We have it within us to recognize in an opposing ideology a part of our own nature — and to ask our "opponent" to do the same.
We are on the one hand kind, generous, and sympathetic; on the other, competitive, self-interested, and prone to cruelty.…
Article comments
26 - handyguy
Getting along and agreeing are two different things. It ought to be possible to try to find [and fact check!] the underlying reasons for our opinions on various issues.
There's a rather strong tendency on here to refuse to admit mistakes, to take the position that I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong.
And to substitute sarcasm/mudslinging for genuine discussion/argument.
27 - zingzing
baronius--didn't that have to do with some gerrymandering (boo)? the collusion between energy corporations and the gop is well-known, and mutually-beneficial. but, in the end, it's all about money (at least from enron's perspective). so, in this instance, i suppose i would grant them that. enron's wallet is republican. madoff's wallet is dem. both are brought on by the realities of their location (madoff) or industry (enron).
but for phelps, it's not really about the money. and he's not really a dem either. phelps briefly backed gore until gore backed off of what he had stupidly said, and from then on, phelps railed against dems as much as he does anyone. and for good reason, at least from his sick pov.
connecting either of these two to the dems is foolish. they aren't democrats. they're just willing to manipulate politics for personal gain, and nothing more. of course, one could say that of just about anyone, but it's especially true in these cases.
28 - Arch Conservative
Why do you bother asking questions that you already know the answers too Baronius?
29 - zingzing
same reason you do, i guess.
30 - Baronius
Handy, one of the most valuable things I've done in the last few years was studying Myers-Briggs personality types. It really helped me understand that people have different communication styles. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the problems you have with internet chat are more about style than substance.
31 - handyguy
Only if by "style" you mean "lying and presenting it as the truth" or "using hyperbolic rhetoric and insults in place of actual reasoning and evidence."
Substance is what is usually lacking.
32 - Irene Wagner
So, lets find something controversial to discuss, a topic about which both conservatives and liberals sheepishly admit that the opposition has something of substance to say.
Any idearssssss?
*drums fingers on desk*
Baronius, what do you think of this? I haven't seen this movie, but I've been doing a lot of reading over the years about each perspective.
With God on Our Side
And I will hold my peace.
33 - cannonshop
At its root, Jon, I think the difference really is one of definition and perspective, and while both sides may be saying similar things, they aren't saying anything similar at all.
Community, sense of, validity of; different between right and left. I contribute to the following, of my own free will, often anonymously:
The battered women's shelter here in Everett Washington.
The American Red Cross
The Salvation Army
Boy (and Girl) scouts of America.
with the exception of the Red Cross, which operates in conjunction with our military (and has for a very, very, long time), I don't think people's taxes should go to these organizations. I believe, in the case of the shelter, that the State's proper role is getting the abusive dirtbag off the street, so that the battered woman can piece her life back together in relative peace, on her own terms, with her own intellectual resources and whatever help she can get from people who're actually interested in helping her, rather than just drawing a paycheque.
Likewise for a lot of situations we see.
Beyond that, I have a personal beef with the idea of a congressman voting 'aye' or 'nay' on a law without reading, and more importantly, comprehending, what it says, and an even LARGER objection to a President who signs a law without reading or comprehending it, then demonstrates that lack of comprehension in his speech at the signing.
I had this issue with the PATRIOT ACT and I've got it with the Healthcare law. As a "Conservative" i'm fairly consistent, and don't play favourites based on Political Party affiliations.
On the War: it was, in my opinion, necessary to remove the Hussein regime in Iraq-we'd already HAD one war with this guy, and ten years of sanctions weren't changing his brutal behaviour-but it WAS eroding our credibility as a power-and being a power, is better than being in someone else's power. AFTER his removal, we have an interest in preventing another Khomenei style regime in the region, or worse, an arabic Pol Pot from arising. These aren't the on-paper justifications used, but they're the practical outcomes that have to be considered in the situation-due to domestic restrictions, we have to deal with the Middle East, due to trade considerations, and Japan's foreign oil dependence (as well as Korea, and don't forget European dependence-the war in 1989 to 1991 was more about securing petroleum for Europe, than the U.S.), there's an actual national interest in that action-one that diplomacy had failed to secure. War is the ultimate outcome when Diplomats fail, and the International Community, such as it is, is no more a community, than the Criminal Community is a community-they operate by largely similar rules-you're either powerful, or a victim. (ask Biafra about this, or the Kosovars, or the Kurds... or Israel.)
