MigL

Oh, I'm stressed John ! Being in neither the Liberal or Conservative camp, I'm stressed out by all the things mentioned in the blog ( chill out Acme, I know this is a serious discussion, but surely we can have some fun with it too ), PLUS, I have to worry about the National and provincial debt ( in Canada of course ). I ( and every other man, woman and child ) have the equivalent of a small mortgage thanks to our Government's continued attempts to buy elections by bribing us with reckless spending and refusal to even try to balance budgets. No true Liberal would ever worry about that.

But surely that doesn't show that either the manipulators or the manipulated are insane, does it Phi ? The manipulators, and Overtone can list several for you at a moment's notice, use every means available to them to further their own agenda and get their way. Things like campaign financing by big corporations or the use of religion ( family values ) to sway people's votes. The manipulated are often just ignorant of the issues and just react to campaign slogans or on an emotional level. So yes, you have some people who use Office or politics for their own agenda and not the greater good. You want to call these people bad; I'm OK with that. You also have some people who can easily be swayed by these 'bad' people. You want to call them ignorant ( of the issues ); I'm OK with that too. But if I choose not to have the Government and society be responsible for me and my actions, rather, recognise some personal responsability, or, if I hope the government governs as I live my life, with some restraints on spending, instead of living large today, while my heirs or future generations are stuck with the bill ( both examples of Conservative values ), does that make me insane? I choose to think not. You of course, are free to think of me as you will ( an example of one of many Liberal values that I cherish, 'tolerance' and 'right to an opinion' ). So, if you notice, it most certainly is about people.

Well yeah, I'm making it about people ( and including myself ). Does that make me thin skinned?

If you recognize yourself as 'insane', you're either wrong or insane. I don't see how you could have heard differently. But seriously. I have never disputed the fact that there are wingnuts on all sides of the political spectrum, and yes a lot of them are Republicans. What I have said is that SOME Conservative principles are beneficial to society and to me ( in my opinion ). I am also of the opinion that SOME Liberal principles are beneficial to society ( and me of course ). I have weighted these principles, and other policies put forward at election time, and directed my voting accordingly. Sadly, never in an American election, even though your elections affect us almost as much as our own do. I believe a lot of other people do as I do, But maybe the US is more ideological and people tend to vote as they and their families always have, without actually examining the issues. From my perspective, that doesn't give me the right to call others with differing opinions, 'insane'. And of course I don't have Overtone's perspective; he may be really pissed-off at the state of American politics ( with a lot of good reasons ). And he may see fit to call those he blames for the current state of affairs 'insane'. That's his personal choice to do so.

I don't see how your post or link disproves my assertion. The corporation mentioned in your link, along with many others were set up by the government to provide jobs. Some of these corporations even provided money to other corporations, such as the state, or even at the local level, such as municipalities, to provide jobs for people. That is the difference, NO handouts were provided to people, jobs were. That's what fueled the recovery ! I made NO mention of tax cuts to anyone, rich or poor, in any of my posts, nor of the government giving money to rich people for the purpose of hiring. I said money was given to corporations like the one set up by the government mentioned in your link, or associations, like farmers and labour unions ( although most of these corporations/associations were run by comparatively rich people ) Maybe my understanding of economics is limited, but I do know some history. All money was provided from the top-down, and what actually filtered down to the people was JOBS. Organizations/corporations got money; people got jobs ! So since you seem to have a better grasp of economics, maybe you can explain to me how that's different from my ( limited ) understanding of 'trickle down'. As for the second half of your post ( not actually addressed to me ), where you mention how all the crap spouted by Republican 'talking heads' came back to bite them in the ass after GWB took office, I agree with you. But how is that different from Democrat promises of change, like shutting down Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq, restoring the economy to Clinton era levels, resolving immigration issues etc. How did that work out ? The realities of office are always different from the fantasy of campaign promises ! By yours ( and John's ) definition, are we, then, ALL insane for believing the things which get said during elections ( or by paid-for shills and 'talking heads' ) ?

You guys ????? First off, don't attribute arguments to me that I haven't made. Secondly, I am a Canadian and probably far more liberal than you'll ever be. I just have an aversion to calling others names or insulting their integrity/credibility. You on the other hand have no such aversion as you've demonstrated in every one of your posts. I believe everyone has a right to an opinion, and calling them names or 'labelling' then is an ignorant attempt at dismissing their opinion. And yes, President Obama could have re-negotiated or imposed further rules on the bail-out, unlike the war financing. You still seem to think that the government sent out cheques to people post the great depression, and 'hired' them individually to do work ( it was after all the people's own money they were re-distributing ). They did not ! They either set-up corporations or hired corporations to assign make work projects to. These corporations, in turn hired the people such that unemployment fell drastically, and as more and more people found work, increased confidence led to more spending. That's what turned around the economy! And don't spout any bullsh*t about Hitler or Mussolini. What do they have to do with anything ? Or do you think that by associating me with them you can de-value my argument ? Like you do with the namecalling ?

