stuff that makes me wonder

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Part of the popularity of conservative talk radio is the effectiveness of inciting anger in the listeners. Most liberals I know are just not very angry. Alot of the conservatives I know have wonderful lives and families, but spend an inordinate time obsessing about the government taking their money and coming for their guns.

Was it conservative talk radio that incited all that anger observed in Occupy Wall Street? Most of the liberals you know must not listen to liberal talk radio with its share of angry, bitter, sarcastic calls and commentary. And they certainly are not affected by the inflammatory speech of the liberal politicians. And the lot of the conservatives you know are indeed strange. None of the conservativesf I know spend any time inordinately obsessing about government taking there money or coming for their guns. They do care about government overspending and raising taxes to do so. You, apparently, consider that inordinate. Conservative talk radio does have a lot of discussion about government spending. Perhaps you think there is just too much talk about it. Government has to do what it has to do. That's government's business. We should just tend to our wonderful lives and how we can sensibly spend our own money and not be so concerned how government spends its money. But the inordinate obsession over government coming for our guns--really? Most conservatives I know don't own a gun. Most of the liberals I know, do own a gun or two. That's probably due to the different cities that you or I live in. Whatever obsessing there may be is the concern for personal protection, not government confiscation. Sure, there is the desire to have or maintain rights to carry or own. But inordinate obsession? As for conservative talk radio, though the subject comes up, it is a small portion of the talk, but not an inordinate obsession. And the talk revolves around rights such as second ammendment. Of course, as we know, the Constitution is outdated and no longer applies to the twenty-first century.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Was it conservative talk radio that incited all that anger observed in Occupy Wall Street?

There were a few thousand people involved in occupy, there are millions of conservative talk show listeners. Not every angry person is incited by cons. talk radio. Many are.

And the lot of the conservatives you know are indeed strange.

They do care about government overspending and raising taxes to do so. You, apparently, consider that inordinate.

Difference between caring and obsessing, especially when reality is distorted by obsession.

Most of the liberals I know, do own a gun or two. That's probably due to the different cities that you or I live in. Whatever obsessing there may be is the concern for personal protection, not government confiscation.

It is probably 50/50 gun ownership between liberals and conservatives I know. However, I have heard from conservatives for twenty years that the governement is "going to take your guns." I know several of them stock piled ammo when Obama was elected because they thought he would make it illegal. It wasn't based in reality. In the same way that some middle class people complain about Obama raising taxes on them, even thought there federal taxes became lower when he came into office.
The wackos like Rush make their living off people with that mentality

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

t is probably 50/50 gun ownership between liberals and conservatives I know. However, I have heard from conservatives for twenty years that the governement is "going to take your guns." I know several of them stock piled ammo when Obama was elected because they thought he would make it illegal. It wasn't based in reality. In the same way that some middle class people complain about Obama raising taxes on them, even thought there federal taxes became lower when he came into office.
The wackos like Rush make their living off people with that mentality

It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes.

I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process.

Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It is the realm of wedge issues and stereotypes. I've read that liberal intellectuals are supposed to be more prone to this kind of thinking, where real-world observation doesn't factor in to the thought process. Increasingly though it would seem as both ends of the spectrum suffer equally. -spence

I like it. Some grounds for agreement. Gun nuts and tax freaks, even talk wackos--stereotypes to create wedge issues rather than true representations of conservatives or liberals. I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know about the real-world observation factoring into the thought process stuff, but would, rationally assume what you say about both ends of the spectrum.

I was thinking of Thomas Sowell's book "Intellectuals and Society" where he tries to make this point repeatedly. It's perhaps the weakest element to what would otherwise be an excellent book.

I do think conservatives have in the past had the upper hand here, although as I noted more recently, both sides seem to react today more to (often manipulated) perceptions than reality.

This I believe, is fundamental reason so many conservatives are troubled with the state of the GOP.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

As you say, not every angry person is incited to anger by con talk. My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk. That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote. That again, is why I pointed out the Occupy crowd, but, on the national scale in terms of movements, political speech, partisan temperaments, what is the evidence that conservatives are angrier than liberals? Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard. No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My point in referring to the Occupy crowd, and liberal talk, and liberal political rhetoric, is that it is no less angry or inciteful than con talk.

