Why the Right and Left hate each other

The only political and economic "ism" we need is eclecticism.

 

Sounds kinda like what Trump tried to do.
LOL, See, couldn't help myself, only took 10 pages...Well I see why some Trump supporters hate Americans.

 

Had to look up eclecticism; good word.

 

No, I pointed out your post was an example of leftist hate. In case you don't understand, leftist hate is an attack.

I'll break it down for you.

A statement of the evil that exists.

A statement attacking and blaming the evil completely on the the free speech of people leftists don't like. The hate is emphasized when the post changes the names to insulting ones - in one case - simply to degrade the humanity of another.

A re-emphasis of that regardless of any other speech no matter how bad, it has to have been started only by those the left hates.

There you go. Explained very slowly and carefully for you.

And that post was a good example of leftist hate.

Because leftists never made money off of their personal opinions and discussions before Rush did.

Not at all. Unlike leftist shows, he welcomed opposing opinions on his show. He was polite and considerate to them.

Now you're going into personal attacks . . . sure sign of someone who has lost the debate.

 

That was NOT a personal attack, just restating what you've already claimed.

It's evident that you don't care about "debate", you want to win ... as defined by you. Whatever I say you'll twist it so that in your mind you've won.

I started with the simple statement, that many agreed with, but you attacked and made a fool of yourself. You've spent days and I don't know how many posts trying to justify yourself and regain some dignity. You keep trying to justify an unjustified partisan attack; which you can't. I'm not playing your game anymore, good bye!

 

The second time you've resorted to personal insults without discussing the arguments made.

Also, it's the second time you've given the bye emoji. Do, you promise to keep your word this time?

The hypocrisy of your post knows no limit.

 

If you find it irritating .

You've made no arguments worth considering, just uninformed attacks.

I would worry about your own hypocritical limits, not mine. What's the Bible quote: "take care the beam in your eye, let me worry about the mote in mine."; something like that.

 

Mr. Spiritgide: What I observe the conservatives to actually be doing is to accumulate as much money in the Treasury as possible. The following is a short list of these policies:

 

Mr. Spiritgide: I disagree with your simplistic description of Conservative vs Liberal Economics. Under conservatives what actually happens is that they try very hard to not spend money out of the Treasury. They do this by any means open to them such as 1. Bring the troops home from Syria early and leave the area to the Russians and Turks. 2. Deny Global Warming exists so as not to spend money on this ":useless" thing. 3. Do not create a Health Care plan because anyway you twist it, it will spend money from the Treasury. 4. Discontinue funding NATO in order to save more money. And the list goes on. All of those types of policies have the common thread of saving money in the Treasury. Well, that is exactly where the next tax break for the rich and famous comes from. In other words its your and my tax money that goes to make rich people richer which was traded for the programs I mentioned.

 

Well Andrew- You seem to have a very limited understanding of how the world actually works, which is not the image that news media and politicians tell you is so.
The liberal goal is certainly to spend all the money- but fails to figure out how to generate it, except to tax hell out of the same people they are giving the money to.
The money they take from you as taxes comes back labeled as entitlement, short quite a bit, with strings attached that controls how you must spend what previously was your own money

The treasury has no reserve of money; the share of national debt babies born today is over $100,000. Now to get this in a perspective, my business has zero debt, and sufficient reserve capital to make payroll and expenses for about a year, even if no new revenue was generated. That reserve is a buffer. That means that when something bad happens, say an expensive machine burns up- I may grumble about it, but I have the means to quickly put things back on line. It's redundant ability- the capacity to survive and keep things on track. IF you have no buffer- every negative event is a crisis that can put you out of business. If you have a buffer, those same events are only inconveniences, because you are prepared. A wise person, a wise company, a wise government- will have that buffer.

Bring the troops home? Of course. War should not be a business, nor should we be the worlds policemen. We have spent a great deal of taxpayer dollars on such thing, and the end result is virtually zero gain.
Why should we expend lives and billions for nothing? For ego, perhaps?? You should study the history of Afghanistan. Before we went there to "free" them from themselves- (and the Taliban is an Afghan group, not an outside nation) the Russians were there. For 10 years, the Russians tried to dominate the country and control it's government. They met with the same conditions we did, and after 10 years- decided "This is stupid", and went home. We didn't learn from that, instead we went there to do somewhat the same thing, and it took us 20 years to decide it was stupid- and an incredible amount of taxpayer money. We left according to some estimates,$86 billion dollars in military equipment, that is no in the hands of the Taliban we set out to destroy. Wars can be necessary- but the last one that was took place long before you were born, probably before your father was born.

