Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Conservatives vs Liberals


Agent0range

Recommended Posts

The Republicans have followed policies which have driven work abroad??!! I thought it was the liberals/socialists that were in bed with the unions...

Promoting deregulation whilst in tandem promoting globalization was a recipe for pole-axing jobs at the knee. Cheap imports from dirty manufacturing meant that domestic production could never compete, but the company owners such as Apple could give a toss since their profits went up.

That is what I am talking about.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you mangle a generally accepted definition to suit your own agenda

Br Cornelius

Which is pretty much exactly what the study linked in the OP did with conservative. It decided that if you are against abortion you are a conservative. Didn't matter what else you believed or that you had voted for liberal candidates all your life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is pretty much exactly what the study linked in the OP did with conservative. It decided that if you are against abortion you are a conservative. Didn't matter what else you believed or that you had voted for liberal candidates all your life.

It used a set of generally accepted markers of social conservationism which I think is a more than reasonable methodology. No one individual perfectly fits the mould - but a statistical aggregate shows definite social types within a broad range. Otherwise the Conservatives who bandy about the term Liberal as a pejorative term would be talking out of the their asses, wouldn't they.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you mangle a generally accepted definition to suit your own agenda you are not in a discussion.

1) Isn’t that what this forum is about? To explore different viewpoints?

2) That isn’t what I’m doing here. I’m not mangling the generally accepted definition. I am following it literally, to the letter. But to do so raises one simple question.

3) You call it “mangle” only because you are afraid to answer a simple question. That has been obvious from the beginning.

People did refuse to take the bait and the baby died of lack of attention. Not the result you were looking for.

1) That’s not *people* refused, only *Liberals*.

2) The baby hasn’t died from a lack of attention. It’s growing and getting stronger.

3) Actually, it was precisely the result I was looking for. I get the result I was looking for whether you answer the question or not. Either way, it shows the inability of the Liberal mind to comprehend a critical look at the core of its beliefs.

Your continuing to equate Monarchy with Socialism just sums up your total cluelessness of what either is and politics in general. That point was made by more than myself in that still born thread.

Which *stillborn thread*? The only one clueless is you because you still can’t or won’t answer the question. But I have explained numerous times before that even a 5 year old child could understand. I’ve shown where and how a Monarchy is the same as Socialism or any Oligarchy. I’ve explained numerous times that the academic differences are not important here. What is important here are that these forms of government (including Democracy) hinges on the whims of the ruling elite (whether it is a monarch, a dictator, a parliament, or a mob). That is why we find ourselves in a Constitutional crisis today. We are not a Democracy as many have come to believe, but a Republic of laws not based or bound by the whims of Human Nature. Our government protects the Rights of the People, not the government granting them to us. And Socialistic governments can only grant or restrict Rights. This is why the Liberal Mindset cannot answer a simple question because Socialism still requires a Human with all their failings and desires to dole out *equal* portions to the others. True Socialism can only occur magically and that’s not going to happen in the real world.

And no I wont be re-engaging you on your game of "Dictionary rewriting" by Ravenhawk - I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall

Again, no one is rewriting the dictionary. You are banging your head because you are afraid to answer. Again, it is as plain as the egg on your face.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying really hard to get someone to pay attention to you, huh raven? Take that mess to your dead thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promoting deregulation whilst in tandem promoting globalization was a recipe for pole-axing jobs at the knee. Cheap imports from dirty manufacturing meant that domestic production could never compete, but the company owners such as Apple could give a toss since their profits went up.

That is what I am talking about.

Br Cornelius

Okay I didn't realize the Republicans were/are pushing for globalization...do you mean, as in globalized markets? I've just begun to understand economics and politics, and the more books I read, the more confusing it seems...no wonder no one seems to agree on anything...tbh, although I feel it is my duty to be informed, I don't always enjoy reading about politics (although I'd rather at least have a clue what I'm talking about) because it's usually rather depressing. But back on topic, the Republicans are for globalized markets? Again, I thought it was the liberals/socialists who were for the One World Order? Although now that i think about it, I know Bush (sr) did talk about a New World Order...

