7 reasons why liberals are incapable of understanding the world around them

I got it - you prefer a world where anyone who has liberal ideas, but is successful, isn't really a liberal ...

So if these people voted for the Democrat in the last election (which it appears they did) they still wouldn't be "liberal" in your view - because they are successful. Pretty f***king convenient world view on your part.

 

Success in the business world isn't how liberalism is defined. I'd go even farther by saying that just because they espouse social liberal values, which are basically positive rights, doesn't mean that they really are. It's just a way of surviving in the market. We've all seen how the left will attack anybody who isn't on board with their social engineering agenda, so it's only natural that they would put on that particular mask for the general public.

If you're really interested in classical liberalism, just think of natural rights and the liberty they provide individuals, and stop focusing on society.

 

Got it - don't look at anything that might contradict your views, just things that support them.


You've got to be kidding me. Are you for real?

 

You dropped a few names of rich guys, and then said that they are liberals. You have yet to define the term. That's not me contradicting you, but rather you not making anything that might even vaguely resemble an argument.

Unless you really believe that social liberals are defined by success in the business world, which would make Trump a social liberal.

 

I'm only up to page two and there are already tons of messages to reply to...

Actually, the "inconclusive" rating has been a cover for "colossal failure". The government can't tell another government program that it is a waste of time. The only way they've been able to say inconclusive rather than colossal failure is by including the results in 1st & 2nd grades, since any benefit is gone by the 3rd grade for all students taking part in the Headstart program.

That's because conservatives understand that there are some problems that are not fixable. Stupid kids are stupid kids, and you can't fix them no matter how much money you pour into their education. For health care, the liberals think a government solution is the only solution, and if their's doesn't work, they want to know what the conservative GOVERNMENT solution is. Conservatives, on the other hand, would prefer to get government out of the way and let the free market resolve the problem. So our solution is in fact NO SOLUTION, i.e., stop trying to fix it and get out of the way.

Which leads to programs like Headstart, which are a complete failure but go on and on and on regardless. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is to do nothing.

For the first 150 years of this country, the US ran on conservative economic ideology and prospered and grew and succeeded in a way unparalleled before in human history. And you want to claim these policies are "ruinous". Meanwhile, Europe, which has been running on socialist policies for the last 80 years, is collapsing before our eyes, but those are the policies you want us to adopt here in the US.

Indeed.

I've already debunked this in a previous thread, why do you insist on repeating it when it is a lie?

IF you're white. If you're black or Hispanic, the more intelligent and educated you are, the more likely you are to be a conservative. Interesting, eh? Asians tend to be equally liberal at all levels of education and intelligence.

Ad hominem, insupportable opinion. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them bad ideas, and just because you don't like conservative opinions doesn't make them ignorant hatred.

How arrogant of you to think that everyone on earth should be allowed to come to the US, regardless of whether they have anything to contribute or whether they actually want to be US citizens or just make money. And in a civilized society, nowhere should be a gun free zone because you never know when an uncivilized person is going to start shooting or blowing things up. In the UK, nearly every terrorist attack lately has been without a gun, but if the police had guns, several of them could have been stopped a lot sooner.

The kids are stupid, yes.

Again, already debunked, 80% of small business owners vote Republican. While not all inventors are small business owners and vice-versa, there is considerable overlap. Some examples of conservative inventors: James Dyson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison (?), Nikola Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, Samuel Morse, and Eli Whitney. Interestingly, it is the conservatives in DC right now who are pushing for strong patent protection for inventors, not the liberals.

Think about it, if it wasn't for conservatives creating the greatest free society in the world, liberals wouldn't have any place to bitch. They'd all be living in North Korea, where political dissent is forbidden.

 

You see what you wish to see and not infrequently the response to leftist racial stereo typing. When you make race an integral part of a the giant spoils system that has become the Democratic raison d'etre over the last fifty years those who feel that have been target for financial and economic destruction will fight back against the racist attacks you have launched against them. What you never see is your own negative attitudes that provoke it.

 

4 and 6 are nonsensical stupidity and you could just substitute the word "conservative" for liberal for all the others.

The biggest problem we face as a nation is blind partisanship.

 

Partisanship is what most countries suffer from, unless they've gone totally left-wing like north korea or communist russia, and then the only place you find any partisans are in the gulags.

