Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prog and Con

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    The parts in which you project your political views onto those of the conservatives.
    Well that was enlightening.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post

    I don’t think any liberal would be against Christianity or any religion. On the other hand it’s the anarchist types that raise the biggest issue about for example Christmas at the office. Union Democrats are the ones that stand for the national anthem.

    Other then a few white conservative Christians and maybe the Rare black Conservative Christian... Most conservatives are fine with religious freedom because they recognize that for example most Muslims support the very freedoms that American Christians do. Liberals or better yet democrats may have issues with ultra environmentalists and anti abortionists but conservatives have issues with bigtory. And in the American past a lot of the conservatives were Democrats(some gop)that were Dixiecrat’s opposed to desegregation.
    There you go again. In fact, it has never been "anarchist types" who disagree with things like public prayer, public religious displays or saying something as simple as "Merry Christmas". It has always been the true-blue liberal progressives, the same ones complaining about gender restrictions, immunizations and just about anything mandated by the government other than colossal welfare programs and socialism.

    You really need to re-think your personal definition of "conservative", because your definition is nowhere close to the truth and it's making you sound like the raging Socialist Democrats ranting on television everyday about how everything is someone else's fault but theirs...never theirs.

    Meanwhile, the progressive motto should be "Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should...or that it;s even a good idea." Change simply for it's own sake is not progress; it's lunacy.

    Imagine yourself in one of TITANIC's lifeboats: the progressive wants to organize everyone into rowing teams, appoint an official and set up a committee to select a course. The conservatives want him to sit down and stop rocking the boat before he sinks everybody.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    With which portion of my post do you disagree?
    The parts in which you project your political views onto those of the conservatives.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    I agree with your point about identity politics, but I think your perception of conservatives is the result of identity politics.
    Certainly some conservatives would behave as you claim, just as some liberals would disown other liberals for being accepting of christianity, or guns, or prolife, or immigration enforcement.
    However, speaking as a conservative, I think that my attitude is actually more consistent with actual conservative views on islam.

    I have no problem with muslims. I only have a problem with their efforts to force our society to change to be more consistent with their practices rather than the other way around. I would have the same problem should a christian religion attempt to force me to support their religious practices as well.

    To be honest, I do have some issues with Islam, not so much as a belief system, but in the way way they treat women for instance or other religions. (See Saudi Arabia)
    I think too many of their views are inconsistent with a modern, free society.
    I don’t think any liberal would be against Christianity or any religion. On the other hand it’s the anarchist types that raise the biggest issue about for example Christmas at the office. Union Democrats are the ones that stand for the national anthem.

    Other then a few white conservative Christians and maybe the Rare black Conservative Christian... Most conservatives are fine with religious freedom because they recognize that for example most Muslims support the very freedoms that American Christians do. Liberals or better yet democrats may have issues with ultra environmentalists and anti abortionists but conservatives have issues with bigtory. And in the American past a lot of the conservatives were Democrats(some gop)that were Dixiecrat’s opposed to desegregation.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The Interstate highway system was started as a defense project to allow the US military to move and deploy troops around the country by road. Eisenhower saw the German autobahn system and wanted something similar in the US because of its obvious utility.

    Government has an interest in enforcing some degree of building and other codes across industry and business. The problem with these is that the bureaucracies formed to write and enforce them look at this as a zero sum game. That is, they want to push more and more codes and rules on everybody they regulate with the idea that any risk, anything less than a "zero-tolerance" position is unacceptable. The worse offenders in this sort of way are safety and environmental regulators. They want everything to be 100% safe and contain 0% environmental hazards.

    None of that is "conservative" or "progressive." It's what bureaucracies do-- all of them.

    The perfect example is The March of Dimes. Remember them? This charity was started with the express purpose of eradicating polio in the US, then worldwide. When that happened (which it has) what did they do? They didn't fold up, celebrate on doing a great job, and go away. They found new causes to advocate for and the corporate bureaucracy continued on unabated.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    No.....these guys:
    SO sorry so sorry- you meant ,I think, oldest marine CORPS.....

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    I think you're projecting your personal political biases onto others, which is pure "identity politics".
    With which portion of my post do you disagree?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    You do realize that none of these terms are set in stone. I mean, a hundred years ago workplace safety and health regulation was seen as a "progressive" issue.



