Who is more intolerant of political opponents the "left" or "the right"

[Londoner]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is exploited across commercial sectors? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

how about you first step outside of the typical talking points and come up with something that is not used by me, as in defense, satellite systems, roads bridges airports dams schools parks etc... and lets not forget fire and rescue, we all pay into that, but we also all use it.
healthcare is not one of those things, if you want to claim it is then by all means lets include food, fuel, energy shoes clothing, housing, everything. Lets not be responsible for any part of our lives at all.

Thank you. I just wanted you to draw some lines inside your socialized largess.

How do you feel about home owner tax credits?

How do you feel about people who exercise bankruptcy protection?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is exploited across commercial sectors? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

how about you first step outside of the typical talking points and come up with something that is not used by me, as in defense, satellite systems, roads bridges airports dams schools parks etc... and lets not forget fire and rescue, we all pay into that, but we also all use it.
healthcare is not one of those things, if you want to claim it is then by all means lets include food, fuel, energy shoes clothing, housing, everything. Lets not be responsible for any part of our lives at all.

Thank you. I just wanted you to draw some lines inside your socialized largess.

How do you feel about home owner tax credits?

How do you feel about people who exercise bankruptcy protection?

Im all for paying as few taxes as possible.
as far as bankruptcy, I suppose that depends on why it was needed in the first place what happened? did someone quit their job because they were tired of working? over spend due to poor financial planning? or did they have an accident or something else unexpected that suddenly brought it on. Each case would have to be looked at on its own merits, its not something that one can, or should make a blanket statement concerning.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is exploited across commercial sectors? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

how about you first step outside of the typical talking points and come up with something that is not used by me, as in defense, satellite systems, roads bridges airports dams schools parks etc... and lets not forget fire and rescue, we all pay into that, but we also all use it.
healthcare is not one of those things, if you want to claim it is then by all means lets include food, fuel, energy shoes clothing, housing, everything. Lets not be responsible for any part of our lives at all.

It is absolutely one of those things.
You may not have used it physically but it is there for you when you need it. You have also benefited from disease prevention by not catching something nasty and dying.You are not an island.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

There are intolerant people on both sides. Who has more is debatable, but pointless. People should try and argue their points and not get into petty, silly name calling and personal attacks.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is exploited across commercial sectors? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

how about you first step outside of the typical talking points and come up with something that is not used by me, as in defense, satellite systems, roads bridges airports dams schools parks etc... and lets not forget fire and rescue, we all pay into that, but we also all use it.
healthcare is not one of those things, if you want to claim it is then by all means lets include food, fuel, energy shoes clothing, housing, everything. Lets not be responsible for any part of our lives at all.

It is absolutely one of those things.
You may not have used it physically but it is there for you when you need it. You have also benefited from disease prevention by not catching something nasty and dying.You are not an island.

and I pay for it. My not wanting to pay for someone else to have it for free is not at all the same as saying they cant have it. They do have a right to it, and just as soon as they write that check for the premium, they may well be sitting next to me at the Dr. Office.
Now if I were to say, no, you cant have insurance no matter what because you are (fill in the blank), then there would be a valid issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I'd say the rightwing have the advantage of invoking either Christian authority by scriptural laws
and/or Constitutional authority by natural laws and Constitutional principles,
so they are better at giving and accepting rebukes correction by these standards and process.

The leftwing depends on political party to push through media or govt.
So anything that threatens that collective influence or image is rejected.

As a progressive Green Democrat, I have more trouble working with fellow liberals
who are conditioned to depend on party and govt, and not empowered to take on equal responsibility for
funding and managing social agenda directly.

I have an easier time resolving differences in beliefs with Christians and Constitutionalists
who put universal principles first, before party representation, and those tend to be on the right not the left.
And still, I have an easier time defending prochoice principles with the right
while the left contradicts themselves.

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

But when I point out contradictions to the leftwing about imposing beliefs
about health care and marriage that violate "separate of church and state"
all I get is more justifications why this is necessary for equality.

