The argument against conservatism

[financeguy]

The Marx comment I was laughing at was because it was ironic and funny to have someone say "I'm not communist" and then use a general example (to make your point) that sounded like someone who read Marx. I get what you mean but I don't think it applies because I was talking specifically about professors I had and worldwide cap and trade which is OBVIOUSLY influenced by Marxism. These ideas influence the centre left much like libertarians influence the centre right (including myself when it comes to monetary policy but not fiscal policy). Anyways this debate was fun.

It's nice you guys try hard but my point is that it doesn't have to be "communist" to be a problem and you don't have to be a communist to have some Marxist influence and not everything that Marx said was totally wrong (just mostly wrong). It's also possible to support policies that Marxists would like and still disagree with them on most areas. A conservative sociologist on the other hand would be EXTREMELY rare. I suppose there could be a Socially Conservative Religious Sociologist and he would look at social work the same way as religous "good works" but he wouldn't be fiscally conservative.

Would tend to agree. Underlying this is, basically, entryism. Entryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with this line of argument is that anyone making it ends up being accused of "Reds under the Bed" paranoia, but just because McCarthy was a bit paranoid, doesn't mean that the KGB didn't have prominent Western intellectuals in their payroll during the Cold War. In fact, they provably did.

While I can't speak for Canadian universities, it is not remotely difficult for me to conceive of the possibility that Marxists occupy, or at least occupied, prominent positions in Canadian universities - in my days in an ostensibly Catholic college in ostensibly neutral Ireland, open, devout Roman Catholicism was far less evident than than open, devout Marxism (for example, a friend is fond of relating the anecdote about his professor of English whose opening gambit to his first year English class was a 'confession' of his political sympathies, together with a recommendation that those not interested in a Marxist reading of English literature should consider alternative classes.)

 

[A_Wanderer]

I was talking specifically about professors I had and worldwide cap and trade which is OBVIOUSLY influenced by Marxism.

This market solution doesn't obviously seem Marxist.

Can you justify any of your assertions?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Conservatives have facts and figures too. The argument is on who believes which facts and figures are correct and that isn't going to be settled this century.

This is true, of course, you're right about that. I just meant that lately it seems like the Republicans have a bit of a stronghold on emotion instead of facts-even if they've got facts to support their argument, they rarely seem to use them. But of course, the other side has instances of that, too. Basically, facts and figures generally aren't interesting regardless of which side you're on nowadays. I don't know if it's because people find them boring (I must admit, when it comes to financial discussion/debate, for example, when people start getting into percentages and reading off massive numbers and talking about the stock market and all that sort of thing, my head starts to spin and I tend to lose interest as a result. But I've never been a big fan of math, so that explains that) or if it's because it's hard to relate them to everyday life or what, but unfortunately that type of argument being taken seriously is hard to come by nowadays.

Angela

 

[pcfitz80]

The Marx comment I was laughing at was because it was ironic and funny to have someone say "I'm not communist" and then use a general example (to make your point) that sounded like someone who read Marx. I get what you mean but I don't think it applies because I was talking specifically about professors I had and worldwide cap and trade which is OBVIOUSLY influenced by Marxism. These ideas influence the centre left much like libertarians influence the centre right (including myself when it comes to monetary policy but not fiscal policy). Anyways this debate was fun.



It's nice you guys try hard but my point is that it doesn't have to be "communist" to be a problem and you don't have to be a communist to have some Marxist influence and not everything that Marx said was totally wrong (just mostly wrong). It's also possible to support policies that Marxists would like and still disagree with them on most areas. A conservative sociologist on the other hand would be EXTREMELY rare. I suppose there could be a Socially Conservative Religious Sociologist and he would look at social work the same way as religous "good works" but he wouldn't be fiscally conservative.

And just to get ahead of you guys: I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. Any conservatives that think he is need their heads examined.

Heh - heh. PurpleOscar, you're alright. Thing is, you seem like a pretty reasonable with some ideas I agree with. As was said, it's entirely possible for someone to have both conservative and liberal leanings. As I had mentioned, I am conservative when it comes to the issue of the “political class” or the “government class” of citizens. But there is a problem. The sensible brand of fiscal conservatism you seem to be advocating, one that truly is about reducing spending, and being, well, conservative!… Not doing radical things like starting wars in the middle east, IS NOT what today’s republican party is! It has been hi-jacked by radical conservatives who’s primary objectives are about the consolidation of wealth & power and pushing their ideology by any means necessary, including distorting the truth by fear mongering, and bypassing sensible and reasoning public discourse such as in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This is what happened under 8 years of Bush. But it’s not just him - looked what happened to McCain in ‘08 vs. the way he was in 2000. He realized that in order to fit into his party and gain the nomination he had to swing waaaaay to the right and become a radcon vs. the reasonable conservative he was back in ‘00 that I actually would have supported. So unfortunately, your arguments in your posts about how liberal governments eat up the GDP with their spending vs. what conservatives do doesn’t hold a lot of water because I think its inaccurate to say that conservatives, at least today’s radcons, in practice support smaller government and less spending. They are only for less government and spending when it comes to spending on things liberals think are important. But they have no problem running up trillions of dollars of dept to support their agenda (war in Iraq, reckless tax cuts, etc). Bush was like this but other recent conservatives such as Reagan also were. The “less government” argument is just a way to appeal to peoples financial interests - especially those who are in the middle or not waaay right. They say vote for us, “we’ll let you keep more of your money, you know how to spend it better than the government” etc…All those things people love to hear. But while they may be cutting spending on A, B, and C by x amount and this is what they keep focusing on they meanwhile plan to increase spending on X, Y, Z by 2x amount because those things fit the conservative agenda ( bigger military, wars,).

 

[purpleoscar]

Why? Because it would be hard to find a conservative that believed in science or higher education?

Zing!

Because sociology is heavily influenced by Marx. Certainly it can change and evolve but it's definitely influenced by the left (especially through the 20th century). Yes any person can study patterns in society Conservatives usually go to other areas like economics and political science and sometimes even in particular universities and think tanks. I don't know why it needs to be explained. Humans tend to go with "like" because it's easier to work together without conflicting agendas. Social sciences aren't like hard sciences because of human bias. Even the hard sciences can get stuck in particular paradigms that have to shift in heated debates.

 

[purpleoscar]

Heh - heh. PurpleOscar, you're alright. Thing is, you seem like a pretty reasonable with some ideas I agree with. As was said, it's entirely possible for someone to have both conservative and liberal leanings. As I had mentioned, I am conservative when it comes to the issue of the “political class” or the “government class” of citizens. But there is a problem. The sensible brand of fiscal conservatism you seem to be advocating, one that truly is about reducing spending, and being, well, conservative!… Not doing radical things like starting wars in the middle east, IS NOT what today’s republican party is! It has been hi-jacked by radical conservatives who’s primary objectives are about the consolidation of wealth & power and pushing their ideology by any means necessary, including distorting the truth by fear mongering, and bypassing sensible and reasoning public discourse such as in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This is what happened under 8 years of Bush. But it’s not just him - looked what happened to McCain in ‘08 vs. the way he was in 2000. He realized that in order to fit into his party and gain the nomination he had to swing waaaaay to the right and become a radcon vs. the reasonable conservative he was back in ‘00 that I actually would have supported. So unfortunately, your arguments in your posts about how liberal governments eat up the GDP with their spending vs. what conservatives do doesn’t hold a lot of water because I think its inaccurate to say that conservatives, at least today’s radcons, in practice support smaller government and less spending. They are only for less government and spending when it comes to spending on things liberals think are important. But they have no problem running up trillions of dollars of dept to support their agenda (war in Iraq, reckless tax cuts, etc). Bush was like this but other recent conservatives such as Reagan also were. The “less government” argument is just a way to appeal to peoples financial interests - especially those who are in the middle or not waaay right. They say vote for us, “we’ll let you keep more of your money, you know how to spend it better than the government” etc…All those things people love to hear. But while they may be cutting spending on A, B, and C by x amount and this is what they keep focusing on they meanwhile plan to increase spending on X, Y, Z by 2x amount because those things fit the conservative agenda ( bigger military, wars,).

Well I think the U.S. had to do something after 9/11 and yes the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was an experiment and we've yet to see the full ramifications. Certainly on conservative boards they are very divided into "Sadaam was blocking weapons inspectors" to "Islamic people believe in Sharia law not democracy" to even more crude "Those Islamofacists aren't worth it." Others look to Reagan's responses as more balanced responses. I'm certainly conflicted because I do want to see Iraq and Afghanistan become more stable and not revert to what we see in Yemen. I definitely predict a more isolationist attitude in the U.S. for sometime, especially since long wars with heavily curtailed rules of engagement limit the efficiency of our troops to rout the enemy like in WWII. I don't think mass carpet bombing will go well with the media. Then when you add the cost no country can keep it going indefinitely.

This market solution doesn't obviously seem Marxist.

Can you justify any of your assertions?

Energy taxes are not market solutions. The market solution would be to take technology that the private sector or government developed to a level that can compete with fossil fuels or close to it so that venture capitalists would want to get in on it. Some people rightly prefer to call it cap and tax because any increases on fossil fuel companies will simply lead to increases in energy prices to the general public to maintain profits for shareholders. Energy companies are not just going to eat up the costs and pay employees less or cut dividends. Obama expected the coal companies to go under and he proposed a tax credit to help others find new jobs but those green jobs can only be created if we deindustrialize. We will be using some green technology heavily mixed with fossil fuels for sometime until a technological breakthrough appears. Also if you want to read in the old Global Warming threads what I wrote on Patrick Moore and Greenpeace + Maurice Strong + Copenhagen worldwide binding agreements that would necessarily create a world government you'll get what I meant by Marxist.

This is true, of course, you're right about that. I just meant that lately it seems like the Republicans have a bit of a stronghold on emotion instead of facts-even if they've got facts to support their argument, they rarely seem to use them. But of course, the other side has instances of that, too. Basically, facts and figures generally aren't interesting regardless of which side you're on nowadays. I don't know if it's because people find them boring (I must admit, when it comes to financial discussion/debate, for example, when people start getting into percentages and reading off massive numbers and talking about the stock market and all that sort of thing, my head starts to spin and I tend to lose interest as a result. But I've never been a big fan of math, so that explains that) or if it's because it's hard to relate them to everyday life or what, but unfortunately that type of argument being taken seriously is hard to come by nowadays.

Angela

Most people are taught how to think but few have enough time to be a specialist and to challenge paradigms. Some of these paradigms on how to understand how the world works are useful but are never ABSOLUTE REALITY so the debate will continue on indefinitely and it should because new things can be learned but it gets harder to reinvent man when so many bits of knowledge have accumulated over time. Radicals say "Hey the world is unjust and should be this way!" and the reactionaries say "We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater!" and so it goes on and on. The best thing for the general public to do is to read from general books you are averse to so you can get the gist of an opinion and as you learn more you can go in more detail but unfortunately the general public will have to spend most of their time taking care of their own jobs (which often require constant studying and upgrading) which will prevent specialization. Generalization is better than nothing but always keeping in mind that structures and paradigms on how humans evolve their ideas will keep shifting. Also political pendulums will move back and forth naturally.

Would tend to agree. Underlying this is, basically, entryism. Entryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with this line of argument is that anyone making it ends up being accused of "Reds under the Bed" paranoia, but just because McCarthy was a bit paranoid, doesn't mean that the KGB didn't have prominent Western intellectuals in their payroll during the Cold War. In fact, they provably did.

While I can't speak for Canadian universities, it is not remotely difficult for me to conceive of the possibility that Marxists occupy, or at least occupied, prominent positions in Canadian universities - in my days in an ostensibly Catholic college in ostensibly neutral Ireland, open, devout Roman Catholicism was far less evident than than open, devout Marxism (for example, a friend is fond of relating the anecdote about his professor of English whose opening gambit to his first year English class was a 'confession' of his political sympathies, together with a recommendation that those not interested in a Marxist reading of English literature should consider alternative classes.)

It's a particular generation that went through the 20th century (especially the 60s) taught by Marxist professors and they themselves were taught propaganda by the Soviets. My history teacher was cagy when the subject came up and he said "I never saw anything wrong when I was in the Soviet Union" and he would walk away if you pressed him on it because it was an unpopular point of view in a business faculty. I remember my Sociology teacher played some Grateful Dead music during the break and some students were naturally repulsed by hippy attitudes (probably because it reminds them of their parents) and would not stay to listen.

My Dad was a part of this generation and in the 70s and 80s when he was in university he took an easy Latin American history course (he was born in Brazil) and his marks went from 9 to 5 when he mentioned to the Columbian Marxist teacher that he didn't like Castro trading humans for tractors. Even when he immigrated to Canada he had to take Grade 12 high school to enter university and he had a German lady talk about the great infrastructure made in the Soviet Union and "how could a bad society create such amazing things?" This of course would dovetail in my belief that leftists and rightists tend to not mix well together in universities and think tanks. You can even see basic tribalism in office workplaces, school and other places where group work is necessary for examples of ostracism. We even celebrate it with "reality" programming shows. "You're Fired!" "You've been voted off the Island!". Basic human nature hasn't really evolved much.

A good area to study would be the protests at Universities in the 60s where curriculums were challenged and changed. That had a huge impact that created a more self-loathing of the west point of view. Certainly colonialism was BAD but this self-loathing can turn into the political correctness that we see today.

 

[anitram]

While I can't speak for Canadian universities, it is not remotely difficult for me to conceive of the possibility that Marxists occupy, or at least occupied, prominent positions in Canadian universities

For my degrees I attended two of the largest universities in Canada, including the largest one and including the top ranked one. Purpleoscar went to a small regional school that really is not known nationally - most people in Ontario probably wouldn't even know it existed. This is not a knock by any means because a number of the smaller universities across this country are actually remarkably excellent, but I also think that his experience is not necessarily one that you should take as the common one.

