What's one area where you side with the other guys?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by vilk, May 17, 2016.

  1. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    591
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    I thought it might be interesting for us to talk about ideas normally associated with the "left" or "right" group we tend to identify with that we don't personally agree with.

    For example: I'd say that in general, I'm a liberal. I'm very much for socialized health care single payer system, taxing churches, cutting down rich folk, racial integration, switching to renewables, etc.

    But one notion I don't agree with is taking away hunting rifles and shotguns. I'm not a hunter. Also, I've never been hunting. I've never killed an animal excluding insects and fish--and I ate the fish so that doesn't count in my book. But barring like animal torture or mass slaughter or anything that would harm a delicate ecosystem, I don't have any real problem with other people hunting and killing animals. Even cute ones. What does that make me?
    Anyhow, that's not really why I want those things legal--rather, I just think we ought to be allowed to have guns. For the same reason as the second amendment, and for reason that in a disaster situation you never know what can happen. When Katrina hit New Orleans that city was a friggin apocalypse style brutal rape festival. Or like, if we got invaded by aliens. You can't definitely tell me that wont happen.

    Handguns are no good, for the reason that they're concealable. A gun holds a level of deadliness that has no reason to be hid. If you're going to use a gun, everyone should know that you're going to use it before you use it, barring like black ops missions and James Bond type scenarios. If you want to tote around a gun day and night to compensate for either your manhood or your inability to afford rent on a safe block, then it should be 3 feet long and you should strap it onto your back. Don't you suppose that would scare away the crooks to begin with? And also you'd know whether some thug was packing so you don't even walk past that alleyway. I don't have a gun, but since I moved to Chicago a couple years ago I've been really thinking about getting one. But for the principle reasons I've stated, I don't want a handgun. I'm thinking about getting a rifle. I also believe that a rifle would be more difficult for a child to understand and operate, probably causing a reduction in cases of children accidentally using firearms. But I am pulling that out of my ass, by the way.

    I think some people would be spooked to see a big ol' gun, but that's naive; they should be more spooked right now because they've got no idea who is and is not packing.

    I used to live in Japan, where there was NO guns. It was very nice to feel safe even walking through a city park at night. Even if I got jumped, it's doubtful that I'd end up in a morgue if there are no firearms involved. I can't begin to fathom the variety of sociological reasons why homogeneous societies like Japan or Iceland are almost totally non-violent... but America is not that way, and I can't imagine a scenario where we're able to become that way.


    I didn't make this thread to specifically talk about guns. Unless you want to; are there any opposites of me? Righty-tighties that want to make guns illegal?? This is for any issue that you don't agree with the majority of the group you either self-identify with or are categorized under by default.
     
  2. VBCheeseGrater

    VBCheeseGrater not quite a shredder

    Messages:
    4,271
    Likes Received:
    406
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Location:
    Hampton Roads
    I'm mostly liberal as well, and I am all for social programs, especially health care but i am conservative in wanting to see stiff penalties or restrictions for those abusing social programs. It's a very difficult area to be both humane and effective at the same time I think.
     
  3. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    591
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    ^for example the crisis in Greece, where there was an entire island of people collecting benefits for being blind even though they could see.
     
  4. asher

    asher So Did We

    Messages:
    9,033
    Likes Received:
    686
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Which, while a problem, had nothing to do with the actual crisis.
     
  5. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    591
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    An entire island of people collecting tax money for no reason has nothing to do with an economic crisis that occurred in the same place? I don't actually know, but that seems counter-intuitive to me. I'll take your word for it I guess.
     
  6. asher

    asher So Did We

    Messages:
    9,033
    Likes Received:
    686
    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Actually, yes.

    Eurozone periphery countries were getting huge capital inflows from the core, both in terms of straight up bad loans (from most standpoints, they're ....ty debtors, giving them that much money isn't the most sound decision, see also US domestic lending issues) and stuff like German exports - significantly boosting Germany's economy. But they're exporting within the eurozone, which means everyone's on the shared euro currency. Which means that any given country cannot make any changes in monetary policy, because they do not control their own currency. So when the capital inflows fall off a cliff and creditors are calling, the normal course of action for that kind of crash - devalue your currency - is suddenly no longer available, and if you are not given any debt relief (because "fvck you" says core euro lenders) the only option available is massive spending cuts to find the money, which actually makes the core problem worse.

    Yes, Greece's bookkeeping was awful and it has had huge problems with governmental corruption, and it maybe shouldn't have been let onto the euro in the first place. But welfare abuse isn't even close to why the crisis happened.
     
