Does holding to established order make Republicans/Conservatives mean?
I have always wondered what makes progressives (liberals if you like) different from conservatives. When both are witness to the same events, yet each group has a different take on what is or what should be done.
This is a lot like the gold or blue dress controversy of a couple of months ago. Who can explain why so many saw a gold dress, but otherwise normally sentient people also saw the dress in blue, looking at the exact same image.
Yes, this article is from the 'leftist rag' Huffington Post, but the questions and theme proposed could stand a fair scrutiny by either side of the ideological ledger. Humor me, have a look and share your thoughts. Are these things in the article true, are they an exaggeration?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cody-cain … lp00000592Wow. That really puts an unnecessarily negative spin on the whole Republican mentality.
I think one could easily take the stand of the far left and fabricate a similarly unflattering article. I'm not certain what the point would be; other than to prove they too could be a pompous ass.I wish that the other side could produce a similar article, perhaps I might learn more about how they think and process situations. I am looking for answers, I am not beating anyone up. What was it that disturbed you specifically.
Nothing specific disturbed me. I'll admit I know people who could easily be the subjects used to write that article. But, they aren't people whose ideas should be dismissed. That article was obviously tongue in cheek. But, it is just like the belief/nonbelief debate in religion. The article belittles beliefs as if there is something mentally deficient in those who hold them. As if we should smile condescendingly at those who hold them because, they just can't help themselves.
None of that is conducive to a productive exchange of ideas.Ok, L to L ( Denise), I admitted that the source of the article would probably have a left-wing bias.
So on the subject of relgion and faith,,,,
You know people that believe that their beliefs should be imposed upon others? That is what is spoken about here. No one is attacking faith and belief in the article.
I am not bashing anyone, just why does the conservative feel threatened under the circumstances?
How others believe or not believe does not bother me, why does it bother them? It cuts to very soul of who we are as individuals.
In another thread, we were talking about grass root revolts on an listless Washington. Until we deal with the fundemental differences in our personal values, we can never act with one voice to do anything, with the exception of having a nuclear bomb detonated in your neighborhood.
I know that we have differences, but why? If we are serious about debate, seems that this is a path that we must cross.I think we need to be more mature than we have been. I don't see it necessary to agree on many fundamental values. Mainly, because it will never happen. But, there are so many major issues we could agree on. I think politicians use the 'fundamental values' argument to keep us separated. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Most people I discuss our national problems with all agree on so much more than we disagree. We should find a way to focus on the things we agree on, force those things to be worked on and let the politicians pander over the other things.
But L to L, what major issues do we agree upon?
Foreign Policy
Entitlement Spending
Military Spending
Abortion/Contraception
Gay issues
Guns
The Government had almost came to a halt when it defaulted on its obligations because of party and ideological gridlock back in '11.
Who is saying, let's take the country back? Who do we take it back from?
What was it "Get your Government hands off of my Medicare?
I have never seen so contentious a society since the Civil War. While we have always had poles of disagreement, never have they been as virulent as they are today.
We all can agree on that we all want nice peaceful lives, without want or concern that include good paying jobs and secure retirements, but getting from here to there and roads we take is the real question and arduous part of the journeyWell, I don't expect the government to ensure I have a good paying job and a secure retirement. I think their only obligation to us is to ensure there are rules that protect the worker from being exploited or taken advantage of. And, free of want and concern? We'll always find things to want and things to be concerned about. So, I think we don't have any agreement there.
However, what could we all agree on? That corporations are not citizens and they should have no ability to sway elected officials? That for every seat at the table a corporation gets at a policy meeting, such as the front row seats they had during the health care negotiations, there should be several average citizens with as much pull. I think we could all agree to insist that pork barrel spending isn't piggybacked onto needed legislation.
I think we could probably all agree that if we removed every incentive politicians had to get rich while in office we might actually get some people to run who have our interests at heart. True public servants instead of the half butt actors we currently employ.
As to the other? My dad always said that if the Republicans were permanently in power they'd starve us all out and if the Democrats were permanently in power they'd beggar us all. True public servants would still disagree. But, true public servants would argue in defense of their beliefs and ideals. Not because some millionaire who wants his corporation to get a multi billion dollar government contract will give him property for pennies on the dollar or some other benefit if he votes in favor of things that will benefit that corporation.I agree with your statement regarding Government's obligation to ensure that there are rules that protect the worker from being exploited or taken advantage of.
That is the crux of the problem, you tell me, which side has be most adamant in the attempt to 'water down' these protections? There are as many people on the right that says if the Govermnent steps back from its oversignt and regulatory responsibility, which ensnarles the 'job creators' with more red tape, the workers would benefit. This is how they say you find your protection
According to them, let the invisible hand of the free market see to the proper relationship between labor and capitalist.
