Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Sun Devil 92]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Social Security, Medicare and the Post Office don't win the argument for you.

Sorry.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am sorry you had to spend so much time arguing against something you made up to begin with.

I didn't say one way or the other.

Sometimes one doesn't have to spell out what one means....you may not have said it but your comments sure allude to it.

And sometimes a persons bias is so spring loaded that they naturally assume the worst.

What you think I alluded to.... I didn't.

Just letting you know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There's a difference between speculating and deducing.

Speculation is reaching a conclusion or opinion by contemplating.
Deducing is reaching a conclusion by "reasoning".

He speculated...period.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Obamacare has not made anything better for my husband and myself. We are paying 37% more in healthcare premiums coupled with double and triple the amount in copays and deductibles, we both lost our primary care doctors and he lost his cancer doctor because of Obamacare, and our prescription costs are higher. It takes much longer to get a doctor's appointment and when we call for a minor medical emergency we are told to go to the emergency room--we used to get an appointment the same day. That has been pretty much the story for everybody we know and, for reasons unnecessary to go into here, we know a lot of healthcare professionals who are not liking what is happening. The urgent care centers and emergency rooms are much more crowded than before.

And the nation, our children, our grandchildren, and generations beyond are saddled with an 18 trillion dollar debt that has not slowed down but is speeding up.

The fact is, as Benjamin Franklin once said, the more government does for us, the less the people do for themselves. And the long range results of that have almost always contained more negatives than positive.

Anecdotes are not facts!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is from the OP:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not sure where this came from. If it is original from the OP or quoted/paraphrased from someone else.

Does this imply that markets are self regulating or that there are regulating instruments not from the government ? And it seems to create a question about whether or not we are discussing regulations or watchdoging (self policing).

 

[Mertex]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Social Security, Medicare and the Post Office don't win the argument for you.

Sorry.

Well, they certainly debunk your premise that the Federal government is not competent at running much. What about Medicare and the Military....they are Fed programs too.

If they were so bad how come some Republican president didn't do away with them? Sorry, but your statement doesn't hold up.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Social Security, Medicare and the Post Office don't win the argument for you.

Sorry.

Well, they certainly debunk your premise that the Federal government is not competent at running much. What about Medicare and the Military....they are Fed programs too.

If they were so bad how come some Republican president didn't do away with them? Sorry, but your statement doesn't hold up.

They don't debunk anything.

In order for you to make this claim, you'd need some kind of report card that we both agree on.

Right now we are working on opionions.

If you read books like:

The Real Deal The History and Future of Social Security Sylvester J. Schieber Mr. John B. Shoven 9780300081497 Amazon.com Books

You get information on social security. This is more a history and does not criticize the program. It provides a good history.

It shows why the program was needed when it was put in place.
It tells you that there were very socialistic programs proposed at the same time which FDR rejected.
It also shows the built in weaknesses which we are seeing today.
It also shows what a political ping pong ball it has been (and even now the book is become dated....and S.S. is only more abused by our pols now).

So "bad" is a subjective term.

So you can take the parts you think prove your point and I can do the same and we'll both be right.

Medicare is a ticking time bomb that pols won't deal with.

I left the military out.

 

[RKMBrown]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

What is liberalism and conservatism to you politically, socially, religiously?
Can they both co-exist together and produce a balanced society?

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

No. You're wrong.

 

[Mertex]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Social Security, Medicare and the Post Office don't win the argument for you.

Sorry.

Well, they certainly debunk your premise that the Federal government is not competent at running much. What about Medicare and the Military....they are Fed programs too.

If they were so bad how come some Republican president didn't do away with them? Sorry, but your statement doesn't hold up.

They don't debunk anything.

In order for you to make this claim, you'd need some kind of report card that we both agree on.

Right now we are working on opionions.

If you read books like:

The Real Deal The History and Future of Social Security Sylvester J. Schieber Mr. John B. Shoven 9780300081497 Amazon.com Books

You get information on social security. This is more a history and does not criticize the program. It provides a good history.

It shows why the program was needed when it was put in place.
It tells you that there were very socialistic programs proposed at the same time which FDR rejected.
It also shows the built in weaknesses which we are seeing today.
It also shows what a political ping pong ball it has been (and even now the book is become dated....and S.S. is only more abused by our pols now).

So "bad" is a subjective term.

So you can take the parts you think prove your point and I can do the same and we'll both be right.

Medicare is a ticking time bomb that pols won't deal with.

I left the military out.

They sure do debunk your careless comments. You can argue all you want, if they weren't working they wouldn't have been around as long as they have. Do they need work, sure, but all conservative politicians want to do is take them out without replacing them. That screws the middle-class and below.

And sure, you left the military out, but it is a federal program, and it has been working for a long time, that one alone debunks your comment that the government isn't competent in running anything.

 

[peach174]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Obamacare has not made anything better for my husband and myself. We are paying 37% more in healthcare premiums coupled with double and triple the amount in copays and deductibles, we both lost our primary care doctors and he lost his cancer doctor because of Obamacare, and our prescription costs are higher. It takes much longer to get a doctor's appointment and when we call for a minor medical emergency we are told to go to the emergency room--we used to get an appointment the same day. That has been pretty much the story for everybody we know and, for reasons unnecessary to go into here, we know a lot of healthcare professionals who are not liking what is happening. The urgent care centers and emergency rooms are much more crowded than before.