As a 'Conservative' I don't subscribe to the idea of "Collective" rights. Citizens have Rights, Collectives have Agendas, they're not the same thing, and shouldn't be confused. It is my belief that Leftists DO confuse the two-on a regular, and distressing, basis. Maybe I'm a BAD conservative for this-I don't think Corporations should have the same rights that Citizens do, companies shouldn't have free speech-only citizens, people, who vote, people, you know, Individuals are entitled to due process-a corporate entity should not be, it's not a citizen, it is, in large part, not even capable of either loyalty, or treason.
it's a THING, like your pants, or your keys, or that twinkie wrapper.
Demographics are not People. People are people, only People can be victims of a crime, only people can be criminals, only people can be held accountable and truly be held accountable for their actions.
Too big to fail=Too Big to Succeed. I have zero problems with antitrust enforcement, so long as it's enforced. As a Capitalist, I believe in competition as the 'invisible hand' using Smith's term-when competition breaks down and a Monopoly exists, that hand turns to vapour, and workmen, customers, and shareholders alike are brutally harmed as a result-the case in point, is the ending of Ma Bell's monopoly on telephone communications-the present condition of the industry, with aggressive competition in technical, service, and infrastructure, has been, in my opinion,largely the result of eliminating the monopoly. Too Big to Fail was, indeed, too big to succeed. Likewise in the Oil Industry prior to the rise of OPEC. We can't do much about OPEC, save developing alternatives at home, including in the short term, alternative sources of supply. Our own rules and laws give a foreign cartel power over our national economy (as they demonstrated in 2005/2006 by jumping the per-barrel price enough to start the chain of collapse that brought us the AIG bailout, killed Bear Stearns, and broke the real-estate bubble, generating any number of bank-failures when reality no longer could support the fantasies of commodities and derivatives traders...)
One in five employed Americans works at some level of government, and taken as an aggregate of federal, state, local and so-called 'hidden' taxes, we pay at or above fifty percent of our incomes to support that twenty percent. There are more than eighteen thousand pages, in nine point type, to the U.S. Tax code. Tax Lawyers, and IRS Judges don't know all of it, and few among those that know most, comprehend everything they know.
This is, as demonstrated by practice (namely the huge deficits and National Debt) a great example of a system too big, and too complex, to succeed in its primary stated mission-that of raising revenue to run the government.
If you can think of an activity, there's a government department or appointee either regulating it, or studying ways to regulate it, whether federal, state, or (again) local. In the city of Denver, getting a blowjob is illegal, in Hot Springs South Dakota, if you're entering the city limits, you're supposed to have a flagman running in front of your automobile, and honk to warn everyone of your arrival. Blue Laws like this need to be eliminated, but are not.
The Police can take your property, and sell it, without you first being convicted of ANY crime. This is called "Civil Seizure". Likewise, the city council can (thanks to a Supreme Court ruling) take your home and sell it below-market-value to any prominent contributor whom they wish, on the flimsy grounds of 'economic development', regardless of whether that development actually occurs, or generates actual benefit to the community or not-the law used, "Eminent Domain" was intended to provide for infrastructural necessities like roads and highways, post offices, schools,prisons, and hospitals, not to serve as a back-door route for someone wanting to put in a strip mall or toxic waste dump.
Social Security: in the letter of the law authorizing it, is supposed to be Voluntary. Another law specifically prohibits the creation of a National Identity document for use inside the United States. Try getting a job, paying taxes, or buying anything major without having a social security number. Further, it was meant to be a TRUST FUND, the funds have been replaced, year after year, by IOU's starting with the Johnson administration, and continuing on to today-it's hovered near bankruptcy (publicly) for a good portion of MY life, at least...and it doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
34 - Irene Wagner
A policy of military non-interventionism is a very conservative idea.