In your second paragraph, of course we agree, but who do you think created the absurd notion and continues to promote it as 'free speech'? The Republican, the Right, Conservatives. There are a lot of them and they are not interested in parity at any level. We all say what is desirable, but we vote advocates of these insane ideas into office. The theme of Government interference in the economy and how a laissez-faire approach produces a better outcome attracts many on the surface but allow people to be deceived and not see the component parts, the details of which serves to disenfranchise us all.
On your third paragraph, you are right. We spoke of the concept of term limits,but you will see how much resistance there is to curbing the excess power and influence of these legislators.
The people and groups that promote this bad stuff are not just an amorphous mass. While there is a stench from all politicians, there is a matter of degree and absolutes of one side being the villian and the other, the hero, is not accurate
But in my opinion the Right is more of an impediment to solving the problems that we have been discussing in this and the other thread."But in my opinion the Right is more of an impediment to solving the problems that we have been discussing in this and the other thread."
I don't know what it is that you insist on an ideology that is second most in the minds of those who are charged to uphold and execute it. Why did Clinton sell us out to NAFTA if he was looking out for our interests and democratic principles of fair play? Obama is selling us out to corporate and republican interests to complete the task. Hillary is hinting around the banking bubble that threatens to bring the world down by reform but is backed by the big banks. The system is getting in the way of the ideology. The money is at the heart of both parties attention.
Just look at the salaries of these "Public Servants" and then what they haul in.
http://ballotpedia.org/Staff_salaries_o … sentatives
This is almost pornographic in it's display. No my friend your penchant to believe in the corrupted ideologies of these parties leads only back to the money. Money is the impediment not the argument.Yes, NAFTA was a mistake, that I don't think at the time many even appreciated. I am upset with Obama for his advocacy and participation in TPP. But if ypu noticed his left flank expressed disaproval and nonsupport for the reasons we both recognize, but the otherside, all of them were knocking themselves out to support a president that they have impeded throughout his term to get on board. That overwhelming support from the right, for a President that they despised, is what raised my suspicious as to the nature of TPP from the very beginning. But, like I have been saying, everything is relative. I know money is always the culprit. Yes, Hillary Clinton has been sleeping with the enemy. The ideology is the imputus for the motive to promote policies putting us under the bus. But can you really say that Obama is worse or equal to a Mitt Romney?
Money is always the overriding theme, but I want to identify my adcersaries a little more precisely. As a I said beforemoney is the lure for all politicians, but there a side that is committed to being sure that I lose. Yes, there is the forest and the trees and I pay attention to which group of trees are suceptible to the fire and why.
We are different as I don't see the enemy as an amorphous mass merely identified with big money, they have affiliations, agenda and political positions and dogma. For every one Obama or HC, there are 10 GOP, For every 1 disappointment I get from Obama, I would have received 10 from Romney. The passage of time in my life has shown me that There are no absolutes in life nor in universe around me. I focus what I consider the biggest impediment and the more dangerous. We are just going have to agree to disagree on this point.
Yeah, I know the system is awash with money according to the info you provided. But their having money in itself, does not always translates into policies that are out to cut my throat as a midde class citizen. Who is earning all the money, plus doing that as well?"Money is the impediment not the argument." - I agree rhamson.
I do not "get it" WHY the United States Senators and Representatives salaries need to be so high.
I think both sides 'water down' protections. The Right may say step back from regulatory responsibility (which if followed through completely would hurt the average citizen), but the left has put us in a position we are in now with companies scrambling to divest themselves of full time workers. Which also hurts the average person. I see the answer somewhere in between.
Your response about the second paragraph is interesting. Primarily because the Health Care reform process was a prime example of what I am complaining about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the left at work? I'm not pointing a finger, simply waving my arm in the general direction of all of Washington.
Yes, term limits will only be forced on Washington. None of them will ever willingly adopt them. Some may pay lip service to the need for them; but I see it only as lip service.
I agree that not everyone is all bad in Washington. Unfortunately, no one is all good, either. I also agree that labeling some villians and some heros is simply buying into the partisan game.
I agree that the right has been a stumbling block. But, I don't always mind that they are. Sometimes I breath a sigh of relief that they succeeded in grinding progress on some things to a halt.Thanks for your reply
Tell me, how has the left put us a in a position we are in with companies seeking to divest themselves of full time workers?
Did you have a problem with ACA? Seems to me that before the furor we were having a problem with the health system under the status quo, bankrupting the economy, This idea of reform has been around for a couple of decades. We all knew that something had to be done, why did the otherside not do anything other than obstruct, there has not been one plan that has come from the GOP offering an alternative or improvement upon ACA. I have heard mixed reviews about its effectiveness.
I understand your last paragraph, and oddly enough I can agree, there is always a role for the conservative, but I don't want them dominating things. My issue is it depends on what progress they want to grind to a halt. My beef is that the right has been more of a stumbling block than the left side regarding the issues that I am concerned about most."We all knew that something had to be done, why did the otherside not do anything other than obstruct, there has not been one plan that has come from the GOP offering an alternative or improvement upon ACA."