Frankly I never encountered an openly communist or Marxist professor. There were left leaning and right leaning ones but not of the sort that purpleoscar constantly refers to and has a giant chip on his shoulder about. Also worth noting is that as somebody who studied corporate law, I probably encountered just about every right wing economic conservative there is and you will note that I don't go around whining about it years afterwards. That is what university is about: critical thinking. You will be exposed to a variety of opinions, left, right and middle. The way purpleoscar describes his schooling makes it seem worse than the education that I received in the Eastern Communist bloc country in which I lived for the first 11 years of my life. Either he's paranoid and exaggerating, or like I said his school is not indicative of the Canadian mainstream.

 

[purpleoscar]

For my degrees I attended two of the largest universities in Canada, including the largest one and including the top ranked one. Purpleoscar went to a small regional school that really is not known nationally - most people in Ontario probably wouldn't even know it existed. This is not a knock by any means because a number of the smaller universities across this country are actually remarkably excellent, but I also think that his experience is not necessarily one that you should take as the common one.

Frankly I never encountered an openly communist or Marxist professor. There were left leaning and right leaning ones but not of the sort that purpleoscar constantly refers to and has a giant chip on his shoulder about. Also worth noting is that as somebody who studied corporate law, I probably encountered just about every right wing economic conservative there is and you will note that I don't go around whining about it years afterwards. That is what university is about: critical thinking. You will be exposed to a variety of opinions, left, right and middle. The way purpleoscar describes his schooling makes it seem worse than the education that I received in the Eastern Communist bloc country in which I lived for the first 11 years of my life. Either he's paranoid and exaggerating, or like I said his school is not indicative of the Canadian mainstream.

Yeah like the treatment Ann Coulter got at Ottawa University? I'm not the liar! I didn't actually complain to anyone at the University. I actually debated these idiots and saw them for who they are. I'm not afraid of debate if you hadn't noticed. BTW I'm also not the only one who thinks humanities courses in NORTH AMERICA are heavily influenced by the left. Only people who like their style of teaching don't notice the bias. It's also well known that media faculties are the same way. There's entire books on liberal bias in media and academia and it's certainly not only in Canada. Since humanities affects how people look at society and politics and even how they vote mentioning pro-business people in a pro-business faculty that you studied in is not the same thing. My economics and accounting courses didn't have left-wing politics, though I did have a stats course where the teacher talked about his experience in University where a communist teacher gave the entire class 100% because he believed in equality but I doubt that was a business class.

BTW I keep bringing up these teachers precisely because people like you keep challenging me on it and pretend that universities are so politically balanced so calling it "whining" is disingenuous.

 

[Diemen]

Yeah like the treatment Ann Coulter got at Ottawa University?

Tell me, what kind of treatment do actual respected conservative intellectuals receive? Perhaps Ann Coulter got rough treatment because she represents a very divisive and inflammatory media brand of conservatism, one that feeds off of creating division at every possible opportunity and does not shy away from outlandish statements and accusations? Do you think that might have something to do with it? Or do you actually think she got that reception merely because she's a conservative and those darned lefties just can't stand the idea of a conservative coming to speak at their college?

There's entire books on liberal bias in media and academia and it's certainly not only in Canada.

Well if there's a book on it, it must be true. (written by conservatives, no doubt)

 

[anitram]

BTW I keep bringing up these teachers precisely because people like you keep challenging me on it and pretend that universities are so politically balanced so calling it "whining" is disingenuous.

Please. You bring it up constantly in all sorts of discussions and then get challenged. I've never encountered anyone else who had such a chip on their shoulder about their professors.

I never said anything about universities being politically balanced. I simply take issue with your claim that they are full of "openly Communist" professors. I've never had anyone declare themselves as such in my many years of post-secondary education and I think you're presenting a false picture by constantly implying that it is the norm.

 

[BVS]

Because sociology is heavily influenced by Marx. Certainly it can change and evolve but it's definitely influenced by the left (especially through the 20th century). Yes any person can study patterns in society Conservatives usually go to other areas like economics and political science and sometimes even in particular universities and think tanks. I don't know why it needs to be explained. Humans tend to go with "like" because it's easier to work together without conflicting agendas. Social sciences aren't like hard sciences because of human bias. Even the hard sciences can get stuck in particular paradigms that have to shift in heated debates.

Now there's a concise definition of Sociology.

Just to let you know, I know three full fledged Sociologists and two of them are conservatives. Both would find you troubling.

 

[pcfitz80]

Well I think the U.S. had to do something after 9/11 and yes the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was an experiment and we've yet to see the full ramifications. Certainly on conservative boards they are very divided into "Sadaam was blocking weapons inspectors" to "Islamic people believe in Sharia law not democracy" to even more crude "Those Islamofacists aren't worth it." Others look to Reagan's responses as more balanced responses. I'm certainly conflicted because I do want to see Iraq and Afghanistan become more stable and not revert to what we see in Yemen. I definitely predict a more isolationist attitude in the U.S. for sometime, especially since long wars with heavily curtailed rules of engagement limit the efficiency of our troops to rout the enemy like in WWII. I don't think mass carpet bombing will go well with the media. Then when you add the cost no country can keep it going indefinitely.
QUOTE]

I know we had to do something after 9/11. That is why I supported striking back in Afghanistan. No problem there. But going into Iraq was an egregious mistake. Saddam was a terrible dictator for sure but he did not have anything to do with 9/11 and was not capable of attacking us with WMDs because he had none. I can not stress how strongly opposed I was to the idea of attacking both back in ’02 -03 and now. We had an administration that was not interested in facts and details such as how to bring peace and stability after the removal of Saddam. Bush just thought “they will be so grateful to us for taking him down. Then they will naturally just form a democracy and all will be well.” But it was not so at all. Why? Because as much as Iraqis did not like Saddam they DID NOT want us there. And all the pent up energy from the warring groups that had been quelled under Saddam just went off like a time bomb after he was taken down. And don’t tell me something like “hindsight is 20/20” because I and many others could clearly see that something like this would happen before we went in. It wasn’t rocket science. The facts were there. But Bush / Cheney/Rumsfeld were not interested in facts if they didn’t support their ideology so they made up their own version of the truth and facts including forged documents allegedly showing that Saddam had tried to buy WMDs.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Bingo. That's how a lot of people seem to feel: Afghanistan=understandable. Iraq=?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: one of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, Bush's push for democracy in Iraq didn't work is because you cannot FORCE democracy on people. That kinda goes against the whole definition of the concept, which has been around for a very, very, VERY long time. As has the country of Iraq. I'm pretty sure if they want a democracy (and if they do, hooray, I'm cool with that), they will be smart enough and knowledgeable enough about the concept to create one. The idea of us going over to other countries and saying, "We're here to bring you democracy!" just generally tends to come off to me as awfully patronizing, like they're too ignorant or stupid to get the concept. Not to mention, we're having enough trouble keeping our own country's government in order, what makes us think we'll be able to construct anything valid in another country? And I find it funny that so many of the same people that have no problem trying to force government ideas onto another group of people are the same ones that are so reserved about government control here at home.