You are probably right, I just think they are a very small, loud, minority.

That within the circle of your friends the conservatives are the "obsessed" and driven to anger by talk but the liberals are not is, to me, a strange anecdote.

Just my opinion, but I think your characterization of "obsessive" is way overboard.
Probably true.

No doubt, there must be some small number of people on both sides who obsess about political matters or gun matters or taxation. I know far more liberals than conservatives, and by far, amongst the those that I know, the liberals are angrier about these issues than the conservatives. A couple of the libs, I might even say are a bit obsessive. But I wouldn't impute my limited personal experience onto the country as a whole. That would be irrational--maybe a bit obsessive.

I am not limiting this to a circle of friends. I didn't really know any liberals until I was a teen. Everyone I knew growing up was a republican, so I feel I have a fair amount of experience with rural, bible belt, conservative mentality. Until I was out of high school and out of that area, I believed alot of the crap that was spewed. The New England conservative is typically in many ways a very different creature.

message too short

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

message too short

You mention that when you were growing up everyone you knew was a Republican and had the rural Bible Belt "conservative mentality." That's one of the paradoxes of present-day "conservative" and "liberal" monikers. When I was growing up in Detroit a lot of Southern Bible Belt folks migrated to Detroit to work in the auto factories. Most of them were Democrats. They saw American history differently than what was being taught in Northern schools-- Abe Lincoln was no hero to them. Their brand of "conservatism" was an antebellum code of states rights and white, Christian Baptist, racial pride--ferociously so. Most of the white people that I knew then were nice, hard-working folks, but racist--and Democrats. It was a different brand of conservatism than what we consider the political conservatism of today. Those folks wanted to conserve a culture that transcended political party. They may have differed heatedly on who to vote for, but not on their racist cultural views. Same for the rural Bible-Belt folks, whether they were Democrat (mostly), or Republican, they were culturally the same and they wanted to preserve (conserve) that culture. The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated. Today's true conservative is classically liberal. The political liberal of today, at least at the ruling and academic level, sees the Constitution as a hinderance to achieving a more egalitarian society which can only be achieved by force of government.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The political conservative of today, notwithstanding small strains of the Bible-Belt racialists that exists in both parties) are not about conserving that, but of conserving a more Constitutional form of government and the individual freedom for which it was consecrated.

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios.

Are you speaking of the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives"? If so, then you're admitting a slanted point of view when you see the difference filtered through the eyes of liberals ("most liberals I know"). How about seeing it through the eyes of classical liberal "conservatives" such as the tea-partiers that liberals love to denigrate. They don't like or agree with liberals and so-called "conservatives" with either a D or R in front of their name who are "maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially." They are very much against the "crony capitalism," that, perhaps you've failed to notice, is supported by the Dems as well and who receive as much or more from big business as Repubs. The massive growth in wealth and power of both corporations and the Federal Government has risen under both parties, even though they may mouth promises and slogans to the contrary. There is a "progressive," anti-Constitutional belief in big central government power in both parties--the Dems just being farther down that road at this point than the Repubs, though a 100 years ago, Republicans were leading the progressive march. It is nearly useless to talk about that mushy center of both parties that more or less coalesces along the path of central power both in government and in business "too large to fail."

Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity.

The problem with this overreaching centralized power is that it sees all decisions on what's "best for the country as a whole" as its responsibility. Under the system this country was founded, most of those decisions began with individuals at local and State levels, and was fueled by an engaged citizenry who valued and were Constitutionally empowered to practice self government. The Central power was limited, though powerful within those limitations. Now, both parties have, approved by willing progressive accomplices in the Supreme Court, transferred much individual and local power to the Federal Government, and a few decide for all "what is best for the country as a whole."

It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes.

Adjusting various tax rates for various people is more of a political trick for power and goes against the only "equality" that the Constitution respects and a country of free individuals must have--equality before the law. It's a class war smokescreen to appease the many into thinking they are benefitting against those who oppress them, and are being protected by a nanny state that is actually making them dependent on continuous government growth to ensure that they needn't worry too much--the government will carry out the final two freedoms of FDR--freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of course, want and fear are two of the greatest motivators of individual action and responsibility. Once the government can take that burden from you, you are from then on in its care.