Some one made a comment in some thread here on UM I read awhile ago to the effect that both parties were like a dog and pony show...sometimes I think that's true. Look at the freedoms we lost under Bush, a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promoting deregulation whilst in tandem promoting globalization was a recipe for pole-axing jobs at the knee. Cheap imports from dirty manufacturing meant that domestic production could never compete, but the company owners such as Apple could give a toss since their profits went up.

That is what I am talking about.

Br Cornelius

You don't want a big centralized government? So stop deferring to it every time there's a problem in society then! Again, your position doesn't wash.

Smaller militaries are a recipe for pole-axing jobs at the knee too. So??? That doesn't determine right from wrong. The government shouldn't be the keeper of the economy or the employer in chief to get from wrong to right.

There's more than 20,000 pages of regulations concerning international trade last I looked. What's in them? What's missing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't want a big centralized government? So stop deferring to it every time there's a problem in society then! Again, your position doesn't wash.

Smaller militaries are a recipe for pole-axing jobs at the knee too. So??? That doesn't determine right from wrong. The government shouldn't be the keeper of the economy or the employer in chief to get from wrong to right.

There's more than 20,000 pages of regulations concerning international trade last I looked. What's in them? What's missing?

All of them are in the direction of allowing outsourcing and preventing nations from protecting their markets from predators. De-regulation has worked out so well for some - but not for most. The problem is that Corporations have no interest in full employment because it is generally a bigger cost and Governments listen more to Corporations than they do to their citizens.

The purpose of life is not to increase corportate profits - the purpose of life is to have functional society of secure citizens. Allowing Corporations even more control of our lives will ultimately lead to more insecurity for the citizens and that is exactly what is happening across the global as more markets are liberalized. In this particular case Governments have become the enemies of the citizens because they have become friends of the CEO's. Its called Fascism by a strict definition.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of them are in the direction of allowing outsourcing and preventing nations from protecting their markets from predators. De-regulation has worked out so well for some - but not for most. The problem is that Corporations have no interest in full employment because it is generally a bigger cost and Governments listen more to Corporations than they do to their citizens.

The purpose of life is not to increase corportate profits - the purpose of life is to have functional society of secure citizens. Allowing Corporations even more control of our lives will ultimately lead to more insecurity for the citizens and that is exactly what is happening across the global as more markets are liberalized. In this particular case Governments have become the enemies of the citizens because they have become friends of the CEO's. Its called Fascism by a strict definition.

Br Cornelius

The purpose of life? I think life means more than that.

So you read all 20,000 pages and you know there's no protectionism in there. But you shouldn't have the expectation of "full employment". Another mission impossible from the bureau to pander for votes over. Might as well go fight a war on words in the dictionary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of life? I think life means more than that.

So you read all 20,000 pages and you know there's no protectionism in there. But you shouldn't have the expectation of "full employment". Another mission impossible from the bureau to pander for votes over. Might as well go fight a war on words in the dictionary.

Your problem is you have no real solutions just criticisms. Just let it rip and hope for the best. Great plan.

Your other problem is you keep confusing the particular (USA) with the general (the rest of the world).

Your other problem is that deep down you bought the American dream. One day it will be you :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem is you have no real solutions just criticisms. Just let it rip and hope for the best. Great plan.

Your other problem is you keep confusing the particular (USA) with the general (the rest of the world).

Your other problem is that deep down you bought the American dream. One day it will be you :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Ending the central banking systems and not playing with two sets of rules would be a good start. But let me guess, you can't see the hazard in the funny money and endless lending of contemporary banking either.

Stop assigning me straw dude. If you really want to know what I think about all your dumb straw, just ask. I think it's BS. Government assigning our values for us is wrong already. Stop confusing yourself by appealing to it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ending the central banking systems and not playing with two sets of rules would be a good start. But let me guess, you can't see the hazard in the funny money and endless lending of contemporary banking either.

Stop assigning me straw dude. If you really want to know what I think about all your dumb straw, just ask. I think it's BS. Government assigning our values for us is wrong already. Stop confusing yourself by appealing to it.