If more "bad" conservatives (#33) continue demanding that the clamps be put down on corporations [insert discussion on M.I.C. here, those who have time], we might live in a world where the principle of military non-interventionism regains its status as a conservative idea.
In the end, it's legitimate need caused by illegitimate greed, that fuels bloody conflicts. Then, here's a liberal-conservative question: if providing this international monetary aid preserves international security, is its funding as legitimate a use of tax dollars as are military expenditures?
35 - Baronius
Handy, I look at that "Mad as Hell" thread, and it seems like you and Zing really worked over the newcomer who calls himself Recovering Lefty. You probably drove him off the site.
Yes, he started off aggressively; we all did, I'd bet. A newbie typically wants to stake out his position and denounce all the people on the other side. When they settle in, they find that each of us has a slightly different viewpoint, and there's a lot of room for debate. He never got the chance. You kicked him in the face.
Look over what he said. You brought up Bachmann, criticized her, and blamed him for sounding like her. Very uncool.
36 - Baronius
Carl Reiner once explained the difference between comedy and tragedy. "Tragedy is if I cut my finger. Comedy is if YOU fall down an open manhole and die." I think the same is true about political discourse. Reasonable political discourse is me yelling at you for being wrong; unreasonable political discourse is you yelling at me for being wrong.
37 - zingzing
baronius, i didn't kick anyone in the face. and i really couldn't care less if i did. trying to shame someone isn't very cool either, especially when they did nothing wrong. besides, that guy was just another one to say "obama lies about everything," which is patently false, so he certainly wouldn't have been a credit to your side. so good riddance, you should be saying.
38 - handyguy
Yes, once Recovering Lefty [was that possibly a pseudonym for a regular here?] started listing the same tired, corrosive talking points about Pres. Obama being "anti-American," I was not inclined to be sweet. And I poked fun at him/her because he/she didn't know who Michele Bachmann is.
Someone who apparently doesn't follow the news, yet absorbed verbatim several items of lying right-wing rhetoric and crazy-talk. Not an ideal addition to the comments section here. But he/she seemed perfectly capable of standing up for him/herself.
Anyhow, "drove him off"? Kicked him in the face? You are being hilarious and silly.
When I think of the stuff that has been hurled at: me, zing, Glen, Cindy, Roger, and at others....
39 - Baronius
Handy, in point of fact, most people on the right never think about Michele Bachmann.
40 - Dr Dreadful
Can't say I blame them. Can give you hives, thinking about that sort of thing.
41 - Baronius
Handy, John Bolton has labelled Obama our first "post-American president". Do you see that as an insightful observation, a non-insightful observation, or a slander?
42 - cannonshop
#34 Irene, you'd have to go back to 1807 or so to find a time that the U.S. was not interventionist where our trade interests are involved. (Google "Barbary Wars" or investigate the origin of the Marine Corps Hymn.)
For lack of a better option closer to home, fact is, we HAVE TO be involved, and because of the local psychology, largely interventionist, in the Middle East.
43 - roger nowosielski
"A newbie typically wants to stake out his position and denounce all the people on the other side. When they settle in, they find that each of us has a slightly different viewpoint, and there's a lot of room for debate. He never got the chance. You kicked him in the face."
That shows lack of socialization. We certainly don't proceed this way face-to-face. Granted, the Internet offers greater degree of freedom - personally, I don't beleive we should take advantage of the fact - but still . . . Especially if a person is new and so are all the pixels he or she encounters, one should start threading softly, feeling one's way about, etcetera, etcetera.
So I disagree. To allow him to continue along those lines would be encouraging juvenile delinquency. And then we'd have another Archie (just kidding!) on our hands. One is enough.
44 - Jon Sobel
cannonshop, your lengthy comment indicates that you're the type of person a "lefty" could sit down with over a beer and come to some sensible conclusions with, unlike many of the partisans who comment here and elsewhere. And I don't exclude myself (sometimes) from that intolerant category. But my article is part of an ongoing attempt to come to terms with what seem to be such extreme differences.
