Liberals Vs. Conservatives

Hercules wrote: Dean wrote: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill   I was a Conservative at 20 and then I grew up. I've been a card carrying Liberal Democrat for the last 25 years, so I think Churchill is totally wrong on this (as he frequently was).

I think any generalisation is totally wrong. I posted the quote because it was funny, not because it was right.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Tapfret wrote: thellama73 wrote: Slarti's argument makes no sense. Conservatives are less intelligent because they are rich and lack empathy for the poor. Setting aside the obvious problems with this logic (what does empathy have to do with intelligence?) there's the fact that MOST RICH PEOPLE ARE LIBERAL! Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Kerry, the Kennedys for crying out loud. Movie Stars, musicians, authors and heiresses all have a huge majority of liberals in their number. How then, does the argument that conservatives are richness leads to lack of empathy make any sense whatsoever? I would appreciate a serious response. http://flowingdata.com/2010/11/01/billionaires-favorite-politicians/ A sample paragraph: "The billionaires on the Forbes 400 list have given more than $30 million to politicians and political action committees since 2006, along with millions more in soft money to politically active groups. Although Forbes 400 members give about 15% more money to Republicans than Democrats, they fund groups across the political spectrum." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2010/10/29/billionaires-favorite-politicians/ http://www.swissfund.4t.com/custom.html http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonbruner/files/2011/09/400-donors-graphic-large.png http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/21/count-em-30-billionaires-now-backing-romneys-super-pac/2/ That doesn't prove that there are more rich republicans than democrats; it could be that rich republicans just tend to be more generous in their donations to politicians.  I don't know that anyone has actual proof either way, though; it appears that rich people are more liberal because liberalism is prominent among celebrities, but there are many more wealthy people in the U.S. who most people haven't heard of.

Why would you assume that the intention was to prove there are more rich republicans than democrats? If you read the data in the articles it simply proves that arguing the motivations of the ultra-rich by grabbing a few high profile names out of the air that is just plain ludicrous. The most telling is the Jon Brunner blog graphic that links contributions. The lines cross over multiple times with both conservatives and liberals amongst the ultra-rich giving to causes on the opposite side.

The only conclusion is that the ultra-rich are the ultra-rich. I would hypothesize, as pointless and untestable as it may be, that the ultra-rich benefit from a political system rife with divisiveness. They have their financial status in common with one another, which is more than they have in common with any of the rest of us, regardless of common political affiliation.

Tapfret wrote: thellama73 wrote: Slarti's argument makes no sense. Conservatives are less intelligent because they are rich and lack empathy for the poor. Setting aside the obvious problems with this logic (what does empathy have to do with intelligence?) there's the fact that MOST RICH PEOPLE ARE LIBERAL! Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Kerry, the Kennedys for crying out loud. Movie Stars, musicians, authors and heiresses all have a huge majority of liberals in their number. How then, does the argument that conservatives are richness leads to lack of empathy make any sense whatsoever? I would appreciate a serious response. http://flowingdata.com/2010/11/01/billionaires-favorite-politicians/ A sample paragraph: "The billionaires on the Forbes 400 list have given more than $30 million to politicians and political action committees since 2006, along with millions more in soft money to politically active groups. Although Forbes 400 members give about 15% more money to Republicans than Democrats, they fund groups across the political spectrum." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2010/10/29/billionaires-favorite-politicians/ http://www.swissfund.4t.com/custom.html http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonbruner/files/2011/09/400-donors-graphic-large.png http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/21/count-em-30-billionaires-now-backing-romneys-super-pac/2/

That doesn't prove that there are more rich republicans than democrats; it could be that rich republicans just tend to be more generous in their donations to politicians.  I don't know that anyone has actual proof either way, though; it appears that rich people are more liberal because liberalism is prominent among celebrities, but there are many more wealthy people in the U.S. who most people haven't heard of.

thellama73 wrote: Slarti's argument makes no sense. Conservatives are less intelligent because they are rich and lack empathy for the poor. Setting aside the obvious problems with this logic (what does empathy have to do with intelligence?) there's the fact that MOST RICH PEOPLE ARE LIBERAL! Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Kerry, the Kennedys for crying out loud. Movie Stars, musicians, authors and heiresses all have a huge majority of liberals in their number. How then, does the argument that conservatives are richness leads to lack of empathy make any sense whatsoever? I would appreciate a serious response.