Also, there may well have been people in Iraq already secretly plotting ways to get rid of Saddam. We just beat them to the punch. But I don't think it's a wise idea to go around taking out the leaders of other nations. I feel that little experiment will come back to bite us (hell, the 9/11 attackers were headed for the White House. They were going to take out our leader, had they not been stopped). That, and it often seems that when we're involved in setting up the government for other nations, we tend to, um, not have the best track record of picking decent leaders. So why we keep insisting on this attempt at controlling other nations' governments, I'm not sure.

Most people are taught how to think but few have enough time to be a specialist and to challenge paradigms. Some of these paradigms on how to understand how the world works are useful but are never ABSOLUTE REALITY so the debate will continue on indefinitely and it should because new things can be learned but it gets harder to reinvent man when so many bits of knowledge have accumulated over time. Radicals say "Hey the world is unjust and should be this way!" and the reactionaries say "We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater!" and so it goes on and on. The best thing for the general public to do is to read from general books you are averse to so you can get the gist of an opinion and as you learn more you can go in more detail but unfortunately the general public will have to spend most of their time taking care of their own jobs (which often require constant studying and upgrading) which will prevent specialization. Generalization is better than nothing but always keeping in mind that structures and paradigms on how humans evolve their ideas will keep shifting. Also political pendulums will move back and forth naturally.

All of this is quite true. My parents used to say the same thing all the time. Which I fully understand, and even those that do specialize in certain concepts aren't always going to fully understand everything, because, as you said, changes to the information are always constant.

But at the very least, yes, everyone should at some point in their lives hear some views that are completely opposite their own so as not to generalize so often, and reevaluate their own views more often as well, just make sure that they truly understand why it is they feel the way they do. And those in the media and the politicians need to quit throwing out red herrings that have squat to do with the actual topics at hand. They just need to properly explain their arguments in a way that isn't dumbed-down-talk to the public like they're intelligent, rational beings and they'll respond thusly-but which also sounds like they truly understand what people are going through, why they think the way they do, and if they do that, that'll show they're willing to work with everyone to try and find some solution, some common ground. And there's always a common ground somewhere. Even the most radical lefty and righty can find something they can agree on, I firmly believe that.

Also, I've only completed a bit of community college work, but when I did go, I went in Wyoming. There were some liberal leanings to the teachers there, but it clearly didn't seem to affect the students-perhaps the most conservative area I've ever lived in. And I also lived in Nebraska and South Dakota, states also not known for embracing left-wing ideology. And any teachers that were liberal were not radically so.

If any teachers out there at any school grade kids lower simply for having a difference of political opinion, that's a really dumb way to teach, that's not how you should be graded. But no matter the view of a teacher, it's still up to the students to decide if they want to follow that belief system or not. I don't think there's any sort of intentional attempt to try and force everyone into a left-wing view.

Angela

 

[purpleoscar]

Now there's a concise definition of Sociology.

Just to let you know, I know three full fledged Sociologists and two of them are conservatives. Both would find you troubling.

I would find them troubling. If they are truely conservative they would have to fire themselves. Unless they are really political scientists. Even my Sociology instructor admitted that government workers want to increase in funding and size. Of course he would love that but he's at least aware that there is opposition to that goal.

Please. You bring it up constantly in all sorts of discussions and then get challenged. I've never encountered anyone else who had such a chip on their shoulder about their professors.

I never said anything about universities being politically balanced. I simply take issue with your claim that they are full of "openly Communist" professors. I've never had anyone declare themselves as such in my many years of post-secondary education and I think you're presenting a false picture by constantly implying that it is the norm.

I'm talking about humanities courses. Of course if you go to Economics and Business you'll get more liberal Keynesian and Libertarian types. You can call me a liar if you want (meaning I'm making up these people that I actually met) but I know my experience so you're not exactly going to convince me. Topics of left-wing bias in academia are not new and my experiences dovetail with others. If you didn't get that bias that's fine and if you found conservative bias only then that shouldn't happen either. Points of view only make sense when they are compared.

I've even got examples with my niece in Catholic school. She already has opinions about Bush being worse than Obama and a general dislike of the U.S. How did that happen? She's just learning to read. They should be teaching what Presidents are responsible for (if they can understand at the age of 8) not which ones are the best.

YouTube - EXPOSED: Elementary Students Forced to Participate in Barack Obama Political Indoctrination Song

Why don't we actually teach them how to develop skills instead of singing about current left-wing presidents in classrooms. What a waste of time. I know Obama supporters would like this but if you put Bush's name instead of Obama it would piss them off. Though knowing Teacher's unions I could hazard a guess there would be more push to sing about Democrats than Republicans. I would also include religous types who can't tell the difference between physics and metaphysics and want to teach Creationism in science classrooms.

 

[purpleoscar]

All of this is quite true. My parents used to say the same thing all the time. Which I fully understand, and even those that do specialize in certain concepts aren't always going to fully understand everything, because, as you said, changes to the information are always constant.

But at the very least, yes, everyone should at some point in their lives hear some views that are completely opposite their own so as not to generalize so often, and reevaluate their own views more often as well, just make sure that they truly understand why it is they feel the way they do. And those in the media and the politicians need to quit throwing out red herrings that have squat to do with the actual topics at hand. They just need to properly explain their arguments in a way that isn't dumbed-down-talk to the public like they're intelligent, rational beings and they'll respond thusly-but which also sounds like they truly understand what people are going through, why they think the way they do, and if they do that, that'll show they're willing to work with everyone to try and find some solution, some common ground. And there's always a common ground somewhere. Even the most radical lefty and righty can find something they can agree on, I firmly believe that.

Also, I've only completed a bit of community college work, but when I did go, I went in Wyoming. There were some liberal leanings to the teachers there, but it clearly didn't seem to affect the students-perhaps the most conservative area I've ever lived in. And I also lived in Nebraska and South Dakota, states also not known for embracing left-wing ideology. And any teachers that were liberal were not radically so.

If any teachers out there at any school grade kids lower simply for having a difference of political opinion, that's a really dumb way to teach, that's not how you should be graded. But no matter the view of a teacher, it's still up to the students to decide if they want to follow that belief system or not. I don't think there's any sort of intentional attempt to try and force everyone into a left-wing view. Angela

Yes in the end people will have to live their lives and many will question what they are taught simply because life can force you to. I'm more annoyed with the ones who don't question and actually pick up rocks and smash windows or burn cars at braindead protests that offer no solutions but anarchy. Some of these types use actual peaceful protestors as cover for their antics.

I also wish for more debate style programs so we don't have to have MSM vs. Fox news/Talk radio. I guess that's why many just stay "independent" and/or don't vote.

Tell me, what kind of treatment do actual respected conservative intellectuals receive? Perhaps Ann Coulter got rough treatment because she represents a very divisive and inflammatory media brand of conservatism, one that feeds off of creating division at every possible opportunity and does not shy away from outlandish statements and accusations? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

Or do you actually think she got that reception merely because she's a conservative and those darned lefties just can't stand the idea of a conservative coming to speak at their college?

I agree with the second part. Not all the universities threatened violence. Van Jones, Holdren, and Dunn also say totally say extreme things but the last thing I want is someone to rough them up.