  7. Dog Boy

    Dog Boy SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    27
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Nashville
    I'm for a large robust safety net especially for the elderly, handicapped and mentally ill but I'm also for lower taxes and a strong military...and you can marry a tree for all I care.
     
  8. bhakan

    bhakan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,606
    Likes Received:
    195
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Came in to post this. Totally agree on all points.


    Another thing, it seems that liberals are generally more against GMO's and such and I disagree with that. There's definitely instances of genetic modification having bad results, though many of the most popular studies that people throw around to support their negative effects have some serious issues, but some modifications going wrong are no reason to stop an entire field of science. It's like if when people were first figuring out chemistry, they dropped sodium into water and when it exploded decided that chemistry was evil and we should abandon the science all together. If we have a technology that can genetically modify crops to produce more food and help world hunger, or create bacteria that eat greenhouse gasses, why would we not look further into that technology?
     
  9. cwhitey2

    cwhitey2 BlackendCrust Metalâ„¢

    Messages:
    4,720
    Likes Received:
    309
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY
    I'm pretty liberal as well. I'm a registered Democrat.

    One side of my family is left the other is right, so I get to see both extremes often.

    I'm 100% pro gun, but I'm against welfare (unless the circumstances actually require it, don't bitch at me about how much of my tax money goes to welfare...I know how much).

    I'm 1000% against corporate subsidies...pay your facking taxes like everyone else.


    The 'city'/area I live in has a lot of lower income family's and has a higher crime rate than normal. My city has one of the highest welfare fraud rates in the state (someone actually drove their new Benz to the welfare office/social services place and was arrested for it). This could be why I'm against it...ALL of the violent crimes that have been committed in the last 2 years have been the work of someone from NYC. All the local are into drugs and not violence :wallbash:


    Churches NEED to be taxed. If a church has enough money/is big enough to be called a mega church, you can pay taxes.


    I'm 100 for a flat tax for every income level.

    Healthcare should be free.

    We need to spend less money on the military.

    We need to spend less money on people outside of the US and focus on ourselves first.


    I try to associate with the middle anymore because both party's actually make me sick anymore.




    I'm not sure whats more depressing...this election year or my dating life :lol: :lol:




    Sorry if that seemed like a rant or offended anyone...get over it, that's how i feel :lol:
     
  10. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    591
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    off topic, but is using the word "anymore" in that way some kind of New England thing? I heard someone else say anymore like that the other day and I was like what are you even telling me

    I don't actually understand what you mean lol I'm sorry. You do or do not try to associate with the middle?




    Also, regarding the content, how would you make the assumption that welfare is related to violence if you're saying that all the violent folk are from NYC, but your town has the highest rate of welfare fraud? Wait, is welfare fraud even related?

    You lost me, man. I'm all lost. Don't even mind it, just nevermind.
     
  11. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    Is this 'agreeing with the other side', or just 'sometimes my side is as dumb as the other side'?

    I ask because apart from cringing when I meet 'those' people (listen to Tim Minchin's brilliant song 'Storm' for an example of what I'm talking about) I worry about the destructive nature of a social / political environment where people tend to think anybody that 'less left' than they are is obviously a neocon. We saw it in the Tea Party movement as well: people running for office got into heated arguments about being the 'furthest to the right' candidate and therefore everybody else was a leftie libtard.

    It's better to be specific. I like Sam Harris. I think the dude has some brilliant things to say about ideas surrounding atheism and determinism, and even when I don't 100% agree with an argument he makes, I don't find myself opposing his stance because he articulates his ideas very well.

    For those that don't know, Sam Harris is the guy that Ben Affleck yelled at for being 'gross' and 'racist' on Bill Maher's show, making it obvious that Affleck either wasn't listening or didn't understand what was being said.

    Harris regularly mentions the problem of the regressive left; people who are so concerned about being sensitive to other cultures that they will tolerate bigotry and violence within those cultures in the interest of 'respecting a different lifestyle'. It's a tricky conversation because when he attacks lifestyles that include the oppression of women, genital mutilation, or the protection of serial violent / sexual offenders, he tends to be labelled racist. Weirdly, he is attacked by both the left and the right.

    So, importantly to the topic, I'm rarely left thinking 'the other guys are right'. On some topics, neither side is right. There's a happy middle ground that we could all pursue, but instead we have Tea Baggers, Anti-Vaxxers, Neocons, and Conspiracy Theorists destroying reasonable and rational public discourse from the extreme ends of the political spectrum. When I find myself reading an argument between a Rightie claiming we should bring corporal punishment back to the classroom and a Leftie claiming that 'trigger words' should be avoided at all costs in the classroom, I find myself wishing the middle ground had a movement to get behind.
     
