The Forgotten Man

[RLMullen]

<snip all the nonsensical bullshit out>

You guys have been moving the goal posts since I arrived at this forum in 2000/2001. What used to be conservative you now consider wacko. What used to be moderate, you now consider conservative.

The damn goal posts aren't even in this freakin stadium anymore. You sold the franchise to a new flipping city.

This forum is an amazing example of hive-mind. A cluster of core people relentlessly ridicule and attack beliefs that are not in perfect alignment with their own. This inevitably results in one of two outcomes with people: either they move toward the hive-mind (usually unintentionally and gradually) or they leave and stop posting.

And before you start up with the 'msduncan is playing victim' shit, I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

You've got it completely wrong. The hive-mind isn't OO. The hive-mind is the modern conservate movement, and this movement has completely destroyed the Republican party.

I'm still a registered Republican, mostly due to lazyness, and somewhat due to there not being a pure anti-authoritarian party. As a Republican I cannot favor legalization of drugs because that makes me pro-criminal and anti-police. I cannot favor gay-marriage because that makes me anti-family. I cannot favor cuts in defense because that makes me anti-troops. I cannot favor raising the capital gains tax rate because that makes me a redistributive socialist. I cannot favor increased regulation of "wall street" because that makes me anti-jobs. I cannot favor a sensible immigration policy because that makes me... I don't know what that would make me other than a sensible American.

If you need further proof of the republican hive-mind look no further than rapidly increasing popularity and use of the term RINO.

The only glimmer of hope that I can see in the Republican party is the surprising amount of popularity of Ron Paul. Paul is extreme, and in some cases a complete loon, but his popularity says that there is a movement in the party that I hope will culminate in kicking the family-values-social-conservatives to the curb. Busting up this current crop of self-styled "Modern Conservatives" is the only way to keep the Republicans and conservatives in general from becoming an army of political zombies.

[Chrisoc13]

<snip all the nonsensical bullshit out>

You guys have been moving the goal posts since I arrived at this forum in 2000/2001. What used to be conservative you now consider wacko. What used to be moderate, you now consider conservative.

The damn goal posts aren't even in this freakin stadium anymore. You sold the franchise to a new flipping city.

This forum is an amazing example of hive-mind. A cluster of core people relentlessly ridicule and attack beliefs that are not in perfect alignment with their own. This inevitably results in one of two outcomes with people: either they move toward the hive-mind (usually unintentionally and gradually) or they leave and stop posting.

And before you start up with the 'msduncan is playing victim' shit, I'm proud to say I haven't budged in the decade I've been here, and frankly I think it bugs the shit out of some of the hive-mind.

You've got it completely wrong. The hive-mind isn't OO. The hive-mind is the modern conservate movement, and this movement has completely destroyed the Republican party.

I'm still a registered Republican, mostly due to lazyness, and somewhat due to there not being a pure anti-authoritarian party. As a Republican I cannot favor legalization of drugs because that makes me pro-criminal and anti-police. I cannot favor gay-marriage because that makes me anti-family. I cannot favor cuts in defense because that makes me anti-troops. I cannot favor raising the capital gains tax rate because that makes me a redistributive socialist. I cannot favor increased regulation of "wall street" because that makes me anti-jobs. I cannot favor a sensible immigration policy because that makes me... I don't know what that would make me other than a sensible American.

If you need further proof of the republican hive-mind look no further than rapidly increasing popularity and use of the term RINO.

The only glimmer of hope that I can see in the Republican party is the surprising amount of popularity of Ron Paul. Paul is extreme, and in some cases a complete loon, but his popularity says that there is a movement in the party that I hope will culminate in kicking the family-values-social-conservatives to the curb. Busting up this current crop of self-styled "Modern Conservatives" is the only way to keep the Republicans and conservatives in general from becoming an army of political zombies.

While I don't agree with everything MSD said I do agree that OO gets a little bit of hive mind going on from time to time. From my perspective his point of that occurring is very valid.

[hepcat]

To be fair, it may seem like a hive mind at times, but the truth is that those few who are perceived as the leaders usually win any argument they're involved in. When you're constantly being proving wrong by others, it's easy to think the world's against you.

[RunningMn9]

While I don't agree with everything MSD said I do agree that OO gets a little bit of hive mind going on from time to time. From my perspective his point of that occurring is very valid.

I think that msduncan explained the problem rather specifically, but failed to recognize where the fault lies.

What he perceives to be a "hive mind" that has change the goal posts over the years is really just an observation of the evolving nature of a group. The problem though isn't the group that clearly shows that they aren't closed minded to contrary thoughts (if I was, how on earth did I get from there to here?).

The problem is that as some of our positions have matured and changed over the years, his have remained rigidly in place.

I have has this argument for years with my brother. To some, being right is more important than anything else. And for those people, thy rigidly adhere to a viewpoint, and frame every discussion from the viewpoint of being right at all costs.

To others, being correct is more important. Given that a person is always going to be wrong about some things it stands to reason that as they pursue being correct, they will seek to find out if a position they hold is correct, and if not, they change it.

Maybe not always to something correct, but hopefully over time it is more correct. In a group of such people, it will appear like a moving hive-mind that might even appear frustrated with an individual stoically adheres to a position, simply because they had it. When contrary evidence and reason is discarded simply because it doesn't agree with the position.

When the perpetuation of your position becomes your primary goal, even when it is wrong (and we would have to presume that over the course of the last 10 years, msduncan must have been wrong about at least one position that he has championed, no?), that isn't something to be proud of.

If you are aware of it, that is something to correct.

[Pyperkub]

Th other thing is the segregation of news sources. Increasingly the news diet is tailored to expected political beliefs that reinforce those beliefs rather than challenges them. I found this WaPo article following the SC primaries really interesting:

Once upon a time — oh, about two presidential elections ago — Dianne Belsom would get up in the morning and read the paper, taking in news stories about candidates and campaigns. Some stuff she agreed with, some she didn’t.

This morning, Belsom wakes in her splendidly restored pink Victorian on Main Street in this rural South Carolina town, makes coffee and settles in at her desktop to fire up Facebook. There on her news feed are more than 100 stories that some of her 460 friends have posted since Belsom went to bed eight hours ago.

Over the next three hours, Belsom bops around the Web checking out the latest campaign news. Her sources are big and small, from nearby Greenville to faraway California, but they have one thing in common: With rare exceptions, the news and commentary sites Belsom visits share her worldview, which she describes as “conservative, tea party, Christian.”...

...About two-thirds of Fox News viewers are Christian conservatives, but only a quarter of those who watch “The Daily Show” or “The Colbert Report” fit that description, Pew found in 2010. Six in 10 CNN viewers call themselves progressives, compared with only a third of Wall Street Journal readers and a quarter of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s audience. Over the past decade, Republicans have listened to more talk radio as Democrats have watched more late-night topical comedy TV. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to read a daily newspaper, and liberals are more than twice as likely as conservatives to listen to NPR.

Fox, the only one of the three cable news outlets whose audience has grown sharply in recent years, has won over a strongly Republican audience: 40 percent of Americans who align with the party are regular Fox viewers.

The more clearly defined a voter’s political leanings, the more likely that person is to identify a few trusted news sources.

It's really fascinating, and I see it a lot on Memeorandum too where the primarily conservative writers/blogs/papers all link to and talk about the same topics, and conversely the primarily liberal writers/blogs/papers are circle-jerking too. It's the rare ones who can straddle both worlds.