The reason why you find tories and labour in the UK and democrats and republicans in the US is because of two basic ideas on how to live in society. Either as individuals or as a member of the collective. One interesting thing I've found is that northeast asians (chinese, japanese, korean) are usually quite collectivist, whereas europeans suffer from a very antisocial individualistic nature. The northeast asians are also quite reluctant to dilute their culture with people or ideas from elsewhere. You can visit China, but don't try to preach about moral relativism. They will think you're just another idiot gweilo who escaped the lunatic asylum.

 

Cable cars? So did Chicago, new York...

 

How do you figure especially with #2 ? Where is it a lefty bombarded with the conservative view point in the USA?



.

 

Again you quote false data. Nearly all the top states are dominated by Republicans while the bottom ten are about equally split. Of the top 10 states, only Colorado is run by Democrats.

Again, false. After the civil war and well into the 20th century, it was the north that was conservative and the south that was liberal. It was the Republican North that freed the slaves, enacted the 13th, 14th, & 15th amendments, and elected the first blacks to Congress. The Republican party dominated northern politics and national politics for decades. Meanwhile, the Democratic South had the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and lynchings. When the unions came along, the Democrats embraced them and socialism wholeheartedly. It was only the vast influx of foreigners into the northern cities to work in the factories that turned the north from Republican to Democrat. Funny how the same process is at work in California.

It's not often I get to laugh at absurdity, thanks for that.

This is about as fair and balanced as a 400 pound gorilla with a toddler.

I'm an atheist and I have morals. They happen to be Judeo-Christian morals, however, which I credit to the family and civilization in which I was raised. The problem with the left isn't that they have defective morals, they have no morals at all.

Most conservatives are pro-defense but are not pro-subsidies or pro-entitlement spending.

Why does "freedom" for homosexuals require Christians to bake them cakes and cater their "weddings"? How does that square with freedom for Christians?

Science is not a religion, secular humanism is. Using science to push for liberal agendas is generally what conservatives oppose.

Support for the drug war on the conservative side is squishy at best. But if it requires teetotallers to support the war on drugs, talk to the Baptists.

Central Africa. Generally speaking, major powers must come to the aid of their allies, even when they don't especially like some of the things those allies do. Not doing so would discourage other countries from being allies and encourage other countries that would like to invade similar allies. Saudi Arabia in particular has a lot to answer for, and I'm generally opposed to giving them another dime or another bullet until they rein in their aid and support for terrorists and Wahabbism, but Kuwait has been a faithful ally in the region for decades, so it wasn't possible not to come to their aid when they needed it. Geopolitical realities trumped human rights concerns.

Nonsequitur. Having fewer regulations has nothing to do with businesses operating in the best interests of their customers. Take airline deregulation. Deregulating the airlines made air travel safer, cheaper, and more efficient. Today, airlines have been treating customers with near-contempt in several well-publicized incidents. Regulations can't solve that, but lawsuits can.

All in all, I'd question your libertarian credentials if you can't characterize conservatives any better than that. To my mind, conservatives' major failing is being far too willing to compromise with the left and the establishment Republicans. Conservatives have great ideas, but they rarely get a shot at being tried. When they are, they succeed spectacularly, but then everyone else takes credit for them or disparages the results as a one-off.

 

Actually, I'm betting you don't have a clue what your talking about. What benefit is lost?

First, see answer 1. Your "stupid kids" remark is so condescendingly ignorant I'm thinking you didn't have the benefit of Headstart as a child.

Well the poster is talking about today and your rebuttal refers to 150 years ago.....that makes sense? By the way, give an example of a "conservative" policy from that period that was so successful or better yet the opposite failing policy.

With what? An opinion?

There are no words that can properly address the the lack of intelligent argument presented here.

Again....ignorantly arrogant.

I stopped at Franklin. Yeah, he was a Conservative.
You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Interesting, so you admit there is many rich liberals...you can't even comprehend what you did by posting this can you?

Remind me who is the party of the rich is again?




.

.

 

Of course there are wealthy people with liberal views - just like there are conservatives who are poor ... honestly, you can't be that simple.

 

I qualify for Mensa but never joined. If I qualify for Mensa, am I not smart just because I am a conservative?

Let me refute this point by point...

"1) Conservatism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-conservative to change a conservative's mind about political issues because conservatism works like so: only conservatives are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's conservative? He espouses conservative doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a conservative and if you are a conservative, of course, you probably agree with conservative views. This sort of close-mindedness makes conservatives nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs."

Unfortunately, a majority of all news sources, studies, statistics, and even books come from the left, so conservatives almost always are dependent on liberal sources of information, no matter how much we might like to have an unbiased source. Who debunks 99% of feminist propaganda, for example? Conservatives? Hardly. It's almost always other feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia. Conservatives have to rely on moderate lefties for most data.

