Conservatives vs Liberals likened to separated parents seeking their children's favor

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 4:30 AM GMT
    I've often thought about ways to help people understand the political struggle in this country between conservatives and liberals when it comes to economic issues. Imagine a couple that has been divorced and they are struggling to get the favor of their children and to be the "favorite". Liberals are like the parent who decides to give their children as much candy and junk food as they would like and whatever they want even though it isn't good for them in the long-term while telling them that everything will be okay and that they "deserve" the benefits being bestowed. Conservatives could be likened to the other parent of the children who decides that it's better to give their children healthy food like fruits and vegetables instead of candy and junkfood which will not be as appealing in the short-term but will result in better long-term benefits. I could also use an example of a teenager. One parent says "I'll buy you a car if you give me your favor" and the other says "I'll give you the opportunity to work hard and make money to afford your own car if you give me your favor".

    Do I even have to ask which proposal will seem more appealing to the children? The one with the handouts (liberals) or the one creating an environment for people to create their own successes through hard work (conservatives)?

    The only way for the latter parent to ever win a "vote" of favor from the children would be to create "wedge" issues in order to accomplish this. Conservatives are forced to find "wedge" issues to swing elections, whether it's gay marriage or abortion or some other piece of crap. European conservatives now have immigration as their major wedge issue.

    Since the whole gay marriage issue is dying quickly and is gone among the next generation, the real question is what will the GOP be able to find as their next wedge issue in order to keep America on the healthier diet while fooling the general idiotic, ignorant and selfish handout-bloated masses that they are voting in their best interest?

    If the GOP can't find effective wedge issues then we are basically on our way to financial Greek-esque ruin. It'll end up being forced fiscal conservatism but by default accompanied by a world of hurt that COULD be avoided through intense fiscal dieting NOW.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 5:06 AM GMT
    I can give an example. A friend of mine had a son who went to high school in an area where many of the sons and daughters were pampered. The standard issue car was a BMW 300 Series conv at age 16. My friend told his son he would help him 50% but the son would have to work and/or use his savings for half. The son refused, said his dad was cheap, that he'd get rides and use his skateboard.

    After high school, before college his son enlisted in the Army to be stationed in Hawaii so he could surf. After a few years, his son came home, was visiting. He and I went surfing together in Malibu. He reminded me how he thought his dad was a cheap bastard for not getting him a car. He told me while in Hawaii he saved up and bought an old junker. He said when he looked at the car, even though it wasn't much, he felt so much pride that he immediately realized his dad had been right all along. He said if his dad had given him a car as he wanted, he would have never known the pride in buying one on his own.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 6:18 AM GMT

    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 7:04 AM GMT
    One piece missing from the conservative puzzle is that they are more likely to tell kids what to do and how they should do it without other options. Do it their way (the right way) and seek the rewards; do it the wrong way and face the consequences.
  • TrentGrad

    Posts: 1541

    Sep 04, 2011 7:59 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidI've often thought about ways to help people understand the political struggle in this country between conservatives and liberals when it comes to economic issues. Imagine a couple that has been divorced and they are struggling to get the favor of their children and to be the "favorite". Liberals are like the parent who blah, blah, blah...


    Oh quit representing your side of the debate as the logical, rational, reasonable side of it!

    Seriously, the only reason you love the status quo is because it's worked so well for you.

    The problem with you and people like you is that you have your blinders on, and you don't want (or care) to see that the status quo that has been so good for you has been so bad for so many others.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 1:31 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.



    From all the brief empty caviling remarks, I think I may have hit too close to home.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 1:32 PM GMT
    pocketnico saidOne piece missing from the conservative puzzle is that they are more likely to tell kids what to do and how they should do it without other options. Do it their way (the right way) and seek the rewards; do it the wrong way and face the consequences.


    Conservatives do that with social issues....I already addressed that, they are wedge issues. Liberals are the same way but with economic issues -- wanting to progressively control every aspect of your life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 1:36 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI can give an example. A friend of mine had a son who went to high school in an area where many of the sons and daughters were pampered. The standard issue car was a BMW 300 Series conv at age 16. My friend told his son he would help him 50% but the son would have to work and/or use his savings for half. The son refused, said his dad was cheap, that he'd get rides and use his skateboard.

    After high school, before college his son enlisted in the Army to be stationed in Hawaii so he could surf. After a few years, his son came home, was visiting. He and I went surfing together in Malibu. He reminded me how he thought his dad was a cheap bastard for not getting him a car. He told me while in Hawaii he saved up and bought an old junker. He said when he looked at the car, even though it wasn't much, he felt so much pride that he immediately realized his dad had been right all along. He said if his dad had given him a car as he wanted, he would have never known the pride in buying one on his own.


    Great story!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 3:41 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.