Forgive me if I jump in here but these negotiations did not happen in a vacuum. The health insurance lobby worked fervently to assure that the ACA did not go the way of a single payer system. They would have lost billions had it taken that turn. The GOP as it turned out did not even vote for it. We are now seeing the results whereby the rates are skyrocketing and the mergers between the healthcare insurance providers are determining where the rates are headed. This was always doomed and the single payer system is where it is headed if recent greed has any cleansing affect.Thanks, RH
Most of us on the left wanted a single-payer. but the political climate of the times and the power and greed of the major players would not permit it. I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but I have been around long enough to hear the moans and groans of a status quo that was not working. Good is better than fair and fair is better than poor. I have to revisit Obamacare in so many aspects to really appreciate the pros and cons. I have heard both. But I knew, working in the economy that we were on slippery slope the way things were going prior to ACAG’day, rhamson. So nice to chat with you again.
You have raised an interesting point about rising health insurance rates, one worthy of close examination. In particular, your claim "rates are skyrocketing" was not supported in any way. A close look at the relevant data indicates rates on average did not “skyrocket” for 2015. Furthermore, it is much too early to be making blanket statements about 2016 since rate increase requests and state by state reviews will continue into the fall. Therefore, it would be enlightening to have a look at your sources which I hope are in the form of data and not rhetoric.
At the beginning of the enrollment period in November 2014, ACA critics were jubilant to report that the benchmark second-lowest silver and the lowest-cost bronze plans in Southeast Alaska and in Western Minnesota counties had increased +34 to +43 percent. At the same time, ACA supporters were extolling premium reductions of -40 to -45 percent in Summit County, Colorado. However, astute moderates were able to distill the rhetoric and burrow down to the national reality that premiums in ALL US counties rose by an average of only +2 to +4 percent for the current year. Sacrebleu! “Skyrocketing” premiums were not the norm in 2015. {1} {2}
Therefore, Rhamson, you must mean 2016 premiums are “skyrocketing.” But, insurers have only just begun to submit rate change requests to all of the states and the process of reviewing and approving increases will continue right up to November 2015. Never the less, the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) has compiled a preliminary analysis of premium changes for the lowest- and second-lowest cost silver plans in major cities in 10 states plus the District of Columbia. The data covers the plans that are most popular on the ACA exchanges but does not include plans with reduced or only moderately increased premiums.
According to the KFF report, “In most of these 11 major cities, we find that the costs for the lowest and second-lowest cost silver plans – where the bulk of enrollees tend to migrate – are changing relatively modestly in 2016, although increases are generally bigger than in 2015. The cost of a benchmark silver plan in these cities is on average 4.4% higher in 2016 than in 2015." {3}
Based on this early and quite limited 2016 sample, the KFF has determined that the second-lowest priced silver plan, if approved, might increase by +16.2 percent in Portland, OR, and may decrease -10.1 percent in Seattle, WA. Compare this range to the two extremes seen last year, +34 to -45 percent, and we find premiums in the sample locations are fluctuating in a much narrower range. Alas, no sign of “skyrocketing” rates here either. I am sure you can understand why it is important to see the data that led you to claim health care premiums are “skyrocketing.”
Thanks for you contributions, Rhamson. I am looking forward to understanding why you chose to use the term “skyrocketing.”
{1} http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie … ketplaces/
{2} http://www.thelocal.fr/20140902/french- … bleu-merde
{3} http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie … ketplaces/Thank you again for your comprehensive and well thought out reply. While KFF is a healthcare provider it is not the only provider and is somewhat insulted from cost due to it size and scope of in house care. I was referring more to the individual healthcare insurance sold to the other 51% per cent of the populace such as these states whose rate increases saw:
"Delaware at 100%, New Hampshire 90%, Indiana 54%, California 53%, Connecticut 45%, Michigan 36%, Florida 37%, Georgia 29%, Kentucky 29%, and Pennsylvania 28%."[1]
Federal healthcare is skyrocketing though not directly connected to the ACA. The CBO estimates "The biggest savings on CBO's list come from repealing the healthcare law's coverage expansion — eliminating subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, while leaving in place Medicare cuts and tax increases.Repealing the coverage expansion would save $150 billion, cutting total healthcare spending by 15 percent" [2]
"Repealing the coverage expansion would save $150 billion, cutting total healthcare spending by 15 percent" [2]
With the ACA entrenched in our legislature and psyche there is a slim chance of it being repealed.
While I agree that healthcare under a larger less optioned plan may reduce these increases for some it limits the coverage and benefits offered by a more comprehensive carrier. As I said this is headed to a single payer payroll deduction much like SS.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottli … obamacare/
[2] http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/26 … yrocketingHi again, Rhamson. I appreciate your effort to explain your claim of “skyrocketing” healthcare insurance rates. It did not make sense the first time you said it and you can not justify your use of the term by pointing to an article about healthcare policies that are not even sold on ACA exchanges.