I have repeatedly said that money lent into existence is one of the root causes - how could you have missed that. But I do not believe that any other body than a sovereign government should have the right to issue money. The great depression was mostly triggered by banks been irresponsible with the issuing of money and the same can be said of the current recession/depression. How giving the right to issue money to organisations which have proven themselves irremediable irresponsible represents any form of solution I cannot imagine. Let us not forget that the irredeemably responsible FED is a private bank run for the benefit of its shareholders.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have repeatedly said that money lent into existence is one of the root causes - how could you have missed that. But I do not believe that any other body than a sovereign government should have the right to issue money. The great depression was mostly triggered by banks been irresponsible with the issuing of money and the same can be said of the current recession/depression. How giving the right to issue money to organisations which have proven themselves irremediable irresponsible represents any form of solution I cannot imagine. Let us not forget that the irredeemably responsible FED is a private bank run for the benefit of its shareholders.

Br Cornelius

Don't presume I missed that. You asked a question and you got the answer that you were missing from me. Actually you weren't asking me anything, you were accusing me of nonsense that I never said and never would. I only wished you had asked.

You run to the creator of this system to save us from the system. It's like trusting the bank robbers to secure the bank! Not too bright, though ideal and naive as all hell.

Edited by Yamato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, we were on such a roll. What happened?

Edited by F3SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the reason there aren't enough jobs, imo, is business being regulated practically to death, and unions driving jobs overseas. Oh, lets not forget our high corporate tax...highest in the world, is my understanding....

It's not the unions but corporate greed and not enough tariffs driving jobs overseas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, we were on such a roll. What happened?

I dunno. I hope you didn't wind up thinking I find your beliefs disagreeable generally because that would be far from the truth. But let's agree for the record that you invited yourself in and I welcomed you, I didn't drag you into it and had no such intention.

I just think you drop the bag when it comes to military and that's okay man.

But if we were going to form a new govt I think you'd be a good seat to have in its council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I hope you didn't wind up thinking I find your beliefs disagreeable generally because that would be far from the truth. But let's agree for the record that you invited yourself in and I welcomed you, I didn't drag you into it and had no such intention.

I just think you drop the bag when it comes to military and that's okay man.

But if we were going to form a new govt I think you'd be a good seat to have in its council.

I get it. Sometimes enough's been said and I knew what I was getting myself into as I said off the bat. We're good in my books.

Could be worse. I could always ask for more, right?

Thanks, and likewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the unions but corporate greed and not enough tariffs driving jobs overseas

Unions are certainly part of it. Not the only part, but a part of it for sure. Companies cannot afford to continue to employ too many workers at too high a pay rate. I'm speaking of small to medium sized companies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not even sure if viruses are alive — can they evolve? Definitely! To evolve by natural selection, all an entity needs is genetic variation, inheritance, selection, and time, all of which viruses have in spades. And this is the concern. The avian flu virus evolves rapidly and could easily evolve into a form that can be passed from human to human.

By the end of the day, it is still H5N1. It could still adapt to humans but it doesn’t become H6N1 (or whatever). Even if it did, at this low level, is this proof of evolution? Evolution more refers to higher levels of life.

I really don't know where you come up with your definitions...

My definitions are old school. But I wasn’t the one that changed them. Scientists started using the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution, in place of adaptation/mutation and evolution (the changing of a species into a new species). And in doing so, disingenuously had proven evolution. Evolution isn’t proven by a change of definitions. Evolution is not the case in which proving a small unit proves the whole. Ultimately, they are the same process, but macro-evolution has not been observed and therefore, evolution is not yet proven. It is just like gravity. We have laws that explain how it reacts with objects in our universe, but we still haven’t proved gravity itself. I drop the proverbial hammer does not prove gravity exists but I know it is there.

And since you brought up Darwin..how about his home turf?

A finch is still a finch. A different breed does not prove evolution. In the main article it states: “ No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question “is rarely if ever asked,” as speciation isn’t something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species.” Therefore, observing a change in species is highly subjective, i.e. not objective. We can label it a new species, but is it really? To say it is, is more political rather than scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the end of the day, it is still H5N1. It could still adapt to humans but it doesn't become H6N1 (or whatever). Even if it did, at this low level, is this proof of evolution? Evolution more refers to higher levels of life.

