The Politics of Being Liberal or Conservative...

[bulbasaur]

The label of being politically liberal or conservative doesn't really serve the individual as much as it serves the politicians.  It doesn't even serve the actual politics.  Think about this: Politicians get paid.  Chances are that they get paid more being a politician than their otherwise occupation.  Or at the very least, being a politician is much less work for the pay.  The next time you want to argue about how liberals or conservatives are right or wrong, you should consider who is benefiting from it the most. 

Republicans and Democrats benefit from the perceived failures of the other.  They both like to argue that things would be different if they were in control.  However, a similar result would have most likely happened regardless of who was in control.   Look back at all the losers of the recent elections.  Would things really have been radically different if it were Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush? 

[Believe_N_Me]

^^^ I actually agree with this. That's precisely why I criticize minorities that automatically vote Democrat because they claim Democrats are more minority-friendly.

And just because I've expressed my opposition about Liberals doesn't necessarily mean I vote Republican. That is the biggest misconception on PH.

I am expressing my views to point out that there are simply too many minorities voting Democrat based on their misconceptions that Democrats are more friendly and less racist.  Since like you said, it almost doesn't make a difference how either party feels about minorities if there isn't actual real and effective change. 

And unfortunately, there has been too many PHers supporting Democrats because they're under the impression that Democrats really care about them.  Liberal PHers are the only ones who always make the claim that their party really cares about them.

PH Conservatives aren't making any claims that Republicans care about them or not. That is not the argument they are making as to why they are Conservatives. Conservatives have a better understanding that at the end of the day these politicians will say whatever to get re-elected. Thus, you can't vote for a party based on the idea that you think one may or may not be less racist.  You can't possibly believe that either party actually really cares about you.

[bulbasaur]

You agree, but it appears that you don't really understand.   If you really understood it, you would realize that denigrating liberals doesn't help your cause....whate ver that may be. 

^^^ I actually agree with this. That's precisely why I criticize minorities that automatically vote Democrat because they claim Democrats are more minority-friendly.

And just because I've expressed my opposition about Liberals doesn't necessarily mean I vote Republican. That is the biggest misconception on PH.

I am expressing my views to point out that there are simply too many minorities voting Democrat based on their misconceptions that Democrats are more friendly and less racist.  Since like you said, it almost doesn't make a difference how either party feels about minorities if there isn't actual real and effective change. 

And unfortunately, there has been too many PHers supporting Democrats because they're under the impression that Democrats really care about them.  Liberal PHers are the only ones who always make the claim that their party really cares about them.

PH Conservatives aren't making any claims that Republicans care about them or not. That is not the argument they are making as to why they are Conservatives. Conservatives have a better understanding that at the end of the day these politicians will say whatever to get re-elected. Thus, you can't vote for a party based on the idea that you think one may or may not be less racist.  You can't possibly believe that either party actually really cares about you.

[Evil_K_Man]

You agree, but it appears that you don't really understand.   If you really understood it, you would realize that denigrating liberals doesn't help your cause....whate ver that may be.

Lol...

[Evil_K_Man]

The label of being politically liberal or conservative doesn't really serve the individual as much as it serves the politicians.  It doesn't even serve the actual politics.  Think about this: Politicians get paid.  Chances are that they get paid more being a politician than their otherwise occupation.  Or at the very least, being a politician is much less work for the pay.  The next time you want to argue about how liberals or conservatives are right or wrong, you should consider who is benefiting from it the most. 

Republicans and Democrats benefit from the perceived failures of the other.  They both like to argue that things would be different if they were in control.  However, a similar result would have most likely happened regardless of who was in control.   Look back at all the losers of the recent elections.  Would things really have been radically different if it were Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Bush?

It’s just not liberals and conservatives, its religious people, its poor people, it’s almost any group you can find out there. People share common interest and believe the only way they can change their surroundings is to push it together.  There will be many times where the group is exploited by others, but as a mass groups tend to be stupid and irrational anyways.

But regarding your statement about whether control by one party influences things radically, I would have to disagree to a certain extent.  Would something like Affordable Healthcare been pasted if the Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency?  Would DOMA have been struck down? Would we have re-established relations with Cuba? Would we have been at War with Russia already?  To a certain degree certain things will remain unchanged or result in the same outcome regardless of political parties, but I think which group holds power does influence some outcomes.

[bulbasaur]

The operative word is "radically."  Things aren't radically different.  However, let's actually examine your examples...

1.  Affordable Healthcare.  Did you know that the bill originated from many Republicans?  Many Republicans actually supported a similar bill in the early 1990's.  However, the same representative s and senators now oppose "Obamacare."  Why?  Political games. 