I am sincerely grateful for the two links. Neither is current and neither is relevant although both have “health care” and “skyrocketing” in the title. One is a 15-month-old Forbes article that reported responses from 148 private brokers who do not sell policies comparable to healthcare plans available on ACA exchanges. The other “source” leads to a 2012 reference to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report about Medicare costs that obviously has nothing at all to do with rising health care premiums.
Trying to discredit the Kaiser Family Foundation by misrepresenting the organization's primary function is simply disingenuous. "KFF is a healthcare provider it is not the only provider and is somewhat insulted [sic] from cost due to it size and scope of in-house care."
The Kaiser Family Foundation IS NOT a healthcare provider! The KFF is a nationally recognized independent research organization with an unblemished record of analyzing and reporting medical delivery system trends in the United States and globally. Who told you they were “insulted” (insulated?) from the cost of in-house care due to their size and scope? That is utter nonsense. They are the leading source for impartial nationwide data about the medical industry.
"I was referring more to the individual healthcare insurance sold to the other 51% per cent [sic]of the populace such as these states whose rate increases saw:"
Not quite true, Rhamson. Your post actually used the term “skyrocketing” when referring to healthcare premiums you claimed were rising as a the result of the ACA. "the ACA did not go the way of a single payer system... We are now seeing the results whereby the [healthcare insurance] rates are skyrocketing," you said. The facts indicate that healthcare premiums are not “skyrocketing” on average and both of your links bear this out.
The first is the Forbes link : http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottli … obamacare/
In spite of the extreme examples touted in the headline, the first sentence of the second paragraph clearly states, “The average increases are in excess of 11% in the small group market and 12% in the individual market." Did you read this article? Honestly, Rhamson, does that statement justify the sensational claim in the headline? The author uses the word “skyrocketing” to describe insurance premiums for policies in only 10 states that ARE NOT sold on the ACA exchanges. The second clue that the article is not about the ACA becomes obvious when it compares the premiums to increases in the prior quarter. Obamacare premiums do not fluctuate. They are fixed for the entire year.
The second reference you provided, http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/26 … rocketing, has nothing to do with healthcare premiums and it does not even warrant mention. However, it is rather devious for your post to include this quote....
"Repealing the coverage expansion would save $150 billion, cutting total healthcare spending by 15 percent,"...
But not this quote...
"[Repealing] It also would leave roughly 29 million people uninsured."
Nor does your post include this quote from the same source...
"CBO has said repealing the entire healthcare law would increase the deficit because the law includes taxes and spending cuts that outweigh its new spending."
Finally, your post made one other claim that reveals a need for more research about the ACA. You said "The health insurance lobby worked fervently to assure that the ACA did not go the way of a single payer system. They would have lost billions had it taken that turn."
Did you happen to see the fact in your CBO source about the ACA’s impact on the insurance industry? It specifically mentions "the law's $716 billion reduction in Medicare payments to doctors and insurance companies.” Also, are you aware that the ACA requires insurers to pay out at least 85% of collected premiums for benefits. If they have not done so by the year's end, the unused portion of the 85% must be refunded to the policyholders? We should remember these facts every time we hear unsupported claims that the ACA is a boondoggle designed just to benefit the insurance industry and the American Medical Association.
In the end, RH, average healthcare insurance premiums ARE NOT “skyrocketing” on ACA exchanges. If you examine the data I provided, you would have to agree and you would not be claiming the KFF is a healthcare provider.
“Since we began in 1991, our goal has been to build an institution that plays a special role as a trusted source of information in a health care world dominated by vested interests.” ~ Kaiser Family Foundation History and Mission. {1}
We should discuss premium increases again in November when the 2016 data is released.
Until next time, be well, stay safe, and keep your faith in America.
{1} http://kff.org/history-and-mission/It is funny that you wish to focus all of your claims on the advent of the ACA. With new mergers of health care providers there is much change on the horizon. I cannot help you understand or extrapolate from the links I provided what was and still is evident. Healthcare costs are rising and not neccesary with the ACA. While you wish to concentrate exclusively on the ACA it is clearly a deceptive figure as the local governments are providing lower cost coverage at who's cost? Thank you for your input but I still say the costs are going up. Whether or not you wish to believe the degree it is based on the exchanges is up to you.
Large companies are divesting themselves of full time workers. I would think, it was due to the benefits they have to give them. Which, they would do it no matter who was in power but I would think this mandatory health care was one of the impetuses driving the trend. I always worked for companies which cared for their workers and offered good benefits. My husband had the opposite experience. He was offered health care once. The total cost to him would have been more than his paycheck, and he made good money. My cost, for a family plan, was less than $200 dollars. It was good coverage, too. All the same size companies, with different outlooks toward their employees.