(Edit: fixed link)

[geezer]

What he perceives to be a "hive mind" that has change the goal posts over the years is really just an observation of the evolving nature of a group. The problem though isn't the group that clearly shows that they aren't closed minded to contrary thoughts (if I was, how on earth did I get from there to here?).

The problem is that as some of our positions have matured and changed over the years, his have remained rigidly in place.

I have has this argument for years with my brother. To some, being right is more important than anything else. And for those people, thy rigidly adhere to a viewpoint, and frame every discussion from the viewpoint of being right at all costs.

To others, being correct is more important. Given that a person is always going to be wrong about some things it stands to reason that as they pursue being correct, they will seek to find out if a position they hold is correct, and if not, they change it.

It's the magic of the free market (of ideas) at work. Something you'd expect msd to embrace, but he's apparently he's the guy that's still proud to be holding his pets.com stock.

[Kraken]

Given that a person is always going to be wrong about some things it stands to reason that as they pursue being correct, they will seek to find out if a position they hold is correct, and if not, they change it.

Even though I never bought the line about WMDs and terrorists, I thought conquering Iraq would turn out to be a geopolitical stroke of genius. Oops. More recently, I believed that Obama would be a transformative figure akin to FDR. Oops. Such evidence-based corrections are comparatively easy to make because they're so obviously wrong.

I'm a lot more supportive of social programs than I used to be after going through years of unemployment and (especially) struggling to keep health insurance. Such experience-based corrections are harder to make because they're more subjective.

Just as some of my posts from 5-10 years ago embarrass me now, I'm sure that some of today's posts will embarrass me after events sweep me into the future, and I'm ok with that. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I can see the appeal of defending some simple core beliefs against all evidence, though.
That would be much easier than admitting errors and changing over time -- especially in an age when, as Pyperkub showed, we can lock ourselves in echo chambers and never leave.

[YellowKing]

YK's comments essentially blame the downturn of the economy on the american people not working hard enough. And that's a republican talking point.

This is a perfect example of why I stopped posting for awhile. People putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Saying "essentially" does not give you the right to completely misconstrue my comments, then use those false comments to further argue your points. Half of Rm9's refutations above are based on the idea that I said things I didn't even say.

There's a pretty good chance that we will vote the same way in November, but I'll be honest - it's thoroughly depressing that you've so willingly pulled the wool back down over your eyes in the past three years.

This statement pretty much sums up the attitude around here. Anyone who disagrees with the liberal hivemind is having the "wool pulled over their eyes" or "being brainwashed." There's never an admission that we may just hold different opinions or philosophies on the way things should be done. It's a line in the sand, "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality. It's very condescending, and it's no wonder that more conservatives don't post here.

If this country only had one "right" political party and another one that was wrong about everything, then we would have crumbled long ago. The very fact that our political system balances out and has so many people so evenly divided tells me that both parties have good ideas and both parties have bad ideas, and the real truth lies somewhere in the middle. And on some issues there is no real truth, just a difference of opinion.

Unfortunately this board does not reflect this. On this board, conservative ideas are always wrong and the product of cult thinking. No person could independently come up with conservative ideas because no person could be that stupid and ignorant.

I love debating politics and participating on the boards, but it gets tiring when all of your ideas are not met with open-minded discussion, but ridicule and derision. When the philosophies you've thought about, read about, and come up with all your life are dismissed in one fell stroke as the product of party-line parroting.

If you all are depressed, I'm just disappointed. Disappointed that I can't engage in friendly debate on an internet forum and have people at least be open-minded enough to discuss an alternative point of view. I'm not playing the victim card, I'm just stating facts. I'm tired of my thoughts being dismissed as party-line brainwashing. I'm tired of Democratic opinion stated as 100% cold fact, and any disagreement being dismissed as being part of the Republican cult or condescending "oh you poor misguided thing" derogatory statements.

[Pyperkub]

The other bothersome thing is this - complaining about corporate/rich behavior has a lot to do with love of our country, and fear for what's happening. It's not about capitalism, unless you truly believe that superPACs are the appropriate end game for capitalism:

Close to 60 corporations and wealthy individuals gave checks of $100,000 or more to a “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, according to documents released on Tuesday, underwriting a $17 million blitz of advertising that has swamped his Republican rivals in the early primary states.

EJ Dionne writes about it in the WaPo today:

We have seen the world created by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and it doesn’t work. Oh, yes, it works nicely for the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country, especially if they want to shroud their efforts to influence politics behind shell corporations. It just doesn’t happen to work if you think we are a democracy and not a plutocracy.

Two years ago, Citizens United tore down a century’s worth of law aimed at reducing the amount of corruption in our electoral system. It will go down as one of the most naive decisions ever rendered by the court...

...In fact, this decision should be seen as part of a larger initiative by moneyed conservatives to rig the electoral system against their opponents. How else to explain conservative legislation in state after state to obstruct access to the ballot by lower-income voters — particularly members of minority groups — through voter identification laws, shortened voting periods and restrictions on voter registration campaigns?

Conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end of the system and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other.

To counter this, the argument is made that Unions can balance the Corporate donations, but the campaign against Unions has been so successful that only 6% or so of Private industry is Unionized, and while that is higher in the public sector (~37%), that does not offset the decline, as the moneyed interests have consolidated more and more power. Overall rates have roughly halved in the past 30 years (from over 20 to less than 12), the same time period that the rich/richer/richest have been consolidating an even larger slice of the pie.

Yay! Money won! At what cost? Oops, better not ask that.

That's not capitalism, that's just playing better politics, and the thing is what happens when you've tilted the board too much in your favor? There has to be some balance...

[noxiousdog]

To counter this, the argument is made that Unions can balance the Corporate donations, but the campaign against Unions has been so successful that only 6% or so of Private industry is Unionized, and while that is higher in the public sector (~37%), that does not offset the decline, as the moneyed interests have consolidated more and more power. Overall rates have roughly halved in the past 30 years (from over 20 to less than 12), the same time period that the rich/richer/richest have been consolidating an even larger slice of the pie.

Yay! Money won! At what cost? Oops, better not ask that.

That's not capitalism, that's just playing better politics, and the thing is what happens when you've tilted the board too much in your favor? There has to be some balance...

How is this argument significantly different than the "Jews control the government through banks" xenophobia we've heard about for 300 years?

[geezer]

YK's comments essentially blame the downturn of the economy on the american people not working hard enough. And that's a republican talking point.

This is a perfect example of why I stopped posting for awhile. People putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Saying "essentially" does not give you the right to completely misconstrue my comments, then use those false comments to further argue your points. Half of Rm9's refutations above are based on the idea that I said things I didn't even say.

You certainly seem to imply that you do believe that, at least in part.

You said:

Redistribution of wealth is not the answer to everybody not having the same opportunity. Taking from people who worked hard and giving it to people who didn't is not a solution. Giving people no incentive to work because the government will hand them everything they need for free is not a viable long-term solution. While nobody will ever have the same opportunity, we can strive to give everyone as much opportunity as possible.

More generally, as someone (RM9 I guess?) already said, look at the actual breakdown of government spending and then tell me who is saying that the "solution" is as you suggest above.

Social security - that's money going from the working young to the retired folks. Who holds the greatest concentration of wealth in this country? That's right - the old folks.

Medicare - Same conclusion. Plus now you and I are buying them their drugs too, thanks to the last administration.

Military - well, you got me there, I guess. But for some reason it's ok to certain factions that the military is a ginormous jobs program but abhorrent that other government initiative are. (To be fair, it has abated recently as Gates and other prominent Republicans seem to be becoming a little more flexible on military spending).