Well if there's a book on it, it must be true. (written by conservatives, no doubt)

Because we can expect liberals to do that for us? Conservatives can see when liberals talk about their opinions as if they are facts (typical human problem with bias) and when that builds up so will the complaints. People with different points of view can see things that others don't. I'm pretty sure both sides should be able to understand that.

 

[BVS]

I would find them troubling. If they are truely conservative they would have to fire themselves.

Why? Do you even understand what sociology is?

Even my Sociology instructor admitted that government workers want to increase in funding and size. Of course he would love that but he's at least aware that there is opposition to that goal.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Man, you're going off the deep end... What does this have to do with him being a Sociology instructor? Seriously, try and make sense for once, please.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I've even got examples with my niece in Catholic school. She already has opinions about Bush being worse than Obama and a general dislike of the U.S. How did that happen? She's just learning to read. They should be teaching what Presidents are responsible for (if they can understand at the age of 8) not which ones are the best.

Kids can also get that belief system from home, too . And if you learn about what presidents are responsible for it's only logical that people will start to form opinions on who's the best and worst. If a president made bad decisions, they're going to be seen as bad. And vice versa. Of course, good and bad are subjective, but still, the debate is inevitable, whether you're discussing it in school or at home. Maybe consider the age range and work within that, yes, in a way that the students will understand it and be able to talk about it, but outside of that...

And I don't really remember massive discussion of dislike of the U.S. in school. I know that people disagreed with policies here and abroad at times, and we mentioned and talked about that. Dislike of the U.S., or at least of its policies, is always going to be around. Everyone's going to learn at some point that not everyone is happy with what our country does all the time. Sometimes that's a bad thing, sometimes it's a good thing.

YouTube - EXPOSED: Elementary Students Forced to Participate in Barack Obama Political Indoctrination Song

Why don't we actually teach them how to develop skills instead of singing about current left-wing presidents in classrooms. What a waste of time. I know Obama supporters would like this but if you put Bush's name instead of Obama it would piss them off.

Yeah, I heard about that whole thing, and I wouldn't use Fox News as my source for that topic, because they try and put in the whole scary "Obama's indoctrinating our kids!!!!!1omg!!!11" factor. Wasn't this actually supposed to be something that celebrated numerous people, they were going to sing about other notable presidents as well? People probably aren't going to be singing songs about Bush because he sucked as a president. You don't see many people singing about Andrew Jackson with praise, do you? And even if they did make a song about Bush, some would be angry, yes, and their hypocrisy would be duly noted, but I just chalk it up to schools making up songs and rhymes and whatnot to help them learn about presidents. Some would say kids reciting the Pledge of Alleigance is offensive brainwashing, too. I disagree. I think it's just a recitation, nothing more, and the only people who would freak out and make a mountain out of a molehill are the adults. Kids aren't going to notice or care much.

Also, there are those who would argue that Obama is a centrist, not left-wing. Why do you think so many on the left are unhappy with him nowadays?

Yes in the end people will have to live their lives and many will question what they are taught simply because life can force you to. I'm more annoyed with the ones who don't question and actually pick up rocks and smash windows or burn cars at braindead protests that offer no solutions but anarchy. Some of these types use actual peaceful protestors as cover for their antics.

I also wish for more debate style programs so we don't have to have MSM vs. Fox news/Talk radio. I guess that's why many just stay "independent" and/or don't vote.

I fully agree with all of this. We need debate that won't cater to the extremes on either side, that will point out the good and bad of all political arguments/sides. Most people are a mixture of political views and we need more things out there that properly represent that fact. We also need shows where people aren't screaming at each other all the time. I'm totally fine with strong, even slightly heated debate, the passion is great, it's nice to see people care so much about what they're saying, but when it gets to rude name-calling and stereotypes and people never letting each other finish a sentence and all that crap, you just want everyone to shut the hell up. I remember one night seeing Anderson Cooper admonish a couple guests who got into a shouting match over some issue (can't remember what it was). He told them to cool it 'cause viewers have stated they don't like the constant yelling on TV. I wanted to applaud him for that. Nice to know someone out there is paying attention.

And on a similar note, the people who commit violent acts at rallies are indeed a horrible example of dealing with a problem. I've especially never understood it at PEACE-related rallies-um...you are aware you're going against everything you supposedly stand for, right? The non-violent civil rights movement in the '50s and '60s got IMMENSE hell during their rallies and protests-beatings, racial slurs, being shot at, violent, horrific imagery shoved in their faces-and they managed to keep their cool in the face of it all, they kept on with their message and stayed peaceful, which I greatly admire. We could do well to learn from them.

Angela

 

[purpleoscar]

Why? Do you even understand what sociology is?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Man, you're going off the deep end... What does this have to do with him being a Sociology instructor? Seriously, try and make sense for once, please.

My points aren't difficult. People who work in government positions tend to vote left-wing and support left-wing politics. Not ALL are that way and certainly conservatives can win elections and tell these workers what to do (not always) but in general that has been the basic template for decades now and tends to fit naturally with human behaviour in which people tend to want to be with those they agree with. This is especially with politics.

Also, there are those who would argue that Obama is a centrist, not left-wing. Why do you think so many on the left are unhappy with him nowadays? Angela

The reason why people look at him as far left-wing is precisely because of the policies and his ignoring a mandate. Of course he can ignore a mandate if he wants to but he'll pay the consequences that most politicians pay when they go against mandate, and especially if what is proposed doesn't work. The ramming through the healthcare bill is another thing that looked like he wasn't interested in fully debating what would actually work better because ideologically he felt he was simply right. His support of Krugman policies that simply added to the deficit more than Republicans also annoyed conservatives that voted for Obama and hoped he really would be more responsible than prior Republicans. I personally believe that Obama wanted to be another Roosevelt but at this point the budget is so bloated that the public knows taxes will probably increase.

Then you add some of the czars he hired who are far left and the energy bill he supported and admitted would bankrupt coal companies it's hard to call him simply centre-left. I'm sure he had to make some compromises (because plenty of Democrats aren't far left) and I'll predict more compromises after the midterm elections. If he moderates the healthcare bill so it satisfies more of the public and if he scraps energy taxes I think he still has a chance to win in 2012, otherwise he's out. Whether Obama cares to stay after 2012 or not I'm not sure.

 

[Diemen]

The ramming through the healthcare bill is another thing that looked like he wasn't interested in fully debating what would actually work better because ideologically he felt he was simply right.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. There were plenty of opportunities for debate. At every opportunity, Republicans made it perfectly clear they weren't interested in debate, but only in setting themselves in direct opposition of whatever Obama proposed. When your only idea for debate is "scrap the bill" - you're not interested in debate.

 

[BVS]

My points aren't difficult. People who work in government positions tend to vote left-wing and support left-wing politics. Not ALL are that way and certainly conservatives can win elections and tell these workers what to do (not always) but in general that has been the basic template for decades now and tends to fit naturally with human behaviour in which people tend to want to be with those they agree with. This is especially with politics.

Can you tell me what any of this ^ has to do with SOCIOLOGY?

 

[anitram]

I would find them troubling. If they are truely conservative they would have to fire themselves.

Great! Then you can stand up and applaud all these true conservatives who have taken a principled stand and fired themselves. The fact that you have nothing but Communists left to teach you all these courses you keep complaining about is something you should celebrate.

