiting to see evidence to the contrary. Still waiting...

> Yet the irony is that the vision for “this country” is not yet fully realized. It’s a place they want to be but not a place that “is”. What they really mean is that there is a group of people that value individualism and that value the embodiment of that in our constitution that are standing in the way of their vision of a government taking care of us as a collective.

Progressive: Promote the General Welfare.

Eric Ramon

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 2:20:57 PM1/30/19
to
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 8:35:44 AM UTC-8, btpag...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Yet the irony is that the vision for “this country” is not yet fully realized. It’s a place they want to be but not a place that “is”. What they really mean is that there is a group of people that value individualism and that value the embodiment of that in our constitution that are standing in the way of their vision of a government taking care of us as a collective.

this country has always been divided into two groups. One believes in personal freedom first. The other believes in equality first. They're both noble objectives, often at odds against each other.

($1 to A. de Tocqueville)

Of course, very few of us are 100% one or the other. In fact we tend to label that type of person "an extremist".

Yosem...@byteme.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 4:35:05 PM1/30/19
to
de T is a good read.

Only one objective is an attainable reality, individual freedom. That stands alone in the undeniable rights of man. If free to be is there then equality is there as well.

Now the real objective is to find a definition of equal that applies equally to society as well as the free man without limiting the free man's right(s) that come from being free.

Human nature demands freedom. It does not demand equality.

Wars are fought for freedom, not for equality.

Heck, there wasn't equality in the garden of Eden and God created that. How are we going to create a society that treats everybody equal? :)

~YS~


J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 5:02:37 PM1/30/19
to
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 13:35:02 -0800 (PST), Yosem...@byteme.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:20:57 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 8:35:44 AM UTC-8, btpag...@gmail.com wr=
>ote:
>>=20
>> >=20
>> > Yet the irony is that the vision for =E2=80=9Cthis country=E2=80=9D is =
>not yet fully realized. It=E2=80=99s a place they want to be but not a pla=
>ce that =E2=80=9Cis=E2=80=9D. What they really mean is that there is a gro=
>up of people that value individualism and that value the embodiment of that=
> in our constitution that are standing in the way of their vision of a gove=
>rnment taking care of us as a collective.
>>=20
>> this country has always been divided into two groups. One believes in per=
>sonal freedom first. The other believes in equality first. They're both nob=
>le objectives, often at odds against each other.=20
>>=20
>> ($1 to A. de Tocqueville)
>>=20
>> Of course, very few of us are 100% one or the other. In fact we tend to l=
>abel that type of person "an extremist".
>
>de T is a good read. =20
>
>Only one objective is an attainable reality, individual freedom. That stan=
>ds alone in the undeniable rights of man. If free to be is there then equa=
>lity is there as well.
>
>Now the real objective is to find a definition of equal that applies equall=
>y to society as well as the free man without limiting the free man's right(=
>s) that come from being free.
>
>Human nature demands freedom. It does not demand equality.
>
>Wars are fought for freedom, not for equality.
>
>Heck, there wasn't equality in the garden of Eden and God created that. Ho=
>w are we going to create a society that treats everybody equal? :)
>
>~YS~

Seems to me we should be striving for equal opportunity. Except for
the soul there is no equality whether legislated or not.

Hugh

JGibson

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 9:21:34 PM1/30/19
to
Liberal: Any thought whatsoever
Conservative: Libtard!

jim brown

unread,
Jan 30, 2019, 10:49:51 PM1/30/19
to
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 6:21:34 PM UTC-8, JGibson wrote:
> Liberal: Any thought whatsoever
> Conservative: Libtard!



Conservative: " "

Liberal: "TRUUUUMMMMPPPPP!!!"

the_andr...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 11:43:41 AM1/31/19
to
This goes both ways. There’s no exclusive on unthinking idiots.

Ken Olson

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 11:48:14 AM1/31/19
to
On 1/31/2019 11:43 AM, the_andr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> This goes both ways. There’s no exclusive on unthinking idiots.
>

+1
0 new messages