The way I see it, I'm not sure how anyone can rationally think that the biggest financial problem we have is have-nots taking from the hard-working haves. Just look where the vast majority of money we spend is going. It's pretty simple.

[msduncan]

Perhaps I haven't changed my core beliefs because I feel they are right? Perhaps the Constitution still stands as a successful framework because it is right?

Just a thought.

I mean I realize the hive-mind would have rewritten the damn thing years ago if the annoying and pesty Founders hadn't anticipated that and made it damn near impossible to change, but at least you have been able to use government entities to do ends around on the rights guaranteed within. That has to count for something, eh?

Don't fret though. I will continue my voice here, barking against the hive-mind. I'll continue to listen to the straw man of religion that you continue to use to scare people away from conservatism. I'll continue to argue against government regulation, control, and intrusion into the economy -- something that is far more of a threat in making us all slaves than any social or religious issue has since the 1700's.

The bogey man of our time is NOT any religious leader be it Christian, Muslim, etc. The bogey man of our time is an out of control Uncle Sam.

[geezer]

To counter this, the argument is made that Unions can balance the Corporate donations, but the campaign against Unions has been so successful that only 6% or so of Private industry is Unionized, and while that is higher in the public sector (~37%), that does not offset the decline, as the moneyed interests have consolidated more and more power. Overall rates have roughly halved in the past 30 years (from over 20 to less than 12), the same time period that the rich/richer/richest have been consolidating an even larger slice of the pie.

Yay! Money won! At what cost? Oops, better not ask that.

That's not capitalism, that's just playing better politics, and the thing is what happens when you've tilted the board too much in your favor? There has to be some balance...

How is this argument significantly different than the "Jews control the government through banks" xenophobia we've heard about for 300 years?

Certainly you're not contending that money does not influence political outcome via control of media messaging. Are you?

[noxiousdog]

Certainly you're not contending that money does not influence political outcome via control of media messaging. Are you?

Influence? Certainly. If it didn't have influence we wouldn't have an advertising industry. However, how much influence and more importantly how much at the margins. How much does that extra 1M really get you?
Control? Hardly.

I'm just saying that the coporation is the new bogeyman. It's not a particularly new argument that the Shadow government is controlling everything. It used to be Jews. Then it was The Banks and the Fed. Now it's the big monolithic Corporation working to suppress the 99%.

If, however, there is some evidence to point to it. I know i know, medicare part D. One bad piece of legislation in 12 years shows the corporate masters are controlling us? Why don't they just get rid of the corporate income tax? They would generate them all a hell of a lot more money than medicare part D and every industry would be on board. They could spread the lobbying dollars over every industry. Miniscule per company. Oh, they did a great job preventing Sox and Dodd Frank too.

If you buy that money is the end all be all, then it's tough to figure out how we ever get a Democrat elected ever, no? Yet we consistently do in both Congress and the presidency.

[Combustible Lemur]

Certainly you're not contending that money does not influence political outcome via control of media messaging. Are you?

Influence? Certainly. If it didn't have influence we wouldn't have an advertising industry. However, how much influence and more importantly how much at the margins. How much does that extra 1M really get you?
Control? Hardly.

I'm just saying that the coporation is the new bogeyman. It's not a particularly new argument that the Shadow government is controlling everything. It used to be Jews. Then it was The Banks and the Fed. Now it's the big monolithic Corporation working to suppress the 99%.

If, however, there is some evidence to point to it. I know i know, medicare part D. One bad piece of legislation in 12 years shows the corporate masters are controlling us? Why don't they just get rid of the corporate income tax? They would generate them all a hell of a lot more money than medicare part D and every industry would be on board. They could spread the lobbying dollars over every industry. Miniscule per company. Oh, they did a great job preventing Sox and Dodd Frank too.

If you buy that money is the end all be all, then it's tough to figure out how we ever get a Democrat elected ever, no? Yet we consistently do in both Congress and the presidency.

Are you trying to say the world is not ending? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you.

sent from incredible'

[GreenGoo]

YK's comments essentially blame the downturn of the economy on the american people not working hard enough. And that's a republican talking point.

This is a perfect example of why I stopped posting for awhile. People putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Sigh. This is exactly what you say. You say that redistribution is about taking from those who work hard and have success and giving it to those who don't work hard and are not successful. Every single person laid off during this economic downturn was out of work. Whether it was for a short period of time or for a long period of time, your thought process puts them in the didn't work hard enough pool.

If they had worked hard enough, they would not be without employment. If they had worked hard enough, massive layoffs would not have been needed.

Do you not see how, by framing the discussion about those working hard and having jobs vs those not having jobs must not being working hard enough, you literally spit on everyone who lost their job during this downturn? Like it's somehow their fault they got laid off.

I did not put words in your mouth. You said what you said. This is the natural outcome of those words.

I'm starting to believe that you don't understand the ramifications of the things you say.

[YellowKing]

My own dad was one of the many who was laid off. Do you think I would honestly say that the reason my dad got laid off was because he wasn't working hard enough? (Incidentally my dad is a staunch Republican - never once have I heard him gripe that evil corporations were the reason he was terminated).

My redistribution of wealth comments were based on what the Democratic party would have us do, not what is currently being done. I never said redistribution of wealth caused our economic woes. I said it was not the answer to our economic woes.

As usual, you guys are taking my words, filtering them through your "YK is a Republican" glasses and distorting what is coming out the other side. Seriously, your portrayals of the Republican party are almost comical - as if Republican leadership sits around twirling their mustaches and cackling about the misfortunes of others.

What is particularly frustrating is that in many respects I disagree with the Republican party platform. Gay marriage? I support it 100%. Abortion? I strongly disagree with it but see no viable way to stop it. Not being strongly religious, I also disagree with much of the evangelical movement within the party. But that's not good enough. In for a penny, in for a pound around here. Because I am fiscally conservative and believe in smaller government, I'm a brainwashed Republican sheep.

[Combustible Lemur]

I'll continue to argue against government regulation, control, and intrusion into the economy -- something that is far more of a threat in making us all slaves than any social or religious issue has since the 1700's.

The bogey man of our time is NOT any religious leader be it Christian, Muslim, etc. The bogey man of our time is an out of control Uncle Sam.

Once again, I wouldn't say that too loudly around families of people who die because of companies that don't adhere to regulations from uncle Sam being stretched thin and staying out of industry. The late 1800's may have been productive but it wasn't a pleasant time for the working stiff.

sent from incredible'

[GreenGoo]

YK, there is no filter. We didn't suddenly decide you were a buddy when you voted for Obama, and no one thinks you're an enemy for being a staunch republican. It's the ideas that you and msd put forth that are contrary to a lot of peoples' own opinions here, and they get dealt with as such.

Your ideas aren't popular amongst a lot of the people here in R&P. I don't hang out in gun forums talking about more government regulation and then claim I'm persecuted by the hive mind when I'm tag teamed by the locals.

I've been in your position. I am staunchly opposed to any and all DRM. So much so that I can see the evil in Steam, even though there is a lot of good too. It doesn't make me popular, but I don't get a persecution complex because I understand my viewpoint is not popular.

As Rmn9 points out, wealth redistribution is happening already. Unfortunately it is being concentrated in a small minority of the population. And the wealth gap is growing, not shrinking, despite all the evil socialism the democratic party is responsible for, including the current vile socialist in the WH right now.

