How are Conservative and Liberals different?

[Cletus]

Okay, we had a thread a little while ago that had a similar theme, but it got off to a rocky start, so I thought I would try it again.

I am generally interested on seeing how we see each other on this forum and in society, as general. We all know the common images, of the hand wringing, bed wetting Liberal and the stone hearted, greedy Conservative, but is that really how we see each other or are those images just tools to get a reaction from the other side? If that is how we see each other, are those perceptions justified by reality, or is it just natural to demonize your opposition?

We spend a lot of time hurling insults back and forth and just as much time defending against them. Let's see if we actually believe there is anything to them. Try to be civil. I suspect that temps might run a little high if we get any participation, but if we get out of control the mods will have to do their jobs and that will just kill the topic. I hope they participate in the thread and provide their insight and don't have to pull the trigger on anybody.

I do think we often clump our opposition into one big bundle, even though we know they aren't all the same, just as we are not all the same. I view Liberalism, as it is largely practiced today, as counter productive and detrimental to the well being of the country. I recognize however, that most Liberals don't want to destroy the nation any more than we do. I tend to see Liberals as existing on at least two different levels. There are the radical, ignore the Constitution, do whatever makes me feel good bunch and there are those I refer to as HHH Liberals. These are people who fit more into the "classical" Liberal model and would probably be great fans of Hubert H. Humphrey if they knew who he was. I think we have some of both on this board.

I know Conservatives can also be placed into subgroups, but rather than state how I see them, I would like to see how the Left sees us. I have my own ideas of what I consider Conservative and what I think Conservatives should be and I have little doubt I will be posting them, whether anyone is interested in them or not.

Are Liberals a bunch of bed wetters looking for handouts? Do Conservatives eat children for breakfast?

Here is a chance to voice your HONEST opinions.

[MisterVeritis]

We have better signatures.

[jimmyz]

We see our political foes as threats to our perception of direction and wants for our futures. The anonymity of internet forums amplifies the voracity of our foe's responses and ours to them. So a forum discussion can be much more caustic than one we might have on the street.

IMO we are misreading our adversaries because of our own biases. Case in point, yesterday one member lamented that they were surprised that another member had children. That response was generated because of their opinion that the hard left poster cannot possibly raise a family properly in their opinion. Both posters know next to nothing about each other than their online personas but comment with personal insult to gain a dig at the other.

We don't concede points nor admit that we are wrong enough in our discussions. That divide needs to be bridged if we want to be intellectually honest with each other.

How do I see a Progressive and how do they see a Conservative like me? As enemies to our ideologies. Balkanisation on display.

[Mister D]

Almost all of you are liberals in the proper sense and your political prescriptions revolve around the same core principles (e.g. equality and individual liberty). You just perceive them a little differently and this creates the illusion of a deep philosophical divide. For example, you are all proponents of individual liberty. One side has traditionally placed much more emphasis on autonomy in matters of property and state interference in the economy whereas the other side argues that the bourgeois ideals of classical liberalism (political freedom, equality under the law etc.) can be nothing more than abstractions to the poor with no impact on their condition.

[Common]

None of the bantering, insults and name calling that happens on forums ever happens in real life, to me anyway. Off this forum I view the left as an ideology that I disagree with now and somethings I still agree with.
Conversely there are GOP things im against, there is no utopia in politics neither side does or can do what everyone wants.
The animosity is played out more online, people accept each for what they are om real life and they dont go around arguing politics with strangers. Snowflakes protesting aside

Whats happened to TPF is that people made politics personal. To me the Politics didnt make it personal, it was the individuals that made it personal.

I cant directly answer your question because I dont lump the left into one group, so I dont have a description or a label for the left. Mine is more individualized

[Chris]

Almost all of you are liberals in the proper sense and your political prescriptions revolve around the same core principles (e.g. equality and individual liberty). You just perceive them a little differently and this creates the illusion of a deep philosophical divide. For example, you are all proponents of individual liberty. One side has traditionally placed much more emphasis on autonomy in matters of property and state interference in the economy whereas the other side argues that the bourgeois ideals of classical liberalism (political freedom, equality under the law etc.) can be nothing more than abstractions to the poor with no impact on their condition.


True, from a broader perspective.

Liberals thing you can use reason to perfect man and society, conservatives do not. Sowell called the two views the unconstrained and the tragic views.

[Chris]

None of the bantering, insults and name calling that happens on forums ever happens in real life, to me anyway. Off this forum I view the left as an ideology that I disagree with now and somethings I still agree with.
Conversely there are GOP things im against, there is no utopia in politics neither side does or can do what everyone wants.
The animosity is played out more online, people accept each for what they are om real life and they dont go around arguing politics with strangers. Snowflakes protesting aside

Whats happened to TPF is that people made politics personal. To me the Politics didnt make it personal, it was the individuals that made it personal.

I cant directly answer your question because I dont lump the left into one group, so I dont have a description or a label for the left. Mine is more individualized

People sure can take and make political things personal.