 

[purpleoscar]

Great! Then you can stand up and applaud all these true conservatives who have taken a principled stand and fired themselves. The fact that you have nothing but Communists left to teach you all these courses you keep complaining about is something you should celebrate.

I find it hilarious that you're annoyed that I had communist professors. I've already stated that not every professor is a communist but certainly in humanities courses and certain generations who grew up in the 60s it's quite obvious that they got a lot of interest in Karl Marx. Marx wasn't a complete idiot but his views for those who aren't adept at economics can be very convincing and it's no surprise that workers could agree that profits (if they don't understand profits) are at the expense of the workers. They can also agree that goods and services require labour so they could then infer (labour theory of value) that if some philosopher king could theoretically map out an economy and price system we wouldn't need democracy and capitalism in it's current form. That's why when Reagan pointed out the difference between someone who follows Marx versus someone who understands Marx it was a wise comment. I would love a utopia and if I had this faith and hope and I was a professor and I felt I had to join a praxis and try and get students jazzed up about something positive (communism) it becomes very reasonable to find such people in such courses and I'm not the only one that can notice that.

Can you tell me what any of this ^ has to do with SOCIOLOGY?

I was talking about a Sociology professor. Sociologists tend to have left-wing tendencies because they tend to work for government. I'm sure some are conservative but lets be honest that the thread is getting a little derailed and it's easy to type in Sociology in wikipedia and you will find Marx as one of the main figures that inspired Sociology.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. There were plenty of opportunities for debate. At every opportunity, Republicans made it perfectly clear they weren't interested in debate, but only in setting themselves in direct opposition of whatever Obama proposed. When your only idea for debate is "scrap the bill" - you're not interested in debate.

Well they do have a big problem with not being able to understand the bill before voting ("voting" is that what they even did?") and adding another entitlement on top of 2 others certainly will be changed. Of course debate by winning elections back and forth between parties is probably the realistic course for constant reform. Factionalism between parties is not unknown. You can almost guarantee the system will change from it's initial form over the decades. I personally hope they can separate insurance from employment.

 

[anitram]

I find it hilarious that you're annoyed that I had communist professors.

Is that what you think I find annoying?

 

[BVS]

I was talking about a Sociology professor. Sociologists tend to have left-wing tendencies because they tend to work for government. I'm sure some are conservative but lets be honest that the thread is getting a little derailed and it's easy to type in Sociology in wikipedia and you will find Marx as one of the main figures that inspired Sociology.

Well now you're backtracking again. And really, quit using Wikipedia as your source...

My whole point in asking you these questions was to show your bias against science and your use of gross generalizations. These two things are honestly your two biggest weaknesses yet they seem to engulf so many of your arguments. If you ever get past these two issues I think you may gain some respect in your discussions. If you don't you're just reinforcing that notion of the uninformed ultra right.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The reason why people look at him as far left-wing is precisely because of the policies and his ignoring a mandate. Of course he can ignore a mandate if he wants to but he'll pay the consequences that most politicians pay when they go against mandate, and especially if what is proposed doesn't work.

Except we don't know yet how well it will work. These things are going to take time to reveal themselves. What if his ideas do work? And as for going against a mandate, well, again, name a politician that hasn't done that at some point. Doesn't automatically make him far-left.

And his policies? If he were truly far-left in his policy ideas, the fully committed leftists wouldn't be so disillusioned with him, especially if he were actually acting on said ideas. Even if he does privately harbor "far-left" ideology, he doesn't publicly enforce it. He enforces parts of it, if any, because he's all about compromise and bipartisanship.

Besides that, I agree with a good deal of his ideas and I don't consider myself far-left at all. Moderate at best. What exactly strikes you as too leftist about him?

The ramming through the healthcare bill is another thing that looked like he wasn't interested in fully debating what would actually work better because ideologically he felt he was simply right.

If he wasn't interested in debate (which I think he fully was, he pleaded for it numerous times), it's because barely anyone on the opposing side was interested in debate. It's hard to have a good debate with somebody about a healthcare bill when all they do is run around going, "IT'S GOT DEATH PANELS! Obama wants to kill your grandma!"

And again, I am absolutely mystified as to why any conservatives are pissed off about the healthcare bill. It was loaded with a bunch of Republican suggestions! Even after they pretty much stuck their tongues out at him and refused to work with him, he was still nice enough to try and incorporate any good ideas they did have (and there were a couple here and there). The bill is a lot more Republican than Democrat, more centrist/conservative than liberal, so the right's complaints about it...I don't understand. At all.

(If Obama were truly a far-left president, he would've ignored all the pleas to get rid of the public option. He would've put one in himself and told Republicans to take a hike. But there's no public option, is there?)

His support of Krugman policies that simply added to the deficit more than Republicans also annoyed conservatives that voted for Obama and hoped he really would be more responsible than prior Republicans. I personally believe that Obama wanted to be another Roosevelt but at this point the budget is so bloated that the public knows taxes will probably increase.

Yeah. Taxes probably will go up sometimes. That's life. It sucks, yes, but it happens. How the hell else are we supposed to pay to fix/take care of all the stuff we demand? You want better schools? Gotta pay for those. You want safe roads and bridges? Gotta pay for those, too. And so on. Should taxes be outrageously high and should we be taxed for every little thing? No, absolutely not-I fully agree we should never get out of control with our spending. But we do have to pay for stuff somehow.

And besides that, from what I understand, many middle/lower-class Americans paid LESS in taxes last year, not more, and Obama's ideas actually aren't going to add to the deficit. I'm not a financial whiz, so don't look to me for details, but this is what I've understood from the news. So long as I know the rich aren't hoarding all the money and not paying their fair share in taxes, and so long as I know my taxes are going to worthy things (i.e., schools, parks, libraries, roads, bridges, etc.), I'll be happy to pay a reasonable sum to keep those things working properly and looking all nice.

Then you add some of the czars he hired who are far left and the energy bill he supported and admitted would bankrupt coal companies it's hard to call him simply centre-left. I'm sure he had to make some compromises (because plenty of Democrats aren't far left) and I'll predict more compromises after the midterm elections. If he moderates the healthcare bill so it satisfies more of the public and if he scraps energy taxes I think he still has a chance to win in 2012, otherwise he's out. Whether Obama cares to stay after 2012 or not I'm not sure.

If he moderates the healthcare bill it's not going to satisfy you, I can tell you that much. The majority of Americans (who DID want a public option) would be thrilled, the small group that didn't, eh, no, no happiness for them.

So far it seems the czars haven't been able to do a whole hell of a lot. They may have made a few dents here and there, but again, if they were truly extremely to the left, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more massive change right now than we currently are.

Some people have no problem bankrupting the coal companies. It's 2010. We need to try other means of energy now, that aren't coal/oil based, 'cause right now those clearly don't seem to be working all that well. If you're worried about workers in the coal companies losing their jobs, that's an understandable concern-so just move them over to green jobs and get them trained in those. They keep a job, we get new sources of energy, chance to try something different, can't see the problem.