So fear not. For all the liberal bluster happening on this forum, you can rest assured that those who "work hard" have been, and will continue to be rewarded for their efforts. Unfortunately that group seems to be getting smaller and smaller, but that's a failing of the people, not the system.

[RunningMn9]

I'll start with the easy one...

I'm just saying that the coporation is the new bogeyman.

As we've been over, time and again, the corporation is an old bogeyman. Looking at the context of the late 1700s, Corporations were intentionally shackled and barred from doing very much (including an inability to act as a separate entity in the political process). Whether you agree with the Founding Fathers or not - that they specifically and intentionally tried to keep Corporations out of the political process is neither in doubt, nor was it done out of some half-assed conspiracy theory nonsense. It was a direct result of how they got the shaft by the English Crown, at the behest of one of the largest corporations in the world (at the time). They knew what wealthy and powerful corporations did to the political process, and so they prevented them from participating.

Right or wrong, this isn't a new conspiracy theory driven problem. This is a problem that this country has been dealing with since before its birth.

[Arcanis]

Well a few things. YK is right, any time someone here makes a conservative comment it gets filtered to mean something about a half twist off from what they actually said. It is one of the main reasons I have just been reading the R&P instead of posting anything substantive. I got tired of having to several posts clarifying what I said compared to what people read and wildly misinterpreted. To the commentary about the generous giving of money by conservatives and liberals, I'll believe a liberal politician is serious about doing good for man when they are giving away large amounts (relatively) of their own money instead of just trying to throw tax dollars at it. When they don't want to be generous with their own wealth, but do want to be generous with tax dollars that sends up red flags of them wanting to just buy votes by making people dependent on the government and their party. The last thing that I wanted to toss out there is a throw away line I heard a speaker say that has resonated with me. Yes money in campaigns is a problem but there is another problem that is bad by itself and makes money in campaigns far more effective, voter registration drives. I'm not going to argue that these are all full of fraud and dead people being registered, that has happened before and fraud will happen in any large movement, but the argument is that it creates an influx of uninformed apathetic voters. These are the people who will vote for who the TV tells them. They are citizens and have the right to vote, but if they were so apathetic to not make the effort to actually register to vote themselves they shouldn't be voting. The democratic system only works with an informed and thoughtful populace voting. Let those who don't care continue to sit at home and do whatever they want, we need to quit dragging them out to get registered and vote because they are the people who just push a button and don't comprehend what it really does. And before someone comes in here screaming about denying people their right to vote, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying make them put forth some sort of effort to initiate the process, I'm actually all for having a program to go and help facilitate the elderly/disabled/poor get registered and vote with them taking the initiative to do it.

[GreenGoo]

Well a few things. YK is right, any time someone here makes a conservative comment it gets filtered to mean something about a half twist off from what they actually said. It is one of the main reasons I have just been reading the R&P instead of posting anything substantive.

Alright. Well that settles that then.

[RunningMn9]

Number 2.

Perhaps I haven't changed my core beliefs because I feel they are right?

Perhaps I was being unfair. Your original comment was rather non-specific on the extent of what hasn't budged in your decade of participation here. You simply noted that you never budged, and perhaps it was wrong of me to assume that you meant that you never budged (about anything). So in the interest of fairness, I'll assume that you've sufficiently narrowed your position to that you haven't budged on your "core beliefs". And I have no doubt that you feel that they are right. Now, I don't know your age (I'm going to assume that we are of similar age - I'm 37).

I felt a lot of things when I was 27. The intervening ten years has taught me that some of those things appear to be correct, and others not so much. Having gone through that process, I have trouble understanding how anyone could avoid it. As Kraken said, if I was to look back at my first year posting on GG, I would be ashamed of some of what I said, and proud of other stuff. Do you not feel that way? Are you proud of every stance you've taken related to your core beliefs? Maybe that's another problem...what do we mean by core beliefs?

I don't even know that I have any. If you throw up a topic, I try to educate myself on it and land on what appears to be the "correct" position for that topic. I don't have some guiding set of principles that dictates how I educate myself, or to the extent that I would educate myself. I used to have that problem. You wanted to talk about health care, and I began the process with the conviction that "universal health care is wrong" - and the entirety of my education on the matter would reinforce that.

But I was young and stupid then. There is no advantage to staking out a position based on a set of possibly unrelated principles, when you aren't versed in the facts of the particular topic. I'm not a health care expert. There is no inherent value to any opinion that I would have generated on the topic seven years. Even less so because my initial position was determined by something that had nothing at all to do with health care - it would have been formed by a core belief that "government is bad", and therefore universal health care (in any form), must inherently be bad. I credit many discussions with Zarathud for at least getting me to start over without pre-conceived notions about what my position had to be based on my "core beliefs".

Now, if we were to start a conversation about health care, there is a pretty good chance that I would be frustrated with you. But it wouldn't be because you didn't agree with me. It would be because you are entirely dismissive of anything that contradicts your "core beliefs". It's not possible to have an honest debate with you about any particular issue because your goal isn't to educate yourself on the issue. Your goal is to advocate for your core beliefs, at all costs.

I can't make you behave any differently, but over the years, the balance around here has changed such that those that are incapable of recognizing an error in their core beliefs is a shrinking crowd. You accuse me of being close-minded to your differing opinions, but how can you say that when the reason we have differing opinions is a direct result of me not being close-minded? I have to ask - if I am as close-minded and incapable of dealing with competing viewpoints how have I tempered my views over the years to a more moderate or liberal set of positions?

Doesn't your insistence on painting me a liberal, despite years of being a staunch conservative in these here parts not contradict that accusation? To any degree?

Perhaps the Constitution still stands as a successful framework because it is right?

I don't think you'll find many Americans here (of any slant) that would disagree that the Constitution has been a successful framework. We apparently have a very different view of what makes it successful. Which is ok. I just don't want you thinking that you (or conservatives) have a monopoly on loving the Constitution.

I would argue that one of the most "right" things about it was the understanding by the authors that it was the work of men, and not the Almighty.

I mean I realize the hive-mind would have rewritten the damn thing years ago if the annoying and pesty Founders hadn't anticipated that and made it damn near impossible to change

Who is this hive-mind that would have rewritten the damn thing years ago? I know of no such cabal within the bowels of OO R&P, but maybe they just haven't invited me into that part of the boards yet. And while you point out that the annoying and pesky Founders anticipated our desire to change the document and made it damn near impossible...I think an equally reasonable interpretation is that they understood the potential fallibility of their creation, and so made sure that the document could evolve in the future.

I don't know how many Constitutional Amendments (i.e. re-writing the document) are being bandied about at the moment, but I can only think of one. And it isn't being advocated by "liberals" or "Democrats".

but at least you have been able to use government entities to do ends around on the rights guaranteed within. That has to count for something, eh?

You? I've done very little in my life towards using government entities to do end around on the rights guaranteed within. I've observed both liberals and conservatives routinely attempt to do this with the "guaranteed rights" that they don't think that I deserve or need. I prefer to defend all of my rights, not just the ones that one party or the other thinks I deserve.

Don't fret though. I will continue my voice here, barking against the hive-mind.

I'd prefer if you just spent a little time thinking about things before you start barking. Not that I think there is any chance of that, given your pride at avoiding that over the past decade.

I'll continue to listen to the straw man of religion that you continue to use to scare people away from conservatism.

Wait, what?