[Common]

People sure can take and make political things personal.

Only online

[Captain Obvious]

If this is in reference to tPF, the rub here is that we have partisan hack cheerleading trolls flaming the forum.

If we had honest liberals and conservatives, the discussion level around here would be north of tabloid material.

[Mechanic]

My life experiences have taught me one thing, people of conservative beliefs are not trustworthy or reliable.

[Chris]

Only online

My brothers and I tease each other. One's conservative, one's liberal, and I'm libertarian. And it can be fun trying to outwit each other. But it's done in fun and if it gets serious we stop. My dad and I can talk politics, disagree, but if it turns to religion, my mom puts a stop to it. In real life you have a broader perspecitve on the important things. --Same at work, you can talk this and that, but you maintain a professional attitude because, after all, work is what's important.

[Cletus]

Does Conservatism have to embrace religion? Do you have to be godless to be a Liberal?

I don't think either stereotype is accurate. If we accept that, what is the foundation of Conservatism? What is the foundation of Liberalism? I am not looking for a scholarly treatise from some long dead philosopher, I an interested in what YOUR foundation is. For me, it is pretty simple. My particular brand of Conservatism (and maybe I shouldn't call it that. I don't know) revolves around the primacy of the individual and personal responsibility. There are other things factored in there, but those the bricks upon which everything else rests.

I am a tremendous admirer of the Framers of the Constitution and the result of their labors. I have a copy of on my desk. When I teach defensive shooting classes, each student gets a copy in his reference material. For me, the Constitution is the very heart of the republic. It is why we are who we are. A very large part of the animosity I feel toward self professed Liberals (or Progressives for those so extreme even they realize they have tainted the word Liberal forever) is their disdain for that document and the concepts and ideals put forth in it. Combine that with the Declaration of Independence and we have a set of ideas (not all original, of course) and a rule book to codify them that changed the world.

When someone starts talking about the Constitution being irrelevant in today's society or about how it must be evil at its core because some of the framers were slaveholders, I'll admit it makes me want to throw civility aside and turn the discussion into a knock down, drag out brawl.

[Cletus]

My life experiences have taught me one thing, people of conservative beliefs are not trustworthy or reliable.

How?

Why?

[Chris]

My life experiences have taught me one thing, people of conservative beliefs are not trustworthy or reliable.

Why, Mechanic? Get burned by a con?

[Tahuyaman]

Conservatives rely on facts and liberals rely on opinions.

In a nutshell, that's all one needs to know

[Cletus]

Conservatives rely on facts and liberals rely on opinions.

In a nutshell, that's all one needs to know

I think in the modern age, Liberals are very much driven by feelings. Reason is a stranger to most of them.

[IMPress Polly]

Consciously I know that this doesn't necessarily reflect the way that every conservative-minded or right-leaning person has life or lives, but most of my family qualifies as center-left and certainly my friends do as well, so I only have so many references that are personal ones that I actually have gotten to know over the years. Therefore, the first images that come to my mind when I hear the terms "conservative", "Republican", or "right wing" are of two sets of aunts and uncles that I have -- one over in Texas and another in Missouri -- and the latter's younger son.

My Texas uncle is a wealthy executive at a multinational corporation. His wife is a worker who makes about $100,000 a year or so. They are also very religious Christians. For both of these reasons, they look down on the whole rest of my side of the family and, because of that, nobody really likes them. They're kind of jerks who think that they're better than the rest of us on multiple levels. As a person, I know my Texas aunt better than her husband, as the latter keeps more distance from the family. She's...well...a little out there. For example, she believes that all Asian people (who she tends to refer to collectively either as "the Indians" or "orientals") subscribe to a religion called Moslem and that the founder of Moslem was a guy named Buddha, which she spells "Buda". She feels that women with children should be housewives and opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign mainly because, to use her words, "we [women] are too emotional" for the kind of responsibility that comes with running a country. Rarely watches the news (and she always picks Fox News anyway). Mostly gets her info on the world from her husband and through her email inbox.

My Missouri uncle is a race car driver who's income provides for his immediate family. They're well-off, but not like my Texas aunt and uncle. They're basically nice to me (especially my Missouri aunt), though they do seem to have a kind of subtly condescending view of those of us who aren't as wealthy and a lot of household strictures. Their older son was a basically nice preppy kid when I last saw him a decade ago. I hear he's gotten a solid college education and gone into business for himself since then. Don't know what his ideological and partisan alignments are. Their younger son though belongs to what we now call the "alt-right". He's a horrible person. He refers to black people as "niggers" and contends that we should never have freed the slaves and believes in all manner of ridiculous racial and gender stereotypes and spends most of his time consuming online pornography as far as I can tell. I believe he dropped out of college if I'm not mistaken. He held these sorts of views and led that sort of lifestyle well before his college years though, so it's not like he dropped out and blamed women and people of color for that or something. He's just kind of been that way for a long time. I think he just doesn't want to be like his older brother or something.