  12. vilk

    vilk Very Regular

    Messages:
    4,599
    Likes Received:
    591
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Location:
    Chicago
    For the record, corporal punishment is still allowed in Indiana. I learned it in the Indiana law class they taught at my high school. Also, it is illegal to make a monkey smoke a cigarette. Hoosiers were Proto- animal rights movement. Lol. I wonder how many people got brought in on it
     
  13. cwhitey2

    cwhitey2 BlackendCrust Metalâ„¢

    Messages:
    4,720
    Likes Received:
    309
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2010
    Location:
    Binghamton, NY

    I mean I wish I was an independent and not a registered Democrat :lol:


    The whole 2 post system is a joke and ruins the whole political process for anyone not rich.
     
  14. will_shred

    will_shred not that good.

    Messages:
    2,846
    Likes Received:
    364
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    I'm a self described socialist, but I am definitely very pro 2nd amendment. I think that liberals don't understand with conviction the fact that the social structures we rely on every day, are not nearly as stable, and dependable, as we are led to believe. The fact of the matter is that the government could to awall and we would need to protect ourselves from it forcefully, or something could cause the social structure to collapse in which case people would need to hunt and use firearms to defend themselves.

    To quote John Maynard Keynes
    He wrote that in 1920, just after the end of WWI. I still think it applies today, and why I believe in the 2nd amendment. I also hunt deer occasionally, and I think people have a right to hunt and defend themselves.
     
  15. Science_Penguin

    Science_Penguin SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    172
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Location:
    Nowhere
    I feel like the idea of "the other guys" is part of the problem with political discussion. If someone says something smart or something stupid, I don't care what color their shirt is...

    I will say, I tend to lean a little towards the liberal just because of my opinions on social matters (gays, transgenders, minorities, ect.) but, as far as government and economics, I'm for whatever works.

    Sometimes I wish politicians would leave social matters out just so I wouldn't have to lean any direction... Oh, but we don't wanna do that, cos then people might actually try fixing this country. Clearly, we can't have that, it's broken just the way we like- let's distract everyone by stirring up debates on public toilets! Quickly, pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Act while we still can, there's no telling how long this fight over gay marriage will last!

    Sorry, I should save some of this for the conspiracy thread... if such a thing exists...
     
  16. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    I am a staunch fiscal conservative (usually associated "right") that believes in total campaign finance reform, including government controlled/limited campaign spending (usually associated "left", although I've never seen serious activity here).
     
  17. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    I can't shake the feeling that 'fiscal conservative' and 'limited campaign spending' go hand-in-hand. The former is certainly associated with a 'side' of politics, while the latter isn't really associated with any particular kind of movement that I know of.

    It's fairly understandable to desire campaign finance reform in the US, being that the major parties are spending billions where other countries manage to limit campaign spending to 'mere' millions.

    'Last Week Tonight' has been unraveling the various mysteries of American politics over the last few weeks, and it seems that a large part of the reason for the excessive spending is the complexity of the various voting systems. Every state seems to do things differently from every other state, and the lack of consistency forces them to design, implement, and enforce every stage of the process from scratch.

    Throw in the insane amount of advertising and you find yourself with a figure that would probably fund the kind of health care system that many in the US say is unsustainable. What a waste.
     
  18. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    To me, it causes a bit of cognitive dissonance asking for MORE government intervention in campaign finance.... 99% of the time, MORE of government means increased spending, waste, and nepotism.... All things which I am vehemently opposed to.

    I just don't see anyway around government limits to campaign finances.

    But, does this even matter when media whores seem to be the next wave of politician?! Kanye 2020!
     
  19. celticelk

    celticelk Enflamed with prayer

    Messages:
    4,382
    Likes Received:
    331
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    [citation needed]

    (I mean, obviously more government means more government spending by definition, but its inclusion alongside "waste" and "nepotism" suggests that you think that more government spending is morally bad, which is a position in need of some support.)
     
  20. CapnForsaggio

    CapnForsaggio Cap'n (general)

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    24
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Location:
    Albany, OR
    Sorry, I'm not going to wade into that one. It is my personal belief that government is unnecessarily wasteful. It is not my duty to explain to you why I feel this way. Hint: years of experience.

    You want to change my thinking, fine. Try it. I do not feel the need to explain my personal beliefs to the internet.

    Everyone here can read about my thoughts on free markets, and their superiority to socialized government programs. It's all in this thread. The summary goes something like this:

    'Blah Blah Blah, Ayn Rand and Greenspan were on to something.... blah blah blah.'
     

Share This Page