Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

If I had to assign a label to LynahFan it probably would be libertarian, although that doesn't quite exactly fit.

If you figure it out, let me know - I certainly can't.

On the "conservative" (common usage) side, I'm:
anti-union (especially public unions)
anti big government and high taxes
pro strong military
generally skeptical of social programs (especially those that are designed to mask the pain of a problem without solving it)
anti-universal health care (somebody has to do the rationing, and I distrust business less than government on this one)
pro-business but anti-bailout (let business owners keep the rewards for the risks they take and the hard work they do, and keep excessive regulation out of their way, but don't pour good taxpayer money after bad private investments)
anti affirmative action.

On the "liberal" side, I'm:
pro-choice
pro gun control (in cases where it actually aligns with common sense and has a prayer of actually doing some good)
pro civil rights (read: gay marriage)
pro financial regulation (let the government be the rules committee and referee but don't let them play the game or choose the winners)
pro marijuana (I've only ever seen one joint in my life and have no interest in drugs whatsoever, but live and let live)
pro using taxpayer funds to develop alternate energy as long as its something that's meaningful and sustainable (sorry, solar and wind).

Besides which, I don't see anything in my post #641 that advocates a liberal position. I perceive that post to be entirely factual - "lock step" is not a pejorative term; it's the reality of the situation. The guy I quoted is one of the arch-conservatives - if using his words is "parroting a liberal position" then I think the cats and dogs are finally living together.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

There's a sort of built in desire to be considered centrist no matter where folks land on the political spectrum.

True. And even without our bias of wanting to believe we are the center of the number line, it's probably also an unavoidable consequence of the people we interact with, too. A self-identified Mississippi centrist and a self-identified Massachusetts centrist are two very different breeds of cat, even if both honestly believe they are the true center.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I would have characterized Lynah as a conservative with periodic social liberal tendancies...and a liberatarian with periodic populist tendancies.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

If you figure it out, let me know - I certainly can't.

On the "conservative" (common usage) side, I'm:
anti-union (especially public unions)
anti big government and high taxes
pro strong military
generally skeptical of social programs (especially those that are designed to mask the pain of a problem without solving it)
anti-universal health care (somebody has to do the rationing, and I distrust business less than government on this one)
pro-business but anti-bailout (let business owners keep the rewards for the risks they take and the hard work they do, and keep excessive regulation out of their way, but don't pour good taxpayer money after bad private investments)
anti affirmative action.

On the "liberal" side, I'm:
pro-choice
pro gun control (in cases where it actually aligns with common sense and has a prayer of actually doing some good)
pro civil rights (read: gay marriage)
pro financial regulation (let the government be the rules committee and referee but don't let them play the game or choose the winners)
pro marijuana (I've only ever seen one joint in my life and have no interest in drugs whatsoever, but live and let live)
pro using taxpayer funds to develop alternate energy as long as its something that's meaningful and sustainable (sorry, solar and wind).

I figured it out. You're an engineer, computer scientist, or economist with post-graduate education. You match that profile at about a .8 correlation coefficient.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

LynahFan's espousing of a "liberal" position on, say, gay marriage could just as easily be construed as liberals espousing a libertarian position on that issue.

This. Gay marriage is certainly a libertarian cause (keep the government out of people's bedrooms), and OUGHT to be perceived as a big-govt-vs-small-govt issue, but due to the historical alignment of other social forces (religion) with the Right, the two parties are both on the "unexpected" side of this issue.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

If you figure it out, let me know - I certainly can't.

On the "conservative" (common usage) side, I'm:
anti-union (especially public unions)
anti big government and high taxes
pro strong military
generally skeptical of social programs (especially those that are designed to mask the pain of a problem without solving it)
anti-universal health care (somebody has to do the rationing, and I distrust business less than government on this one)
pro-business but anti-bailout (let business owners keep the rewards for the risks they take and the hard work they do, and keep excessive regulation out of their way, but don't pour good taxpayer money after bad private investments)
anti affirmative action.