So those are the sorts of images that first come to mind when I think of the terms "conservative", "Republican", or "right wing". That's probably not fair, I know. But those are the reference points I'm most personally familiar with.

[Tahuyaman]

I think in the modern age, Liberals are very much driven by feelings. Reason is a stranger to most of them.

That's always been the case.

[decedent]

According to Eric Trump, Democrats aren't even human.

[Cletus]

That's always been the case.

Possibly so.

[Beevee]

Conservatives believe in themselves and liberals believe in others.

[jimmyz]

Conservatives believe in themselves and liberals believe in others.

Liberals believe in obtaining other peoples money for their use.

[Standing Wolf]

I think in the modern age, Liberals are very much driven by feelings. Reason is a stranger to most of them.

With regard to one controversial topic - gun control - I would have to agree with you. (You know my views, and, except for the question of whether to let private citizens own anti-tank missiles, I believe they're pretty much the same as your own.) Many Liberals want the State to do something, anything to make them feel better - to make them feel as though the problem of gun violence is being addressed, even if the legal solutions they propose have zero relevance to the actual problem(s). The appeals to emotion are absolutely central to their agenda. Conservatives, in that situation, ask for a logical link between placing greater and greater restrictions on the ability of sane, law-abiding citizens to access firearms and the things that criminals and crazy people do with them, and the anti-gun contingent of the Left has no rational answer.

On the other hand, take same-sex marriage. Liberal proponents of marriage equality point out that Society has no compelling interest in withholding participation in a legal, public institution from two sane, unencumbered adult citizens simply because their private parts happen to match, more or less. No rational reason to oppose such legal unions exists - just emotional appeals to tradition and religious doctrines. With regard to that controversy, traditional Conservatives appear to have sided with emotion over reason and fairness.

[Beevee]

Liberals believe in obtaining other peoples money for their use.

Liberals believe that taxation pays for infrastructure which is available for use by all. Conservatives believe that infrastructure is there for their use as long as they do not pay for it.

[jimmyz]

Liberals believe that taxation pays for infrastructure which is available for use by all. Conservatives believe that infrastructure is there for their use as long as they do not pay for it.

Liberal people on the dole are NOT "infrastructure".

[Common]

My life experiences have taught me one thing, people of conservative beliefs are not trustworthy or reliable. Standing Wolf

[Cletus]

According to Eric Trump, Democrats aren't even human.

Eric Trump is not part of this discussion.

[Cletus]

Conservatives believe in themselves and liberals believe in others.

I don't believe that to be true. If it were, Liberals would not push so many social welfare programs. The history of the Left shows a very obvious lack of belief in the independence and competence of people. Their actions make it clear they believe people cannot survive without the intervention of the State.

[Beevee]

Liberal people on the dole are NOT "infrastructure".

Conservatives who believe they have the right to live based on their ability to pay, at the expense of those who don't because they can't are what America is all about.
Their lack of concern for anyone other than themselves makes them unique.

[Chris]

Conservatives believe in themselves and liberals believe in others.

Conservative believe in spending their own money and liberals in spending other's. :D

[Cletus]

With regard to one controversial topic - gun control - I would have to agree with you. (You know my views, and, except for the question of whether to let private citizens own anti-tank missiles, I believe they're pretty much the same as your own.) Many Liberals want the State to do something, anything to make them feel better - to make them feel as though the problem of gun violence is being addressed, even if the legal solutions they propose have zero relevance to the actual problem(s). The appeals to emotion are absolutely central to their agenda. Conservatives, in that situation, ask for a logical link between placing greater and greater restrictions on the ability of sane, law-abiding citizens to access firearms and the things that criminals and crazy people do with them, and the anti-gun contingent of the Left has no rational answer.

On the other hand, take same-sex marriage. Liberal proponents of marriage equality point out that Society has no compelling interest in withholding participation in a legal, public institution from two sane, unencumbered adult citizens simply because their private parts happen to match, more or less. No rational reason to oppose such legal unions exists - just emotional appeals to tradition and religious doctrines. With regard to that controversy, traditional Conservatives appear to have sided with emotion over reason and fairness.

I think certain issues do generate a strong emotional response. It may be different for each side of the aisle, but it no doubt happens and the two issues you cited are good examples of that.

I would argue though that the same sex marriage issues goes beyond just appeals to religion and tradition. It also hits on constitutional issues and the overreach of the federal government.

[Cletus]

Conservative believe in spending their own money and liberals in spending other's. :D

I strongly agree with this.

[Beevee]

Conservative believe in spending their own money and liberals in spending other's. :D

Indeed. Which is why taxation in the USA should be abolished. Why hasn't it been?

[Cletus]

Conservatives who believe they have the right to live based on their ability to pay, at the expense of those who don't because they can't are what America is all about.
Their lack of concern for anyone other than themselves makes them unique.

That is really not the issue. I think you if you look into it, you will find that Conservatives, as a whole, tend to contribute much more heavily to charities than Liberals.