My problem with the 'reform' is that it has enriched the insurance companies and beggared the people. We own a company now. It is still growing. Not profitable yet. My income is negligible, if not non existent. I called, to enroll because I didn't want to be fined. They told me it would cost over $700 per month for me to join; or we would be fined. Me, with no income to speak of. I had to call an insurance company to work us through the red tape in order to find a way to stay in compliance without having to make the choice between following Obama care, or losing our house. He said if we don't earn over a certain amount by the end of the year we will have to go on Medicare. I'd rather have no health care than have the taxpayer foot the bill for medical care. We are caught in the middle of this thing.
Insurance companies, doctors and many other participants in our health care system make six figure incomes. High six figures and more. We purposely allow universities to limit the number of doctors who become part of the medical system. Why? For the same reasons we limit the amount of milk produced. To fix prices.
Should the other side have offered an alternative? Would anyone have listened, with partisan politics as rancid as they have become? I doubt it.
Bottom line, if we held companies accountable....if we insisted that amoral decisions were not acceptable when dealing with employees....we wouldn't have been in the boat of so many people not covered in the first place. If we allowed more people to enter the medical field....if instead of allowing the insurance companies to help map out universal health care and instead had used that money to lower the costs of medical school and raised the numbers admitted we could have lowered medical costs by having more trained professionals available, more competitive rates and more personalize care.
You only see the right as a stumbling block because the left is in the White House. But, the left runs forward, willy nilly, without thinking things through. The Right things things through too much; factoring in the worst case scenarios. Somewhere in the middle would work just fine.
How much money has been spent appointing 'czars' and committees and what not? Jeez. All we need is a department of Heloise like Dave Barry suggested years ago. Get some middle aged, mid western woman and run things past her. If she says it's a waste of money, listen to her. It would
be amazing how much money our government could save.Thanks L to L, I think that the trend of large companies to rid themselves of full time workers has been going on long before ACA. Yes, the health care requirement may be one of many factors having something to do with the dearth of full time jobs. It would be premature to say ACA was primarily responsible for that trend. It is difficult to discuss your assertion under the framework of ACA, my knowledge of the fine points of the program is not that great.
While it is difficult for me to relate to your situation, I remember having to go to Denver General for a serious cut and saw of virtual line of people around the facility waiting for medicare care, how were they going to pay for it? Somewhere along the line, someone has to pay for the soup. These facilities were not absorbing the costs of treating all the indigent before ACA, how much of our tax money was going toward that?
I have always seen theRight as a stumbling block regardless of who is in the White House, they advocate principles and policies, with which I don't abide. So why, if there is room for improvement, is the otherside consistently caught with no alternative ? The situation prior to ACA was unsustainable and we all knew it. If they have a better idea, I am waiting and listening...
It is an excuse for the otherside to say 'no one would have listened' without their putting forth a viable alternative, or working with the current administration beyond just saying 'no'. Which they never did.
Thanks to FDR who recognized early on that falling back on the status quo, continuing with pre-depression style economic models, was infact unsatisfactory in the face of national economic upheaval, The Great Depression. We have to move forward, not backwards. With a bipatisan approach we can make something that is not perfect at inception, better.
I like your middle of the road, scenario, but experience has taught me to lean more left of center, rather than the other way. But again, that's me.
I agree that there is a great deal of waste that has nothing to do with ideological principles as to what is justified spending. In Washington, it may be to the extent where there is a lot of savings to be acquired will better and more exacting housekeeping of current programs regardless of which side advocates for them.
II wouldn't lay all the blame on ACA for the trend. It is, in my opinion, a very large nail in the coffin.
I firmly believe that every human being, whether they have money or not, should receive basic medical care. I also believe that human decency would ensure that every human being would receive emergency care and care during long term illness. So, I was in favor of a national health care system. But, this one doesn't seem to be one which took into account the average citizen as much as it took into account the desires of the insurance companies.
My main problem is that most Americans have bought into this belief (unfounded, in my opinion) that there is a pill for everything and that pill needs to be taken. Drug commercials bombard us throughout the day. I've read studies where the number of illnesses which need to be treated by a specific drug go up drastically in the market areas the drug is being advertised. Something isn't right in that scenario. We can't blame it entirely on the companies advertising the drugs. We have to also look at the relationship between the doctors and the drug companies. They push it on tv, people buy into the idea, and then doctors automatically prescribe it.
I can't blame the average citizen. Most people trust doctors to do what is in their best interest. But, this is a multi (probably) trillion dollar behemoth which is feeding on the rest of us. I've seen unnecessary procedures done in order to pad hospital bills, I've seen people suffer the side effects of drugs they probably didn't need to take. And somehow we are the ones to blame for the mess.
I suppose the Right didn't chirp up because the system is broken, yes. But, the true solution to the problem will never, ever happen because that will entail standing up to the companies who line the pockets of every politician involved in that fiasco.
I was in favor of national health care until I realized that it was just another opportunity to put the welfare of the average american on the back burner. You say you lean left, I lean left also. But I'm still to the right of the line. Further to the right these days thanks to what I see as another example of taxation without representation.
