CDZ "Low effort" thinkers likely to be conservatives

[320 Years of History]

Lie smoke spin...fail.

While I'd be among the last to propone merits of "spin," the mere use of it doesn't betoken desultory thought [that was for you, Agit8r <winks>]. What does, however, is one's believing one's "spin." Some illustrative examples and amplifications include:

• Republicans Drink Their Own Kool-Aid, End Up Looking Like Idiots
  
• Believing Your Own Spin
• Life Is Not Fair...: And Everything Else They Forget to Teach in School
  
• Believing your own spin can guide you to bad management decisions in your retail newsagency

I must here remind you that the thesis of the OP is that haphazard thinkers [ Agit8r, for you again] are likely to be conservatives, not that conservatives have a "monopoly" on superficial thinking, not that liberals aren't capable of expressing facile thoughts. The thesis is only that if/when one comes upon someone uttering "stupid sh*t," the odds are that person is a conservative.

As evidence of the fact that senseless thinking, specifically the "drinkinging one's own spin" form or it, isn't 100% the realm of folks headed toward conservatism, I offer the following anecdote taken from Paul O'Connor's June 2014 column in the Rocky Mount Telegram.

After a lifetime of observing politics, I’ve discovered the basic difference between liberals and conservatives.

“Liberals think everything should be free; conservatives don’t want to pay for anything.”

While you mull that over, here’s a disclaimer: The following is a personal rant that might not make sense.

Liberals first.

I don’t know how many times I’ve sat in a committee hearing and heard lawmakers explain why this or that should be free to people who can’t afford it. Free schools? Free school lunches? Free health care? For the poor in those cases, I’m liberal enough and was poor enough as a kid to say society should provide. The U.S. Constitution does have a “promote the General welfare” clause. But free driver’s education?

This issue led to the development of my theory. Until recently, North Carolina provided free driver’s education for high school students. Now we charge a small fee. Next year, we might not provide driver’s education at all.

Here’s what I don’t get. If a youngster can’t afford to pay for driver’s ed, where is that child going to get the money to buy gas? Yes, there’s a societal rationale for requiring driver’s education before one gets a license, but that can be mandated without providing the service for free. Not everything can be free.

Now to conservatives. I’ve seen as many examples of conservatives not wanting to pay for stuff as liberals wanting things free. Many examples emanate from Washington, like excellent medical care for our veterans, which the liberal side of me says should be free and which conservatives want, too, except that they won’t pay for it.

Here in North Carolina, the best current example of the conservative side of this theory involves teacher pay. Our state constitution requires a system of free public schools, and schools require teachers, and the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids enslaving people as teachers in these constitutionally mandated free schools. So, we have to pay teachers.

This year, an election year, conservatives have been tripping over themselves trying to give teachers a big raise without having to pay for that raise. Enter the hilariously botched-up N.C. House plan to provide teacher raises with a surge in lottery proceeds that will be spurred by a doubling of the lottery advertising budget at the same time that restrictions on lottery ads probably dissuade people from buying lottery tickets.

Let’s go over that again: House budget writers want to raise teacher pay without paying for it. They want lottery players to pay for it, but also want people to stop playing the lottery, in which case there won’t be any money for us to pay for the raise. I’m confused.

In conclusion, let me refer to something I learned in a New Yorker magazine cartoon as a child: There are no free lunches; somebody has to pay for them.
​

My OP presents a scientifically founded case for the authors' assertions. They aren't trying to inspire one to think; they are disclosing the results of research they performed. Paul, on the other hand, challenges folks, no matter their political persuasion, to do one simple thing: Open your friggin' mind before you buy the line your preferred party leaders, pundits and hacks have to say. In other words, "trust, but verify."

​

It's not cool to not know what you are talking about.
-- Barrack Obama​

 

[miketx]

Not gonna read all your stuff.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

The OP needs to fix the link to the "material" that is presented for discussion.
And the topic is under review for being too baiting and polarizing for even the "politics" forum..

Edit: -- Staff decision to leave it closed. Not all topics are suitable for CDZone debate. Please make certain that the topic is phrased to promote balanced debate.