The issue is whether charity is a legitimate function of government. Conservatives tend to believe it is not. Charity should be given freely and privately, not taken at gunpoint by government to redistribute as it sees fit. With regard to whether government should be engaged in charity, James Madison, the man who has become known as the "Father" of the Constitution expressed it this way.

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
-- James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

He even addressed the refugee issue in 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, he objected on the floor of the House with this statement... "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

[Standing Wolf]

I would argue though that the same sex marriage issues goes beyond just appeals to religion and tradition. It also hits on constitutional issues and the overreach of the federal government.

This is, however, a question of whether state governments are violating rights - to equal treatment under the law, and to due process - to which their citizens are entitled under the federal Constitution. Those are rights that state governments, under that same Constitution, have no legitimate power to withhold. If the highest state courts refuse to give relief to that state's citizens, the people of those states are empowered by the Tenth Amendment to seek that relief elsewhere.

[Chris]

With regard to one controversial topic - gun control - I would have to agree with you. (You know my views, and, except for the question of whether to let private citizens own anti-tank missiles, I believe they're pretty much the same as your own.) Many Liberals want the State to do something, anything to make them feel better - to make them feel as though the problem of gun violence is being addressed, even if the legal solutions they propose have zero relevance to the actual problem(s). The appeals to emotion are absolutely central to their agenda. Conservatives, in that situation, ask for a logical link between placing greater and greater restrictions on the ability of sane, law-abiding citizens to access firearms and the things that criminals and crazy people do with them, and the anti-gun contingent of the Left has no rational answer.

On the other hand, take same-sex marriage. Liberal proponents of marriage equality point out that Society has no compelling interest in withholding participation in a legal, public institution from two sane, unencumbered adult citizens simply because their private parts happen to match, more or less. No rational reason to oppose such legal unions exists - just emotional appeals to tradition and religious doctrines. With regard to that controversy, traditional Conservatives appear to have sided with emotion over reason and fairness.



Appealing to tradition and religious beliefs are not emotional. Your incredulity--"No rational reason"-- doesn't mean emotional. I disagree with them as well, and think gays should be free to marry, at least in the eyes of the law, with equality as basis, but I don't think opposition to that emotional. On the same egalitarian basis, plus medical science facts, I think abortion wrong, but I don't think those who appeal to arbitrary personhood emotional.

To me emotional is liberals tend to see the world emotionally in terms of oppression and that can drive them to support solutions that either don't address the problem or that have unintended consequences. Conservatives tend to be more cautious and prudent about change.

[Chris]

Indeed. Which is why taxation in the USA should be abolished. Why hasn't it been?

A conservative would argue those monies are spent on general welfare, like the military. A liberal tends to support redistribution which is special.

Quick answer, because neither is libertarian enough to see the value of small, limited federal government.

[Beevee]

I don't believe that to be true. If it were, Liberals would not push so many social welfare programs. The history of the Left shows a very obvious lack of belief in the independence and competence of people. Their actions make it clear they believe people cannot survive without the intervention of the State.

The intervention of the State seems to be the paramount purpose of the current administration.

[Cletus]

The intervention of the State seems to be the paramount purpose of the current administration.

You say that... why?

[Beevee]

A conservative would argue those monies are spent on general welfare, like the military. A liberal tends to support redistribution which is special.

Quick answer, because neither is libertarian enough to see the value of small, limited federal government.

So you believe in taxation as long as it is used for the things that you support but are indifferent to things that liberals support. That's your right, so why don't you grant them the same?

[Chris]

I like the work of Jonathan Haidt. He looks at how people value six moral foundations, and after years of research, finds the following differences among liberal, conservative and libertarians:

https://i.snag.gy/LMlkz4.jpg?nocache=1496875327109

Differences in moral values will make the other seem emotional, unreasonable.

[Cletus]

So you believe in taxation as long as it is used for the things that you support but are indifferent to things that liberals support. That's your right, so why don't you grant them the same?

I don't think that is what he said or meant.

The federal government is empowered to perform certain functions and only those functions. Those specifically enumerated functions must of course be supported by taxes in order for the government to be able to carry them out.

However, taking money from one and giving it to another is not among the specifically enumerated powers of the government. It is therefore inappropriate and an abuse of power.

[Chris]

So you believe in taxation as long as it is used for the things that you support but are indifferent to things that liberals support. That's your right, so why don't you grant them the same?

No.

One, I said conservatives believe taxes for general welfare are ok, liberals believe special welfare is. General welfare is where the government takes from everyone and gives it back to everyone. The defense of a nation is certainly a case where all pay and all benefit. Special welfare is where the government takes from some to give to others. One is fair, the other not.

Two, as a libertarian I believe all taxes are theft.

[Cletus]

This is, however, a question of whether state governments are violating rights - to equal treatment under the law, and to due process - to which their citizens are entitled under the federal Constitution. Those are rights that state governments, under that same Constitution, have no legitimate power to withhold. If the highest state courts refuse to give relief to that state's citizens, the people of those states are empowered by the Tenth Amendment to seek that relief elsewhere.

Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is a power owned exclusively by the states.