They generally don't acknowledge their own beliefs on the same level
as a political religion, and believe they have the right to impose their beliefs by majority rule
as "rights" they don't see as "beliefs". And complain when rightwing do the same,
and take what they see as truth and impose that through govt when it constitutes "beliefs."
The rightwing are more understanding when I explain this in Constitutional terms.

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Only recently, when this system was slapped down with a huge loss in the national elections, have I seen receptiveness to the idea of self-govt instead of depending on party.

As usual, this is extremely well said.

For me, I get at it from absolutism versus pluralism. Permit me to stumble through this less elegantly than you have.

I see the Right as more religious and absolutist. Meaning, they don’t see values/beliefs as flexible or evolving with culture. They see timeless inflexible truths, anchored by supra-objective forces like God, Tradition or Nation. You can’t argue against these things - they are a fixed part of the universe available to either common sense or faith. This is why the right’s concept of education is more about transfering the correct knowledge/traditions to students. In this context students are seen as receptacles of truth (as opposed to creators). On this reading, alternate traditions and alternative values and alternative Constitutional interpretations (Originalism versus Living Document) cannot be tolerated because they are simply wrong. Contrast this with the ultimate Liberal, John Dewey, who thinks students should, through argument and civic participation (e.g., voting), construct values, laws, culture from their evolving sense of self and world. On this reading, you can't simply assert what is true, you have to argue and vote for it. There is no higher arbiter to point to like God or Tradition to settle disputes.

Perhaps it would be easier to look at how the Left’s relativism and multiculturalism fits in. If you believe that your value system is not better or more accurate than any other, or if you believe that there is a plurality of values or correct ways to live, does this imply a kind of built-in tolerance or openness to difference? The Right is more Platonist or Cartesian (guided by fixed/timeless truths); and the Left is more Pluralistic (there is no central or higher objective Truth, but rather an endless variety of competing values and interpretations that are best adjudicated by Democratic mechanisms rather than appeals to First Principals, Biblical Commandments, Traditional hierarchies etc. This is where the Church gives way to the Polis). [FYI: I'm emphatically not saying the Left is tolerant in practice]

Excellent Londoner!!
The very best master teachers do both. They are able to preserve and convey the classic literature, language, and history without losing the original spirit and integrity, yet they allow students to process, apply and learn in new contexts and cultures. There is a way to use both without compromising the old for the new. As an 80s kid, I had the benefit of teachers from the old school who had taught full careers the old fashioned ways Before the new regulated public system came in and killed a lot of the traditional ways that worked. But I also have the advantage of the new tech and new generations growing up with those opportunities and advanced media access, who unfortunately don't always get the traditional structured education that old school folks like me caught the very end of before those teachers aged and retired out of the system without getting replaced. Lots of industries are losing their experienced masters, and left with younger generations to take over who haven't worked to gain the knowledge that can't be learned by textbook or online courses. It's up to is folks in the middle to bridge that gap.

Mixing the new media with the old school knowledge we stand to lose if people are being taught to reject and demonize traditions as authoritarian instead of appreciating where authority comes from, and what are the central unifying sources of universal law and order that guides human conscience from generation to generation.

 

[BlindBoo]

The part of the right that embraces InfoWars and Brietphart.

The Groper Elect thinks he should be able to take away citizenship from people who burn a flag.

 

[Londoner]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I'd say the rightwing have the advantage of invoking either Christian authority by scriptural laws
and/or Constitutional authority by natural laws and Constitutional principles,
so they are better at giving and accepting rebukes correction by these standards and process.

The leftwing depends on political party to push through media or govt.
So anything that threatens that collective influence or image is rejected.

As a progressive Green Democrat, I have more trouble working with fellow liberals
who are conditioned to depend on party and govt, and not empowered to take on equal responsibility for
funding and managing social agenda directly.

I have an easier time resolving differences in beliefs with Christians and Constitutionalists
who put universal principles first, before party representation, and those tend to be on the right not the left.
And still, I have an easier time defending prochoice principles with the right
while the left contradicts themselves.

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

But when I point out contradictions to the leftwing about imposing beliefs
about health care and marriage that violate "separate of church and state"
all I get is more justifications why this is necessary for equality.