And the nation, our children, our grandchildren, and generations beyond are saddled with an 18 trillion dollar debt that has not slowed down but is speeding up.

The fact is, as Benjamin Franklin once said, the more government does for us, the less the people do for themselves. And the long range results of that have almost always contained more negatives than positive.

Anecdotes are not facts!

Real incidents aren't Facts?

 

[Mertex]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

 

[peach174]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Obamacare has not made anything better for my husband and myself. We are paying 37% more in healthcare premiums coupled with double and triple the amount in copays and deductibles, we both lost our primary care doctors and he lost his cancer doctor because of Obamacare, and our prescription costs are higher. It takes much longer to get a doctor's appointment and when we call for a minor medical emergency we are told to go to the emergency room--we used to get an appointment the same day. That has been pretty much the story for everybody we know and, for reasons unnecessary to go into here, we know a lot of healthcare professionals who are not liking what is happening. The urgent care centers and emergency rooms are much more crowded than before.

And the nation, our children, our grandchildren, and generations beyond are saddled with an 18 trillion dollar debt that has not slowed down but is speeding up.

The fact is, as Benjamin Franklin once said, the more government does for us, the less the people do for themselves. And the long range results of that have almost always contained more negatives than positive.

Anecdotes are not facts!

Real incidents aren't Facts?

ANECDOTES aren't facts. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

Here, I looked it up for you!

Anecdote Define Anecdote at Dictionary.com

anecdote
[an-ik-doht]
noun, plural anecdotes or for 2, anecdota [an-ik-doh-tuh] (Show IPA)
1.
a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of aninteresting or amusing nature.
2.
a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

 

[Mertex]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

 

[peach174]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Stories are not facts either.

 

[Mertex]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Geez, I would draw a picture for you, but you still wouldn't get it. A picture of a watermelon is not a real watermelon....get it?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

At the same time, I've never found the federal government to be competent at running much.

REALLY? Social Security has been around for how long? Medicare has been around for how long? The Post Office has been around for how long? The Military has been around for how long? Yes, like in any business, there are problems, but you can't say that something that has been around and working well for most people is not competent at running much.

And your comment

And the main reason is that (just like Obamacare), that their bad debt is forced onto those who do pay their bills in the form of fees and higher interest rates.

is as good a reason as any to have the government intervene for those of us that do pay our bills, because, we are never going to be rid of people that can't think for themselves. But, Obamacare, as much as you want to deny it, is making it better for everyone than it was before.

Social Security, Medicare and the Post Office don't win the argument for you.

Sorry.

Well, they certainly debunk your premise that the Federal government is not competent at running much. What about Medicare and the Military....they are Fed programs too.

If they were so bad how come some Republican president didn't do away with them? Sorry, but your statement doesn't hold up.

They don't debunk anything.

In order for you to make this claim, you'd need some kind of report card that we both agree on.

Right now we are working on opionions.

If you read books like:

The Real Deal The History and Future of Social Security Sylvester J. Schieber Mr. John B. Shoven 9780300081497 Amazon.com Books

You get information on social security. This is more a history and does not criticize the program. It provides a good history.

It shows why the program was needed when it was put in place.
It tells you that there were very socialistic programs proposed at the same time which FDR rejected.
It also shows the built in weaknesses which we are seeing today.
It also shows what a political ping pong ball it has been (and even now the book is become dated....and S.S. is only more abused by our pols now).

So "bad" is a subjective term.

So you can take the parts you think prove your point and I can do the same and we'll both be right.

Medicare is a ticking time bomb that pols won't deal with.

I left the military out.

They sure do debunk your careless comments. You can argue all you want, if they weren't working they wouldn't have been around as long as they have. Do they need work, sure, but all conservative politicians want to do is take them out without replacing them. That screws the middle-class and below.

And sure, you left the military out, but it is a federal program, and it has been working for a long time, that one alone debunks your comment that the government isn't competent in running anything.

I don't have to argue. Plenty of bad things have been around a long time.

The concept of social safety nets is one thing...social security is something else. If you'd let go of your pre-concieved notions you'd find that social security really helped those who DIDN'T need it more than it helped those who DID.

But if you want to argue social security, be my guess. I would not get rid of it. I would sure move it around though. And I would never consider taking it from those who have already paid into the system.

Please keep claiming to have debunked something. It shows people what you really know (and don't).

As for the military...it's there. As the constitution says...that is their job. Does it run "well". That is a subject for debate. But I can't see anyone arguing for anyone else running it well or not.

BTW: If we are going to keep this up, why don't you start a thread on it.

Otherwise, you can get back on topic.

Conservatives may do what you claim they do.

What conservatives do may or may not produce the results you prognosticate (with little or no evidence).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

T

Real incidents aren't Facts?

Really?


Fact Definition
n. noun

• 1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

oc·cur·rence
(ə-kûr′əns)
n.
1. The action, fact, or instance of occurring: The occurrence of snow is rare in these parts.
2. Something that takes place; an event or incident:

Exactly
Derideo_TE doesn't seem to think so.

I think he said "anecdote" - you said "real incident". An anecdote is a short story about an incident, not the incident itself.

anecdote-
a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.

Stories are not facts either.

But claims of superiority in the absence of definitions are not a problem for you (to make).

At least you are consistent.