The mechanism is exactly the same. Even at such a low level it is proof of evolution.

My definitions are old school. But I wasn't the one that changed them. Scientists started using the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution, in place of adaptation/mutation and evolution (the changing of a species into a new species). And in doing so, disingenuously had proven evolution. Evolution isn't proven by a change of definitions. Evolution is not the case in which proving a small unit proves the whole. Ultimately, they are the same process, but macro-evolution has not been observed and therefore, evolution is not yet proven. It is just like gravity. We have laws that explain how it reacts with objects in our universe, but we still haven't proved gravity itself. I drop the proverbial hammer does not prove gravity exists but I know it is there.

The only people I know using those terms are intelligent design advocates. The mechanism is evolution to a a scientist. Speciation seem like an important distinction where one thing becomes another species - but to a scientist there is no distinction between a species which changes its characteristics but remains the same species and a species which splits into more than one species. They are all still evolution. Evolution is the mechanism of change not the end result. It can be demonstrated any day of the week in a petri dish in a laboratory.

And nothing is proven as such in science, a theory is either supported by the evidence or refuted by the evidence. It always exists in a limbo of been possible to disprove as more data comes in - but some theories are so solidly supported by evidence that they are considered proven. Evolution is one of them.

There is another branch of science where a thing can be described, such as gravity, without the underlying mechanism been demonstrated. It is still a useful rule of science when the result consistently follows the prediction - even without the mechanism. Hence gravity is proven but not explained.

A finch is still a finch. A different breed does not prove evolution. In the main article it states: " No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species. That question "is rarely if ever asked," as speciation isn't something that scientists have been fortunate enough to watch at the precise moment of divergence, except in bacteria and other simple creatures. But after at least three generations of reproductive isolation, the Grants felt comfortable in designating the new lineage as an incipient species." Therefore, observing a change in species is highly subjective, i.e. not objective. We can label it a new species, but is it really? To say it is, is more political rather than scientific.

Which is not a demonstration that speciation is not an observed process.

Absolute certainty is reserved for fools and religious fanatics - neither of which are commodities scientist deal in.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mechanism is exactly the same. Even at such a low level it is proof of evolution.

Sorry, it is *NOT* proof.

The only people I know using those terms are intelligent design advocates. The mechanism is evolution to a a scientist. Speciation seem like an important distinction where one thing becomes another species

That’s your problem. I first noticed scientists using those terms. It was a cheap way to *prove* evolution. But whatever terminology you use, it’s still variation vs evolution. Variation is a *sub* or *pre* step to evolution. And as I pointed out, determining speciation is *HIGHLY* subjective. That precludes it from being scientific proof.

but to a scientist there is no distinction between a species which changes its characteristics but remains the same species and a species which splits into more than one species.

Then that is a scientist with poor discipline. You hint at it later on in your reply.

They are all still evolution. Evolution is the mechanism of change not the end result. It can be demonstrated any day of the week in a petri dish in a laboratory.

Things evolve but that is not ”Evolution”. Evolution is both (the journey and the destination). But the destination isn’t really a destination. It is part of the journey.

And nothing is proven as such in science, a theory is either supported by the evidence or refuted by the evidence. It always exists in a limbo of been possible to disprove as more data comes in –

That is basically what I am saying.

but some theories are so solidly supported by evidence that they are considered proven. Evolution is one of them.

“Considered proven” is not a scientific precept. That is pure politics and/or religion.

There is another branch of science where a thing can be described, such as gravity, without the underlying mechanism been demonstrated. It is still a useful rule of science when the result consistently follows the prediction - even without the mechanism. Hence gravity is proven but not explained.

That is still not proof of the mechanism. It is our belief that it is true.

Which is not a demonstration that speciation is not an observed process.

And it is not absolute proof of evolution either.

Absolute certainty is reserved for fools and religious fanatics - neither of which are commodities scientist deal in.