On the "liberal" side, I'm:
pro-choice
pro gun control (in cases where it actually aligns with common sense and has a prayer of actually doing some good)
pro civil rights (read: gay marriage)
pro financial regulation (let the government be the rules committee and referee but don't let them play the game or choose the winners)
pro marijuana (I've only ever seen one joint in my life and have no interest in drugs whatsoever, but live and let live)
pro using taxpayer funds to develop alternate energy as long as its something that's meaningful and sustainable (sorry, solar and wind).

Besides which, I don't see anything in my post #641 that advocates a liberal position. I perceive that post to be entirely factual - "lock step" is not a pejorative term; it's the reality of the situation. The guy I quoted is one of the arch-conservatives - if using his words is "parroting a liberal position" then I think the cats and dogs are finally living together.

That explains it. I see you comment a lot on social issues, where you're generally liberal, so that's where I get my impression from. You're probably more conservative than me on business type issues, where I'm less trusting of business in general than you sound.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I figured it out. You're an engineer, computer scientist, or economist with post-graduate education. You match that profile at about a .8 correlation coefficient.

But what's the margin of error?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

This. Gay marriage is certainly a libertarian cause (keep the government out of people's bedrooms), and OUGHT to be perceived as a big-govt-vs-small-govt issue, but due to the historical alignment of other social forces (religion) with the Right, the two parties are both on the "unexpected" side of this issue.

It's all in how you define it. To me I want to keep the government from forcing folks to endorse gay marriage. To me it's libertarian to keep the government out of pushing the gay agenda in a whole series of areas where it's being pushed. Just leave us alone and keep your big government from pushing this agenda on us folks who aren't looking to push any agenda. Given the broad brush of where the parties have been at in recent decades, where they are on this issue is highly predictable to me. The Dems have just avoided saying what they really think about it until the polls started telling them it might help them. Anybody who believes all that evolving view mush from Obama is naive in the extreme.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

It really doesn't bother me that all the liberals jump on and claim that someone isn't liberal. After all, a lot of you folks don't even admit you're liberal, let alone far left.

Probably not a well-timed post just after FF claimed to be a centrist.

I also think people tend to exaggerate their views when combating idiotic and/or extremist attacks on their positions. A typical exchange goes like this:

Actual Centrist: "There are times when regulation might be a good idea."

Radical Conservative: "OH NOES!!!!!!!! TEH SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!111!

Actual Centrist: "Oh yeah? Well you're a Koch Sucker."

And that's how one radical can make everybody look radical.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

But what's the margin of error?

It's an internet board. None of us ever cop to any error.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

It's all in how you define it. To me I want to keep the government from forcing folks to endorse gay marriage. To me it's libertarian to keep the government out of pushing the gay agenda in a whole series of areas where it's being pushed. Just leave us alone and keep your big government from pushing this agenda on us folks who aren't looking to push any agenda. Given the broad brush of where the parties have been at in recent decades, where they are on this issue is highly predictable to me. The Dems have just avoided saying what they really think about it until the polls started telling them it might help them. Anybody who believes all that evolving view mush from Obama is naive in the extreme.

I've never seen anyone advocate that the government should "force folks to endorse gay marriage." Churches will always be able to perform whatever marriages they choose to, and CEOs will always be free to espouse their views under the first amendment. I could not care less whether you or anyone else "likes" gay marriage - I just want the law changed.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

To me it's libertarian to keep the government out of pushing the gay agenda in a whole series of areas where it's being pushed. Just leave us alone and keep your big government from pushing this agenda on us folks who aren't looking to push any agenda.

I do not understand this. How is it "the gay agenda" to want to be treated equally? That should be everybody's agenda, shouldn't it? Did not southern whites in the 60's say they just wanted to be left alone from "the black agenda"?

I'm not being (well, deliberately) a jerk when I say I do not see the difference.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I've never seen anyone advocate that the government should "force folks to endorse gay marriage." Churches will always be able to perform whatever marriages they choose to, and CEOs will always be free to espouse their views under the first amendment. I could not care less whether you or anyone else "likes" gay marriage - I just want the law changed.

That's in essence what's being done, you just don't realize it yet. And it'll be pushed further and further. Look at Canada, where if you speak out now against homosexuality in any way, you're in danger of going to jail for hate speech. That'll eventually happen here also, regardless of supposed protections for freedom of religion and speech. You change the laws and a society you are endorsing or not endorsing certain things.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I've never seen anyone advocate that the government should "force folks to endorse gay marriage." Churches will always be able to perform whatever marriages they choose to

bad news, government control of churches is coming. This isn't as far fetched as you think. There are some socialist republics where it is illegal right now to read certain passages from the Bible.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

bad news, government control of churches is coming. This isn't as far fetched as you think. There are some socialist republics where it is illegal right now to read certain passages from the Bible.

And there are Islamic Republics where they have the death penalty for atheism.

What's your point?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I do not understand this. How is it "the gay agenda" to want to be treated equally? That should be everybody's agenda, shouldn't it? Did not southern whites in the 60's say they just wanted to be left alone from "the black agenda"?

I'm not being (well, deliberately) a jerk when I say I do not see the difference.

We really don't need to go through this whole discussion exercise again do we? Society has traditionally drawn the line of what marriage is in one place. You want to move the line to capture another specific form of relationship, but not beyond that. But, what you are doing is obviously arbitrary. If you expand marriage to include gay relationships, you can't logically stop there and exclude polygamous relationships and such, other than that we just drive our definitions by what feels good at the moment. And that's just one aspect of it. I realize that a big part of the strategy is to stigmatize people who oppose gay marriage, coopting the civil rights mantra, so you're inherently good and your opponents are inherently bad. And you're succeeding. So be it. If I lose my job eventually or am otherwise shunned in this society for standing for what's right, I can live with that.

 

[Rover]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I always get confused in these threads. Half the liberals complain that the Republicans are so organized and all, ala this post. But the other half make fun of how the Republicans can't get a decent candidate, can't get a good election strategy, etc. You guys really need to pick one theme or the other and run with it. Going both ways all the time is ponderous at best.

I'll field this one Bob. The Republicans are as disorganized as I've ever seen them. Not sure why losing sure Senate seats just to nominate 100% ideological pure candidates instead of a 90% pure one that could win the election is a good idea. The misperception you speak of is mostly due to the lamestream media who keeps talking up GOP campaigning as if Rollins or Rove was still running the show.

Case point, Elizabeth Warren. There was no, and I mean no, A list candidate willing to take on Scott Brown this year. There wasn't even a B lister. It was all two bit politicians looking to make a name for themselves for a run at another office. The only person willing to take him on with a chance to win was Warren (Vicky Kennedy for example was never actually going to run). All the numbskulls had to do was allow a recess appointment, which happened anyway, and she was out of the race. Now he's locked in 50/50 race where he needs 20% of Obama's voters to split their ticket and vote for him, something I don't think has ever happened in a Presidential year up here. This situation never would have happened if Rove was still calling the shots.

Yet listening to NPR the other day they were seriously debating the notion that the GOP could reach a filibuster proof majority this year?!?!

This tends to filter down even to this message board, as some of my fellow libs were fretting over those dastardly Republicans turning Pennsylvania into a electoral vote by Congressional district won state, as stupid an idea as there ever was for a large state swing state to do, in order to swing the election their way. Sorta like the "heads I win, tails you lose" fairy tale we were being fed to show that the GOP's defeat in the SCOTUS was really a victory after all!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

bad news, government control of churches is coming. This isn't as far fetched as you think. There are some socialist republics where it is illegal right now to read certain passages from the Bible.

That's why, as Mike Huckabee said, "We're all Catholics right now". At least those of us who value freedom of religion.

 

[geezer]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

And there are Islamic Republics where they have the death penalty for atheism.

What's your point?

My point being that I think it's coming here to the U.S. of A. (the control by the government of speech and thought)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Elections 2012 -- Carrion My Wayward Son!

I think the same argument could have been made about "moving the line" when it came to expanding women's opportunities in society.

Even buying your "move the line" argument as a premise (which is doubtful because the line of what constitutes acceptable relationships has jumped around throughout history), in itself it is not conclusive.

As for the slippery slope argument, that's always a fallacy. One might as well say that by permitting drinking at bars we are on the way to mandating drinking while driving.