"2) Conservative sources of information are ever present. Liberals are regularly exposed to the conservative viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for conservatives. Imagine the average day for conservatives. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a conservative viewpoint. [I want to see this newspaper.] They take their kids to school, where the teachers are conservative. [Ha!] Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a conservative viewpoint [Double Ha!] on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews rightward. [Haha!] From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by conservatives that lean to the right, if they have any political viewpoint at all. [Name two.] Unless conservatives actively seek out liberal viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only liberal arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other conservatives."

I can't even begin to take this seriously. We have Fox News and the Washington Times while the left has ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and pretty much every other local newspaper and television station in the country. Avoiding liberal views in America pretty much requires living in a cave.

"3) Conservatives emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Conservatism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to conservatives is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not."

Actually conservatives are all about the feedback, does it work or doesn't it. Feelings don't matter, opinions don't matter, all that matters are the statistics. If it works, great, keep it, if it doesn't, scrap it. Raising minimum wages is a good example here. It feels good, but the statistics show it doesn't help anyone but it does put a lot of people out of work. Raising the minimum wage doesn't make unskilled people more valuable, it makes them less employable.

"4) Conservatives are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that conservatives do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about [it.]"

Obviously wrong and false, conservatives are big believers in moral absolutes, that morality is not a matter of local opinion or temporal condition. Do conservatives make "deals with the devil" to get things done? Absolutely. But that makes them pragmatists, not hypocrites or moral relativists. Far too often, it ends up being a Faustian bargain, but that's another discussion.

"5)Conservatives tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of conservatism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual."

Again, obviously false and wrong, conservatives see individuals as individuals and not members of a collective. Why is it, do you suppose, that Democrats encourage blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., to identify by their race or sex and Republicans don't? It's because Democrats can't win on the issues, so they have to win by divide and conquer. Democrats haven't won the white male vote in a presidential election since 1964. If the Democrats encouraged everyone to identify as American rather than black, Hispanic, female, etc., they'd lose half their electorate. What's a victim party without victims?

"6) Conservatives take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state?"

Again, obviously false and wrong. Conservatives blame the criminal for the crime, not the gun. Conservatives credit the entrepreneur and not luck (mostly) for his success. (A conservative would never say to an entrepreneur, "You didn't build that," as Barack Obama certainly did.) Conservatives blame the down and out for their own problems, not the state.

"7) Conservatives give themselves far too much credit just for being conservative."

It's hard to argue with this one because it's mostly just opinion anyway. You'd be hard-pressed to prove or disprove it either way. However, it's certainly true that liberals think they are good people simply because they are liberals. This is why you get meaningless "feel-good" activism on the left that doesn't amount to a hill of beans, like hash-tag activism, wearing safety pins, putting ribbons on their cars, and marching in the street when there's no real danger of being oppressed. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't consider themselves good people unless they actually DO something that helps, like giving to charity.

So no, there's no sense in which ANY of these apply to conservatives in the same way that they apply to liberals.

I grew up a conservative.

Any advantage to the kids who went through Headstart versus those that didn't. You'd lose that bet.

*smirks* Good thing, too. Actually I grew up with stupid kids in stupid neighborhoods and was hated and shunned for my intelligence.

Pretty much all of them. The entire country was so far more right-wing from 1776 to 1929 than it is now that it isn't even comparable. Most of what the government does today would make our Founding Fathers turn over in their graves in horror. Read Federalist #10 again and see how everything that Madison said the Constitution would prevent from happening has in fact happened even with the Constitution still in place.

No, facts, linked and everything, but apparently you didn't read the original post.

You said it, not me. In fact, you present no argument whatsoever, just a Monty Python-esque, "No it isn't," to everything I say.

Quote from Franklin, the liberal: “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” Sounds like a cold, heartless conservative to me.

And where do you get that statistic from? According to this page, http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/10-most-forested-states-in-the-us-343446/?singlepage=1, Oregon is a respectable #3 in amount of forested land, behind deep red states Alaska and Texas. Washington is #9. Texas has almost twice as much forested land as Oregon, and Alaska has more than three and a half times as much. I suppose theoretically if the trees in the temperate rainforest grow more than three and a half times as thickly as in the more precipitation-sparse Alaskan forests, there could be more trees in Oregon than in Alaska, but I could find no reference to that with a basic Google search. So I'm still doubtful. And if that's the case, then Oregon and Washington owe their tree numbers to the rain and not to the environmentalists.