I'll continue to argue against government regulation, control, and intrusion into the economy

Do you understand that no one would have a problem with this if you weren't arguing against these things simply because you believed them 10 years ago? The problem isn't the side that you take in an argument. The problem is that you pick a side and advocate it simply for the sake of advocating for it.

Beliefs are fine things to have. But simply having them is insufficient. Simply having them doesn't validate them or make them correct. Explain *why* you have them. And when someone counters with evidence that the "why" part of your argument doesn't hold water - at least understand WHY we are going to criticize you when you shrug your shoulders and press on as if nothing ever happened.

something that is far more of a threat in making us all slaves than any social or religious issue has since the 1700's.

That ship has already sailed. The government has long since regulated, controlled and intruded into the economy. They just weren't doing it on your behalf.

The bogey man of our time is NOT any religious leader be it Christian, Muslim, etc. The bogey man of our time is an out of control Uncle Sam.

At least you acknowledge that you are scared of a bogey man. Although I assume the implication of that is lost on you.

[Mr. Fed]

<snip all the nonsensical bullshit out>

You guys have been moving the goal posts since I arrived at this forum in 2000/2001. What used to be conservative you now consider wacko. What used to be moderate, you now consider conservative.

The damn goal posts aren't even in this freakin stadium anymore. You sold the franchise to a new flipping city.

It's funny, because this is how I would describe the conservative movement starting with, roughly, Reagan. The Right has been moving the Center in the country farther and farther to the right. The silly Limbaughesque demonization of the word "liberal" is just a tiny part of it.

Reagan is treated as an icon, but he'd be far too liberal to succeed in conservative circles these days. Nixon? That EPA-signing leftie? Don't get me started.

Now, it's a pendulum, to be sure. Some day it will swing back. And there are pockets of genuine change to the left (anti--gay folks are increasingly shit out of luck -- and good riddance). But by and large, the center ain't where it used to be.

[Grifman]

You're complaining about capitalism, not conservatism.

The problem is that capitalism isn't perfect, which you seem to be admitting. But the other problem that Republicans seem to oppose any measures taken to mitigate some of the problems of capitalism. That's what gripes me.

People need time off for medical purpose or to help family members? Republicans oppose the Family & Medical Leave Act. People don't get health care benefits at their job? Republican oppose helping those people out with health care. Minimum wage hasn't been increased in years - Republicans oppose giving those making the least just a small raise. That's why I think its laughable to say the Republicans are for the "common man" - because they oppose almost any/all legislation that would actually help the common man.

Redistribution of wealth is not the answer to everybody not having the same opportunity. Taking from people who worked hard and giving it to people who didn't is not a solution.

YK, this is a strawman. Obama isn't supporting an increase in welfare benefits for non-workers. Most of the tax increase (eliminating the Bush tax cuts) Obama is proposing would go to reduce the deficit, not additional spending. So the tax increases would pay for the current govt structure, of which welfare is only a tiny portion. The tax increase would just be to pay for what we are currently spending, not additional "give aways". The fact is the deficit can't be cut simply by spending cuts, there has to be increased revenue. So calling it "redistribution" is simply false.

Giving people no incentive to work because the government will hand them everything they need for free is not a viable long-term solution. While nobody will ever have the same opportunity, we can strive to give everyone as much opportunity as possible.

Exactly who is this great crowd of people that Obama is going to take a tax increase and spend on? Exactly what is he going to spend it on. Since you charge him with income redistribution, let's have some facts. What new programs and people are you talking about?

Right. Which is why we should strive to give as many people as many opportunities as possible. Nobody is arguing that where we are today is the perfect jumping off point for everyone to have the exact same opportunity.

But when govt tries to create these opportunities, why do the Republicans oppose them? They've opposed measure to ease student loan debt for example. Here are people studying and trying to use that opportunity but Republicans don't want to help them out? Why not?

News flash. Democrats lay off people too! That's a function of capitalism and economics, not politics. And guess what? Those evil corporations that Republicans advocate hire and provide paychecks for FAR more people than they lay off.

Agreed, but why do Republicans oppose also every effort to mitigate the impact the problems of imperfect capitalism? That's my question to you.

[RunningMn9]

And finally,

YK's comments essentially blame the downturn of the economy on the american people not working hard enough. And that's a republican talking point.

This is a perfect example of why I stopped posting for awhile. People putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

While you aren't responding to me directly there, I want to be clear that I didn't put any words in your mouth. I responded to your post, verbatim.

The problem was this comment that you made:

Some people can't handle reality and the idea they have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves, and for those people the Democratic party offers a steady drip of morphine. Republicans are "evil" because they're not spoon-feeding the masses some feel-good pap that has no basis in real life.

The notion that successful people are bad, and that you are not successful because society is "keeping you down" through no fault of your own is an appealing message. It's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems

If I was to interpret that again, I have no choice to assume that your position is that reality is that people "have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves", followed by "It's human nature to blame everyone by yourself for your problems".

How are we to interpret that if not that the people are to blame for their own problems? How are we to interpret that in such a way that we don't believe that "actually expending effort to make something of themselves" is something that you believe is a key component of their "problems"?

All of my responses on that point were simply focused on the fact that in the context of this economy, we aren't really talking about people that aren't (or weren't) expending enough effort to make something of themselves. We aren't talking about people that are blaming everyone but themselves for their problems. We are talking about people that were expending a metric shit ton of effort to make something of themselves - who have someone very specific to blame for their current predicament.

Dismissing that using the broad stereotype that the federal government is raining money down on the lazy is one of the main reasons that Republicans are viewed as "evil". That's what I was explaining.

Half of Rm9's refutations above are based on the idea that I said things I didn't even say.

I quoted you sentence by sentence. If I was refuting it, it's because you said it, or strongly implied it with your use of language (SEE: interpretation above).

This statement pretty much sums up the attitude around here.

Not really. It sums up my attitude here. I don't think anyone else cares.

Anyone who disagrees with the liberal hivemind is having the "wool pulled over their eyes" or "being brainwashed."

Hardly. The problem isn't your disagreement. The problem is the way you characterize Republican behavior. Your initial foray is to deny it exists. When it's shown to you, your rebuttal is that Democrats do it too. Four years ago, you emerged from that fog. While I can understand disillusionment with how things have turned out - I don't understand falling back into the pattern of ignoring what Republicans do, and when shown that they do it, to just fall back on the "Democrats do it too" defense.

You started this with the absurd notion that Republicans don't use broad socio-economic stereotypes. That's preposterous to any but the most blind partisan. OF COURSE they do. They do it all the time, and for the same reason that Democrats do it (to get votes). If we both ultimately know that, why aren't we both ridiculing both of them? Why do we have to start with you saying that one side doesn't do what everyone knows that both sides do?

There's never an admission that we may just hold different opinions or philosophies on the way things should be done. It's a line in the sand, "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality. It's very condescending, and it's no wonder that more conservatives don't post here.

I think that the evidence shows that the reason is that fewer people post here, and of the people that remain, more have drifted left than have drifted right. Every time you msduncan play this card, I have to bring up the fact that Grundbegriff never has the problems that you two seem to feel victimized by. Why is that?

If this country only had one "right" political party and another one that was wrong about everything, then we would have crumbled long ago.

You're barking up the wrong tree, if you are insinuating that I think we have only one "right" political party. The country has two "wrong" political parties. And we're suffering as a result.

I would refer you to RLMullen's post. My criticism of the Republican party is not a defense of the Democratic party. I haven't once told you that Democrats are "better" in this thread. I've merely attempted to explain why Republicans are viewed as "evil" in this context (and why Democrats aren't).