Actually, there have been multiple reputable studies now showing consistent differences in conservatives and liberals brains.
If you want to know something less than stellar about liberals, it is that all that open-mindedness leads to less happiness.
Huffington Post's articles are usually one sided dribble. That article sets as an example for the site and of it's writers like Cody Cain. Silly!
I never denied the fact that the article had a left bias, bring me a one with a right wing bias and let me sieve for the fundamentals behind it. The article was used to stimulate debate on the fundamentals of differences between the ideological poles. So what is the otherside? I have a hard time pinning conservatives down as to the bases of their beliefs at the molecular level.
Why do two people look at the samething and have a different reaction?
Do you have points of reference that put forth a more accurate conservative based appeal, as this is so one sided? I anxious to hear and debate the efficacy as to their objectives for the general society and why.You are smart so you would know about perceptions.
Can You Trust Your Eyes? (or your perceptions for that matter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZflIMBxyIak
Scientists do not understand the phenomenon of the biological and neurological factors of eye-sight fully as to why A) person sees blue, and B) person sees gold while looking at the same image.
Then, I have a cousin who is color-blind. Clearly my car is gold, my cousin sees it as tan. He doesn't argue because he realizes he cannot trust his eyes.Yes, I saw the link, those are optical illusions that are common to all of us with two eyes and relatively healthy eye sight.
But, taking this to ideological affiliation and identification, are you implying that the differences are unknowable, like the difference in visual perception in different people in the dress color example?
I am speaking of two groups of people that are equally functional in their reasoning abilities in everyother way, but ideologically both can look at the same object or circumstance with one seeing blue and the other red. I ask again, why?
Why are my perceptions different from that which would be considered conservative points of view? Neither side is neurologically blind, so what is the difference? It is not of passing interest as national debates and policy have been affected by this anomaly between individuals, groups of people, etc.
You spoke of bias in the Post article, what is the premise that supports that bias and what refute is presented by the otherside that is of merit to counter the bias.
I would be even smarter if I can figure that out.
Are conservatives slow in defending the merit of their points of view?
Do you have an answer, does anyone out there have an answer?I definitely am not "implying that the differences are unknowable". Are you researching that? I would be interested in knowing if the differences are knowable (not theories).
Yes, nature or nurture? All that is available to support the nature or hard brain wiring is only possible within the concept of theory based on tests as the proof of direct correlation between political ideological leanings and evident orientation of the brain is beyond the capability of current science. There is as indicated by Pretty Panther, some meaningful research. I had provided an article from the Washington Post, and we can agree that this is not a liberal rag.
So, if it is not nature, it must be nurture? The only overwhelming group that is conservative in its leanings are rural older white males. So on the opposite pole the strongest consistently liberal groups are minorities, young urban dwellers. How does educational attainment figure into this? Income levels, social class?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ … story.htmlThanks for putting that link in front of my face so I could plainly see it and read that article. Interesting!
I was in a group many years ago that used neutralization techniques to eliminate knee jerk reactions to overt hostility.Am I reading you correctly that you see "overt hostility" in this thread? Is that what you mean, or am I misunderstanding something.
No I do not see any kind of hostility in this thread. Thank you for asking, and I am sorry that I was not more clear, its my fault I'm sure.
A great thread, Credence. I’m sorry I am late to the party.
I discovered a short excerpt with a comprehensive analysis covering this topic a few months ago. I spent more than an hour searching for it today. It answers your questions and provides insight for understanding the conflicting worldviews held by Conservatives and Liberals.
While your link deals with the difficulties Liberals face trying to comprehend Conservative thinking, this author offers dozens of puzzles facing both camps, but here are a few that challenge Conservatives just to counterpoint the Huff-Post article:
“Of course, most conservatives have just as little understanding of liberals. To conservatives, liberal positions seem outrageously immoral or just plain foolish. Here are some corresponding questions that conservatives have about liberal positions.
Liberals support welfare and education proposals to aid children, yet they sanction the murder of children by supporting the practice of abortion. Isn't this contradictory?”
“How can liberals support federal funding for AIDS research and treatment while promoting the spread of AIDS by sanctioning sexual behavior that leads to AIDS? In defending gay rights, liberals sanction homosexual sex; they sanction teenage sex by advocating the distribution of condoms in schools; they sanction drug abuse by promoting needle exchange programs for drug users. How can liberals say they want to stop the spread of AIDS while they sanction practices that lead to it?
How can liberals claim to be supporters of labor when they support environmental restrictions that limit development and eliminate jobs?
How can liberals claim to support the expansion of the economy when they favor government regulations that limit entrepreneurship and when they tax profitable investments?”
“How can liberals claim to be helping people in need when they support social welfare programs that make people dependent on the government and limit their initiative?”