 

answer: "makes an assumption and goes with it as if it was true"

 

Thanks for taking some time; I'll repay the favor.

First off; I originally stated #6 was the exception and my theory didn't work for that one - which you failed to notice.

1. conservatives have all of talk radio; the most watched 24 hour tv news network and thousands of small time website operations that pump the conservative narrative. The point is; both sides can accuse the other being stuck in an echo chamber. When the right labels everything they disagree with or everything with a perceived (or real) slant as "fake news", they're not exactly embracing alternative viewpoints, they're walling themselves off from the other side. There are elements of both political tribes that fall victim to the echo chamber is my point; for every Conservative that refuses to read the New York Times there's a liberal that refuses to watch Fox. Lets not pretend that "the echo chamber phenomenon" solely exists on one side.

2. Talk Radio. Breitbart. Drudge. Fox News. We're saturated with conservative opinion news-tainment in this country. Whether it's the television editorials on Fox at night or the daily Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin radio/internet during the day or Breitbart/Drudge/Infowars aggregating conservative stories on the internet for your consumption; there's no shortage of conservative media or spin. Perhaps liberals have more tv networks and newspapers; but conservatives dominate talk radio. Look at how long we had to deal with birtherism in the zeitgeist; years. For such an obvious false narrative to stick around for so long proved the strength (and intense partisanship) of the conservative media.

3. What have been the 'superior results' of the Bush & Trump administrations? How many posts on here do I see of Conservatives hating on liberals just for being liberals; which is the superiority complex for sure. Hey, I see liberal posters do the same sh*t... and it's annoying. Again, lets not pretend like both sides aren't looking down their noses at the other side.

4. The most convenient illustrator of moral relativism on the right is the current Trump/Russia scandal. If Hillary or Obama was at the center of this instead of Trump; Fox News, Rush, Newt Gingrich, Alex Jones and the GOP in Congress would be going apesh*t. There is no right and wrong for conservatives these days; there is only winning the next political street-fight. Trump's campaign for President epitomized that; win at all costs.

5. Just look at the President's mulsim ban or comments about Mexicans and observe the crowds cheering the unprecedented judging of groups by an American President. Or maybe look at this website and observe all the threads about "the blacks, muslims, jews" or "white pride" that are exclusively started by conservatives. There is an ugly brand of tribalism present on the right side of the political aisle in this country and it is all about judging groups collectively.

7. This one is so blatantly true, so obviously a problem with both sides that I'm surprised you attempted to push back on it. Your answer started out reasonably, but then you decided against your better judgment and brought up meaningless "feel good" activism as your evidence. I agree with you that a lot of people on the left do that sort of "social media / keep up appearances / social status" activism crap and yea it's a major turn off. That's just as established and annoying a practice on the right. The liberals clock themselves in social justice, the conservatives in god and patriotism - both believe they have the monopoly and proceed to congratulate each other's adherents on the gigantic echo-chambered circle jerk that has become social media.

Outside of #6, they all apply.

 

I suppose it depends on what set of data one uses. In my post in clearly stated "as to economic growth". Of the top ten only Utah is in Republican hands. The bottom, no matter how you split it, is dominated by southern states like Mississippi and Louisiana which are clearly in Republican hands

Have you ever read a history book?

While the original Democratic-Republican Party was quite liberal, by the time Andrew Jackson came along and the name shortened to the Democratic Party it had become conservative. The Whig Party, which was anti-slavery, was the party liberals flocked to. The Whig Party morphed into the National Union Party. Lincoln was elected president as part of the National Union Party. The National Union Party became the Republican Party when Grant came to office. The south became solidly Democratic because the National Union , then the Republicans who opposed slavery.

The Republican Party didn't turn conservative until after the spectacle of the civil war had faded from memory and monied interests, the right-wing, like John Rockefeller, and that crowd, took it over in the late 1800's. It was widely seen as those monied interests that brought about the economic collapse in the 1930's. This is what brought FDR to office and led to the Fedeal Reserve, Social Security, Unions, and the New Deal.

Eisenhower took steps to end segregation but mostly due to a Supreme Court ruling. Kennedy had begun a civil rights program but he was killed before it got very far. LBJ, with his notable skills with the legislature, got civil rights legislation passed. When he did so, he said it was the greatest thing he could have done to honor Kennedy. He also said that it would probably cause the Democratic Party to lose future voters. Sure enough the battle lines where drawn mainly along the north/south divide and in the ensuing years all the southerns and non-southern racists switched to the Republican Party. Once the Republican Party adopted a bible-belt mentality, liberals flocked to the Democratic Party.