    From all the brief empty caviling remarks, I think I may have hit too close to home.


    Pish posh, your posts often earn only brevity from us. We learned awhile back that to post lengthily to you is a waste of time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 3:57 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.

    From all the brief empty caviling remarks, I think I may have hit too close to home.

    Agreed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 4:06 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.

    From all the brief empty caviling remarks, I think I may have hit too close to home.

    Agreed.


    Socal, really? You surprise disappointingly.
    I'm a published author, and the analogy is trite, hackneyed, and overused. It's vastly incorrect as there are a lot of divorced couples where the woman abandons the kids without a care in the world, the man gets custody, and the man is the one who provides and protects every one of his kids, providing for the ones that can't while encouraging the ones that can. He also teaches his kids to look after one another; those that can looking after those that can't.
    Mock's example puts women into a narrow and grossly stereotyped perspective, and the man as well.

    His analogy is childishly polarized and that's the problem in your country; polarization of everything. It's all extremes one way or another, just look at some of the topics on here. Small wonder the couple he describes have divorced; without mutual caring and understanding their relationship was doomed to fail.


    For you, I give a lengthy reply.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 4:10 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.

    From all the brief empty caviling remarks, I think I may have hit too close to home.

    Agreed.

    Socal, really? You surprise disappointingly.
    I'm a published author, and the analogy is trite, hackneyed, and overused. It's vastly incorrect as there are a lot of divorced couples where the woman abandons the kids without a care in the world, the man gets custody, and the man is the one who provides and protects every one of his kids, providing for the ones that can't while encouraging the ones that can. He also teaches his kids to look after one another.
    Mock's example puts women into a narrow and grossly stereotyped perspective, and the man as well.

    His analogy is childishly polarized and that's the problem in your country; polarization of everything. It's all extremes one way or another, just look at some of the topics on here. Small wonder the couple he describes have divorced; without mutual caring and understanding their relationship was doomed to fail.

    His point wasn't about divorce. That was only incidental to the analogy. If he had left out the divorced aspect and just used the father versus the mother trying to gain favoritism, the story would have been materially the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 4:17 PM GMT




    Your two parties are tearing at each other while your country is sinking. Meanwhile your tea party is like the child that plays one parent against another.

    As you can see comparing a county's strife to a married or divorced couple is rather ludicrous.

    lol, comparing your country's politics to a failed relationship gives it what hope for the future, exactly?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 4:38 PM GMT
    meninlove saidYour two parties are tearing at each other while your country is sinking. Meanwhile your tea party is like the child that plays one parent against another.

    As you can see comparing a county's strife to a married or divorced couple is rather ludicrous.

    lol, comparing your country's politics to a failed relationship gives it what hope for the future, exactly?

    The analogy was to compare attitudes. Analogies should only be taken so far. A similar analogy is the expression giving fish versus teaching to fish.

    I think the country will improve in 2012 per my comments here http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1787570 The current situation is the occasional result of democracy when the population makes an ill-informed vote. Your characterization of the tea party is also not correct. While it is true that the loose confederation of organizations took a hit because some of the congresspersons who associate themselves with the tea party were considered to rigid, fundamentally the organizations represent mainstream Americans who oppose what they see as excess spending, government, and taxes. The media and DNC desperately want to demonize these organizations, but the opponent in 2012 will not be the tea party. It will be the Republicans and the record of the current administration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 4:54 PM GMT
    Socal said, "Your characterization of the tea party is also not correct."

    It's not meant to be, it's meant to illustrate the silliness of comparing your politics in this rather odd manner.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 5:01 PM GMT
    meninlove said



    Your two parties are tearing at each other while your country is sinking. Meanwhile your tea party is like the child that plays one parent against another.

    As you can see comparing a county's strife to a married or divorced couple is rather ludicrous.

    lol, comparing your country's politics to a failed relationship gives it what hope for the future, exactly?





    No, I'm accurately comparing the general contrast of liberals vs conservatives in terms of how they would appeal to voters in general. Liberals try to win over voters by promising handouts and conservatives tend to believe in simply creating the environment for people to help themselves, even if everyone may not end up doing so. It's just natural that the masses would be more in favor of liberal economic policies because they appeal to the average person. Who doesn't want some kind of benefit if they believe that they don't have to really work or pay for it?

    I highlighted that the only way conservatives can really win elections is through wedge issues to get people riled up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 5:06 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    socalfitness said
    mocktwinkie said
    meninlove said
    Good grief, with analogies like that small wonder your country's in such trouble.

    From all the brief empty caviling remarks, I think I may have hit too close to home.

    Agreed.