“To conservatives, liberals seem either immoral, perverse, misguided, irrational, or just plain dumb. Yet, from the perspective of the liberal worldview, what seems contradictory or immoral or stupid to conservatives seems to liberals to be natural, rational, and, above all, moral.”"
The author sets out as a cognitive scientist to create two models that explain the differences in worldviews. “The job of the cognitive scientist in this instance is to characterize the largely unconscious liberal and conservative worldviews accurately enough so that an analyst can see just why the puzzles for liberals are not puzzles for conservatives, and conversely.”
The remarkable success of his thesis is finding the conflicting worldviews are centered around two very different ideals of family life, the Conservative thinkers following a “Strict Father” model and Liberals a “Nurturant Parent” model.
A fascinating, insight-filled, quick read that I think you will find interesting:
Moral Politics, How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff {1}
{1} http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.htmlThank you for the Huff-Post article with an explanation of the liberal agenda and the corresponding conservative view of it. As with any position with regards to the human condition it is hard to describe all the complexities of behavior. I totally get that the paradoxical insights of liberals by conservatives is justified in a black and white comparison. What it shows is an opposite view without discretion. Discretion is what judges the causes and affects of our behavior. Just as the abortion clinic bomber justifies his actions in protest of the taking of life of a fetus, so does the welfare queen justify the advantage she takes of the system she condemns. Human nature is a paradox.
Better late than never, Quill.
I am reading your link and will get back with you. Conservative and Liberal leaning thought, must be taught as you can sort and take sides based on distinctive demographic groups.Quilligrapher, that is one of the best articles I have read on the differences between liberals and conservatives. I read that article this morning and am still thinking about it. Thanks for taking the time to find it to share.
You are quite welcome, Ms. Lehto.
The impact of this author’s thesis stayed in the forefront of my consciousness for a few days as well. However, this is only one chapter of the book. I am looking forward to reading the entire work.
Your post is appreciated.Quilligrapher, perhaps you would be so kind as to write a hub about your conclusions after reading that book? You do have some interesting titles in your portfolio. I just read about the Tear of Grief monument and am richer for having done so.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0Seriously ? Who could even begin to say that conservatives are mean and not Know that liberal fanaticisms are witchy at the minimum and downright war-like at the worst ? There is probably nothing nor no one as down right jackal -like as the liberal idealist activist . There IS anger , disgust and extreme divisiveness in both arena's of our two party political fields yet to even suggest that only "conservatives are mean" ?.........Please ! Open your mind.
Before you go off on a tangent, did you bother to read the article that was linked here? Being open minded means reading available material and then making a judgement? What substantive information do you have to refute that found in the article?
Are conservatives unduly defensive?Since you obviously didn't read the article, here are the last few paragraphs, in which the author of the article suggests, in so many words, that liberals open their minds about the motivations behind conservative beliefs.
Is it possible to be opposed to having a black president but not be racist? Well, the brain theory seems to offer an explanation. As the theory goes, conservatives are not mean and evil people who hate black people, but rather, conservatives are honorable and noble people who are merely attempting to protect the established order against threats to its existence.
A similar perspective can be applied to gays and gay marriage. Under the brain theory, the reason conservatives are opposed to gay marriage is not because conservatives are mean and hate gay people. Instead, conservatives are honorably and nobly seeking to protect the established order against threats that would upend it, and in doing so they are acting for the benefit of our entire society.
Now, if you have suffered discrimination as a result of being female, black, or gay, it probably does not matter much to you whether those who discriminated against you were acting with what they believed to be honorable intentions. Fair enough. Discrimination is wrong and our society must strive to eliminate it.
But the reason this matters is that understanding the cause of discrimination can be critical to developing solutions to eliminate it.
Understanding the science of the brain just might help conservatives and liberals get along with each other a little bit better. Liberals might bear in mind that conservatives are not just mean and nasty, but instead that their brains are more likely to perceive circumstances as being extremely threatening. As a result, liberals might seek to take extra measures to allay these fears. And conservatives might bear in mind that their own brains are more susceptible to interpret circumstances as being overly threatening when such threats may not be so severe.
We might just be able to get along with each other after all.
- PrettyPantherposted 8 years ago0
I have felt and believed for a long time, ever since I observed the conservative reaction to 9/11, that conservative beliefs are fear-based. They are afraid of change and afraid of people who are different.
I am speaking in generalities, of course. There are always exceptions.Hello, Pretty Panther,
Here is a case in point. On this gun thing, it has never occurred to me that I should want a conceal and carry permit for a gun. I could never figure out why I needed a gun in my day to day interactions with people.
I guess that was naive as that I should have thought that I could protect myself against a bolt of lightning. Crime is of such a nature, even being armed would I be perfectly prepared to use my weapon getting the upper hand on an assailant? The "Dirty Harry" thing is just fiction. I saw having one more as an inconvience rather than a souce of 'power'
Living in a rough patch of lower downtown Denver a few years ago and having experience a number of breakins, I almost (almost) bought a pistol.
