What we can learn from NSA and Syria

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

    Sep 06, 2013 4:52 PM GMT
    Different topics but what they have in common is the splits are not along traditional lines. Liberals and conservatives agreeing - liberals and liberals disagreeing - conservatives and conservatives disagreeing.

    Doesn't this make it obvious that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are so broad as to often be meaningless? Wouldn't discussions be more intelligent and on a higher plane if we got beyond simplistic labels?

    Take my case as an example:

    I am very much against the policies of this Administration and think the private sector growth, not government jobs, is what will grow the economy.

    I am against the government takeover of the health care industry. I think needed reforms would have been necessary, including some government regulation to prevent abuses, especially with regard to insurance.

    I agree with some that the private sector is not incentivized on its own to care for those in need who cannot afford health care or insurance. In those cases, I am in favor of government support.

    I think emergency medical care should be available to all. Those here legally should not have to choose between food and medicine.

    I am very much against the Republican Party being involved with social issues. That should be up to individual politicians.

    Bottom line - In real life I interact with traditional labeled liberals and conservatives. On RJ, the use of the labels is an instant divide and those divisions often become the root of all discussion, insults, and the like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 06, 2013 6:27 PM GMT
    Pretty much the Liberal/Democratic Party Platform is as follows:

    " the private sector growth, not government jobs, is what will grow the economy.

    I am against the government takeover of the health care industry. I think needed reforms would have been necessary, including some government regulation to prevent abuses, especially with regard to insurance.

    I agree with some that the private sector is not incentivized on its own to care for those in need who cannot afford health care or insurance. In those cases, I am in favor of government support.

    I think emergency medical care should be available to all. Those here legally should not have to choose between food and medicine.

    I am very much against the Republican Party being involved with social issues. That should be up to individual politicians."


    The Obama administration is pretty much in line with all of the above as well, even if partisan Republicans have tried to spin things differently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2013 7:11 PM GMT
    failscarf saidI agree with the OP.

    Thanks for the comment. Interesting how quiet this thread is. I wasn't expecting mass responses yelling "Eureka!" but thought what I noticed would generate at least a bit of interest. Probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 07, 2013 8:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    failscarf saidI agree with the OP.

    Thanks for the comment. Interesting how quiet this thread is. I wasn't expecting mass responses yelling "Eureka!" but thought what I noticed would generate at least a bit of interest. Probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground.


    I think it's probably because your original post was milquetoast -- you probably need to clarify the point of it. It was the equivalent of saying "I disagree with those saying the sky is red. I think the sky is blue." Well, everybody thinks that. *shrug* Is everyone just supposed to say "I agree"? As SteveFla9 pointed out, even the "Administration" you think disagrees with you, doesn't.

    It does demonstrate, however, your point that the terms liberal and conservative as meaningless by themselves: you're only as liberal your nemeses are conservative. That's why much of the conservative harping about this Administration doesn't make sense because the Obama administration is not liberal by any objective standard. The conservative disagreement with him is because he is Barack Obama and it has very little real meaning.

    To wit, this Administration, like every administration, is beholden to the private sector. There has been no "government takeover the health industry": this Administration implemented a conservative health plan that orginated in a conservative think tank called the Hertiage Foundation and was first implemented at the state level by the Republican Party's own 2012 nominee with the approval of conservatives. The only reason conservatives (now and suddenly) call the plan they once called for "government takeover of the health care industry" is politics, not policy: the President who implemented their plan nationally is a Democrat who they want to believe is "liberal" for partisan purposes.

    So, in that respect, it is true the terms conservative and liberal are meaningless.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 07, 2013 10:51 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    failscarf saidI agree with the OP.

    Thanks for the comment. Interesting how quiet this thread is. I wasn't expecting mass responses yelling "Eureka!" but thought what I noticed would generate at least a bit of interest. Probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground.
    .

    Well, I didn't even see this thread. You have a point, but with your last comment, "probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground" is an unnecessary remark. Without knowing why people didn't participate in this thread, you shouldn't jump to such conclusions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2013 11:18 PM GMT
    Good post with some good points. I will respond below.

    TroyAthlete said
    socalfitness said
    failscarf saidI agree with the OP.

    Thanks for the comment. Interesting how quiet this thread is. I wasn't expecting mass responses yelling "Eureka!" but thought what I noticed would generate at least a bit of interest. Probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground.


    I think it's probably because your original post was milquetoast -- you probably need to clarify the point of it. It was the equivalent of saying "I disagree with those saying the sky is red. I think the sky is blue." Well, everybody thinks that. *shrug* Is everyone just supposed to say "I agree"? As SteveFla9 pointed out, even the "Administration" you think disagrees with you, doesn't.

    It's milquetoast because when seen in the context of some of the current events, the over-generality of the labels is obvious. But the point is even though it is obvious, the labels still serve as a point of much argument generally precluding finding common ground and elevating the discussion.

    It does demonstrate, however, your point that the terms liberal and conservative as meaningless by themselves: you're only as liberal your nemeses are conservative. That's why much of the conservative harping about this Administration doesn't make sense because the Obama administration is not liberal by any objective standard. The conservative disagreement with him is because he is Barack Obama and it has very little real meaning.

    It does have meaning when the points are specific. There are legitimate areas of disagreement but that can get blurred because of labels. I'm not surprised at the comment that some of my positions are not far from those in the Democratic Party. It was deliberate to show some of the positions that are similar. I do have positions that are very different, but the attempt was to show there are areas in common when you peel back labels.

    To wit, this Administration, like every administration, is beholden to the private sector. There has been no "government takeover the health industry":

    You raise a good point, the need to be accurate and correct a statement when either inaccurate or false. My statement was an example. I stated the health care law was a takeover of the private industry. That wasn't correct as you pointed out. I should have said that I have a belief that the current law is unsustainable and will lead to a government takeover via a single payer plan. We can agree or disagree as to whether I have basis for my belief, but at least the discussion becomes focused and more productive.

    this Administration implemented a conservative health plan that orginated in a conservative think tank called the Hertiage Foundation and was first implemented at the state level by the Republican Party's own 2012 nominee with the approval of conservatives. The only reason conservatives erroneously term it a "government takeover of the health care industry" is because the President who implemented it nationally is a Democrat.

    Those points have been debated before, but it was really my intent to only state my position versus debating it here.

    So, in that respect, it is true the terms conservative and liberal are meaningless.

    Yes, and also to show it is possibe to have very civilized discussion when the issues are focused.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 07, 2013 11:21 PM GMT
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    failscarf saidI agree with the OP.

    Thanks for the comment. Interesting how quiet this thread is. I wasn't expecting mass responses yelling "Eureka!" but thought what I noticed would generate at least a bit of interest. Probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground.
    .

    Well, I didn't even see this thread. You have a point, but with your last comment, "probably shows more are interested in arguing than finding common ground" is an unnecessary remark. Without knowing why people didn't participate in this thread, you shouldn't jump to such conclusions.

    Point taken. However it was not my intent to suggest that people who specifically did not take part in this particular discussion were more interested in arguing. My intent was just a general observation that the controversial threads get more action.