nobody is taking sides - these people actually believe what they are posting
the motivation for communicating in the Politics section of RIU is a more interesting question
I am actually trying to understand conservatism better. i even watch fox to the same end.
but really, all I see is greed, at almost every level of conservatism. greed, and any means to increase wealth. and unfortunately, at the federal level, the greed is bipartisan.
i also see a lot of hate. hate for a black president which the "media" interprets as racial prejudice. i am not sure about that.
i also see stupidity.
i see greed in glen beck, who is off the wall crazy, like a rabid coon. he is making a sick fortune and spewing forth with blatant lies. same thing with Limbaugh.
i see greed in business. for instance, the chamber of commerce position on health care and their extensive lobbying campaign. not a lot of greed, but just enough to completely negate any leaking compassion for society.
no need to talk about government. i think, THERE, we all agree. it is fucked to the gills.
i see a lot of stupidity on the right. how did michelle bachman ever get elected? sarah palin? george bush is a fool.
cheney only recently exhibited signs of stupidity. he thinks he can change history's perspective on his reign with his magical ministry tour.
when cheney was in office he was the greediest prick of them all. all that war, death, and expense was for the benefit of the industrail war machine. if there is a hell, cheney will arrive smiling and run the place.
anyway, to answer your question, nobody is taking sides. i really believe what I post.
What you are saying above is that you have failed to understand Conservative views. One thing about Conservative views is that contrary to the belief of Liberals, they are more complex than Liberal views. I can give numerous examples to prove this. Above, I gave such examples. For instance, subsidizing people's existence. There is no better spirit, self respect and ambition crusher than endless welfare. Contrary to this, there is no better builder of these things than self reliance. The former a Liberal position, the latter a Conservative one.
But it is easier to see the superficial aspects of these matters and come up with a solution to them. Liberals see the problem of poverty and they figure the compassionate thing to do is give the poor money. It is a superficial answer to an over simplified problem.
Conservatives on the other hand try to go deeper. They consider the actual outcome of just giving the poor money. They consider the economic ramifications and what subsidizing generation after generation does to people. They consider how much of this money goes to crack addictions and how much is diverted to inner city convenient store owners who pay $0.30 on the dollar for food stamps and then build a ten million dollar castle on a lake.
Conservatives contemplate the true root causes of poverty. Poverty is caused in part by the breakdown of the traditional family and the absence of fathers in the home. Kids with fathers see a roll model that gets up and goes to work every day and they aspire to be like dad. Single mothers on welfare provide no such roll model.
Crime also causes poverty. When crime goes up, business' flee, and when that happens the jobs go with them. Less jobs means more poverty. Liberals take the opposing, more simplistic view that poverty causes crime - this view is the opposite of reality. But again, here is a case where reality is more complex, nuanced and elusive than the simplified view.
Chaos is another major cause of crime and poverty. Chaotic environments promote chaotic conduct and this in turn causes both crime and poverty. Orderly societies promote wealth and wealth building conduct. Self discipline is a perfect example of a wealth building conduct based on order or structure.
Liberals, out of compassion, desire to be soft on crime reasoning that the poor person is a victim of poverty. They can not see that the criminal's conduct causes their environment to be chaotic and provides the social proof that perpetuates the cycle of poverty. The only way to end the cycle of poverty is to be tough on crime and to restore order to neighborhoods that have lost it. An argument could be made, that not doing so violates the Constitutional rights of the poor. The Constitution ensures "equal protection under the law." When we allow a city to become like Detroit in the name of compassion we deny the residents equal protection. There is a saying in the Talmud that reads something like - those who show compassion to evil people have none for the good. Conservatives understand this notion while it is lost on Liberals.
To a Liberal, these views seem cruel and motivated by greed. They figure, if the Conservatives don't want to go along with their idea to throw money at every problem it must be because they are cruel and greedy - an over simplification in and of itself.
And there are other examples. Could the war in Iraq have a complex explanation? No, it must be something really simple - how about greed and stealing their oil.
And big business - could it be that the free market is a monumentally complex machine that although has a few flaws is basically the most effective builder on national Wealth we have ever seen? No, Liberals don't understand how it works so they simply label it as evil and those who support it greedy.
Conservatives also value the intentions of our Founding Fathers; the guys who wrote our Constitution. Conservatives see this stuff as being kind of important. So when Liberals want to violate what the Framers intended by redistributing income Conservatives naturally take issue. Ah, but Liberals see no need in looking that deep into things. After all, knowledge of our Constitution and of history; specifically, when these measures have failed miserably in the past, requires effort and being able to see past the surface. It is so much easier simply to think that income redistribution is compassionate and figure that those who oppose it are not.
Being Liberal is easier than being Conservative in every way. Clearly, it is easier socially because Liberalism is PC. Being Liberal doesn't require knowledge of history, of our Constitution, of social issues, of economics, of business or of human nature. Being Liberal is easier financially because everything they propose involves spending other people's money and not theirs. And being Liberal is easier because their simple explanations for everything are within the grasp of the majority of people where as Conservative opinions are out of reach.
Being Liberal is as easy as picking out the most compassionate sounding answer to every problem and espousing it. The position requires no moral courage and no real thought. It is the perfect opiate for those who want to be liked.
I hope this aides your understanding.