Again, even if he is personally almost bending to the ground in his leftiness, it's not showing up in the policies he's putting through. Far left would mean the oil companies would've been heavily controlled, if not rid of altogether, before the massive oil spill this year. Far left would've meant that the CEOs of the major financial institutions would've got jack squat for bonuses and luxuries (hell, if certain people had their way, the CEOs would consider themselves lucky that their most harsh punishment was a long jail sentence), and the financial institutions would've had a massive smackdown laid on them. Far left (well, I don't consider this far left, but some out there do, odd as I find that fact) would mean gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states. Far left would mean we're completely and totally 100% out of Iraq AND Afghanistan. "Far left", or what constitutes some people's version of that concept, would mean all sorts of things right now that are not happening. The left is unhappy with him. The right is unhappy with him. And the people in the middle have no clue what the hell to think, because both sides are shouting at them and trying to make them see their side.

Also, Americans are a very impatient bunch. I truly think, outside of the Tea Party/conservative base's reasons for being angry, most Americans are upset with Obama because they somehow expected things would be better a lot more quickly, that by this point all of his magical ideas would be reality and we'd all be living happy lives, they seem to think he really did have some wand to wave that would make life good pronto. What they forget to take into account is that change takes time. Patience, as difficult as it can be sometimes, really is a virtue. Which is why it's hard to predict how likely a re-election for him will be in 2012-some of the stuff he implemented this year will start becoming active by that time, so once people see his ideas in action, that'll have a big effect on their voting.

I for one sincerely hope he does get re-elected, because while the Democratic Party has its share of faults, and its incompetent politicians, right now, to me, the Republican Party is just terrifying. It's full of nothing but mean-spirited, ruthless, ignorant at best, downright stupid at worst, politicians (this is not a slam on the voters, just on the politicians) who know how to work the smear/fear campaign in a way the Democrats haven't even learned yet. They scare me. The Democrats just make me sad. And I'd rather be sad than scared.

Angela

 

[Diemen]

but certainly in humanities courses and certain generations who grew up in the 60s it's quite obvious that they got a lot of interest in Karl Marx...

...I would love a utopia and if I had this faith and hope and I was a professor and I felt I had to join a praxis and try and get students jazzed up about something positive (communism) it becomes very reasonable to find such people in such courses and I'm not the only one that can notice that.

Really? If this is your reasoning - that simply because Marx is considered one of the founders of modern sociology that most sociologists must tend to look favorably on communism - I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[purpleoscar]

Really? If this is your reasoning - that simply because Marx is considered one of the founders of modern sociology that most sociologists must tend to look favorably on communism - I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously.

This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative. Obviously if people like Marx they like Marx. Some of the Marxists I met were not only open about it but they criticized the Soviet Union because they felt it wasn't done properly and that skipping from Feudalism to Communism was a fatal misstep. Of course they feel the west is the best place to continue to the "true goal".

Conservatives don't believe in having lots of social engineers. Even if they tolerate some social engineering (social workers can help get kids out of abusive homes for eg.) they believe there is a limit because in order to keep freedom you have to let people fall a little so they can learn their lessons. That is often more efficient than doting on every mistake that people make. Then you've got the problem that if the social engineers make mistakes how do you override the authority we gave them?

Well now you're backtracking again. And really, quit using Wikipedia as your source...

My whole point in asking you these questions was to show your bias against science and your use of gross generalizations. These two things are honestly your two biggest weaknesses yet they seem to engulf so many of your arguments. If you ever get past these two issues I think you may gain some respect in your discussions. If you don't you're just reinforcing that notion of the uninformed ultra right.

The problem with social sciences is that THEY also are full of bias and politics. I find that the more distant we study (like galaxies or subatomic particles) we get more objective opinions. As soon as we study social sciences all kinds of biases appear. That's why understanding history is so important to social sciences because we often get more objectivity from history (economics, politics, anthropology, etc). If we don't learn from anti-growth policies, that have been in the past, and don't learn from what usually works in society we can get caught in all kinds of morasses of progressivism that we don't really see what's in front of us.

For example you call the ultra right "uninformed". In reality we are all uninformed to a certain extent but don't forget that some of these "uninformed" run businesses and run families and what a Harvard professor calls "uninformed" could be his own ignorance as well. The philosopher king mentality often falls into the same arguments we get with what reminds me of the history of China. When you look at Confucius and Lao Tse you get that problem of abstraction and reductionism. Confucius would point out that it would be necessary to name positions for people and have them work within them to make a proper solid government. Lao Tse pointed out that these names are concepts and don't hold absolute reality. So you can see change constantly happening precisely because words, concepts, and paradigms don't satisfy 100%. The left loves concepts and paradigms but their dissatisfaction will be pointed out by those recipients of the results of those beliefs. On top of that when we see that it takes enormous time for knowledge to be acquired for any one individual it becomes necessary to delegate responsibility to a wider group of people to allow the different specialties to work it out. This tendency of the left to simply increase bureaucracy often gets rebuffed precisely because of it's real response vs. expectations. People are only drawn to big government solutions out of propaganda on what government promises.

 

[Diemen]

This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative.

Hardly. If you didn't use anecdotal stories as evidence, and infer that your experience in college must be the typical experience in any higher education institution, I'd be able to take you much more seriously.

 

[BoMac]

This is the typical response I expect in a thread like this. I don't expect progressives on a U2 site to take me seriously unless I stop being conservative.

Just so you know, as a progressive I take a lot of my conservative friends seriously and I've never once asked them to stop believing in what they believe. Divergent opinions and the right to hold and express them is what makes free societies like Canada and the United States - as opposed to the former Soviet Union - so great.

No. Actually I don't take YOU seriously for the reasons mentioned by Diemen above.

 

[purpleoscar]

Except we don't know yet how well it will work. These things are going to take time to reveal themselves. What if his ideas do work? And as for going against a mandate, well, again, name a politician that hasn't done that at some point. Doesn't automatically make him far-left.

You have to be careful though. Other countries have more left-wing systems and they can have lots of complaints about them as well (what system doesn't?). Then you've got prior statements that contradict what Obama promises (no Canadian style healthcare).

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

It just seems like the left wants to simply get their foot in the door and then make changes that will lead to huge expenses that will then have to be rationed with bureaucrats ("death panels"). Now I've met these death panels with my mom and it is uncomfortable. They try and do their best to persuade you to do the easy option possible to control the budget and I can see how many Americans aren't too interested in that path. They aren't vampires with bloodthirst but they are uncomfortable.

And his policies? If he were truly far-left in his policy ideas, the fully committed leftists wouldn't be so disillusioned with him, especially if he were actually acting on said ideas. Even if he does privately harbor "far-left" ideology, he doesn't publicly enforce it. He enforces parts of it, if any, because he's all about compromise and bipartisanship.

Besides that, I agree with a good deal of his ideas and I don't consider myself far-left at all. Moderate at best. What exactly strikes you as too leftist about him?

I don't like his energy policies (EPA threats, bullshit green jobs) and I don't like the endless stimulus plans. I'm okay with regulation of Wall Street but not government ownership of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'm not interested in his response to BP (what can he do?). I don't care about his personal life, though radical associations are definitely informative.