What right does the federal government have to prevent the states from determining their own rules and making their own laws regarding it? What gave them the authority to do so? The Constitution does not.

[Chris]

Somewhat related to Haidt's ideas I just posted above are Arnold Kling's three axes:

https://i.snag.gy/V8mUig.jpg

Conservatives, liberals and libertarians value different things and thus often talk past each other.

[Chris]

I don't think that is what he said or meant.

The federal government is empowered to perform certain functions and only those functions. Those specifically enumerated functions must of course be supported by taxes in order for the government to be able to carry them out.

However, taking money from one and giving it to another is not among the specifically enumerated powers of the government. It is therefore inappropriate and an abuse of power.

That and another aspect of it too, and that's the notion of federalism. I think liberals tend to favor bigger, more centralized government where necessarily money spent becomes less and less related to what people want and value, whereas conservatives tend to favor smaller, limited, more local government where it's more likely monies spent to relate to what the people want and value. Libertarians tend to favor even more local self-government.

[Standing Wolf]

Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is a power owned exclusively by the states.

What right does the federal government have to prevent the states from determining their own rules and making their own laws regarding it? What gave them the authority to do so? The Constitution does not.

Equal treatment under the law means equal treatment under a law regarding marriage licenses, driver's licenses or fishing licenses - or any other government function or activity. There is - and can be - no all-inclusive list of ways in which a state government is not allowed to discriminate against a certain class of individuals without a compelling reason to do so. Yes, they can discriminate to the extent that they can refuse to issue a driver's license to a ten-year-old - but not to the extent of refusing to license Asians to drive, or red-headed people to fish, or same-sex couples to marry. This, despite the fact that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about driver's licenses.

[Chris]

Liberals tend to argue from a position of positive law. Conservatives from natural law, which can be considered God's. One is legal but circular, the other moral and foundational. IOW, what's legal is not always moral.

[decedent]

Here's my not-so-humble opinion:

I find ultraconservatives to be fearful in general, but especially of strangers and of change. When a leader says he'll get tough on crime, ban immigrants, impede science, etc., they are guaranteed support from the far right. Although the far right claims to the authoritative states, they're the ones supporting walls, increased policing, more prohibitions, school prayer, voter suppression, controlling education, and limiting to free speech. There's also a disturbing amount of dogma from this camp -- where Trump must be worshiped and you must have a giant flag on your lawn. I won't go much into racism, but I tend to see it the most among the far right.

I find the far right tends to be guided by feelings more than facts. The pedagogy isn't trusted, and I've seen leftists be accused of being "cruel" when presenting facts. Climate change is a perfect example of the lack of trust in science. Science is cold and honest. The lack of education and cognitive dissonance makes them prime targets for opinion channels like Fox News -- which is by their own admission entertainment, not actual news. But there's also Limbaugh, Coulter and a host of other heroes they worship no matter how hateful their speech is.

The far right likes to label. It keeps things simple. There are only two genders, you're one of 4 or 5 races, and your either Christian or you're not Christian. Possibly the most important labels are Republican and Democrat, because one of them is the enemy. There's a sense that leftists have too much control over the country -- destroying the moral fabric.

Many from the left believe that the rich get rich by exploiting others and selfishly hoarding capital, thus limiting opportunity for others. They argue that wealth distribution should be forced for these people who take far more than they give. The far right calls this 'theft', and rich people have no obligation to give back to the system they took so much from.

The far right sees individualism as a natural state, and that we're not all in this together. They don't believe they should have to help others, especially when it comes to healthcare. I find these individualists to be more libertarian than they realize, generally be the most aggressive, to be against the government (unlike their more paleocon brethren), own a gun, avoid education and science, and have much faith in the free market.

I also sense much anger from the far right. The name-calling and aggression towards liberals is unnerving. Every liberal "snowflake" on this site knows what I'm talking about.


Eric Trump is not part of this discussion.

The question is "How are conservatives and liberals different?"

Eric Trump said that Democrats aren't even human. That's a significant difference.

[Dr. Who]

Marriage is not an enumerated power of the federal government. It is a power owned exclusively by the states.

What right does the federal government have to prevent the states from determining their own rules and making their own laws regarding it? What gave them the authority to do so? The Constitution does not.
Except that the Constitution and in particular the 14th Amendment provides that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Thus laws made that are discriminatory are unconstitutional.

[Cletus]

Equal treatment under the law means equal treatment under a law regarding marriage licenses, driver's licenses or fishing licenses - or any other government function or activity. There is - and can be - no all-inclusive list of ways in which a state government is not allowed to discriminate against a certain class of individuals without a compelling reason to do so. Yes, they can discriminate to the extent that they can refuse to issue a driver's license to a ten-year-old - but not to the extent of refusing to license Asians to drive, or red-headed people to fish, or same-sex couples to marry. This, despite the fact that the Constitution says absolutely nothing about driver's licenses.

There are easily hundreds, probably thousands of examples of states addressing issues with very different laws. Should it be because one state makes the legal age of marriage (with parental consent) 14, that all states are bound to accept the same standard?