Unfortunately this board does not reflect this. On this board, conservative ideas are always wrong and the product of cult thinking.

Not always. This is an affliction that only seems to affect a subset of conservative posters.

No person could independently come up with conservative ideas because no person could be that stupid and ignorant.

Coming up with them is easy. Coming up with them and being able to explain and defend them using reason and facts is much harder. And unfortunately, that's where most conservatives fall down here. msduncan has promised us that he will continue to bark at the hive-mind. But that's the problem. He never bites.

Maybe I'm missing it, but where is all this thoughtful conservative analysis that is being offered and ignored?

it gets tiring when all of your ideas are not met with open-minded discussion, but ridicule and derision.

I'll ask you the same question I asked msduncan. If my great crime is being incapable of open-minded discussion, how did I get here from there? I can pinpoint specific posters and topics that have resulted in me changing my mind (sometimes drastically). How is this possible if I am incapable?

Is it at least *possible* that there is a substantive difference between those conversations and what appears to pass for "political debate" these days, which generally amounts to stating of opinions and assuming that is enough?

When the philosophies you've thought about, read about, and come up with all your life are dismissed in one fell stroke as the product of party-line parroting.

It's a hard sell that a post is the product of a life-long philosophical journey when it routinely lines up with the conservative talking points of a given day. I do notice that a lot of conservatives have this problem though.

If you all are depressed, I'm just disappointed.

Not all, just me.

Disappointed that I can't engage in friendly debate on an internet forum and have people at least be open-minded enough to discuss an alternative point of view. I'm not playing the victim card, I'm just stating facts.

You're not playing the victim card...you're just the victim of a liberal hive-mind conspiracy that dismisses all of your thoughts because they disagree with them?

I'm tired of my thoughts being dismissed as party-line brainwashing. I'm tired of Democratic opinion stated as 100% cold fact, and any disagreement being dismissed as being part of the Republican cult or condescending "oh you poor misguided thing" derogatory statements.

Who has suggested that Democratic opinion is 100% cold fact?

The problem (for me) has been that it wasn't so long ago that you saw through all the partisan party bullshit. I just don't understand why you are acting like that never happened. To the degree that you actually posted that Republicans don't engage in class warfare or invent broad socio-economic stereotypes to that end.

A central theme of the modern conservative movement is that the federal govt is a vast redistribution of wealth network, which is a complete and utter farce. Not because democratic operatives told me. Not because I simply believe that it's not true. But because I have gone through the federal budget dozens of times, going back at least 60 years. Where is it? You made the claim in this thread that Democrats offer it as the solution to all of our problems. Prove it. Prove that wealth is being distributed from the haves to the have nots. I don't know what you've been thinking about, or how long - but you clearly missed an important data point like "the wealthy keep increasing their share of the wealth". So let's have an honest discussion about that.

Show me that the federal government is a big redistribution of wealth scheme to get money from the Have's to the lazy and shiftless Have Not's. Don't shower me with platitudes about a progressive income tax scale. Show me the data that leads you to conclude that the wealthy are becoming less wealthy because their wealth is being redistributed to the poor.

The Defense budget isn't being given to the poor. It's being given back to the already wealthy (the owners of Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, etc.). The Medicare budget isn't being given to little old ladies that refuse to work. It's being given back to the already wealthy (health care providers). How about that TARP money, did that go to the Have Nots? How about the money that we spend on Foreign Relations? Is that going to the American poor? The Dept of Justice? The Dept of Agriculture?

Can you at least be asked to provide some hard data that shows that this redistribution is happening, that doesn't involve just quoting progressive income tax rates? Lay it on me brother, I promise I'll approach your detailed argument with an open mind.

[Chrisoc13]

YK, there is no filter. We didn't suddenly decide you were a buddy when you voted for Obama, and no one thinks you're an enemy for being a staunch republican. It's the ideas that you and msd put forth that are contrary to a lot of peoples' own opinions here, and they get dealt with as such.

Your ideas aren't popular amongst a lot of the people here in R&P. I don't hang out in gun forums talking about more government regulation and then claim I'm persecuted by the hive mind when I'm tag teamed by the locals.

So... now posting your political ideas in this forum is akin to posting in a gun forum? WTF? So this forum is only for liberal ideas at this point? Other ideas are ok but be prepared to be piled on and thought of as extreme because this is a liberal ideas forum? It's the religion and politics forum not the forum for people with liberal ideas. I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

I have felt much the same way here and the hivemind is why my posting has gone up and down. I post for a while, then get tired of the hivemind and just read, then I post, then get tired of it again. I'm not taking my ball home I just think sometimes people who post here and think they are extremely open minded are less open minded to ideas contrary to their own and the pile up starts. I think the number of people is not as much an issue as how vocal those opposed to conservative ideas are.

Not trying to pick a fight just pointing out that there is validity to that statement from my opinion.

[GreenGoo]

YK, there is no filter. We didn't suddenly decide you were a buddy when you voted for Obama, and no one thinks you're an enemy for being a staunch republican. It's the ideas that you and msd put forth that are contrary to a lot of peoples' own opinions here, and they get dealt with as such.

Your ideas aren't popular amongst a lot of the people here in R&P. I don't hang out in gun forums talking about more government regulation and then claim I'm persecuted by the hive mind when I'm tag teamed by the locals.

So... now posting your political ideas in this forum is akin to posting in a gun forum? WTF? So this forum is only for liberal ideas at this point? Other ideas are ok but be prepared to be piled on and thought of as extreme because this is a liberal ideas forum? It's the religion and politics forum not the forum for people with liberal ideas. I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make.

I have felt much the same way here and the hivemind is why my posting has gone up and down. I post for a while, then get tired of the hivemind and just read, then I post, then get tired of it again. I'm not taking my ball home I just think sometimes people who post here and think they are extremely open minded are less open minded to ideas contrary to their own and the pile up starts. I think the number of people is not as much an issue as how vocal those opposed to conservative ideas are.

Not trying to pick a fight just pointing out that there is validity to that statement from my opinion.

msd and YK and others claim this is a liberally minded forum. They are right.

If I were a gun enthusiast and hung out on a gun forum as part of my hobby, and that gun forum leaned right as I suspect (but don't know) it would be, I wouldn't decide there was a conspiracy against me personally if my more liberal ideas were met with harsh criticism.

And let's face it. OO is just about the most civil place on the net for exchanging political ideas. Even general topic forums turn into cesspools at other sites. If R&P here generates the occasional hurt feelings or cross words, we're doing alright as these things go.

As far as being open minded, as Rmn9 said, it takes more than stating how you think things should be to convince anyone. If you feel strongly about something, I don't even need facts, but I need to know why you feel strongly about it. Stating x is bad or y is good doesn't do much to inspire discussion. Especially if I've spent the last 4 years determining that x is great and y is fucking awful for myself. Stating party platitudes is not enough, even if they have a thin veneer of "why".

Open mindedness does not mean that all opinions are of equal value or should be considered equally.

[Arcanis]

This:

msd and YK and others claim this is a liberally minded forum. They are right.

This:

And let's face it. OO is just about the most civil place on the net for exchanging political ideas.

And especially this:

it takes more than stating how you think things should be to convince anyone. If you feel strongly about something, I don't even need facts, but I need to know why you feel strongly about it. Stating x is bad or y is good doesn't do much to inspire discussion. Especially if I've spent the last 4 years determining that x is great and y is fucking awful for myself. Stating party platitudes is not enough, even if they have a thin veneer of "why".