Maybe you should look at a simple definition of 'trickle down' economics ( later re-christened ' supply side economics' for spin ), overtone. " Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big business, as they supply the jobs which will improve the economy for all " Now you're right, tax breaks were not provided to the rich, but massive amounts of money were provided to big business, who then provided the jobs that turned around the great depression. The term 'trickle down economics' may not have been in use at the time , but that is essentially what it was ! And sure, the Troubled Asset Relief ( or is it Release ) program was initiated by GWB in 2008, and the first half of the bail out went out in Oct-Nov of that year. The second half did not get released until the spring of 2009, when BO was in office, meaning he also approved of the method of dealing with the situation ( again, not passing judgement, just statement of facts ). And if you go back to my post #241, you'll see that I had stated that it is not only conservatives, but also supposed liberals ( President BO ), that throw money at big business if the situation deems it necessary. Oh, and making a thinly veiled implication that my memory is failing me, I'm trying to re-write history or live in a fictional world, is simply an attack on me, not my argument. The only purpose of which is to discredit my ideas and opinions similarly to what the title of this thread attempts to do. I thought you were above that overtone. I must have been crazy !

I'm saying there's nothing 'insane' about people who have conservative values ( and probably also some liberal values ), That is what I have objected to right from the start of this thread. It is an attempt to label people and ideas as irrelevant and unworthy of discussion. But there obviously are people who could be considered insane. Also note that I did not claim that Pres. Obama caused the recession. rather, when he took office, he reacted to it by bailing out the banks ( not judging his actions, just stating what he did ). And you're right, American Democrats are not considered Liberal nor progressive in Europe or Canada. As for 'trickle down' or 'supply side' economics, they seem to have worked rather well in bringing the US out of the Great Depression. Poor people weren't given tax cuts nor were the rich taxed more heavily. The government injected massive amounts of money in make work projects ( with industry a.k.a. big business ), who then provided jobs to the common people.

Since the two examples you brought up are easy to refute, that makes my job a lot easier. "Trickle down' economics, or the idea that giving tax breaks to big business or the wealthy, will stimulate the economy, is not just a Reagan Conservative policy. It is used in every State, in Canada, and even in England/Scotland/Ireland. Business Tax rates are always lower than personal Tax rates in order to attract and keep business and industry in a particular area, no matter if that area is governed by Liberals, Conservatives or even Socialists. And no 'person' has ever gotten a Government subsidy as businesses often do. As for Tax breaks to the wealthy, IIRC, it was President Obama, a Democrat, who bailed out the bankers and investors who caused the crash of 2008, so they could give themselves bonuses for a 'job well done', while the people who lost their homes are still suffering 6 yrs later ( yes, I know, a very 'simplistic' analysis ). I don't know how many Conservatives would claim that wealth inequality is a good thing. Probably just as many as the filthy rich Liberals ( Democrats ) who hold political office in the US. Or doo you know of any who have given away their fortunes to run for political office ? Here in Canada we have a former Liberal Prime Minister, who was a Finance Minister during the period of biggest spending cuts by a government ( 2003-2005 ), and who happens to own Canada Steamship Lines, every single ocean going vessel of which, is registered in Liberia to avoid Canadian taxes. But back to your original assertion ( A is a subset of B ), that is not my personal opinion of how things work. There is no such thing as a 'conservative' or a 'liberal'. We as individuals, pick and choose policies we like from the conservative or liberal menu. The labels we assign to each other do the harm. As an example, equal rights were first championed by Conservatives in the US, yet Liberals are always called 'progressive', never Conservatives. And is 'change' or 'progression' always a good thing ? I don't think anyone would disagree that running trillion dollar deficits is a bad thing, especially for your kids who will have to pay down that debt. And as Phi for All suggested previously, it is not a bad thing if your daughter dresses conservatively

Of course I do, John. But do you also accept that there's no logical route from 'deluded or lying nut-job on FOX News' to 'all Conservatives are insane' ?

Well some Frenchmen would argue that Napoleon WAS same, why would it make him insane to claim so ? ( was that a bad joke, if so, my apologies )

Neither delusional or dishonest is in any definition of insane. Neither does he represent ALL who label themselves 'conservative'.

Completely understand, swansont. It was meant more as a joke ( why does no-one get my sense of humor ? ). I just like poking fun at Sean Connery. Like Will Farrel in the 'Jeopardy' skit on SNL.

What do you mean this isn't a democracy, swansont ? I just painted a little Hitler mustache on your picture of Sean Connery !

Oh, that's why politicians are always screwing us.