http://flowingdata.com/2010/11/01/billionaires-favorite-politicians/

A sample paragraph:
"The billionaires on the Forbes 400 list have given more than $30 million to politicians and political action committees since 2006, along with millions more in soft money to politically active groups. Although Forbes 400 members give about 15% more money to Republicans than Democrats, they fund groups across the political spectrum."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2010/10/29/billionaires-favorite-politicians/

http://www.swissfund.4t.com/custom.html

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonbruner/files/2011/09/400-donors-graphic-large.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/05/21/count-em-30-billionaires-now-backing-romneys-super-pac/2/

CPicard wrote: The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Building a road a $1 at a time isn't very cost effective. And if you believe that they will actually use the money for what they say they will despite there being no provision in the bills that requires this, then I have a bridge to sell you in Florida. Well that 1$ will take care of about 1/19th of the hourly wage of the bureaucrat necessary to process the payroll for all bureacrats in charge of processing the neessary permits and bureaucrat regulations necessary to start planning to build the road so show me the bridge. I live in FL so no bureaucratic travel expenses needed. . Are the bureaucrats part of the Freemason conspiracy or of the Illuminati conspiracy?

No these are very real.

The T wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Building a road a $1 at a time isn't very cost effective. And if you believe that they will actually use the money for what they say they will despite there being no provision in the bills that requires this, then I have a bridge to sell you in Florida. Well that 1$ will take care of about 1/19th of the hourly wage of the bureaucrat necessary to process the payroll for all bureacrats in charge of processing the neessary permits and bureaucrat regulations necessary to start planning to build the road so show me the bridge. I live in FL so no bureaucratic travel expenses needed. .

Are the bureaucrats part of the Freemason conspiracy or of the Illuminati conspiracy?

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: Building a road a $1 at a time isn't very cost effective. And if you believe that they will actually use the money for what they say they will despite there being no provision in the bills that requires this, then I have a bridge to sell you in Florida.

Well that 1$ will take care of about 1/19th of the hourly wage of the bureaucrat necessary to process the payroll for all bureacrats in charge of processing the neessary permits and bureaucrat regulations necessary to start planning to build the road so show me the bridge. I live in FL so no bureaucratic travel expenses needed. .

Chavez is a former military man, hence a juntist , inspired by the "pink revolution" and anti-American. I guess that's what you mean by the camouflage term "populist". So was Lenin! 

Edited by tszirmay - July 31 2012 at 14:04

tszirmay wrote: CPicard wrote: tszirmay wrote: That being said, recent history has shown the blur between the lines, fascist left (Putin) vs socialist right (most of Europe) Uh, I... I'm not very sure it works that way... I could understand categorizations such as "authoritarian post-communist with nationalist tendencies" for Putin. I could understand "conservative governments accepting social assistance". But "socialist right" or "fascist left", I'm not sure politologues would agree with these "definitions". I am not a politologue , so frankly, I don't really worry about what they may think, as they are often even more warped that the polticians !   I think you are too polite (or politically incorrect) as the list of examples go beyond the norm. You are just playing with words, preferring more acceptable and modern  terms for the same form of social control we have had since the Industrial revolution!   Is Chavez not a left-wing fascist? Is China not a socialist/capitalist state paradise? Aren't most Euro governments a left/center/right mishmash? Aren't most ex-Warsaw pact governments led by former left-wing politicians? We call them "shirt-changers" in Hungary . It goes on and on and you try to explain to me that politologues find my comments too simplistic?  I find it appalling that we are offered 2 choices that really vary only in words or colors. It has worked this way for a very long time and the end is not in sight. As long as these silly definitions exist, the truth will not change. When will there be a new way?

Okay, I will try not to be polite:
 - Chavez is a populist;
 - China is a totalitarian government;
 - Europe is a mess;
 - Eastern Europe is a backyard.
 - Your comments are too complicated.
Satisfied?

tszirmay wrote: Liberal is almost synonym with open-minded, looking constantly for new ways to improve.

One of my favorite writers, G. K. Chesterton has a fun quote about open mindedness: "Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded."