[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff Armor. That post almost seemed designed to elicit the name-calling that you say ends most arguments with liberals. Your uncle either doesn't really exist or is simply an example of a moron. He sounds nothing like any of the liberals I know.

I also (respectfully) disagree with your characterization donheff. I know people like Armor's uncle myself. I am (in order) a fiscal conservative, environmental progressive and social moderate.

I am in a heated debate with a young, passionate extreme left winger now about high gas prices. He blames big oil solely, I think it's a combination of many factors, many that have nothing to do with big oil (ie, if big oil was non-profit, we'd still be experiencing relatively high gas prices by US standards). From my (engineer) perspective, he seems to have a don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up POV. He provided almost no facts, when I did, he told me outright, "that doesn't mean anything to me" and the topic switched to the war in Iraq!!!

I agree with Armor and others here who believe it's important to listen to other POV's. I've voted for 2 Democrats and all the rest Republicans in my life. But I've listened to almost all the Republican and Democratic debates to see what I could learn. I think Churchill said (paraphrasing) 'If you're 20 and you aren't a liberal you don't have a heart. If you're 40 and you aren't a conservative, you don't have a brain.' I think there is some truth to that, although I would add when you're 60 you may fall somewhere in between. When I was 20 I thought poverty was unacceptable too. Now that I am over 50, as much as I think we are obligated to help those who truly can't help themselves (there but for the grace of God go I) - I realize that a lot of undeserving people will take advantage of the safety net. I'd like to provide more than just basic needs to those who can't help themselves but if we make welfare et al too appealing we just attract more of the undeserving. It has to be a LCD benefit to provide an incentive for those who can to do for themselves. The administrative costs (Govt employees) that would be required to separate the deserving from the undeserving are unfortunately prohibitively high. And unfortunately, those who can't help themselves, suffer the consequences. If welfare could solve the poverty issue, you would think it would have been solved a long time ago we've been throwing money at the problem for at least 40 years. Money can't fix human nature. Incidentally, it's the same reason communism/socialism have not led to higher standards of living than free market/capitalism - and never will. If people were selfless, socialism might be the best system, but I'm not holding my breath.

My views on environmental protection and UHC have changed too.

I agree with Armor and the others who think this is a fascinating topic, I could go on with this topic endlessly, but I won't. I am willing to discuss my POV with anyone, but 'I don't learn anything with my mouth open' so I seek out other POV's. I realize I am constantly learning and I will never have all the answers. And if I find myself debating with an extreme right or left winger, I walk away 'never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.'