[Tahuyaman]

So you believe in taxation as long as it is used for the things that you support but are indifferent to things that liberals support. That's your right, so why don't you grant them the same?

Taxation should be used to fund the things government is required to fund according to the restraints upon government laid out in the US Constitution.

[Cletus]

Except that the Constitution and in particular the 14th Amendment provides that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Thus laws made that are discriminatory are unconstitutional.

So, you believe that if one state passes a law making something legal, all states are bound by it?

[MisterVeritis]

Except that the Constitution and in particular the 14th Amendment provides that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Thus laws made that are discriminatory are unconstitutional.
You have no idea what that means, do you?

[jimmyz]

Taxation should be used to fund the things government is required to fund according to the restraints upon government laid out in the US Constitution.

We have been living in a post-Constitutional America for some time now. I hope Trump and his men can get back on track.

[Tahuyaman]

We have been living in a post-Constitutional America for some time now. I hope Trump and his men can get back on track.

Not gonna happen. The Genie has been let out of the bottle.

We live in a world now where increases in spending are called "draconian cuts". Taxes are called contributions.

[Dr. Who]

So, you believe that if one state passes a law making something legal, all states are bound by it?

No. Why would I? That's not the issue. States cannot pass discriminatory laws by virtue of the Constitution.

[Mister D]

@Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791)
There were three such comments and all three were posted by habitual offenders but some folks see what they want to see. I suppose there is no sense in belaboring the point. He must realize it by now.

[Dr. Who]

You have no idea what that means, do you?

I don't see "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" as particularly difficult to understand.

[Mister D]

The truth is that the state had absolutely no interest, let alone a compelling one, in redefining marriage to suit a tiny minority of sexual deviants. Carry on.

[Beevee]

You say that... why?

Because Trump considers loyalty is his prerogative when compared to those he was elected to serve. Which isn't just his loyal supporters but the rest of the electorate as well.
To believe after weeks of his shit that he is serving a useful purpose is the height of lunacy.

[Cletus]

No. Why would I? That's not the issue. States cannot pass discriminatory laws by virtue of the Constitution.

All laws are discriminatory. The 14th does not say what you seem to think it says.

[Cletus]

I don't see "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" as particularly difficult to understand.

That requires that all laws be applied equally. It doesn't mean that all laws benefit or restrict all people.

[Cletus]

Because Trump considers loyalty is his prerogative when compared to those he was elected to serve. Which isn't just his loyal supporters but the rest of the electorate as well.

I am sure you are trying to say something here, but I don't know what.

To believe after weeks of his shit that he is serving a useful purpose is the height of lunacy.

He is actually doing what he is supposed to be doing as President. What is it you think he should be doing?

[Dr. Who]

That requires that all laws be applied equally. It doesn't mean that all laws benefit or restrict all people.
Yes, it means that all laws be applied equally, not just to some people.

[Cletus]

Yes, it means that all laws be applied equally, not just to some people.

That is right. That means that if a state defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, they can't arbitrarily just make exceptions to that and decide that it is okay for some men to marry men and some women to marry women, but not others. If the law states that you may marry only a member of the opposite sex, that has to apply equally to everyone.

[Mister D]

That is right. That means that if a state defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, they can't arbitrarily just make exceptions to that and decide that it is okay for some men to marry men and some women to marry women, but not others. If the law states that you may marry only a member of the opposite sex, that has to apply equally to everyone.

Indeed, there has never been any history of discrimination against homosexuals with regard to marriage rights. They were always free to marry and usually did for a variety of reasons.

[Standing Wolf]

There are easily hundreds, probably thousands of examples of states addressing issues with very different laws. Should it be because one state makes the legal age of marriage (with parental consent) 14, that all states are bound to accept the same standard?

I would submit that there is a fundamental difference between making someone wait a couple of years to marry, and making them wait forever.

[Chris]

Here's my not-so-humble opinion:

I find ultraconservatives to be fearful in general, but especially of strangers and of change. When a leader says he'll get tough on crime, ban immigrants, impede science, etc., they are guaranteed support from the far right. Although the far right claims to the authoritative states, they're the ones supporting walls, increased policing, more prohibitions, school prayer, voter suppression, controlling education, and limiting to free speech. There's also a disturbing amount of dogma from this camp -- where Trump must be worshiped and you must have a giant flag on your lawn. I won't go much into racism, but I tend to see it the most among the far right.

I find the far right tends to be guided by feelings more than facts. The pedagogy isn't trusted, and I've seen leftists be accused of being "cruel" when presenting facts. Climate change is a perfect example of the lack of trust in science. Science is cold and honest. The lack of education and cognitive dissonance makes them prime targets for opinion channels like Fox News -- which is by their own admission entertainment, not actual news. But there's also Limbaugh, Coulter and a host of other heroes they worship no matter how hateful their speech is.