2.  DOMA.  DOMA was probably never going to pass, and Republicans knew that.  Even if it did, they know the Supreme Court will over-rule it.  They are a multi-billion dollar organization.  They got someone punching the numbers and doing polls.  So, if the Republicans know that it will never work, why continue to fight for it?  It could be about principle, but more likely, they make it an issue so the issue can be a rally for for people to side with the party.  Republicans know people fear/dislike homosexuality, so they use it for votes.  How many times have you heard phrases like "the defense for traditional marriage" or "the sanctity of marriage" or "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."  These phrases are ingrained into the public for a reason.  Look at Rob Portman.  He conveniently backs gay rights now that it actually affects his family.  Even then, it took him 2 years.  Political games. 

3.  War with Russia.  Our situation with Russia probably would be similar.  No president would want to go to war with Russia.  Chances are that they still have nukes.  And historically, fighting Russia is a bad idea.  The rhetoric might be different, but the situation would be similar.  People who are insulting Obama for being "weak" are only doing so because they are playing political games.  Obama looking bad is good for the Republicans.  Look at the last election. 

Having some influence and creating radical change are not the same thing.  There are many things that are different, but there are many things that aren't.  As much as people are arguing and fighting about politics, this isn't a civil war. 

BTW, both parties want people to argue among each other.  It's free publicity, and it creates stronger supporters.  Look at Believe_N_Me.  She is not even arguing about issues anymore; she's arguing against people.  Politicians like that.  If people actually focused on the real issues and real progress, politicians wouldn't make any  money.  Recently, politicians got paid for getting nothing done.  Congress "shut down."  Congress even got a raise; Republicans and Democrats included.  How do you get a raise for being so inept?  Political games. 

It’s just not liberals and conservatives, its religious people, its poor people, it’s almost any group you can find out there. People share common interest and believe the only way they can change their surroundings is to push it together.  There will be many times where the group is exploited by others, but as a mass groups tend to be stupid and irrational anyways.

But regarding your statement about whether control by one party influences things radically, I would have to disagree to a certain extent.  Would something like Affordable Healthcare been pasted if the Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency?  Would DOMA have been struck down? Would we have re-established relations with Cuba? Would we have been at War with Russia already?  To a certain degree certain things will remain unchanged or result in the same outcome regardless of political parties, but I think which group holds power does influence some outcomes.

[Evil_K_Man]

1.  Affordable Healthcare.  Did you know that the bill originated from many Republicans?  Many Republicans actually supported a similar bill in the early 1990's.  However, the same representative s and senators now oppose "Obamacare."  Why?  Political games. 

The 1990 Healthcare bill was done more for political gain as oppose to ACA.  It didn't have any teeth behind it and many Republicans opposed it as much as supported it.  That’s why it never became a bill nor even made it to the Senate for vote, so as a group they did not support this bill, in fact others introduced their own half-ass versions to healthcare reform.  In other words, it was never a serious bill compared to ACA which passed due to overwhelming support from the Democrats and a president who did not veto it.

2.  DOMA.  DOMA was probably never going to pass, and Republicans knew that.  Even if it did, they know the Supreme Court will over-rule it.  They are a multi-billion dollar organization.  They got someone punching the numbers and doing polls.  So, if the Republicans know that it will never work, why continue to fight for it?  It could be about principle, but more likely, they make it an issue so the issue can be a rally for for people to side with the party.  Republicans know people fear/dislike homosexuality, so they use it for votes.  How many times have you heard phrases like "the defense for traditional marriage" or "the sanctity of marriage" or "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."  These phrases are ingrained into the public for a reason.  Look at Rob Portman.  He conveniently backs gay rights now that it actually affects his family.  Even then, it took him 2 years.  Political games. 

DOMA passed, and the federal courts ruled it unconsitutiona l in 2013.  Only until Obama took office did his adminstration find it unconsitutiona l and refused to defend it.  If the Republicans were in power, I'm sure it would have been status quo.

[Evil_K_Man]

And to clarify ACA and DOMA (part of it) being struck down to me is radical...mayb e not for you since you aren't a benefactor of those decisions, but for the other "millions" of Americans, I'm sure they beg to differ.

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*  Time for a history lesson.

1.  Before, not all Republicans opposed healthcare reform.  Currently, virtually the entire party does.  Let's rewind the clock: 1992-1994.  Clinton, a Democratic president, was unable to pass healthcare reform.  In 1993, 23 Republicans including minority leader, Dole, supported the bill.  Why couldn't the Democrats get it done?  Long answer short, politics.  They were playing games.  Democrats couldn't agree among themselves. 

2.   Republicans nor Democrats control the court system.  Obama, nor any president, can't rule anything.  Everyone knew the federal courts were going to rule DOMA as unconstitution al.  Are you saying that the Republicans didn't know that the federal courts were going to rule against the law?  It's all a game for the politicians. 