They generally don't acknowledge their own beliefs on the same level
as a political religion, and believe they have the right to impose their beliefs by majority rule
as "rights" they don't see as "beliefs". And complain when rightwing do the same,
and take what they see as truth and impose that through govt when it constitutes "beliefs."
The rightwing are more understanding when I explain this in Constitutional terms.

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Only recently, when this system was slapped down with a huge loss in the national elections, have I seen receptiveness to the idea of self-govt instead of depending on party.

As usual, this is extremely well said.

For me, I get at it from absolutism versus pluralism. Permit me to stumble through this less elegantly than you have.

I see the Right as more religious and absolutist. Meaning, they don’t see values/beliefs as flexible or evolving with culture. They see timeless inflexible truths, anchored by supra-objective forces like God, Tradition or Nation. You can’t argue against these things - they are a fixed part of the universe available to either common sense or faith. This is why the right’s concept of education is more about transfering the correct knowledge/traditions to students. In this context students are seen as receptacles of truth (as opposed to creators). On this reading, alternate traditions and alternative values and alternative Constitutional interpretations (Originalism versus Living Document) cannot be tolerated because they are simply wrong. Contrast this with the ultimate Liberal, John Dewey, who thinks students should, through argument and civic participation (e.g., voting), construct values, laws, culture from their evolving sense of self and world. On this reading, you can't simply assert what is true, you have to argue and vote for it. There is no higher arbiter to point to like God or Tradition to settle disputes.

Perhaps it would be easier to look at how the Left’s relativism and multiculturalism fits in. If you believe that your value system is not better or more accurate than any other, or if you believe that there is a plurality of values or correct ways to live, does this imply a kind of built-in tolerance or openness to difference? The Right is more Platonist or Cartesian (guided by fixed/timeless truths); and the Left is more Pluralistic (there is no central or higher objective Truth, but rather an endless variety of competing values and interpretations that are best adjudicated by Democratic mechanisms rather than appeals to First Principals, Biblical Commandments, Traditional hierarchies etc. This is where the Church gives way to the Polis). [FYI: I'm emphatically not saying the Left is tolerant in practice]

Excellent Londoner!!
The very best master teachers do both. They are able to preserve and convey the classic literature, language, and history without losing the original spirit and integrity, yet they allow students to process, apply and learn in new contexts and cultures. There is a way to use both without compromising the old for the new. As an 80s kid, I had the benefit of teachers from the old school who had taught full careers the old fashioned ways Before the new regulated public system came in and killed a lot of the traditional ways that worked. But I also have the advantage of the new tech and new generations growing up with those opportunities and advanced media access, who unfortunately don't always get the traditional structured education that old school folks like me caught the very end of before those teachers aged and retired out of the system without getting replaced. Lots of industries are losing their experienced masters, and left with younger generations to take over who haven't worked to gain the knowledge that can't be learned by textbook or online courses. It's up to is folks in the middle to bridge that gap.

Mixing the new media with the old school knowledge we stand to lose if people are being taught to reject and demonize traditions as authoritarian instead of appreciating where authority comes from, and what are the central unifying sources of universal law and order that guides human conscience from generation to generation.

Well said. One of my most favorite books is The Closing of the American Mind. It is a brilliant conservative manifesto and delivers an extremely readable and powerful argument for teaching the Classics.

 

[Andylusion]

I dont have the right to deny medical care to anyone, and I wouldnt think of doing so, yet at the same time I do not have an obligation to pay for everyone elses medical care either.

How about socialized military defense, socialized police & fire? What about the socialized patent system or the world's leading technological infrastructure (e.g., satellite system), which is socialized and exploited across the private sector, which begs Washington for subsidies and bailouts? What about traditional infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, dams and schools) that Trump is promising, and that Eisenhower delivered? Do you understand how fiscal policy works, or where banks get the easy money to drive the credit system that keep the economy afloat? Have you ever researched the subsidies that flowed into Boeing and commercial aviation through the defense budget, or all the life-improving commercial electronics that came out of the Cold War NASA and Defense budgets? Or what about the military protection of overseas oil fields or the supply chains and trade routes of our economic system? Or what about the fact that the modern Southwest, with all its thriving profit centers, wouldn't exist without the Hoover Dam?