If they are not commodities that scientists deal in then why do they when they claim that evolution has been proven? It is not absolute certainty that evolution is real. I agree that there is overwhelming evidence to support it but that is still not an absolute.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are not commodities that scientists deal in then why do they when they claim that evolution has been proven? It is not absolute certainty that evolution is real. I agree that there is overwhelming evidence to support it but that is still not an absolute.

This is the only part worth commenting on.

Science works on probabilities, as i said science doesn't deal in absolutes it deals with the likelihood of something been true. if every time something is witnessed it happens in a particular way which conforms with the model science has created to describe it, the theory is considered proven. That proof is always subject to the possibility that it can be refuted by it not occuring as per the model. Thus gravity always caused a small object to fall towards a big object. It is considered proven that gravity will always cause a small object to fall towards a big object - but there is the tiniest possibility that on a given occassion that will not happen - so the proof of gravity is never absolute.

That is how science works, it works with useful predictions. It can never have the certainty of faith or belief - but it has far more predictive power than either. So when I say that evolution is proven I mean that it allows me to predict that a population will change its phenotype (physical appearance) in response to environmental pressure's. I know this because biology can explain why white skinned people developed from black skinned people in response to a diminishing sunlight as they migrated northwards. This allowed them to generate adequate Vit D to survive. This is an easily measured phenomenon which can be traced within the genetic code of the populations as you move towards the Northern Latitudes. Science both explains and predicts that this should happen and it occurred in conformity with the environmental pressure applied to the human population. There are numerous other examples of evolution occuring within the human population in response environmental pressure and none of them require recourse to speciation. Speciation can occur relatively quickly in relatively sedentary species where populations become isolated from each other in different environmental zones and with different environmental pressures. Hence zebras and Donkeys share almost all of the same genetics of horse's and a visibly almost identical - but they can interbreed but cannot produce fertile offspring - which is one characteristic of speciation having occurred between a common equine offspring.

None of what I have said is absolute proof of evolution - but everything I have said follows from the theory of evolution. I am a scientist so that is adequate for me to accept that evolution is a true description of how all the diversity of life occurred over time on this planet. I do not deal in absolutes.

Scientific knowledge is fundamentally different to everyday knowledge but infinitely more useful in that it allows you to predict events with a degree of certainty which ordinary knowledge can never match. It is also superior in that it admits the inevitability of refinement and change.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unions are certainly part of it. Not the only part, but a part of it for sure. Companies cannot afford to continue to employ too many workers at too high a pay rate. I'm speaking of small to medium sized companies.

The way I see it, when I was young, in the 1960's the biggest employer was General Motors, who was paying their union employees what would be the equivalent of about 50 bucks an hour today and the economy was fine. Then came the Reagan revolution and supply side economics and NAFTA etc. and the largest US employer today is Wal-Mart, paying their employees 8-15 bucks an hour and everything has went to hell. Do you not see a trend here? I admit I'm no expert on economics but this can't be coincidental can it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to do away with state debt is to change the whole economic system which lends money into existence, otherwise you have to accept debt as the de facto norm of everyday existence. Are you ready for an economic revolution, a move away from the economics of infinite growth to service an ever expanding debt ?

Unfortunately the concept of a balanced national budget is another denial of the reality we live in - an escape from the hard facts of life and a failure to understand the bigger economic picture.

I personally would do away with money as debt - but then again I would reform the whole economic system in far more radical ways than just that.

Br Cornelius

My understanding is that we haven't always had a national debt...it's partly the result of wars we were in (we tried to stay out of WWI but didn't work), and partly the result of the Federal Reserve and its fiat money. Anyway, my point is, with good policies and sound leadership (which seem to be a rarity not just here but in every country) a debt free nation seems doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that we haven't always had a national debt...it's partly the result of wars we were in (we tried to stay out of WWI but didn't work), and partly the result of the Federal Reserve and its fiat money. Anyway, my point is, with good policies and sound leadership (which seem to be a rarity not just here but in every country) a debt free nation seems doable.

It started with Reagan's tax cuts for the rich and 500 ship navy. Supply side economics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.