Whether or not I am a benefactor of ACA or DOMA makes no difference in the argument.  To believe that one party is vastly superior than the other is to fall prey to their political game. 

BTW, I agree with universal healthcare, but to believe that ACA is awesome is naive.  ACA can only be successful if it is the first step.  Healthcare still needs reforming.  For example, it's estimated that senior citizens will account for about 20% of the American population.  How can the ACA possibly maintain itself?  Thus, one can argue that the Democrats still failed in healthcare reform because the ACA has a good chance of failing.  One can argue that the Democrats should have passed a more comprehensive bill.  Again, don't fall prey to the Republicans vs. Democrats argument.  Look at the actual implications of the policies. 

Political policies are just carrots politicians use to tease the horse that is the people.  Every now and then we get a taste of the carrot, and that benefits us.  However, believing that we'll get more of the carrot depending on who is riding is naive.  We'll probably still get the same amount of carrot despite who the rider is.  The rider doesn't care how much carrot we get; the rider has his own agenda.   

The 1990 Healthcare bill was done more for political gain as oppose to ACA.  It didn't have any teeth behind it and many Republicans opposed it as much as supported it.  That’s why it never became a bill nor even made it to the Senate for vote, so as a group they did not support this bill, in fact others introduced their own half-ass versions to healthcare reform.  In other words, it was never a serious bill compared to ACA which passed due to overwhelming support from the Democrats and a president who did not veto it.

DOMA passed, and the federal courts ruled it unconsitutiona l in 2013.  Only until Obama took office did his adminstration find it unconsitutiona l and refused to defend it.  If the Republicans were in power, I'm sure it would have been status quo.

[Evil_K_Man]

1.  Umm...lets see in 1993, there were 43 Republican Senators and 176 Republican representative, so of that, 23 supported Clinton, so about a little over 10% of the Republicans supported him only...geee, I wonder why he wasn't able to pass the bill, especially since his own party had issues with his healthcare reform.  Regardless, once the Republicans captured the majority in 1994 midterms it was over with anyways. And FYI, Republicans never opposed Healthcare reform, they along with the Democrats have different ideas about how to achieve it.
 
2. Yes, I know neither party controls the federal courts (thanks for the government lesson), but who they choose can influence the outcome of decisions (i.e. SSM still not legal). Not sure if everybody thought DOMA would be ruled unconsititutio nal, i mean we did have to live with it for 17 years and only "PART" of it was struck down.  So not sure how that adds to your arguement.

I never said ACA was perfect. I've stated before that the best thing it did was to expand accessibility, which is the first step towards universal healthcare.  Its not a perfect bill, but its still awesome for those who now have coverage.

*yawns*  Time for a history lesson.

1.  Before, not all Republicans opposed healthcare reform.  Currently, virtually the entire party does.  Let's rewind the clock: 1992-1994.  Clinton, a Democratic president, was unable to pass healthcare reform.  In 1993, 23 Republicans including minority leader, Dole, supported the bill.  Why couldn't the Democrats get it done?  Long answer short, politics.  They were playing games.  Democrats couldn't agree among themselves. 

2.   Republicans nor Democrats control the court system.  Obama, nor any president, can't rule anything.  Everyone knew the federal courts were going to rule DOMA as unconstitution al.  Are you saying that the Republicans didn't know that the federal courts were going to rule against the law?  It's all a game for the politicians. 

Whether or not I am a benefactor of ACA or DOMA makes no difference in the argument.  To believe that one party is vastly superior than the other is to fall prey to their political game. 

BTW, I agree with universal healthcare, but to believe that ACA is awesome is naive.  ACA can only be successful if it is the first step.  Healthcare still needs reforming.  For example, it's estimated that senior citizens will account for about 20% of the American population.  How can the ACA possibly maintain itself?  Thus, one can argue that the Democrats still failed in healthcare reform because the ACA has a good chance of failing.  One can argue that the Democrats should have passed a more comprehensive bill.  Again, don't fall prey to the Republicans vs. Democrats argument.  Look at the actual implications of the policies. 

Political policies are just carrots politicians use to tease the horse that is the people.  Every now and then we get a taste of the carrot, and that benefits us.  However, believing that we'll get more of the carrot depending on who is riding is naive.  We'll probably still get the same amount of carrot despite who the rider is.  The rider doesn't care how much carrot we get; the rider has his own agenda.   

[bulbasaur]

*yawns.  I guess more history needs to be taught.

1.  The year: 1993.  43 Republican senators.  Lemme pull out my TI-83.  100-43...OMG!  That means 57 of the senators were Democratic!  If we do some more math...OMG!  The Democrats also had the House!  So, Democrats had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, AND 10% of the Republican party AND the support of the minority leader.  Yet, you somehow want to blame the Republicans for the failure of passing healthcare reform?  Yet, you want to let the Democrats off the hook?  It simply doesn't make sense to blame one party and not the other.  Once again, political games.