The problem with anti-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, i.e., people who can't list the things they get from government.

I'm not saying you should be obligated to pay for anyone's health care, I'm just asking you to step outside the typical talking points and say something interesting.

The problem with pro-government rhetoric is that it is aimed at the most intellectually vulnerable, by dishonestly trying to equate military, police, roads and bridges that provide general welfare to the entire country, to entitlement programs that punish one group with taxes, to give freebies to another group.

The two are not the same.

Moreover, the anti-government people never complain bitterly about money spent fixing pot holes, or enforcing the law with police, or defending the country with the military.

You show me the anti-gov people on this forum, suggesting we eliminate police, fire, military, and roads? Where is it? Never happens.

So the very arguments you use to deceive the intellectually vulnerable, are false at the start.

Now where you are right about us being against infrastructure spending, is for things that simply have no economic value.

In a few places in Europe, and the UK, and perhaps in New York, sub-ways and trains have a value. But in the vast majority of the US, they simply do not. They never bring nearly as much economic value, as they cost. They are money losers. Now if California wishes to tax and bankrupt it's state to pay for Amtrak, fine.

But they shouldn't be allowed to charge the country as a whole for it. Why should I in Ohio, be forced to pay for a money losing, zero-economic-benefit, Amtrak line in California that I'll never see, let alone use?

Infrastructure is not a magical automatic 'win'. Greece spend hundreds of millions on Infrastructure. Show me how their economic is booming?

Japan spent several times more on infrastructure, and bullet trains. They went into an economic slump for 20 years. And honestly they really haven't recovered from it yet.

The patent system is not all that great. We need to reform it, or eliminate it.

We actually have companies that only exist to either patent something someone is using and then sue them, or to buy up existing obscure patents, and sue people who are producing goods.

The patent system is not a good thing. And simply because the private sector is exploiting something, doesn't automatically mean it is a good thing. Nor does it mean the private sector would collapse if that thing was removed.

However, it's interesting how you listed dozens on dozens of things, and not once, mention the actual issues that anti-government people talk about.

You mention satellites which provide for the general welfare for all people, but fail to mention Medicaid which taxes working people to pay for special groups.

You mention police and fire, which provides general welfare for all people, but fail to mention public housing which taxes the working to pay for a special group.

You mention the military guarding international trade, which provides the general welfare of all people, but fail to mention food stamps and welfare, which taxes the working people, to pay for a special group.

See, here's the problem.

Everything that you mentioned above, everything combined, barely makes up 20% of the Federal budget. Additionally, everything you mentioned above, barely makes up 20% of the Ohio State government budget.

We're complaining about the 80% of the budget. Your argument is to look at the only the 20% of the budget, list off all the things that 20% does, and then do a blanket justification for the entire budget.

And lastly, you are using what I consider an immature argument. You are saying because we get a benefit, then we should continue doing it.

To me that is a very juvenile way of thinking. Your toddler at the super market says "I want it. I like it. We should get it" to everything everywhere.

A parent looks at the budget, looks at home much money they have, and determines that some things they can't afford. No matter how much benefit it would give them, or how much they would like it... if they can't afford it, they don't buy it.

Greece did the toddler thing. They did the toddler "I want it. I should have it. I demand it" for 20 years. Now they are broke and the country is in ruins.

If we don't have the money for everything you want.... then we shouldn't buy it. It's called maturity, and fiscal responsibility. Right now, our country has more debt, than the entire GDP of the country for an entire year. We don't have the money for everything you want and more, no matter if it's a benefit or not.

 

[Andylusion]

The part of the right that embraces InfoWars and Brietphart.

The Groper Elect thinks he should be able to take away citizenship from people who burn a flag.

(as blindboo and dozens of others wander off to Salon.com and HuffingtonPost)....

Captain Left-wing Hypocrite strikes again!