Need a +1.

I'm a smart enough person to know how ignorant I am, but if you think you are right on something and I'm wrong I want to see a good reason. That is hard to do considering how manipulated and misleading all the data we ever see really is.

[pr0ner]

I all I can say is mirror dude, mirror.

And to a certain extent the goalposts moving is the nature of conservative reality. 30 yrs ago a smoking restaurant was conservative now its extreme. Open homosexuality was extreme, now it's the norm. That's the nature of conservative vs. progressive. Remember prior to the civil rights movement, segregation was a conservative ideal.



Do you think people can be both conservative and champion progressive causes like social equality?

I think that's the difference, to be "conservative" you have to be wholly conservative, religious, capitalist, libertarian, anti drug, pro life, anti big gov. If even one of those varies, Conservatives like you shout LIBERAL! You think Obama is a socialist! The man is centrist as they come. Since the world is changing deep conservatives, by staying put, are drifting out to sea.

What? There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin.

[Kraken]

But by and large, the center ain't where it used to be.

Very true, and I blame the Democrats more than the Republicans for that. Every time the Rs move the goal posts, the Ds obligingly shuffle down the field. How can you blame the Rs for moving the posts again and again?

I suppose voters are complicit on some level, too.

When I describe Obama as right-of-center, I'm using the old center. I'm kinda stuck in the 70s that way.

[GreenGoo]

When I describe Obama as right-of-center, I'm using the old center. I'm kinda stuck in the 70s that way.

Yeah, these must be wild times for those who's political coming of age was decades past.

[Combustible Lemur]

I all I can say is mirror dude, mirror.

And to a certain extent the goalposts moving is the nature of conservative reality. 30 yrs ago a smoking restaurant was conservative now its extreme. Open homosexuality was extreme, now it's the norm. That's the nature of conservative vs. progressive. Remember prior to the civil rights movement, segregation was a conservative ideal.



Do you think people can be both conservative and champion progressive causes like social equality?

I think that's the difference, to be "conservative" you have to be wholly conservative, religious, capitalist, libertarian, anti drug, pro life, anti big gov. If even one of those varies, Conservatives like you shout LIBERAL! You think Obama is a socialist! The man is centrist as they come. Since the world is changing deep conservatives, by staying put, are drifting out to sea.

What? There's so much wrong here I don't even know where to begin.

Despite my rambling incoherent writing style, it's very simple. Conservatism is about maintaining a traditional status quo. Progressivism (liberalism) is about changing society to a new ideal. Extremes in both directions are bad. But to call out someone for evolving social and political views is silly. And to talk about conservatism like it's representative of good old days like they weren't imaginary is ignorant.
People unwilling to change and adapt are more outlier than those who are.
sent from incredible'

[YellowKing]

If I was to interpret that again, I have no choice to assume that your position is that reality is that people "have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves", followed by "It's human nature to blame everyone by yourself for your problems".

Yes, I agree that people have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves, and I agree it's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems. That is not the same as saying, "the current economic downturn is the result of people being lazy."

When it's shown to you, your rebuttal is that Democrats do it too. Four years ago, you emerged from that fog.

This is the kind of language I find incredibly condescending, and I don't even think you realize you're doing it. Ideas contrary to your own are "a fog," some murky dark recess of fantasy that is patently absurd compared to your world of truth and light.

I think that the evidence shows that the reason is that fewer people post here, and of the people that remain, more have drifted left than have drifted right. Every time you msduncan play this card, I have to bring up the fact that Grundbegriff never has the problems that you two seem to feel victimized by. Why is that?

I'm not going to speak for Grundbegriff as to whether he has felt victimized or not. For the record, I don't feel victimized. I don't see myself as a victim. I have valid opinions just like everyone else and I'm free to state them. The fact that I continue to post on these boards despite overwhelming contrary opinion should prove that I am secure in my political philosophies.

My criticism of the Republican party is not a defense of the Democratic party. I haven't once told you that Democrats are "better" in this thread. I've merely attempted to explain why Republicans are viewed as "evil" in this context (and why Democrats aren't).

To steal your phrase, "I have no choice but to assume" that your position, given that you never feel the need to criticize anything but Republican viewpoints, is that you have no problem with Democratic viewpoints.

Not always. This is an affliction that only seems to affect a subset of conservative posters.

A subset of what? 3 people? It doesn't affect a lot of them because they never post about it. MSD and I are quite verbal about it. We just happen to be the squeaky wheels.

Maybe I'm missing it, but where is all this thoughtful conservative analysis that is being offered and ignored?

You're missing it because you automatically dismiss it out of hand. No level of posting is going to fit your definition of "thoughtful analysis" because you automatically dismiss it as parroting the party line. For my part, however, I will try to do a better job of posting links or excerpts from articles to support my views, if others will do the same.

I'll ask you the same question I asked msduncan. If my great crime is being incapable of open-minded discussion, how did I get here from there? I can pinpoint specific posters and topics that have resulted in me changing my mind (sometimes drastically). How is this possible if I am incapable?

I don't consider you incapable. That statement applied to the hivemind as a whole. I can also pinpoint specific posters and topics that have resulted in me changing my mind as well.

It's a hard sell that a post is the product of a life-long philosophical journey when it routinely lines up with the conservative talking points of a given day. I do notice that a lot of conservatives have this problem though.

Where do you think conservative talking points came from? Sprung magically out of thin air? Conservative talking points come from conservative people. I see a lot of this "chicken and egg" argument. What bugs me is being accused of reciting the conservative talking points of the day when I haven't turned on a television or read a news website all week. Either I'm an incredible psychic, or my conservative views simply line up with what other conservatives are thinking about particular subjects because our political philosophies coincide.

You're not playing the victim card...you're just the victim of a liberal hive-mind conspiracy that dismisses all of your thoughts because they disagree with them?

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's just a very left-leaning board. Again, I don't consider myself a victim, I'm just pointing out some of the behavior. Incidentally, this is by-product of message boards in general, and not just in religion and politic forums. It's very easy to jump on the bandwagon, and very hard to go against the prevailing attitudes. See the "forum effect" for example. And I don't dispute the fact that OO is a shining beacon of civility compared to most political boards I've seen.

The problem (for me) has been that it wasn't so long ago that you saw through all the partisan party bullshit. I just don't understand why you are acting like that never happened. To the degree that you actually posted that Republicans don't engage in class warfare or invent broad socio-economic stereotypes to that end.

Just because I voted for Obama? Actually my primary reason for voting for Obama was disgust with the social conservatism of Bush coupled with his *liberal* stance on spending and big government. It was never because I suddenly reversed my fiscal conservatism. I knew I was taking a big gamble voting for Obama, and I knew my protest vote could potentially come back to bite me in the ass. Unfortunately I was right. However, it's not like I had a great Republican ticket to vote for. It would have absolutely killed me to vote for Palin at the time. I couldn't stand her then, and I still can't stand her now.

If anything has changed in my years on this board, it has been the social side of my conservatism and my move away from the extreme right of the party. I used to be a Limbaugh-devotee in my high school days. You would never catch me taking my viewpoints from the likes of Rush, Coulter, etc. these days. Like MSD, I've never wavered from my "core principles" which are in a nutshell - strong military, small government, fiscal conservatism.

Prove that wealth is being distributed from the haves to the have nots.