From the perspective of American history it seems that the primary political divide falls along the issue of race. The right, the conservatives, seem to prefer a stratified society, with blacks at the bottom, whites at the top, and everyone else in between. The left, the liberals seem to prefer a mixing of the races.

 

I'll be more brief this time, and perhaps a little more flippant. For this one, who the hell listens to talk radio? I don't, and I'm conservative.

See above.

Zero. But then neither Bush nor Trump are conservatives. Bush grew the budget more than twice as much as Clinton did, and was the first president of a democracy to start an unprovoked war rather than responding to a threat or an attack. (Afghanistan was justified, Iraq not.) These are not conservative values. (Aside to note I'll give Trump marks for appointing Gorsuch, who promises to be a true conservative voice on the bench.)

The "Russia scandal" is a non-issue. If Trump had been colluding with Russia with Obama's FBI spying on Trump, don't you think the Obama administration would have broadcast that info, and loudly? This whole Russia thing is the left's version of the birther bullshit... it's sore loser talk, that's all.

A) The "Muslim ban" didn't ban Muslims, it banned entry from a select group of nations, regardless of religion, and not Muslims from any other country. B) The president does not represent conservatives. C) Halting illegal immigration (and I would argue for severely limiting legal immigration as well) isn't just aimed at Mexicans; a significant portion of illegals come from South and Central America, and a small but significant number are Chinese here on visas who have overstayed. D) The tribalism of which you speak is fairly limited in extent on the right and is regularly disavowed by mainstream conservatives and Republicans. I personally LIKE Jews, so I'm pretty hostile to anti-Semites. E) The "us vs. them" that you see on the right is a natural consequence of patriotism and the vitriolic hate emanating from the left, but the nice thing is that blacks, Hispanics, Jews, etc., can all be "us" by embracing the views of the conservatives. It's startling to see so many homosexuals coming over to the right since the Orlando attack. Talk about your odd bedfellows (so to speak).

I'm not seeing what you're seeing on the right. But then I'm not active in any right-wing groups on social media. I go to a right-wing chatroom and all they talk about there is guns. No talk of God, patriotism, or congratulations on being a conservative. Even there, I feel like an outsider because I'm not blue-collar and have no guns.

Yeah, no.

Cite your source or stop pulling facts out of your ass.

Apparently you haven't. There's so much wrong with your history that it would take hours to correct all the errors here. If you think Andrew Jackson was a conservative, you don't even know what the hell the terms liberal and conservative even mean.

Just to point out one obvious glaring error that I can debunk without even looking anything up, the Republican Party was organized in 1854 from scratch, had the Fremont brothers as their first presidential and vice-presidential candidates in 1856, and ran Abraham Lincoln in 1860. It was the Republican Party from the very beginning, long before Grant became president in 1869. The Whigs, far from being liberal, were so mired in fear of taking a stand on anything that they wouldn't condemn or support slavery, and that's why they were replaced as the second major party starting in 1860. All the rest is just as wrong.

 

I agree that the two basic ideas you present exist on the extreme end of the spectrum, there is a whole lot of ground in between.

Right now the US and most western democracies have moved away from their roots in classical liberalism (respect for individual rights and freedoms/liberty) towards Utilitarianism (what will increase happiness for the collective with no regard for individual rights and freedoms)

The founders created a system whereby the power of Gov't was supposed to be limited, where authority of Gov't came from "we the people" as opposed to "divine right/God" as was the case in the past.

The question then is "limited to what" ? Jefferson's answer was:

This reflects the ideas and ideals of the enlightenment thinkers (Classical Liberalism) and Republicanism.

The natural tendency of Gov't is to gain more power. The founders limited the power of Gov't and for 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back ... and it has succeeded.

Utilitarian justification for law is now a massive plague that infects both Red and Blue Establishment.
What is worse is that often justifications for law are on the basis of "fallacious Utilitarianism - arguments that are not even good Utilitarian arguments.

For example: "if it saves one life" or "harm reduction" as justification for law.

This are very insidious arguments because they sound good on the surface. Who does not want to save one life ? Digging deeper these arguments are evil incarnate as they despise individual liberty.

If "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law then .. should we not ban skiing ? would we not save one life ? How about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? Forget it.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. The truth is that the risk of harm from terrorism to a US citizen is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking". You heard me correctly.