Dealing with a bunch of drug crazed opportunistic 15 years olds that stole my transistor radio was irritating. Sitting down and thinking it out made me realize that I cowering in my own house and fortunately I had the resources and decided to move to a safer part of the city. Yes, those kids had it coming, but it wasn't worth it to me.
So when I listen to people actually say that these massacres could have been avoided if the teachers/administrators or church member had been armed is so much bunk, I have to question the sanity of the "other side"Belief in gun ownership as a means of self protection is fantasy, not borne out by factual evidence. It doesn't matter, though, because the need to own a gun for supposed self-protection is fear-based, not reality based.
The health risk of having a gun in the home
I do own a gun, but at this particular moment, I don't even know exactly where it is because my husband stored it and locked it away. The reason I own a gun is quite humorous, actually, and supports the theory that gun ownership is often fear-based. When GWB was president, I could barely stand to look at him or listen to him. The mere sight or sound of him was repulsive to me. Then, Katrina happened, and I sat and watched the chaos and ineptitude of the aftermath. That is when I decided I needed a gun, not to protect myself against "thugs" or "druggies" or "those other people," but to protect myself in the event of a natural disaster under the malevolently inept Bush administration. I laugh now, because my husband dutifully bought me my own personal gun, but I realize my desire for one was not reality-based. I am an outstanding shot, having grown up in a hunting family, but I don't feel the need to carry a gun or have it handy in my home. In fact, my reality-based self knows it would put me and my family in greater danger.Bush, yeah , his brother, Jeb, seems to be following in stride.
Knew quite a few hunter types while living in the middle Montana for 2-3 years. We have always had our hunters and firearm enthusiasts, but this new obsession is different. It is like a rite of passage, it is that the having is more important than any purpose that it serves. I believed that those that want to carry had a chip on their shoulder and was looking for an opportunity to use their weapon. They would go to places that they had no business being and would not be
there unless subconsciously they are looking for a confrontation. People with perpetual chips on their shoulders?THIS , is exactly what's wrong with the usual perception of anti- gun - advocates . " I own a gun but I don't even know where it is ............?" What ! What a blind and yet irresponsible statement , A responsible gun owner , for one thing , knows exactly where it is ! The unknown location of this gun is the real danger , Besides the fact that- that's the reason most child deaths happen -, misplaced weapons , This shows the exact meaning of the hypocrisy of most anti- gun people .
THIS , is exactly what's wrong with the perception of anti- gun - advocates . " I own a gun but I don't even know where it is ............?" What ! Doesn't this shows the exact meaning of the hypocrisy of most anti- gun people .
Ahorseback, defensive again? No one is talking about anti-gun. I just wanted to know why you felt you needed one in your day to day interaction with the general public, when I don't seem to feel the necessity?
LOL, where did I say I was anti-gun? I am NOT anti-gun. I know how to shoot and I am good at it. I come from a family of hunters. Do I think gun ownership should be regulated? Yes, but that does not make me anti-gun.
Do I think I need to keep a loaded gun on my person or in my house, just in case I need to shoot someone to defend myself or my family? No, but that doesn't make me anti-gun. That makes me pro-reality.
I sincerely cannot figure out how you concluded I am anti-gun from that post.
We to build strong relationship with each other and that cannot be done with gun in our hand.
Related Discussions
- 33
Are Republicans/conservatives in majority here in these forums?
by mega1 13 years ago
Or does it just seem that way because the Democrats/liberals are less vocal about it? Lately it seems to me there are many many more conservatives and their agendas being pushed at us. I usually keep away from politics entirely, but if it is true that most of the forum posters are...
- 77
Why is the left okay with racial slurs against Senator Tim Scott?
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
- 42
New Hampshire legislator wants Conservatives less free.
by Barefootfae 11 years ago
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-ham … dia-silentYep.Restrict freedoms of Conservatives in her state. That's the idea.
- 17
Looking for additional perspectives...
by SparklingJewel 15 years ago
“The big difference between Republicans and liberal Democrats is the way each party views people. Republicans see us as individuals and respect our God-given human dignity. To liberal Democrats, we’re not individuals; we’re members of a herd with all the dignity of a cow or pig dependent on its...
- 39
Utah Bans Gay Conversion Therapy for LGBTQ Children
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Hey, look, another right-wing conservative policy goes down in flames.What's amazing is that Utah is only the 19th state to ban such anti-science crap. Let's be clear, gay conversation therapy doesn't work and has never worked because you can't change somebody's God-given sexuality.But...
- 24
It is said Perception is Reality. A look into the Perception Gap.
by Tim Mitchell 19 months ago
More in Common partnered with YouGov using a survey of 2,100 people to discover the Perception Gap regard political parties. "The conclusion? Americans have a deeply distorted understanding of each other. We call this America’s “Perception Gap”. Overall, Democrats and Republicans imagine...