If he wasn't interested in debate (which I think he fully was, he pleaded for it numerous times), it's because barely anyone on the opposing side was interested in debate. It's hard to have a good debate with somebody about a healthcare bill when all they do is run around going, "IT'S GOT DEATH PANELS! Obama wants to kill your grandma!"

And again, I am absolutely mystified as to why any conservatives are pissed off about the healthcare bill. It was loaded with a bunch of Republican suggestions! Even after they pretty much stuck their tongues out at him and refused to work with him, he was still nice enough to try and incorporate any good ideas they did have (and there were a couple here and there). The bill is a lot more Republican than Democrat, more centrist/conservative than liberal, so the right's complaints about it...I don't understand. At all.

(If Obama were truly a far-left president, he would've ignored all the pleas to get rid of the public option. He would've put one in himself and told Republicans to take a hike. But there's no public option, is there?)

Well presidents don't have as much power as Congress but you must know that ramming a public option through without many people understanding it would piss off not just Republicans. But again I expect that both parties will be changing it over decades because the deficit is too big to leave alone healthcare entitlements and social security. At minimum the government will water down benefits and/or raise taxes and at maximum they will cut benefits until the deficit is gone.

Yeah. Taxes probably will go up sometimes. That's life. It sucks, yes, but it happens. How the hell else are we supposed to pay to fix/take care of all the stuff we demand? You want better schools? Gotta pay for those. You want safe roads and bridges? Gotta pay for those, too. And so on. Should taxes be outrageously high and should we be taxed for every little thing? No, absolutely not-I fully agree we should never get out of control with our spending. But we do have to pay for stuff somehow.

And besides that, from what I understand, many middle/lower-class Americans paid LESS in taxes last year, not more, and Obama's ideas actually aren't going to add to the deficit. I'm not a financial whiz, so don't look to me for details, but this is what I've understood from the news. So long as I know the rich aren't hoarding all the money and not paying their fair share in taxes, and so long as I know my taxes are going to worthy things (i.e., schools, parks, libraries, roads, bridges, etc.), I'll be happy to pay a reasonable sum to keep those things working properly and looking all nice.

This is a good point. I would question though whether people really want to pay more taxes (hypocrisy) and is it also good to have so many who don't pay taxes piggyback on the productive ones that do? This is one of the pitfalls of progressive taxation.

If he moderates the healthcare bill it's not going to satisfy you, I can tell you that much. The majority of Americans (who DID want a public option) would be thrilled, the small group that didn't, eh, no, no happiness for them.

The majority aren't for Obamacare. Some minority are and some would say the in danger minority have a reason for it. I certainly want all covered but there must be a mandatory insurance system because free riders do exist and it makes the system unsustainable. The Republicans need to know that we can't have people allowed to not be covered and then when an early accident occurs pass it on to the taxpayer. The left has to be honest about rationing (Michael Moore was at least).

So far it seems the czars haven't been able to do a whole hell of a lot. They may have made a few dents here and there, but again, if they were truly extremely to the left, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more massive change right now than we currently are.

Thank God there was enough opposition!

Some people have no problem bankrupting the coal companies. It's 2010. We need to try other means of energy now, that aren't coal/oil based, 'cause right now those clearly don't seem to be working all that well. If you're worried about workers in the coal companies losing their jobs, that's an understandable concern-so just move them over to green jobs and get them trained in those. They keep a job, we get new sources of energy, chance to try something different, can't see the problem.

Telling people who lost their coal jobs it's 2010 isn't going to cut it. Other countries have tried the green jobs move but unfortunately there is a net job loss. This is precisely because green jobs are related to technologies that can't make energy as cheap so prices would have to increase and losing coal jobs won't be replaced one job for one. If green jobs were so good they would automatically get venture capital because they could compete with fossil fuels. I'm all for funding research but if a technology isn't ready yet we shouldn't be using the public as guinea pigs.

Again, even if he is personally almost bending to the ground in his leftiness, it's not showing up in the policies he's putting through. Far left would mean the oil companies would've been heavily controlled, if not rid of altogether, before the massive oil spill this year. Far left would've meant that the CEOs of the major financial institutions would've got jack squat for bonuses and luxuries (hell, if certain people had their way, the CEOs would consider themselves lucky that their most harsh punishment was a long jail sentence), and the financial institutions would've had a massive smackdown laid on them. Far left (well, I don't consider this far left, but some out there do, odd as I find that fact) would mean gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states. Far left would mean we're completely and totally 100% out of Iraq AND Afghanistan. "Far left", or what constitutes some people's version of that concept, would mean all sorts of things right now that are not happening. The left is unhappy with him. The right is unhappy with him. And the people in the middle have no clue what the hell to think, because both sides are shouting at them and trying to make them see their side.

Well this is what happens when you're president. He can't do everything so he picks his battles. Most of the public wanted him to deal with the economy first but he didn't do that. He focussed on healthcare and energy reform. His attempt at the economy (and Bush's) is Stimulus. Stimulus is just a name for borrowing and spending. There was a funny response from Fred Thompson about "taking a bucket of water from one side of the pool and dumping it into the other side of the pool". Stimulus is to create government spending in government related jobs (like road construction, shovel ready projects, etc). Then these workers who receive their pay spend some money and therefore trickle into the economy. Unfortunately when that money gets to everyone else there is a looming tax bill from all that debt. The government either has to reduce quality of the benefits, inflate the currency (same thing), or increase taxes. Either way the pool is the same size as before and general public (without a government job and pension) has to eat the cost because there is no free lunch. The actual engine of growth is allowing people to keep a majority of what they make so there is an incentive to work (work is painful) and then the public (if they are even intelligent anymore) saves a portion of that money for hardship and then eventually retirement. If the public loses this healthy habit the government can justify itself to intrude in all levels of our life. It won't happen tomorrow but future generations.

Also, Americans are a very impatient bunch. I truly think, outside of the Tea Party/conservative base's reasons for being angry, most Americans are upset with Obama because they somehow expected things would be better a lot more quickly, that by this point all of his magical ideas would be reality and we'd all be living happy lives, they seem to think he really did have some wand to wave that would make life good pronto. What they forget to take into account is that change takes time. Patience, as difficult as it can be sometimes, really is a virtue. Which is why it's hard to predict how likely a re-election for him will be in 2012-some of the stuff he implemented this year will start becoming active by that time, so once people see his ideas in action, that'll have a big effect on their voting.

Don't forget the campaign. A lot was promised (as usual). Some of the public are too impatient but this looming debt is what is scaring them. They don't want a run on the dollar and they don't want the high taxes.

I for one sincerely hope he does get re-elected, because while the Democratic Party has its share of faults, and its incompetent politicians, right now, to me, the Republican Party is just terrifying. It's full of nothing but mean-spirited, ruthless, ignorant at best, downright stupid at worst, politicians (this is not a slam on the voters, just on the politicians) who know how to work the smear/fear campaign in a way the Democrats haven't even learned yet. They scare me. The Democrats just make me sad. And I'd rather be sad than scared.

Angela

The Republicans feel the EXACT same way about Democrats. You gotta love Democracy.