In a free society citizens in general have the right to risk harm to themselves. In exceptional cases - something that represents such a grave risk of harm - then the bar for making law is supposed to be "overwhelming majority" at least 2/3rds.

The Gov't was given power to punish but, only for protection from direct harm "murder, rape, theft and so on". There are few that think that murder should be legal. An overwhelming majority do not.

The bar is no different for any law that wants to mess with individual rights and freedoms (or it is not supposed to be).

Any Gov't then making such law (Fed, State, Municipal) is going outside its legitimate authority and thus is "illegitimate"... according to the principles on which western democratic systems were founded.

 

1) Feedback loop. This is a huge problem on the Right. Take all the Reagan on a pedestal rhetoric for example. Reagan was not considered that good of a Pres back in the day - even by republicans. He spent money like a princess with a credit card, created massive deficits and massive debt, and was a foreign policy nightmare. I can give a bunch of other examples. In general - Red Establishment hates the principles on which this nation was founded, individual liberty and the constitution and they love wealth redistribution, big Gov't and Big debt

while this is the truth - this is not what the feedback loop states.

2) Exposure to Red ideas is everywhere. The BS that the left are "communists" or that modern socialism is "Communist". I am not a fan of the left but, they are not "communists". The fact of the matter is that Red loves wealth redistribution and Big Gov't as much as Blue.

The BS that there are fair and free markets that exist in this country and that this non existent platitude is the solution to our problems. The BS given in (1). The promotion of fear to take away individual liberty ... and on and on.

 

I respect your opinions, Regan had to deal with tippy during that time , I remember being a scared kid during the times of Jimmy Carter listening to the news on the AM dial when I went to sleep at night..I heard about the Iran when our military couldn't do anything right, to the boycott of the Olympics..


Reagan if you were alive back then gave us a new hope..



.

 

2) Exposure to Red ideas is everywhere.


Now I am digesting your post where is the rights ideas posted? Bill boards, television, press it's all left.

Schools , college, music it's all left..

Every where we turn it's all left..

 

Some good things happened under Reagan such as the wall coming down. This however had everything to do with Gorby and decades of economic issues in Russia and much much less to do with Reagan. The idea that Reagan broke Russia economically is a demonstrably false narrative and abject silliness.

Reagan was also helped by the turning of an economic cycle - the baby boomers coming into their peak spending years. This had zero to do with Reagan. The fact that Reagan ran the most obscene of deficits in the face of rapidly rising income demonstrates what a credit card princess he really was. Reagan's economic policy set the stage for the economic nightmare in which we are currently living.

Never mind Reagan though - Bush Sr. and Jr were also fiscal nightmares. It was Clinton and Obama that reduced deficits.
Just to clarify - I am a fiscally conservative constitution loving republican (old style prior to the religious right taking over). There are almost no real Republicans left in the Red political establishment which is why I now despise the Conservative Party as a whole.

The foreign policy of Rotten Ronnie was nasty x 4. He supported death squad dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala. He waged an illegal covert war in Nicaragua - using drug money to fund the war because Congress had declined him funding. These death squad soldiers were trained in terror tactics at the "School of the America's".

Reagan supported the genocide committed by Suharto in Indonesia.
Reagan supported Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and his own people. When Galbraith came back from seeing the gassed out towns in Iraq he quickly drafted the "Prevention of Genocide Act" which was to sanction Saddam. The Bill passed quickly through the Senate with broad bipartisan support. Rotten Ronnie threatened veto and the bill died in the house. Roughly a year later support for Saddam increased under Daddy Bush.

 

I gave you a number of "specific" ideas that permeate the ether - these twisted lies did not sprout legs and walk out there on their own. Many of these. ideas are trumpeted on both right, center (and sometimes even left) mainstream media.

This does not mean that the left is not also getting their twisted fallacious utilitarian message out. They are !

The problem is that both Red and Blue hate the principles on which this nation was founded - individual rights and freedoms and liberty - and the constitution. Both love wealth redistribution and hate fair and free markets. Both love Big Gov't, big deficits and crony capitalism - the international financiers (robber barons) and the oligopolies and monopolies which they support through regulation and tax law in an effort to produce a society of indentured servitude. Both love increasing Gov't and police power and hate limited Gov't. Both hate transparency and freedom of the press.

Although the citizens are starting to wake up and smell the flatus and feel their backsides being penetrated - they do not know where or on who to pin the blame.

A vote for either Red or Blue is a vote for continued sodomization.