45 - Irene Wagner
Goes to show ya, Cannonshop. There's no such thing as the good old days. There were liberals back in 1807. Oh, my bad, liberals. That wasn't the liberals' fault. 1807 PREDATED the Conservatives' non-interventionist Monroe Doctrine of 1823.
Cannonshop, I'm not against armed self-defense --national or personal. Just ask Dr. D and STM, if you don't believe me! The 1807 event you are describing is inappropriately delayed--if it had been there from the beginning, there wouldn't have been a problem--armed protection of the participants of international trade and goodwill-building that the original conservatives hoped would replace and prevent foreign military entanglements.
As far as that goes, Cannonship, (and thankyou, by the way, for answering me), after the Industrial Age began, and with it the more aggressive, hostile, dehumanizing strains of capitalism, perhaps the primary justification for offshore US military bases would be for the protection of "the foreigners" from those aberrant strains of US capitalists, as well as the other way around. (The Military Industrial Complex demonstrates, sadly, that those two entities are more likely to get into bed with one another than to keep one another honest and humane, but there is hope that if a thrird party (3 the magical number) is regulating both of THEM, foreign trade could be conducted to the benefit of all parties concerned.
This is the case in the Middle East and many other parts of the world where the US has found itself involved in long-term conflicts to "protect her interests" where fuel to the "enemies'" fire was in large part due to the screwing over by American capitalism, enabled by US military presence, they'd received. And the soldiers were used cynically, I'm not knocking them or denigrating their service. They were told they were "fighting for freedom" or "standing on the side of God's chosen people" or "making the way for democracy abroad."
Here's where a lot of the Common ground between Old School Golden Rule Conservatives and Liberals falls. Maybe one dividing line between Conservatives and themselves is: does US national interest (what does that mean: that we have enough oil to survive?) trump the rights of those foreigners in the vicinity of those with whom we do business? I'm assuming you'd say, "Of course it doesn't."
46 - Irene Wagner
And ZingZing, you should listen to Baronius. You have not a shameful iredeemable character flaw, but rather a fixable one that most likely stems from the subtle slide into incivility that results from the decision to eschew capitalization.
47 - Irene Wagner
Or capitalism.
48 - zingzing
irene, i'm sensing a bit of a joke in your words, but all i did was disagree with the lefty character. i didn't "kick him in the face" in any shape or form. in fact, i was very civil. not one curse word or even a mild insult. nothing. baronius apparently thinks disagreement is the same thing as making someone put their teeth on the curb. but only, of course, when it comes from the left.
and my lack of capitalization is a product of my irredeemable laziness, nothing more.
49 - handyguy
plus, zing, it's way cool
50 - handyguy
Oh Baronius. Why am I taking this bait...
John Bolton has said many things that seem designed to provoke rather than to enlighten. This sounds like another. You "pay no attention" to Michelle Bachmann? Fine. I pay no attention to John Bolton.
[Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and several boisterous crowds of tea partiers seem to think MB is some sort of glamorous icon with hard-hitting insights. Perhaps they don't count as significant "people on the right." I certainly hope they remain insignificant outcasts, mysteriously attracted to the mating calls of shrieking dingbats.]
51 - zingzing
handy, #49... what is?
52 - zingzing
oh, the lack of capitalization? there is the coolness factor, i'll admit that. too cool for school, that's me...
53 - roger nowosielski
"John Bolton has labelled Obama our first "post-American president".
Personally, I tend to agree in that it is insightful. No reflection on Obama though, just on the times.
You can't have both, Handy - the kind of America you're comfortable with (are you that comfortable with the America of old?) and the one that's in the making. It's identity is changing.
54 - handyguy
I think you're the best poster on here, when your temper doesn't get the better of you. Fearless, hilarious, and usually right on target. And you make the right wingers sooo maad! Which is cool enough in itself.
55 - handyguy
#54 was aimed at zing btw
56 - zingzing
"when your temper doesn't get the better of you."
THE FUCK?! kidding. it's all mock indignation. they piss me off, sure, but not enough to actually get my temper going, most of the time anyway. i can think of a few occasions where that's not true...
but thank you for the compliment. i'll put it in my ego's closet so i can pull it out next time someone calls me a child. should be any day now.