It seems that since a few 'loony tunes' characters of the American Conservative party initiated the Tea Party movement, it has become fashionable in the media and amongst people who consider themselves 'intelligentsia' ( better than the unwashed masses ), to put down ALL conservatives based on the thinking of a few. Even though I would wager that quite a few of you have at least a few conservative traits. Like cradn727 has stated, its just a matter of degree. What is the cut-off point for considering someone insane John ? Is it when 40% of your group believe in something illogical ? Or is it 70% ? And who determines this cut-off point ? You ? ( I've read a lot of your posts over the last couple of yrs. and seen you get a little 'crazy' ) And thank you Overtone for proving my point. When you can't make a valid argument, just call the opposition a jackass, or the opposing political point of view insane. How 'morally high ground' of you !

What I would get worked up over , is the fact that overtone waits until I've left the discussion to attack points I made, not having had the ba*ls to it before like you Tenoz , and JohnC, While your political leanings are not a race that you are born into, do you doubt that as a group , black Americans have a certain set of beliefs based on their environment and upbringing ? And how exactly are you born into a religion ? Because your parents were ? What if your parents leaned towards certain politics ? And what of people who change religion ? Are you that obtuse, overtone, that you don't see these as groups or demographics with a large number of common shared beliefs ? Just like Right and Left are groups with a core of shared beliefs, and some that are not so universal, but more local or even singular. The examples you cited are my examples and I am neither conservative or American. But I do have integrity, unlike what you demonstrated. Next time address me directly in your post and I'll come back ( as I have ). No need to wait till I've announced my intentions of quitting the topic.

My apologies for the mis-statement, Acme. The holidays ARE insane; people who take/observe them ARE NOT. See the difference ? Sorry again. I just couldn't resist one last poke.

The only part of your post which relates to my objections follows the word 'because' in the 4th line. In case you still don't understand my objections, this has nothing to do with right wing principles. You don't like them, and there's quite a few I don't like. So ATTACK THOSE PRINCIPLES, not the people by calling them names. Incidentally, this is the same principle the moderators always urge us to use ( attack the idea, not the person ), or are you gonna start calling everyone whose post gets moved to the Speculations Forum insane also. And this applies to you too, Tenoz, remember, an idea can only be right or wrong, only a person can be insane, So you are not labelling the idea, you are labelling the person, and I think that's wrong.. I will discuss right versus left ideology with anyone ( remember, I am Canadian, our Conservatives are more left wing than American Democrats), but did not read the book Acme wanted me to, because of the title which slights half the American population. Any time a discussion discends into name calling, it is an attempt to stifle further discussion by taking away the oppositin's right to have an opinion. That is my opinion, I hope you respect my opinion as much as I do yours, John, and I will not be saying anything further on the matter ( but I'll still check in on further developements in this thread, yes, I'm a masochist ).

Still don't agree with you. Name calling is name calling and belongs in a schoolyard. I ( and I know you do also ) expect better in an intelligent discussion. I'll let you guys get back to labeling people. That's always helped.

Really Willie ? I like some conservative ideas, yet I don't fit into any of the stereotypes you just mentioned. I also like a lot of liberal ideas. And I dislike quite a few from both camps. I suspect there's an awful lot of people like me. Where do we fit in your world view ?What're you gonna do ? Label us also, and call us confused ?

Did the part about the beliefs a few Muslims have, or the beliefs a few black Americans have, totally go over your head ? A belief is an opinion they have, just like Conservatism, and painting everyone with the same broad brush is still wrong.

But again you are generalizing. Not all on the right have those beliefs. As a matter of fact, there is a significant number on the left who hold Creationism in high esteem, just as an example. So what's the magic number for painting everyone in the group with the same brush ? Is it 10%, 30%, 50%+1, or what ? When does an unfair generalization become unfair ? And when are you gonna start applying it to Muslims and black Americans, and Immigrants , and homosexuals, and women, and the elderly, etc. etc.

I'm gonna be an ass just to prove my point... If I was to say ALL muslims are insane because they believe in jihad and blowing themselves up to get virgins in heaven, I'd be an ignorant idiot, and you, Tenoz, along with JohnC., Acme and others would be the first to jump all over me. The truth is only some act that way because of the way they interpret their beliefs. If I was to say ALL black Americans are insane because they aspire to be gangstas and drug dealers, who support anarchy and riot and loot at every opportunity, I'd also be very wrong, and again I'd hear it from you guys. The truth is only a few of them believe that revenge on 'whitey' can make up for the past wrongings and current disadvantages. I could continue with other groups, but I'd be wrong generalizing about them also. So I ask you, why is it OK to label a certain demographic, and consider them insane, for their beliefs. If you wanna argue that those beliefs are wrong, that's fine, I'll even agree with a lot of those complaints ( just like I'd agree with a lot of the complaints against the left, they have their faults too ), but labeling them insane is an insult ( to almost half the American people ), and that has been my objection right fro the start of this topic

And what exactly about political reality is sane ???