The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

I don't know about Omega Protein and Perdue or Bay health. And the things that various Republicans and Democrats have fought over have wavered back and forth to a mix beyond imperfection. Mostly, it was usually, in the past 100 years, none of their business, in the classical sense. They were too often deciding things we should decide for ourselves. One of the major differences, and there are many and of great weight, between classical liberal "conservatives" and "progressives" is that the latter want to create that quantum universe where they can throw a stone in the water without creating ripples. They don't see that their egalitarian, collectivist, legislation does not operate in a static world where nothing other than some impossible "equality" is forced, and do not recognize the dynamic nature of our universe--the force will create counter ripples. And those ripples will smooth into a new status quo, which, when the stone that is thrown is against individual freedom and responsibility in the name of a collectivist equality, that new status quo will be a more quiescent, less vigorous people, more and more marching after the same meager drummer.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The difference as I see it and most liberals I know see it is that the conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially through donations to their parties and in their stock portfolios. Decisions are rarely made because they are the best for the country as a whole, but rather better for the particular corporate entity. It is a party that says we won't adjust the tax rate for millionaires until those making $20000 a year pay federal taxes, even though those lower income people actually pay all other taxes. The republicans favor Omega Protein and Perdue over Bay health. They invade Iraq for oil, but fought for 30 years to prevent increased fuel standards that would have lowered oil consumption by billions of gallons over the same time period. It is just different priorities, I guess. The Dems certainly aren't perfect, that is for sure.

"conservatives in government believe in maintaining a system that is heavily in favor of the large corporate powers that support them financially "

I hear this all the time from liberals, that Republicans are all in the pocket of big business. Zimmy, I'll concede that "big business" gives a lot of $$ to politicians, and that most of that $$ likely goes to Republicans. But please answer me this, Zimmy. If it's problematic when corporations buy political influence from Republicans, how is that any different from what happens when labor unions buy influence from Democrats? Labor unions also give $$ to politicians, and virtually all of it goes to Democrats. And when those Democarts reward the unions with insane benefits, that $$ gets confiscated from me in the form of property taxes.

Most towns and states in this country are crippled with debt from insane benefits promised to public labor unions (certainly it's a huge issue in New England).

So again, if you are concerned about Republicans selling favors to "business", why aren't you equally concerned when Democrats sell influence to labor unions?

"They invade Iraq for oil"

Excuse me? What oil? Presumably unlike you, I was there with a gun in my hand. I hear a lot of kooks say we invaded for oil, I'm just wondering where that oil is? We won in Iraq, so where is our loot? Do you think that all conservatives who supported the war, now all have their own oil wells? If so, where do I go to get mine? And if you think only conservatives wante dto invade Iraq, I suggest you look at the Senate vote. Those who wanted to "invade for oil" included right-wingers like Senators Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Schumer, Boxer...

"It is just different priorities, I guess. "

Here's the difference in priorities. Conservatives think the best way to help those in need is that for those who can work, to get a good job, with upward economic upward mobility. Liberals would rather expand their voting base by giving all these people welfare, which has the side effect of crippling these people for life. Conservatives want everyone to be well off. Liberals want poor people to vote for liberals, even if that means crippling them by making them addicted to welfare.

Another difference in priorities...conservatives don't want to leave our grandkids with crippling debt. Liberals seemingly have no issue with that, because I don't know a single liberal who suggests that we need massive spending cuts and entitlement reform. And EVERY SINGLE TIME a conservative suggests that the only way to fix this is to cut spending, liberals shriek "YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!" Liberals frame the issue to make it sound like all we need to do is tweak taxes on the wealthy, but the math clearly shows that we cannot begin to tax our way out of this (if we could solve all our problems simply by tweaking taxes on the rich, no one would be opposed to that). Conservatives don't like this reality any more than liberals do...the difference is, we admit the ugly reality and want to roll up our sleeves and begin the difficult task of fixing it. Liberals would rather ignore the problem so as to get re-elected. And leave the problem for our kids and grandkids.

Tell me where I'm wrong.