The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central PLAIN LANGUAGE TRUTH

A rather gentle explanation of the difference in thinking between people with opposite outlooks.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

How about we talk about indoctrination that leaves conservatives thinking-impaired and completely unable to even consider facts, less opposing point of view? Conservatism promotes such strong in group bias that any kind of questioning of conservative values, no matter how contradictory, reactionary or outright plain wrong these values are, sends your typical conservative into mental spasms and fits of rage.

What I find interesting is that conservatism at this point is more of a religion, with its own dogma and commandments, than a political framework.

When anyone says unrestricted gun ownership leads to drastic increase in gun violence; conservatives see Supply Side Jesus crucified and rally to the 'cold dead hands' cause.

When anyone points out that poverty at record high levels, that its impossible survive on a minimum wage, that jobs are just not there anymore; conservatives see lazy freeloaders trying to take something from them.

When anyone points out that lack of regulation and culture of bonuses that encourages systematic risk taking while offloading negative consequences on general society; conservatives see communism and need for smaller government with less regulation.

Your first point is as true of liberals. In fact, in my experience liberals are worse for it. Conservatives sometimes think rationally after they have calmed down ,except for the really religious ones.

Your second point.. well you are being too vague. Some aspects of conservatism are that way, others arent. The economics is firmly grounded, the social issues side of conservatism is not. Keynes was an idiot pure and simple, supply-side also has its faults but is better - but Mises and Hayek are the "conservative" economists you should be paying attention to.

Your third point, regarding gun ownership is patently false and you have to twist yourself in knots cherry-picking statistics and studies to even begin to make a claim to the contrary. Heck, where I live.. I live in a "ruralburban" area... everyone just about has guns here. EVERYONE, and depending on which "block" you are on it alternates between suburbia and semi-rural. There are shooting ranges and gun clubs all over. Gun violence here is nil. Crime and violence are tied to economics, not gun ownership.

Always remember, guns are illegal in Mexico. Lets not be Mexico,thanks. Regarding your first point, liberals who are anti-gun are the truest religion of all. There is no logic there, and no reasoning with them, ever. Dont even try to claim any sort of logic in regards to the anti-gun argument - its not there.

Your fourth point has some merit regarding some conservatives, but again not others. It depends on how the poor want to fix the problem, and how the conservative in question wants to fix the problem.

Which brings us to your last point - your primary fault regarding your regulatory arguments is you have yet to put forth what specific regulations should be employed and how they would work. Except in one case, which was already debunked - and your general platform of "any regulation is good, regardless of merits of the particular regulation" which basically debunks itself. Also, it gets back to enforcement issues. As the guy in that 1%er article I posted noted - "the banks have taken over the regulatory agencies, so we need more regulations!" does not exactly make much sense.

question to Derid or Kaotic.

Which party can be accounted "MORE" responsible to had put USA in the situation that it is right now?

Both. Bush and Hastert fouled things up, then Pelosi and Obama made things worse.

Both parties have in recent times been crony, anti-liberty bastions of shit.

The difference is your typical liberal Dem thinks ALL your rights should be taken away and managed by other people for "the good of the people" where your typical conservative believes in individual rights but occasionally gets twisted by social pressure, false patriotism and media mis-representation into giving up some rights.

But there is plenty of ignorance to go around on both "sides"

I consider the GOP salvageable though because of the growing libertarian voice that is trying to reform the party. The GOP rank and file still have an ear for Paine and Jefferson and Franklin, whereas the Dems still look to Marx and Trotsky and Hegel and Engel for inspiration.

People tend to forget that the govt of the USA and the Constitution was intended to SAFEGUARD the rights of the Individual. Dems have totally fallen away from the wisdom of the Founders.

Really, thanks for more generalization.

What about us Financial Conservatives and Social Liberals, who think common sense and rational thought should rule the roost, and not bi-partisan cronyism at ever level of Government.

They got you fooled Vuldan. It's not about conservative vs. liberal, its about the Power Establishment vs. Everyone Else.

Keep your eye on the prize, and turn off Faux and MSNBC News.

I previously mentioned framework of what I believe in - end limited liability, end or greatly limit corporate personhood, and punitively tax golden parachutes at confiscatory levels. If you want to discuss specifics you will have to narrow down to a couple issues.



Canada, for example, has much stricter banking regulation and did not suffer meltdown, bailouts and TBTF. Don't confuse the issue of corruption with supposed ineffectiveness of regulation. You need both broad regulation and effective enforcement. Plus criminal code need to step in and stop some of the more obvious corruption that right now isn't illegal.

To much funny. Most of the debate here is genuine and can be viewed with some reasonable accountability to factual evidence.
I do not watch either Fox or MSNBC..althought I liked your attempt to point out that Faux is not real..I would argue they are as real as any other biased news agency, which would be all of them.

Mostly good debate..Sinij, you are simply to far gone to even be considered a debatable person. At least Jet, in his rabid beliefs, could on rare occasions, see past his own hypocrasy. You are not even capable of that. I would rather you simply found time to kill yourself, but I amm certain you would fuck that up as well. And no, I am not kidding.

Classy.

It was not designed to be Classy Sinij. There comes a point when a rabid dog gets treated in much the same manner as a communist. You are closely akin to both. I will neither attempt to disguise nor regret my absolute contempt for your posts and perspectives. You are one of the reasons MY country is struggling with its vast myriad of issues. The only comfort I can take is that you have a right, albiet a shameful one, to put forth the perspective you do, and I fought for you to have that right, if indeed you are American, which is questionable at best.

I sincerely hope there are no young people anywhere near you to be infected, yes, infected, with your self rightious bias and blatant stupidity. In the end, it will not matter except to say that you have left me with a foul taste in my mouth at the very thought my service to this nation has somehow benefited you. And that is probably the worst thing I could ever say to anyone, putting it into perspective.