You think global warming is denied? Hogwash. While the liberals are running around screaming that the sky is falling and we must rebuild every house and park all the planes- serious people have been working on environmental solutions, and making huge advances for decades. Screaming and ranting may get attention- but they don't get results. That is the difference between the liberal approach and the conservative approach. And if you look at the way many of the wealthy spend their money, you will find that a very large part of it goes to improving the environment and pollution. The liberals spend money bitching about it, the conservatives are spending money working on it. It is the bitching that gets the news coverage, not the accomplishments, so- you think you know what is going on.

Health care.... That is indeed a huge problem. Now IF you were a wise man, you would know that the most expensive way to do anything is to give control of it to government. Now government already has a lot of control over things that affect health care costs, and the impact of that is horrendously expensive. Without going into the mass complexity, just look at one example.
Let's say you need a hip replacement, and you have insurance- probably costing you $800-$1000 a month . I need a hip replacement, and I do not. have insurance.
You go to the hospital. The bill is $53,000.00, and your deductible is 20%- or $10,600. And of course, you have paid around $10K in the last year to get the 80% coverage. You are out over $20K for the year.

I go to the hospital too, but I use an alternative. I book a package trip with what is called "medical tourism", providing a package hip replacement- in Spain. The package includes round-trip airfare, hotel, meals hospital, surgery, recovery- and genuinely first class care.
My package costs $13,000. I have no deductible, no other expenses, and no insurance cost. Which of us got the better deal?

You are as smart as they want you to be..... and not a clue about what you don't know.

Government's real job is to make things easier; keep the pathways clear, take care of the national defense and things that cannot be done privately-
and other than that, GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

 

This is how bad political polarization has gotten:

 

For the sense of the rest of your post this stands out as not "sensible" but opinionated politics.
There are SOME who scream and rant and by no means are they all liberals.

 

Well, if you watched the video (as it does not sound like, from the comments, many did), you might better understand why it is so easy to demonize "the other side."

In truth, I've stopped at the moment, maybe halfway through, at most (including the News service ad) just a little bit into the Religion section. That's because the speaker-- who talks very fast-- is beginning to shoot out some ideas that seem contradictory, or are at least in need of explaining (and, in waiting for that further elucidation, more counter- intuitive, or non sequitur, ideas fly past).

It first sounded like it was said that Liberalism, the elevation of individual rights, was an extension of pre- Christian societies, but then calls Christianity the source of Liberal values, and so Individualism, in the West. This is immediately followed by saying that with the decline of Christianity, came the decline of Liberalism, and the examples given of this, included the rise of "Leftist states." Though I can understand that any authoritarian regime, on the Left, or Right, is going to restrict individual freedoms, and so could be said to be a decline in "Liberalism," in the restrictive way in which it is being defined, nevertheless, it seems as if there should have been more clarification given as to what ideas, the terms really stood for, in this description, because this will no doubt conflict with conventional ideas about these terms, such as our associating greater individual freedom, today, with the Right when, in fact, according to the video, that is a sign of Liberalism which, in standard practice, is associated with the Left. Likewise, the rise of Socialist Movements (I think I even heard him say), and Communist regimes are all being portrayed as anti- Liberalist which, in the common understanding, would be, of the Right.

Again, I can understand the concept, but I think it is highly- problematic to try to use the same terms that people already know, but define them differently. In fact, I think the video itself might cross back & forth into using conventional ideas of Right & Left, associating them with terms (like Liberalism) that are given contradictory associations (as I gave examples of, above), in other parts of the video's explanation.

I am, therefore, getting the impression that, despite it containing some interesting ideas, I will not find it worth the effort to try to follow the rest of it, because I will be too turned- off, by all the inconsistencies.

 

Nothing is all black and white here- but each of the perspectives seem to have herd followers, that fail to see beyond their obsession. All of that is opinionated, because if you can't rationally examine both sides, if you can't separate fact from fiction, you are lying to yourself. What shifts things is the direction of drift of the crowd. What makes that trajectory.... is their opinion. People act on beliefs and fears, and not logically.
If you are afraid of something that is not real- you are still afraid, and will react as if it was. Equally- if you refuse to acknowledge something is real, you react as if it was not. Either way, you screw yourself up.
The facts matter; the fantasies only screw up people's ability to see facts.

Some people, too many people- have those handicaps.

 

I don't know why you cite a right wing attack on some simple expression of leftist ideology, which admittedly is bad enough by itself, when the incidences of leftists shutting down conservative speech, sometimes violently, exceptionally on college campuses, happens magnitudes more often.

 

That is precisely what was behind the framers inserting the interstate commerce clause. It certainly was not put in the Constitution to give the federal government more authority over stuff which is what the framers and founders feared most.