    Socal, really? You surprise disappointingly.
    I'm a published author, and the analogy is trite, hackneyed, and overused. It's vastly incorrect as there are a lot of divorced couples where the woman abandons the kids without a care in the world, the man gets custody, and the man is the one who provides and protects every one of his kids, providing for the ones that can't while encouraging the ones that can. He also teaches his kids to look after one another; those that can looking after those that can't.
    Mock's example puts women into a narrow and grossly stereotyped perspective, and the man as well.

    His analogy is childishly polarized and that's the problem in your country; polarization of everything. It's all extremes one way or another, just look at some of the topics on here. Small wonder the couple he describes have divorced; without mutual caring and understanding their relationship was doomed to fail.


    For you, I give a lengthy reply.






    This has nothing to do with man vs woman or stereotypes. Where the hell did you even come up with something so off the wall? It could be two dads or two moms, it doesn't make a difference I was just using a simple illustration without pinning anything on gender. The fact that you are ostensibly a "published author" makes your inability to grasp the simple concept I put forth all the more embarrassing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 5:17 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    mocktwinkie saidIt's just natural that the masses would be more in favor of liberal economic policies because they appeal to the average person. Who doesn't want some kind of benefit if they believe that they don't have to really work or pay for it?


    I disagree. Up until now, most Americans didn't want a handout from the government, hence the majority of Americans did not embrace those kind of liberal economic policies (the 1930s notwithstanding).

    If what you say is true, we would have been a socialist state like France or Greece or the Netherlands by now. We are headed that way, though, under the Obama administration, so it will be interesting to see if enough of the public rejects this move to socialism/welfare state expansion in the 2012 election.


    But how come it USED to be that way, where people voted for opportunity, not necessarily benefit? It seems that now liberals have successfully convinced nearly half of the public that if you become very successful that you are some kind of crook or evil person in society. Or that if you vote for opportunity rather than handouts that you are some kind of "covert economic racist" or interested in making the "rich richer"?? Where the hell did all this crap come from?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 5:30 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    mocktwinkie saidIt's just natural that the masses would be more in favor of liberal economic policies because they appeal to the average person. Who doesn't want some kind of benefit if they believe that they don't have to really work or pay for it?


    I disagree. Up until now, most Americans didn't want a handout from the government, hence the majority of Americans did not embrace those kind of liberal economic policies (the 1930s notwithstanding).

    If what you say is true, we would have been a socialist state like France or Greece or the Netherlands by now. We are headed that way, though, under the Obama administration, so it will be interesting to see if enough of the public rejects this move to socialism/welfare state expansion in the 2012 election.


    But how come it USED to be that way, where people voted for opportunity, not necessarily benefit? It seems that now liberals have successfully convinced nearly half of the public that if you become very successful that you are some kind of crook or evil person in society. Or that if you vote for opportunity rather than handouts that you are some kind of "covert economic racist" or interested in making the "rich richer"?? Where the hell did all this crap come from?

    This is entertaining. It's like a debate about whether Darth Vader could kick Sauron's ass.


    I suppose it would appear that way to someone who is incapable of grappling with what is being discussed in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 6:07 PM GMT
    I find conservatives are quick to place people in a box by characterizing them with stereotypes. Hence, the childlike analogy highlighting twinkles limited life experience.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 6:13 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidI find conservatives are quick to place people in a box by characterizing them with stereotypes. Hence, the childlike analogy highlighting twinkles limited life experience.


    What's the stereotype? Do tell! And yes, I suppose I do have a limited life experience compared to you if we're talking anonymous bareback sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 6:17 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 saidI find conservatives are quick to place people in a box by characterizing them with stereotypes. Hence, the childlike analogy highlighting twinkles limited life experience.


    What's the stereotype? Do tell! And yes, I suppose I do have a limited life experience compared to you if we're talking anonymous bareback sex.


    I rest my case. Your last post exemplifies the point I was making.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19137

    Sep 04, 2011 6:18 PM GMT
    meninlove said



    Meanwhile your tea party is like the child that plays one parent against another.



    I don't see it that way at all...More like the Tea Party is someone telling BOTH parents to wake up and smell the coffee, because what they've both been doing ain't workin'.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 saidI find conservatives are quick to place people in a box by characterizing them with stereotypes. Hence, the childlike analogy highlighting twinkles limited life experience.


    What's the stereotype? Do tell! And yes, I suppose I do have a limited life experience compared to you if we're talking anonymous bareback sex.

    I rest my case. Your last post exemplifies the point I was making.

    More fundamentally, I doubt anyone really cares what you think.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 04, 2011 6:19 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    meninlove said



    Meanwhile your tea party is like the child that plays one parent against another.



    I don't see it that way at all...More like the Tea Party is someone telling BOTH parents to wake up and smell the coffee, because what they've both been doing ain't workin'.


    Yep, that's exactly correct!