57 - handyguy
well maybe it's the beer then lol...occasionally your posts get all incoherent. I assumed it was rage.
58 - zingzing
heh. my life is a constant search for oblivion, so it's very possible... the incoherent ones are, i'm sure, a product of grasping at my goal. if they occur at 4 am on a saturday, i can pretty much guarantee i'm trashed.
59 - Baronius
Handy, I'm not trying to bait you. I'm genuinely curious about where you draw the line. I also think it's a provocative question.
Evan Thomas said, "Reagan was all about America....Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial." President Obama said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." I think that Obama approaches nationalism as someone who was greatly influenced by an anthropologist. He isn't anti-American, but I wouldn't call him patriotic in a traditional sense.
60 - Irene Wagner
The only reason I have any time for your comments at all, ZingZing, is the charminglyunconventional yet entirely grammtatically proper use of elipses...and that you are not utterly devoid of a sense of humor (except you should have laughed at #6 because after all, Carl Reiner said it and not really Baronius....
...Now before I get back to the business of "holding my peace," I wish to say to: Roger Nowosielski, "hello." Please say hi to Cindy and Mark when you all get back to the business of building the Leaning Tower of "Pie," and that I meant no offense by #47, just couldn't resist the pun....
...and finally Jon Sobel: I always seem to have a lot to say on your threads...like on the "I am not an atheist one"....which I disagreed with, but found thought provoking...but THIS article was a very well thought out, generous, bridge-building effort, and I hope it helps bring about the changes you desire in political discussions.
61 - handyguy
Mr B: I really, genuinely don't think Obama is so very far outside the mainstream.
He's very smart and very articulate, and his core may be more liberal than his policies.
But in terms of patriotism, capitalism, even in fact taxes and spending he is playing it straight down the middle. That health plan could have passed for a Republican one just a few years ago.
In the GOP, the inmates have taken over the asylum. So they pretend that anyone to their left -- which is to say, most everyone -- is 'radical.' I find that whole line of reasoning just beyond ridiculous.
As I said in an earlier post, if we ever really had a leftist government, it would be clear that Obama is a centrist, at least in terms of his policies.
62 - zingzing
irene, i like carl reiner (one of the great straight men), but i've heard the quote before and didn't comment on it. as for "having any time at all" for my comments, i had no idea you were even reading them, so carry on as usual, i suppose, and so shall i.
63 - Irene Wagner
That's "Irene" to you, ZingZing, and yes, I was being sarcastic. *ring a ling* Whoa! Did someone mention fetuses? Dinner's on ZingZing and Irene.
Ironically, Common Groundsville can be a fairly lonely place at first. Well a little of me goes a long way, I guess. Over and out.
64 - dan
Hey, I don't mean to spam. This actually seems relevant. I recommend checking out my website. I'm looking for people to interview about politics - or at least to leave me comments.
Perhaps some of you could also be co-researchers on your own blogs. We could link to each other.
65 - Ryan
"Take a look at California, for example, where public sector workers now earn a great deal more on average than private sector workers; where even though the state government is on the verge of bankruptcy, the public workers refuse to take pay cuts or cuts in benefits or cuts in their extremely generous retirement pensions - all while the private sector continues to bleed jobs and money. Aren't the recipients of welfare loot being selfish - esp. when their lifestyles are bankrupting the government?"
Alano, you clearly don't live in California as you have no idea what is actually happening here. State and county workers at all levels have been taking pay cuts left and right for years, as well as taking unpaid furlough days, and recieving downgraded insurance policies with doubled premiums. Teachers certainly aren't living like Kings and Queens.
With regards to state workers receiving such higher salaries than private sector employees, this is simply wrong. Recently, in Orange County, the salaries of all major state positions were published in the newspaper with many of them making far below what they could be making in the private sector for similar work. The County Sheriff makes far less than the average Vice President of an Orange County business despite having FAR more employees and direct charges. (not to mention public accountability)
You should also think a little harder about the actual definition of the term "welfare" if you think that going to work and earning a paycheck is "welfare" simply because you are a state employee. Social welfare programs are financial "safety nets." A person working for a paycheck, regardless of where at, is not "welfare" by any definition.