The far right likes to label. It keeps things simple. There are only two genders, you're one of 4 or 5 races, and your either Christian or you're not Christian. Possibly the most important labels are Republican and Democrat, because one of them is the enemy. There's a sense that leftists have too much control over the country -- destroying the moral fabric.

Many from the left believe that the rich get rich by exploiting others and selfishly hoarding capital, thus limiting opportunity for others. They argue that wealth distribution should be forced for these people who take far more than they give. The far right calls this 'theft', and rich people have no obligation to give back to the system they took so much from.

The far right sees individualism as a natural state, and that we're not all in this together. They don't believe they should have to help others, especially when it comes to healthcare. I find these individualists to be more libertarian than they realize, generally be the most aggressive, to be against the government (unlike their more paleocon brethren), own a gun, avoid education and science, and have much faith in the free market.

I also sense much anger from the far right. The name-calling and aggression towards liberals is unnerving. Every liberal "snowflake" on this site knows what I'm talking about.



The question is "How are conservatives and liberals different?"

Eric Trump said that Democrats aren't even human. That's a significant difference.

Aren't you just taking all you consider evil and slapping a label on it? Just easy to slap the liberal label on it. Especially when your evidence is Republican and Trump liberal, always has been.

[Standing Wolf]

All laws are discriminatory. The 14th does not say what you seem to think it says.

A law may discriminate with a sound legal or practical basis - as in the example I gave about the ten-year-old who wanted a driver's license. Laws forbidding same-sex marriage have no more sound legal or practical basis than did anti-miscegenation laws, and do nothing but assuage the fears and prejudices of certain groups of citizens at the expense of others' right to equal treatment.

[Chris]

The truth is that the state had absolutely no interest, let alone a compelling one, in redefining marriage to suit a tiny minority of sexual deviants. Carry on.

The state, especially the federal government, should have no say in it. Let people decide. But then you can't bend society to agendas. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

[Standing Wolf]

That is right. That means that if a state defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, they can't arbitrarily just make exceptions to that and decide that it is okay for some men to marry men and some women to marry women, but not others. If the law states that you may marry only a member of the opposite sex, that has to apply equally to everyone.

And if a state decides that only White men will be allowed to hunt? That only women will be allowed to be out past 10 p.m.?

[Mister D]

The state, especially the federal government, should have no say in it. Let people decide. But then you can't bend society to agendas. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
The state has an existential interest in marriage and family life. It always has but it has absolutely no interest in improving the self-esteem of a tiny minority of sexual deviants. Gay marriage is inane. Obviously, the trend these days is toward ever more "liberty" at the expense of society. It is what it is. Just don't give me (not you personally) this song and dance about rights and discrimination. It's bologna. Cheap bologna. Snouts and anus!

[Standing Wolf]

This might be a good place to point out that the justices of the Supreme Court do not sit around going through the newspaper, picking out cases they'd like to see come before them. The cases they hear are brought to them by the people. It's Obergefell v. Hodges...not the U.S. v. Hodges, or the SCOTUS v. Hodges. If a state government is violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, why would anyone believe it to be inappropriate for the highest court in the land to act in the matter?

[Dr. Who]

That is right. That means that if a state defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman, they can't arbitrarily just make exceptions to that and decide that it is okay for some men to marry men and some women to marry women, but not others. If the law states that you may marry only a member of the opposite sex, that has to apply equally to everyone.

Since defining marriage involves legislation (thus the law), the act of defining marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman is discriminatory. The state's interest in legal marriage is tied to the legal rights and obligations that flow therefrom. In that respect, it has no rational compelling interest to restrict marriage to a contract between a male and a female. The only reason that a state would seek to legally restrict marriage is for political reasons i.e. making discriminatory laws to appease the sensibilities of those who either object to same sex marriage on religious grounds or because of a prejudice against homosexual relationships. Were the state not empowered to adjudicate the legal rights and obligations that flow from marriage, there would be no conversation because people would just marry as they so pleased.

[Chris]

The state has an existential interest in marriage and family life. It always has but it has absolutely no interest in improving the self-esteem of a tiny minority of sexual deviants. Gay marriage is inane. Obviously, the trend these days is toward ever more "liberty" at the expense of society. It is what it is. Just don't give me (not you personally) this song and dance about rights and discrimination. It's bologna. Cheap bologna. Snouts and anus!

It also has, I think, an existential interest in protecting the unborn. The state seems set against itself.

[Beevee]

Everything other than he is doing.
He picks a team he trusts, until he doesn't. He tweets a phrase and then contradicts it. He lies but doesn't know or care that he is doing it. He alienates his allies and makes friends with his enemies.
You tell me that's what a president does and I will believe you.

[Chris]

And if a state decides that only White men will be allowed to hunt? That only women will be allowed to be out past 10 p.m.?

Exactly where arguing positive law falls flat on it's face.

[del]

exactly where living in a fantasy libertarian daydream does the same thing

[Mister D]

exactly where living in a fantasy libertarian daydream does the same thing
The flaws inherent in arguing from positive law have nothing to do with libertarianism.

