World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[jp1]

"Just don't shove those beliefs on others"

Did... did any of the liberals get that memo? Because I have heard that more times in my life than I'd like to admit, yet when I say that, I'm the asshole.

To pick a standard issue, gay marriage. Conservatives don't want it allowed, liberals want it allowed. If conservatives ban gay marriage that pushes their belief that two people of the same sex shouldn't marry on everyone else, such as the two people of the same sex. In the reverse, the conservative who doesn't think gay marriage is ok isn't suddenly obligated to get gay married even though it is now an option. That's why it's a case of conservatives pushing their beliefs on others but not the other way around. Many of the hot button social issues tend to follow this pattern of conservatives going "you can't do that" and liberals saying "you should be allowed to do that if you want to". Not all of them; gun control being a notable outlier.

I think this is more authoritarian vs libertarian, not necessarily liberal/conservative.

Conservatives want to restrict things like gay marriage and abortions etc... But many liberal type restrictions such as guns like you mentioned, and things like limited soda sizes, the controlling kids school lunches (even ones brought from home), video game violence (though this has been bipartisan, it seems many of the frontrunners on this have been democrats).

What bugs the more fiscal conservatives the most though is the raised taxes forcing us to pay or support things some don't agree with. So, I think it goes both ways.

To the point of being taxed for things we don't believe in, I think that is a problem for everyone. For instance I don't support capital punishment yet I am forced to pay for it. It's an unfortunate problem we can't avoid.

[ElkinFencer10]

To the point of being taxed for things we don't believe in, I think that is a problem for everyone. For instance I don't support capital punishment yet I am forced to pay for it. It's an unfortunate problem we can't avoid.

I don't support wasting tax dollars on charter schools and private school vouchers, but my state still dumped $22 million into that bullshit this year while we traditional public school teachers made 10 packs of paper last for 90 kids over the course of 36 weeks.

[Jmustang1968]

To the point of being taxed for things we don't believe in, I think that is a problem for everyone. For instance I don't support capital punishment yet I am forced to pay for it. It's an unfortunate problem we can't avoid.

I don't support wasting tax dollars on charter schools and private school vouchers, but my state still dumped $22 million into that bullshit this year while we traditional public school teachers made 10 packs of paper last for 90 kids over the course of 36 weeks.

I am sure we all have spending complaints we could bring up. Though, Elkin's is more on the state level.

[jp1]

To the point of being taxed for things we don't believe in, I think that is a problem for everyone. For instance I don't support capital punishment yet I am forced to pay for it. It's an unfortunate problem we can't avoid.

I don't support wasting tax dollars on charter schools and private school vouchers, but my state still dumped $22 million into that bullshit this year while we traditional public school teachers made 10 packs of paper last for 90 kids over the course of 36 weeks.

I am sure we all have spending complaints we could bring up. Though, Elkin's is more on the state level.

Of course. My point being that even if you find yourself as a fiscal conservative paying for more liberal minded taxes, we are returning the favor. Our taxation on topics that are important to you (whatever they may be, not suggesting capital punishment is one of them) should offset you paying for things you do not believe in.

In a perfect world we could all just pay taxes for the set of beliefs we have, but something tells me that a whole lot of people would suddenly decide not much at all is important enough to them to open their wallet. That's not a political problem, but a human problem.

[Jmustang1968]

I don't support wasting tax dollars on charter schools and private school vouchers, but my state still dumped $22 million into that bullshit this year while we traditional public school teachers made 10 packs of paper last for 90 kids over the course of 36 weeks.

I am sure we all have spending complaints we could bring up. Though, Elkin's is more on the state level.

Of course. My point being that even if you find yourself as a fiscal conservative paying for more liberal minded taxes, we are returning the favor. Our taxation on topics that are important to you (whatever they may be, not suggesting capital punishment is one of them) should offset you paying for things you do not believe in.

In a perfect world we could all just pay taxes for the set of beliefs we have, but something tells me that a whole lot of people would suddenly decide not much at all is important enough to them to open their wallet. That's not a political problem, but a human problem.

In general though, liberal governments are bigger, require more taxes, more spending etc...

[marurun]

In general though, liberal governments are bigger, require more taxes, more spending etc...

In general, nations with more liberal governments tend to have higher standards of living, a better educated populace, and reduced income inequality. Broadly speaking, of course. There are ALWAYS exceptions. And nations with those characteristics are more likely to opt for more liberal-leaning government.

[Ack]

In general though, liberal governments are bigger, require more taxes, more spending etc...

In general, nations with more liberal governments tend to have higher standards of living, a better educated populace, and reduced income inequality. Broadly speaking, of course. There are ALWAYS exceptions. And nations with those characteristics are more likely to opt for more liberal-leaning government.

In general, this interpretation of the meaning of "liberal" can mean something vastly different to other interpretations. The term now has multiple meanings, so a "classically liberal" individual is different from a "socially liberal" individual or a "conservatively liberal" person or an "economically liberal" one.

[marurun]

Part of the argument for Marco Rubio's campaign in a general election is that he might appeal to more Hispanic voters than any other Republican candidate.

Every party wants to expand their membership, but they have to do that by supporting political imperatives that are important to the groups they want to attract. The Republican party has long been attracted to Hispanic voters because they tend to be religious, but practical Republican policy has been hostile to many issues that are critically important to Hispanic voters, like issues of immigration and relations with Mexico and South and Central America. And Marco Rubio's pretty face isn't going to really change the party's core policy initiatives.

Democrats would probably love to pick up more white southerners, too, but until they decide to tailor more policy decisions toward that particular group, it ain't happening.

In general, nations with more liberal governments tend to have higher standards of living, a better educated populace, and reduced income inequality. Broadly speaking, of course. There are ALWAYS exceptions. And nations with those characteristics are more likely to opt for more liberal-leaning government.

In general, this interpretation of the meaning of "liberal" can mean something vastly different to other interpretations. The term now has multiple meanings, so a "classically liberal" individual is different from a "socially liberal" individual or a "conservatively liberal" person or an "economically liberal" one.

True, dat. There's actually also quite a bit of overlap between libertarian and liberal ideology. In the US, libertarianism tends to focus a lot more on economic libertarianism and only selectively on socio-cultural libertarianism (at least outside a certain mainstream "norm), which is why it is often associated with Republican conservatism.

[ElkinFencer10]

I wish we'd just ditch the bullshit two party system and get a decent four or five major parties. Imagine if we only had Playstation or Xbox - no PC, no Nintendo, no handhelds, not even quirky microconsoles for the lulz. Just Playstation or Xbox, where the people who are involved with one or the other can see the differences, but they're pretty similar to the average onlooker. The Democrats and the Republicans are VERY different when you get into platforms and ideals, but to the average, disillusioned American, it can get hard to tell how they're different (especially with Third Way Democrats like the Clintons).

[Ack]

I wish we'd just ditch the bullshit two party system and get a decent four or five major parties. Imagine if we only had Playstation or Xbox - no PC, no Nintendo, no handhelds, not even quirky microconsoles for the lulz. Just Playstation or Xbox, where the people who are involved with one or the other can see the differences, but they're pretty similar to the average onlooker. The Democrats and the Republicans are VERY different when you get into platforms and ideals, but to the average, disillusioned American, it can get hard to tell how they're different (especially with Third Way Democrats like the Clintons).

Imagine if it were only Nintendo and Sega.

Oh wait...

And Marco Rubio's pretty face isn't going to really change the party's core policy initiatives.

Truth, and at least we agree it's a pretty face.