    So too was the Interstate Highway Act, even the Erie Canal at one time was viewed as "progressive." Nowadays, so-called "conservatives" say brilliant things like this:





    The truth has nothing to do with ideology, or even much to do with aforementioned ideological labels. It's all about interest: advancing or protecting some interest, almost always a self-interest. There are three issues at play rendering today's political climate so apparently polarized:

    1) The nature of government spending is zero-sum. To fund Peter, government has no alternative than to take from Paul, since government as an enterprise generates no profit, ie wealth;

    2) Ego, pride, hubris are all examples of self-interest. They're not necessarily rational self-interests, but they're interests nonetheless, and it seems that people are willing to go to quite some lengths to ensure that they're not getting sh*t upon symbolically while at the same time ensuring that they're symbolically sh*tting on some one else. It's a condition endemic to Homo sapiens as you've no doubt observed (sort of ties in to TactiKill J.'s observation about "identity politics" earlier in this thread);

    3) If one can construct ratios representing knowledge-to-population and wisdom-to-affluence throughout history, one will find that our species is experiencing rather an historic nadir. Never before in human history has the greatest share of the species had real access to wholesome food, clean water, basic medical care, elementary and higher education, transportation, not to mention the accumulated body of human knowledge -- and we're actually getting dumber, not smarter, and certainly not wiser. We're evolving in reverse. A little over a century ago we thought ourselves on the cusp of a great age, wherein technology and wealth would rise up and bring out the best in every man. It turns out that we're morphing into little monkeys -- not the wild antediluvian variety, but some kind of semi-domesticated breed, spoiled beyond all belief. Maybe we're destined to be some superior species' pets.

    I think you're projecting your personal political biases onto others, which is pure "identity politics".

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    Almost everyone is dependent on one thing or another, whether prog or con.
    True, but being dependent upon things that don't work is a dead end.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    A smart conservative wants to keep whats good.
    A smart progressive wants to change whats bad.

    It does mean you can be a smart conservative and a smart progressive at the same time.

    Is that the way forward to diminishing current polarization of US politics ?
    You do realize that none of these terms are set in stone. I mean, a hundred years ago workplace safety and health regulation was seen as a "progressive" issue.



    So too was the Interstate Highway Act, even the Erie Canal at one time was viewed as "progressive." Nowadays, so-called "conservatives" say brilliant things like this:





    The truth has nothing to do with ideology, or even much to do with aforementioned ideological labels. It's all about interest: advancing or protecting some interest, almost always a self-interest. There are three issues at play rendering today's political climate so apparently polarized:

    1) The nature of government spending is zero-sum. To fund Peter, government has no alternative than to take from Paul, since government as an enterprise generates no profit, ie wealth;

    2) Ego, pride, hubris are all examples of self-interest. They're not necessarily rational self-interests, but they're interests nonetheless, and it seems that people are willing to go to quite some lengths to ensure that they're not getting sh*t upon symbolically while at the same time ensuring that they're symbolically sh*tting on some one else. It's a condition endemic to Homo sapiens as you've no doubt observed (sort of ties in to TactiKill J.'s observation about "identity politics" earlier in this thread);

    3) If one can construct ratios representing knowledge-to-population and wisdom-to-affluence throughout history, one will find that our species is experiencing rather an historic nadir. Never before in human history has the greatest share of the species had real access to wholesome food, clean water, basic medical care, elementary and higher education, transportation, not to mention the accumulated body of human knowledge -- and we're actually getting dumber, not smarter, and certainly not wiser. We're evolving in reverse. A little over a century ago we thought ourselves on the cusp of a great age, wherein technology and wealth would rise up and bring out the best in every man. It turns out that we're morphing into little monkeys -- not the wild antediluvian variety, but some kind of semi-domesticated breed, spoiled beyond all belief. Maybe we're destined to be some superior species' pets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    Have you considered the possibility that your (US American) "conservatives" might be already be quite "progressive" by "Old World" standards ?



    Any more than I have problems with Jews, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons or Quakers,

    nothing better than a good, old-fashioned, drunk, pagan though is there




    Oh and I don't want the Irish either.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0BcQTIr4c

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
    inadequate SPANISH PENSIONS
    No.....these guys:
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

    Anarchy vs totalitarianism are not the two options.
    Taking an extremist view like that is not the option.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    No kidding, THE OLDEST MARINES are the Spanish Marines, what's your point?
    inadequate SPANISH PENSIONS

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Absolutely correct. There are Marines who are not US citizens and are motivated to serve anyways. I had some in my units.
    Are you claiming that green card holders are not American Marines?

    What are they; Dutch Marines in the American Marines?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X