As I stated in my previous argument, I'm not arguing the current state. I'm arguing the proposed state. The "spread the wealth around" attitude that Obama and his ilk have. The idea that the rich should "pay their fair share" when in fact they already pay their fair share and then some. This attitude is gaining more traction due to a crappy economy. And yes, I know we have a ginormous deficit. I never supported Bush's spending when he was in office. It's not like I was ever advocating going into debt and now I'm rebelling against any efforts towards fixing that debt. We shouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place, but we did, and it only proves my point that big government can't be trusted to handle a Girl Scout cookie bill, much less trillions of taxpayer dollars.

What's the answer? I don't know. If I had the answers I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting time arguing in a message board. I can only state my opinion that the government got us into this mess, let the government get us out. Don't take money from hard working people to fix your mistakes.

[Chrisoc13]

msd and YK and others claim this is a liberally minded forum. They are right.

If I were a gun enthusiast and hung out on a gun forum as part of my hobby, and that gun forum leaned right as I suspect (but don't know) it would be, I wouldn't decide there was a conspiracy against me personally if my more liberal ideas were met with harsh criticism.

And let's face it. OO is just about the most civil place on the net for exchanging political ideas. Even general topic forums turn into cesspools at other sites. If R&P here generates the occasional hurt feelings or cross words, we're doing alright as these things go.

As far as being open minded, as Rmn9 said, it takes more than stating how you think things should be to convince anyone. If you feel strongly about something, I don't even need facts, but I need to know why you feel strongly about it. Stating x is bad or y is good doesn't do much to inspire discussion. Especially if I've spent the last 4 years determining that x is great and y is fucking awful for myself. Stating party platitudes is not enough, even if they have a thin veneer of "why".

Open mindedness does not mean that all opinions are of equal value or should be considered equally.

Funny, a few years ago I called this place a liberal lounge before giving up on it for a couple years and I was scoffed at. Good to see it admitted. And I agree. But to compare it to a gun forum... that is ridiculous. It is a video game forum, to assume coming here conservatives should expect a fight as you would at a gun forum is absurd. If this forum is viewed by some as "liberal turf" it is far less an enjoyable place to visit. I do think things are civil here, but frankly civility is not always enough for the free exchange of ideas.

There have been many times when conservative posts have been defended eloquently and with excellent points, only to have a pile up still. Simply because you disagree with what is stated does not make it an incorrect idea. Truthfully each idea should be treated equally if you are open minded. That doesn't mean that you should accept it an incorporate it into your own ideologies but frankly many times they are simply dismissed here because this forum is liberal leaning (in terms of those who actually post). You may disagree with them but that doesn't make it less real to the person who stated it. If you do not even consider ideas equally... what is the point of posting them? For the record many times the liberal posts in this forum are less enlightening than the liberal masses here think. Hearing the same thing over and over again does not make it a good point.

One of the things which irritates me the most is when a conservative post is made it is simply "party line." Yet if the same is made of a liberal post the next post is usually something like "You think I am liberal? Ha laughable." "You think I listen to the Democratic party? No I don't." Look I am conservative, no doubt about it. But I don't listen to conservative talk radio, I don't watch fox news and I don't listen to the party line. For the record I also don't listen to liberal talk radio or watch MSNBC. Yet a conservative post is somehow just "party platitudes." That is offensive. When I post something conservative it is certainly not party line, as frankly I don't know what the party line is on that given day. I vote both ways, but am conservative. Just depends on each politicians individual stance.

While OO is better than most places for political talk, it is the idea that it is liberal turf and that conservative posts are simply restating republican party platitudes that stifles discussion and the free exchange of ideas. It could be better, and I am simply pointing that out. It shouldn't be discouraging for conservatives to post because of the pile-on. It may be that this forum is less liberal turf than you think, it just may be that the liberals here are the most outspoken.

[Zarathud]

In my view, R&P has swung from conservative to libertarian to liberal, and back again on some issues. So have I, sometimes moved by the debate on this board (sometimes after proof that I wasn't expecting or mutual abuse with RunningMn9 ). Other times, it's because of things I've seen in my life experiences.

The hive is better when it has many voices, and I think we're far from monolithic. When we disagree with you, we're not always ganging up. The OP was going to bring down a shit-storm, and I'm frankly surprised it took almost 3 pages.

I understand going out on a limb, wearing your heart on your sleeve. But like climbing a tree or cliff without a harness, it's sometimes going to end in aches and pains. And when the forum piles on, we're equal opportunity assholes. Just ask Fireball.

I don't like the justification that the "the other side did it first" or "both sides are guilty." But here the glove fits. You stuck your fork into this outlet, so why are you shocked at the outcome?

For the record, I don't care who you are as long as you can back up what you say. Anyone's posting history here only weighs on the credibility of their assertions. Then again, I enjoy occasionally beating a dead horse.*



* The horses I keep myself from beating lately are that Google searches are not reliable evidence, all opinions are not equally informed or authoritative, and crowd sourced information can be as ignorant as their source. And that the 3 Bush tax cuts were inherently unsustainable when passed and their extension after 12 years contributes to the projections of "fiscal doom."

[Kraken]

When I describe Obama as right-of-center, I'm using the old center. I'm kinda stuck in the 70s that way.

Yeah, these must be wild times for those who's political coming of age was decades past.

Let's just say that the future ain't what it used to be.

[Zarathud]

At least the jackboot stamping on the face of humanity forever is about 30 years overdue.

[GreenGoo]

Funny, a few years ago I called this place a liberal lounge before giving up on it for a couple years and I was scoffed at. Good to see it admitted. And I agree. But to compare it to a gun forum... that is ridiculous. It is a video game forum, to assume coming here conservatives should expect a fight as you would at a gun forum is absurd. If this forum is viewed by some as "liberal turf" it is far less an enjoyable place to visit. I do think things are civil here, but frankly civility is not always enough for the free exchange of ideas.

I'm not comparing it to a gun forum. I'm comparing it to any other forum that leans right and how my expectations for the way my ideas are received would change based on where I was writing them.

Well, you can rage about how things should be, or you can deal with things as they are, or you can work to change them. Complaining that people here have left leaning tendencies and thus conservative ideas are not welcomed with open arms is...true, for the most part. I guess my response is...oh well? That's too bad? I'm sorry you feel that way?

And while civility might not be enough for the free exchange of ideas, anything less is absolutely hostile to it, so we're doing the best we can I guess?

As for being scoffed at, just as I am not the final authority on whether the forum is left leaning or not, those who scoffed at you were also not the final authority. So my opinion and someone else's opinion doesn't necessarily make either opinion true. My opinion is that the forum leans farther left than right. It sure as hell isn't FAR left. Others are free to agree or disagree, but I appreciate you giving my opinion so much weight. Why you ignore my opinion on other matters I have no idea.

It may be that this forum is less liberal turf than you think, it just may be that the liberals here are the most outspoken.

Then speak up. Stop starting topics up with Rush's latest rant as the title (I'm looking at msd here) if you don't want to be dismissed immediately as a mouth piece for the party or it's ranters.

And while I don't disbelieve that there have been times where a reasoned right leaning idea has been argued eloquently, I would expect it to be countered just as eloquently, not shouted down as you suggest it was. If you could provide me an example I would love to look at it. It may alter my own behaviour in this regard.

[GreenGoo]

When I describe Obama as right-of-center, I'm using the old center. I'm kinda stuck in the 70s that way.

Yeah, these must be wild times for those who's political coming of age was decades past.

Let's just say that the future ain't what it used to be.

Yeah, it's fascinating from a sociological standpoint.

Hippies must be rolling over in their graves.