Reaching Out Across the Aisle

[Nevix]

*Sighs.*

This isn't getting anywhere, and is just going back and forth in circles.

Regarding the religious discussion:
https://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-Rec ... 0962897140

The argument is made far better in this book. Another option for more information on why I believe the way I do is "Power For Abundant Living", by Victor Paul Wierwille.

Jesus is the SON of God, not "God, but not God, but yeah he's God"

OK, let's drill down on social mobility. Here's an excerpt from the Non-Libertarian FAQ:

This also helps explain why other First World countries have better social mobility than we do. Poor American children have very few chances to go to Harvard or Yale; poor Canadian children have a much better chance to go to to UToronto or McGill, where most of their tuition is government-subsidized.

[/quote]

This set of studies weights the value of college/university education too high. College degrees, in some fields ARE A NEGATIVE NOW, because of the fluff courses (almost anything ending in "Studies") and the

Also, I would point out the heavy regulation in the United States in recent decades, as well as terrible GOVERNMENT decisions, like ignoring the brewing sub prime mortgage crisis that was created by government ordered low income loans all coming due at the same time.

Government spending is also taxpayer money. Taxes siphon off money from the free market.

We haven't had a truly free market until recently, and the successes of the Trump Administration are ignored.

Find some place that's not anti capitalist/anti free market for information on what's happened in America.



Draco Dracul:
That's a problem of the consultant industry. That's NOT the fault of the Free Market itself.

All those 'mixed economies" still rely on a FREE MARKET as a major fixture of the system.

Also... "The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. ... Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions."

Sounds like freedom to me, and some restrictions can be part of a Free Market BY DEFINITION.

The need for those regulations is not a condemnation of the Free Market. IT'S COMMON SENSE.

Also, when monopolies form and businesses use government to secure those monopolies, it's not the end result of the free market. That's called cronyism.

The Free Market has done more to raise the baseline of human existence than any other system.

Socialism and Communism have failed everywhere they're implemented.

There's over 100 million dead in the 20th century alone thanks to Socialism and Communism.

[Nevix]

...

We've been trying that for years.

When conservatives try to have a discussion, we're called bigots, killers, and worse.

We're accused of wanting to push granny off a cliff for disagreeing on how to best administer health care/health insurance regulations.

We're called greedy and puppets of the rich for wanting to lower the taxes that have been choking off small businesses. (I have a small business owner friend whose taxes went DOWN from $20,000 a year to $12,000 a year because of the Trump Tax Cuts. They make less than 100k a year, so that extra 8,000 is a MASSIVE boon to their ability to live and expand their business.)

We're called racists for pointing out and offering our opinions on a wide variety of inner city issues that are centered in cities that have been run by democrats for DECADES.

We try to build Charter Schools, which are a public school option that gets better results for less money, and to pass school choice, so that kids in awful schools can go to better ones, but they get opposed constantly.

If a conservative or republican "steals" a free cookie sample, but a democrat steals a Cadillac dealership, the conservative must step down, but the democrat must apologize.

Anything good that happens has the credit given by the mainstream media to democrats, while republicans are just benefitting from what the wise democrat gave them, but anything bad that happens on the democrat's watch is the fault of republicans somehow.

EVERYTHING I live by and stand for is treated as some great horror, conflated with the worst of reprobates, and derided as insanity or worse daily, to the point where most television shows include some kind of jab at my beliefs, Faith, and the values of my country.

And worst of all?

When the Republican Senate AND House of Representatives were BEGGING Obama to sign a budget bill that included EVERYTHING Obama wanted... Obama kept raising the bar of what he wanted, and never signed a budget, then blamed the Republicans for not trying hard enough.

And now? When Donald Trump is SUCCEEDING at negotiating peace in the middle east, and has been nominated for FOUR Nobel Prizes, it's never even mentioned by the press.

Or worse, it's said "It's not a REAL peace deal!" (because they say so)

SO.

Don't you DARE tell me that we need to reach out.

Because.
We.
Have.
Only.
Gotten.
STABBED IN THE HAND EVERY TIME WE TRY, and then told we're awful for not falling in line afterwards.



We just want the government to leave us alone, and for the government to stop trying to control our lives.



YOUR SIDE needs to climb off the high horse you're on, and actually reach out to us, to HEAR us, instead of just saying that we need to reach out.



Because I've tried, and I get mocked on twitter, or there's an absolute refusal to listen to any source that's not one of the approved in group sources, or I get told I'm insane for disagreeing.