[Mister D]

It also has, I think, an existential interest in protecting the unborn. The state seems set against itself.
Good point. I think that stems from the fact that the contemporary liberal state does not govern. It manages a population at odds with one another. Each of us jealously guard our "rights". Thus state power inevitably grows. There is no place where its dictates must not reign supreme. All in the name of liberty and equality of course.

[Chris]

exactly where living in a fantasy libertarian daydream does the same thing

Such as? Come on, come down out of the peanut gallery, argue something.

[Mister D]

Such as? Come on, come down out of the peanut gallery, argue something.
Good luck.

[Green Arrow]

It's my view that conservatism and liberalism (of the American variety, at least) are religions more than they are real political viewpoints. Much of what each side believes can be boiled down to vapid talking points with no real specifics involved. They meet all the qualifiers: "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful," "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity," and "of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances." Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious) For conservatives, whether they realize it or not, the pantheon of ideological gods consist of Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, and Adam Smith. Like any religion, they have their off-shoot sects, such as conservative Christians, who have strangely managed to deftly weave together the mortal selfishness of Ayn Rand with the harsh and archaic laws of the Old Testament, conveniently ignoring the more social and selfless passages of the Bible.

Liberals owe their religious devotion to other sources, but the chief head of their godhood is Bill Clinton, their religious dogma his Third Way centrism. Like conservatism, they have their own off-shoots, like the leftward pining followers of Bernie Sanders. The Clintonite liberals have a similar dogma of radical selfishness to that of the conservatives, though theirs manifests more in ruthless opportunism. How else could one explain a Third Way centrist like Hillary Clinton supporting single-payer one moment, and then turning around and relentlessly criticizing it and other leftward proposals (like affordable college) as useless pipe-dreams? Radical selfishness, and ruthless opportunism.

Both groups and their various denominations are radically devoted to their respective dogmas, but are always, without fail, lacking entirely in any specific manner to achieve those dogmas. So, they wait for the second comings of their lords and saviors, and for the days when their gods will cleanse the earth of their opponents and recreate their blessed utopias.

Amen.

[donttread]

Okay, we had a thread a little while ago that had a similar theme, but it got off to a rocky start, so I thought I would try it again.

I am generally interested on seeing how we see each other on this forum and in society, as general. We all know the common images, of the hand wringing, bed wetting Liberal and the stone hearted, greedy Conservative, but is that really how we see each other or are those images just tools to get a reaction from the other side? If that is how we see each other, are those perceptions justified by reality, or is it just natural to demonize your opposition?

We spend a lot of time hurling insults back and forth and just as much time defending against them. Let's see if we actually believe there is anything to them. Try to be civil. I suspect that temps might run a little high if we get any participation, but if we get out of control the mods will have to do their jobs and that will just kill the topic. I hope they participate in the thread and provide their insight and don't have to pull the trigger on anybody.

I do think we often clump our opposition into one big bundle, even though we know they aren't all the same, just as we are not all the same. I view Liberalism, as it is largely practiced today, as counter productive and detrimental to the well being of the country. I recognize however, that most Liberals don't want to destroy the nation any more than we do. I tend to see Liberals as existing on at least two different levels. There are the radical, ignore the Constitution, do whatever makes me feel good bunch and there are those I refer to as HHH Liberals. These are people who fit more into the "classical" Liberal model and would probably be great fans of Hubert H. Humphrey if they knew who he was. I think we have some of both on this board.

I know Conservatives can also be placed into subgroups, but rather than state how I see them, I would like to see how the Left sees us. I have my own ideas of what I consider Conservative and what I think Conservatives should be and I have little doubt I will be posting them, whether anyone is interested in them or not.

Are Liberals a bunch of bed wetters looking for handouts? Do Conservatives eat children for breakfast?

Here is a chance to voice your HONEST opinions.


First and foremost these words are insuffucent partial definitions. One can easily be fiscally conservative and socially liberal or even vice versa. You could be more liberal concerning state politics than you are concerning federal politics as well. They are thrown around so much as intended insults that these terms have lost what little meaning they once had.
Besides we live on a globe , if one goes far enough left and another far enough right they will meet . No doubt in some place of serious control, but they will meet.
I'd prefer a controlism scale as I have said before.

[Standing Wolf]

They are thrown around so much as intended insults that these terms have lost what little meaning they once had.

Exactly true. Especially in a sterile place like an Internet discussion forum, far removed from flesh-and-blood reality, the whole of a person's views are replaced with stereotypes - nuanced decisions and choices with hard-edged, cartoonish opinions. Bad, negative motives are laid onto anyone not in agreement with the other guy on any single issue, and judgments made about character based on them as well. As I have noted a hundred times here at this point, it is intellectual laziness - whether it's "Libs worship the State" or "Conservatives are selfish racists". It is people not wanting to take the time or expend the mental energy to work out why the other guy is wrong, or risk figuring out that maybe, in some cases, he really isn't.

[Chris]

One thing cons and libs have in common is the more they criticize the use of the terms the more they use the terms.