2.  DOMA is part of the political game, and people fall for it.  Think about this: Even after the ruling, people are still talking about it.  Who gains the most from people talking about this issue?  Politicians. 

You fail to understand the basic argument using your ACA example.  You admit that ACA is not perfect.  In fact, ACA might actually do more harm than good in 30-40 years.  Why would you support a policy that is not ready to be implemented?  Why would you support a policy that might do more harm than good?  Is it completely absurd for someone to disagree with ACA?  Even though I personally support the ACA, I understand why people are against it.  For those who are against it, it's not completely absurd for them to be against the Democratic Party, who supports it.  Thus, the political games continue. 

1.  Umm...lets see in 1993, there were 43 Republican Senators and 176 Republican representative, so of that, 23 supported Clinton, so about a little over 10% of the Republicans supported him only...geee, I wonder why he wasn't able to pass the bill, especially since his own party had issues with his healthcare reform.  Regardless, once the Republicans captured the majority in 1994 midterms it was over with anyways. And FYI, Republicans never opposed Healthcare reform, they along with the Democrats have different ideas about how to achieve it.
 
2. Yes, I know neither party controls the federal courts (thanks for the government lesson), but who they choose can influence the outcome of decisions (i.e. SSM still not legal). Not sure if everybody thought DOMA would be ruled unconsititutio nal, i mean we did have to live with it for 17 years and only "PART" of it was struck down.  So not sure how that adds to your arguement.

I never said ACA was perfect. I've stated before that the best thing it did was to expand accessibility, which is the first step towards universal healthcare.  Its not a perfect bill, but its still awesome for those who now have coverage.

[Believe_N_Me]

You agree, but it appears that you don't really understand.   If you really understood it, you would realize that denigrating liberals doesn't help your cause....whate ver that may be.

I'm not denigrating liberals to serve a "cause". I'm calling them out on their b.s. and urging them to wake up.

Liberals are the only ones who proclaim they have a "cause". 

If this were a Republican administration in office I would be criticizing them just as much. But the Republican administration is NOT in office.

All the trolls that keep following me should remember that during Bush's presidential years, I was not a strong supporter either.

[Jojo]

Arguing with someone whos not quite right/balanced in the head must land everyone on the left    !  A complete waste of time if you ask me !

[bulbasaur]

But you admit that you are denigrating.  My point is proven.   Politicians win. 

I'm not denigrating liberals to serve a "cause". I'm calling them out on their b.s. and urging them to wake up.

Liberals are the only ones who proclaim they have a "cause". 

If this were a Republican administration in office I would be criticizing them just as much. But the Republican administration is NOT in office.

All the trolls that keep following me should remember that during Bush's presidential years, I was not a strong supporter either.

[Evil_K_Man]

Stop quoting history (ugh!!!), since you seem to lack basic comprehension regarding it.

You make it sound like ALL democracts were for the bill.  THEY WEREN'T!!!.  Some introduced their own healthcare versions in opposition to the Clintons especially since they didn't agree with the employer mandate. This 1993 Healhcare faced so much opposition not only from conservatives, but including interest groups such AAPS.  There was so much litigation that it was pushed to the next congressional session at which point the Republicans controlled BOTH houses and defeated the Bill.

DOMA…yup…good cop out reply.

I do understand ACA, in fact because of it I had to build in an additional $5.0M into my budget this year, so please don’t go there.  To my point earlier, if you had read and comprehended it, I said that ACA addresses ACCESSIBILITY, not cost.  I support it not because I’m a liberal but because I believe that Healthcare should be ACCESSIBLE to everybody.

*yawns.  I guess more history needs to be taught.

1.  The year: 1993.  43 Republican senators.  Lemme pull out my TI-83.  100-43...OMG!  That means 57 of the senators were Democratic!  If we do some more math...OMG!  The Democrats also had the House!  So, Democrats had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, AND 10% of the Republican party AND the support of the minority leader.  Yet, you somehow want to blame the Republicans for the failure of passing healthcare reform?  Yet, you want to let the Democrats off the hook?  It simply doesn't make sense to blame one party and not the other.  Once again, political games.

2.  DOMA is part of the political game, and people fall for it.  Think about this: Even after the ruling, people are still talking about it.  Who gains the most from people talking about this issue?  Politicians. 

You fail to understand the basic argument using your ACA example.  You admit that ACA is not perfect.  In fact, ACA might actually do more harm than good in 30-40 years.  Why would you support a policy that is not ready to be implemented?  Why would you support a policy that might do more harm than good?  Is it completely absurd for someone to disagree with ACA?  Even though I personally support the ACA, I understand why people are against it.  For those who are against it, it's not completely absurd for them to be against the Democratic Party, who supports it.  Thus, the political games continue.