I'm sorry to be angry here, but I'm not sorry for the sentiments behind this post. It's offensive to me to be told that *I* have to reach out, when just saying "I'm a conservative" can get me kicked out of some groups.




I LITERALLY have multiple friends who conceal their conservatism because they could lose a LOT of business for their art based small businesses if they're outed as conservative, because the art communities they're a part of are deeply leftist/democrat.

One of those friends literally wiped out their twitter account and created a new one because of cancel culture. There's no way for them to tell what will cause a cancel culture mob to attack, so EVERYTHING had to be wiped from the old account.

The other friend has literally had people turn hostile in and instant because their conservatism/capitalism was revealed, and had to spend time stopping the now hostile friend from organizing a digital mob to drive them out of the community.



TL:DR:


Don't try to reach across the aisle when the other side has been trying for years, but has always either gotten burned, or gotten insulted for not falling in line.


EDIT:

Yes. This is a major sore spot for me.

It gets very frustrating when you spend years of your life being told you're an awful thing who deserves neither love nor respect because your political opinion differs.

I stand by every word of this.

I stand by it so with every measure of disgust this thread has caused me to experience.

None of you have won an argument with me or actually reached out to listen.

I'm just sick of having the same points parroted at me with denial that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the other viewpoint might have some validity.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Just because we've considered your point of view and rejected it, doesn't mean we didn't consider it at all.

[TGLS]

OK, let's drill down on social mobility. Here's an excerpt from the Non-Libertarian FAQ:

This also helps explain why other First World countries have better social mobility than we do. Poor American children have very few chances to go to Harvard or Yale; poor Canadian children have a much better chance to go to to UToronto or McGill, where most of their tuition is government-subsidized.

This set of studies weights the value of college/university education too high. College degrees, in some fields ARE A NEGATIVE NOW, because of the fluff courses (almost anything ending in "Studies") and the

OK, first of all, the studies compare intergenerational earnings elasticity across jurisdictions (the second study compares American states). This is based on the correlation between the earning levels of sons with their fathers. In the government spending study, as I understand the abstract, it's an extremely coarse estimate looking at the overall spending by the state and comparing it to earnings elasticity in the state. The value of university education doesn't even enter into it.

University education was added to the essay as an anecdote to build the point. I have friends with little opinion for university degrees, but even they are willing to concede that a degree (any degree) is better than no degree and a degree from Harvard is better than one from "Noname State". And even leaving the anecdote aside, it doesn't effect the data in the studies that focus on numbers like earnings and government spending.

We haven't had a truly free market until recently, and the successes of the Trump Administration are ignored.

OK, I have a few questions:
-> Has a truly free market ever existed before in the United States?
-> Does the lower intergenerational earnings elasticity in other countries (such as Denmark, Australia and Canada) reflect the fact that they have a freer market than the United States?
-> Does the modern democratic party reflect a danger to a truly free market?

Find some place that's not anti capitalist/anti free market for information on what's happened in America.

You're entitled to your opinion. That's fine by me. You're not entitled to your own facts. This isn't personal, no one is entitled to their own facts. If you want to present your own studies to support your point, that's fine with me. I welcome it. If you say, "Go look up information that supports my points", that's where I have to draw the line.

[Nevix]

OK, let's drill down on social mobility. Here's an excerpt from the Non-Libertarian FAQ:

This also helps explain why other First World countries have better social mobility than we do. Poor American children have very few chances to go to Harvard or Yale; poor Canadian children have a much better chance to go to to UToronto or McGill, where most of their tuition is government-subsidized.

This set of studies weights the value of college/university education too high. College degrees, in some fields ARE A NEGATIVE NOW, because of the fluff courses (almost anything ending in "Studies") and the

OK, first of all, the studies compare intergenerational earnings elasticity across jurisdictions (the second study compares American states). This is based on the correlation between the earning levels of sons with their fathers. In the government spending study, as I understand the abstract, it's an extremely coarse estimate looking at the overall spending by the state and comparing it to earnings elasticity in the state. The value of university education doesn't even enter into it.

University education was added to the essay as an anecdote to build the point. I have friends with little opinion for university degrees, but even they are willing to concede that a degree (any degree) is better than no degree and a degree from Harvard is better than one from "Noname State". And even leaving the anecdote aside, it doesn't effect the data in the studies that focus on numbers like earnings and government spending.

We haven't had a truly free market until recently, and the successes of the Trump Administration are ignored.

