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.

Vuldan, is your last name McCarthy by any chance?

Canada not having a meltdown has to do with a few things, and wouldnt not have been likely to have had one regardless of regulation or lack thereof. Plus there is a huge energy boom going on there, with international money flowing in at record rates with real demand remaining high in many areas funded by a very positive trade balance whereas the USA has a drastically negative trade balance and has been relying on the financial services segment of the economy to bring in foreign currency. Foreign currency that the USA had been printing and spending in many cases that needed reinvesting and hence found its way back to the USA financial services market ( so a lot technically wasnt foreign currency, but USD owned by foreigners )

That analogy is like saying there is something wrong with the traffic light at the busiest intersection of town because it has more accidents than the traffic light on a tiny sidestreet that gets 3 cars a day but had a camera on it.

And Vuldan WTFman?

Nope..I am tired of the repeated hypocrasy which leaks from Sinij. I am done being nice about it. There comes a point in time when decisive action is required to belay the onslaught of political mentality which only serves to further degrade the fabric our country was built upon. I am reminded of that painfully today as I remember all my comrades in arms who were lost to ensure the freedoms that exist remain so.

Enough is enough. There is no singular point or perspective of the liberal agenda which has any value for our nation. None, nada. The conservative right is no better. It is time for dramatic change, and in the absence of compromise, there is no other option. I am sick to death of seeing the good of the country bent over because it offends someone or because one individuals belief system is offended. I am also sick to death of people believing they can act in whatever manner they wish without consequence. There are always consequences.

In these debates, it would seem that the repeated agenda of Sinij, except in rare discourse with you, is to spout infantile rhetoric. I am done with it. It was bad enough when Jet was involved, but at least his arguemments, while infuriating, were attempts at reasonable debate. Sinij fails on that front in almost every post with anyone except you.

I apparently do not have the political maturity to debate these points when solid evidence is repeatedly ignored and rebuffed with barely legible rhetoric. I suppose it would be best if I followed Jet's example and simply withdrew, but am loathe to give Sinij the satisfaction of even the appearance of a victory. It is an interesting predicament.

I disagree. Canadian banking regulation is the only thing that delayed (there is still a chance that housing market might implode in Canada and cause lots of hurt in financial sector) or prevented repeat of US situation. Unlike some European banks that jumped on US derivatives bandwagon and also had to get bailed out by European governments, Canadian banks were simply not allowed to get involved in such non-banking activity.

If you want to point fault in Canadian banking and banking regulatory system you need to look at costs. It is significantly more expensive to bank in Canada. At this point it appears that these costs are justified.

When you hit the bottom, let us know what you find there.

Care to make rational sense for once?

What do you see a rational response to someone going of the deep end, telling me I should kill myself, then later clarifying that I should be put down as a rabid dog solely based on my political convictions?

My response is satisfaction of being absolutely right about conservatives like you (I'd say all conservatives, but then Derid exists). Sadly you have no understanding what freedom and constitution means, despite touting it everywhere like some grotesque midget in a freak show.

Let me tell you what Freedom is - its not guns, its not Jesus, its not getting to keep all the money you earn. Freedom is an ability to have an idea, conviction or belief and not get prosecuted for it. When you attack, berate and threaten me solely based on my convictions you lose right to talk about freedom, because you seek to enslave me, convert me against my will, force me to agree with you or get rid of me.

Now go sober up and think about what you have done here.

Interesting tirade, and were it not for the very real fact that you have committed as many attempts at trying to get others, myself included, to live within your view point, you would have a very valid points. I will grant you that.

I am as sober as a church mouse, and stand firmly beside my own conviction that your mentality and view points are a cancer driving through the heart of freedom. Your perspectives are as abhorrent as any fanatic without cause, and you have no authority, moral or otherwise, over how I get to spend my time. I would be more gratified were you simply to pack up your chair and return to the country you came from, rather than further infect my country with your abhorrent politics and incoherent sentence structure.

You can rant and rave all you wish, you can sit behind the anonymity of the internet and be puffed up with self rightous indignity that someone actually had the audacity to throw political correctness out the window and call you down for the self rightous ass you are.