OK, I have a few questions:
-> Has a truly free market ever existed before in the United States?
-> Does the lower intergenerational earnings elasticity in other countries (such as Denmark, Australia and Canada) reflect the fact that they have a freer market than the United States?
-> Does the modern democratic party reflect a danger to a truly free market?

Find some place that's not anti capitalist/anti free market for information on what's happened in America.

You're entitled to your opinion. That's fine by me. You're not entitled to your own facts. This isn't personal, no one is entitled to their own facts. If you want to present your own studies to support your point, that's fine with me. I welcome it. If you say, "Go look up information that supports my points", that's where I have to draw the line.

The 1980s were some of the freest times in recent memory.

The Baby Boom era before the Great Society Program and other big programs/controls in the 60s and 70s were also a freer time. (The late 40s and the 50s.)

As for "my own facts"... Well, that's the type of thing coming into play with "inter generational elasticity" and other such studies. Are they studying to find out the answers? Or are they studies to prove the point of the people commissioning the studies?

Personally, I'll go on the evidence of how awful and stagnant the Obama years were, and how loud the economy boomed under the Trump tax cuts and deregulation AFTER the Obama years.

Did you know the U.S. economy had 33% GDP growth a couple months ago, even during the pandemic shutdowns? Did you know that wages were UP for many levels of workers, especially low level workers, and that energy costs were down before the shutdowns?

Or how about the boom in small businesses over the past 3 years, before the pandemic shutdowns?

How can Obama policies be credited with this success (as some pundits try to do) when it's only AFTER the policies have been changed that we see an improvement?

Why was there a recession after the Bush Sr. Tax Hikes and Clinton saying "we tried but there's no way to get tax cuts" (paraphrased) with an economic boom happening AFTER 1994, the republican house/senate switch, and the republican driven tax cuts got passed with Clinton signing on reluctantly? (And why does Clinton get credit for that when it was the republicans who pressured him into signing those tax cuts?)

Just because we've considered your point of view and rejected it, doesn't mean we didn't consider it at all.

I've looked really damn hard at the leftist policies of big government control and high taxes, and I see all the times people have died en masse from policies like that.

The Holodomor, the Soviet Gulags, the Viper Militia's persecution, Mao, Pol Pot, and so many more times the far leftist policies have killed, and so many times the left wants to try again.

It's only 100 million dead in a single century from the leftist socialist and communist policies. What's another century of millions dead to try again? They're sure to get it right this time...



At this point, I think the moderators should just lock this thread. I doubt it's going to go anywhere good from here, and I'm tired of getting exactly what my first post in this thread points out as the problem with "reaching across the aisle".

[Madner Kami]

Humanity COULD NOT believe by Faith until after the Pentecost, which marked the end of the 4th Biblical Era and the beginning of the 5th Bibilical era, the Church Era.

That is why the apostles (and men) of the era were so often left confused, and had to SEE miracles happen. They could not believe without first seeing miracles at the time, and it was only after the Pentecost that they could believe. When the Holy Spirit came to each of the Apostles.

What the flying fuck... To me as an atheist, theological arguements always strike me as someone trying to do the mental equivalent of trying to scratch the left ear with the right foot. It's ridiculous to even try and even if someone succeeds, it's entirely stupid to do it. But this right there... It takes the cake.

[Nevix]

Humanity COULD NOT believe by Faith until after the Pentecost, which marked the end of the 4th Biblical Era and the beginning of the 5th Bibilical era, the Church Era.

That is why the apostles (and men) of the era were so often left confused, and had to SEE miracles happen. They could not believe without first seeing miracles at the time, and it was only after the Pentecost that they could believe. When the Holy Spirit came to each of the Apostles.

What the flying fuck... To me as an atheist, theological arguements always strike me as someone trying to do the mental equivalent of trying to scratch the left ear with the right foot. It's ridiculous to even try and even if someone succeeds, it's entirely stupid to do it. But this right there... It takes the cake.

And to me, atheists are people who disagree with me on how to view the world.

That's all.

You've already chosen to not believe, and to deride the attempt to explain Belief as silly, at best.

So I don't get the point of your post here, as it feels like it's only a way to mock me, my Faith, and religion in general.


Which, honestly, is part of the speech in my second post. Even just being here as a Christian invites derision and mockery.


Now, please, leave me alone and stop insulting me for choosing a different world view. I get enough of that in regular conversations if I make the mistake of admitting that I'm a Christian.

Or, in the other direction, look up the two books I recommended, and read them with an open mind.

[TGLS]

Topic locked as requested. Feel free to start another topic to discuss the same content without Nevix.