On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 7:30:32 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> When people start talking in
> extremes they can't be taken
> seriously.
>

Are you not taking Mr. Putin
seriously ?!?

dk

In article <8d74370e-3a88-498e-aaab-7b3948c77280n@googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performanceandmedia@gmail.com> wrote:
>Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.

I have advocated the position, including in the past on this
newsgroup, that "we" should be trying to limit the power any
individual has over anyone else, as a basic aspect of democratic
politics.

Situations such as these with Putin or Trump are, of course, one
extreme. However, one can examine various daily occurences in terms
of the power imbalances that run through this society.... It's a
very basic situation.

On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
>
> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump...... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.

When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for I stop taking them seriously.

On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 13:23:58 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
> >
> > I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump...... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.
> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for I stop taking them seriously.

I never said I abhor the Republican Party. The fact that I don't agree politically with much of what they stand for, does not imply abhorrence. I said that I abhor what Putin is carrying out in the Ukraine. There is a difference.

The Republican Party lost me completely 100% when they adopted Trump and the acceptance of his obvious lies. They jumped on the fact that being popular with the gun-crazies, the extreme right loonies, and the QAnon mob, was a free ticket at the polling stations.

Ray Hall, Taree

On 2/26/2022 10:09 PM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 13:23:58 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump...... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.
>> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for I stop taking them seriously.
>
> I never said I abhor the Republican Party. The fact that I don't agree politically with much of what they stand for, does not imply abhorrence. I said that I abhor what Putin is carrying out in the Ukraine. There is a difference.
>
> The Republican Party lost me completely 100% when they adopted Trump and the acceptance of his obvious lies. They jumped on the fact that being popular with the gun-crazies, the extreme right loonies, and the QAnon mob, was a free ticket at the polling stations.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree

You don't need to explain.

And I was referring to Andy's comment, which was precisely:

"What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for..."

It's not enough to object to the party supporting Trump, or disagreeing with its general approach, or disagreeing with 50, 60 or 70 percent of it's policy preferences. He has to disagree with "all that it stands for."

And if he was asked to specify exactly what he things the RP "stands for" it would be an amalgam of distortions and hyperbole.

Like I said, not to be taken seriously.

On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 15:37:23 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 10:09 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 13:23:58 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
> >>>
> >>> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump....... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.
> >> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for I stop taking them seriously.
> >
> > I never said I abhor the Republican Party. The fact that I don't agree politically with much of what they stand for, does not imply abhorrence. I said that I abhor what Putin is carrying out in the Ukraine. There is a difference.
> >
> > The Republican Party lost me completely 100% when they adopted Trump and the acceptance of his obvious lies. They jumped on the fact that being popular with the gun-crazies, the extreme right loonies, and the QAnon mob, was a free ticket at the polling stations.
> >
> > Ray Hall, Taree
> You don't need to explain.
>
> And I was referring to Andy's comment, which was precisely:
>
> "What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for..."

I see that as nothing more than a political statement based on personal preference, and apart from which one shouldn't take statements of a political stripe too literally.

Ray Hall, Taree

On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 04:37:23 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> And if he was asked to specify exactly what he things the RP "stands for" it would be an amalgam of distortions and hyperbole.
> > Like I said, not to be taken seriously.

When the Republican party ditches Trump and admits it was a total lie that he "won" the election, apologises for QAnon, starts meaningful curbs on gun sales and use by civilians, backs universal healthcare including for poor people, repeals anti-abortion laws creeping into RP states, and restores the previous system of voting in elections I'll reconsider. I think it will be a very long wait.

On 2/27/2022 12:28 AM, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 15:37:23 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 10:09 PM, raymond....gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 13:23:58 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin, Trump...... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.
>>>> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands for I stop taking them seriously.
>>>
>>> I never said I abhor the Republican Party. The fact that I don't agree politically with much of what they stand for, does not imply abhorrence. I said that I abhor what Putin is carrying out in the Ukraine. There is a difference.
>>>
>>> The Republican Party lost me completely 100% when they adopted Trump and the acceptance of his obvious lies. They jumped on the fact that being popular with the gun-crazies, the extreme right loonies, and the QAnon mob, was a free ticket at the polling stations.
>>>
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>> You don't need to explain.
>>
>> And I was referring to Andy's comment, which was precisely:
>>
>> "What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for..."
>
> I see that as nothing more than a political statement based on personal preference, and apart from which one shouldn't take statements of a political stripe too literally.
>
> Ray Hall, Taree
>

I think people should mean what they say and say what they mean. Sloppy talk reflects sloppy thinking. And I don't believe for a nanosecond that you would excuse such hyperbole coming from someone on the Right.

On 2/27/2022 4:42 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 04:37:23 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> And if he was asked to specify exactly what he things the RP "stands for" it would be an amalgam of distortions and hyperbole.
>>> Like I said, not to be taken seriously.
>
> When the Republican party ditches Trump and admits it was a total lie that he "won" the election, apologises for QAnon, starts meaningful curbs on gun sales and use by civilians, backs universal healthcare including for poor people, repeals anti-abortion laws creeping into RP states, and restores the previous system of voting in elections I'll reconsider. I think it will be a very long wait.

Trump is not what the RP "stands for." He's who they nominate, in many cases in spite of that the RP stands for. Political parties, by definition, make compromises on the idealogical beliefs. That's what they do. All parties. Even the Libertarian Party.

QAnon was completely unknown to most Republicans prior to Liberal media over-exaggerating its importance. It's so-called beliefs are contrary to most people who vote Republican.

Most people vote for a candidate who, taking everything into account, they would prefer to see in office than other candidates. When you see rallies for Trump, those are his hard core or activist supporters. They are not ALL Republicans.

They are stuff are all, in my opinion, political issues where reasonable people can disagree. Taking one side or the other does not make you evil. But I know I am talking to a wall.

On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 14:16:28 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> I think people should mean what they say and say what they mean.

I have to remind you that in previous threads you already said that you just argue for the sake of it and this does not necessarily represent your personal beliefs.

Instead of passively griping against what others say, why don't you tell us exactly what you like and respect about the Republican Party? Give us a list. I know you won't, because that would mean coming out of hiding and actually making statements about your personal beliefs.

On 2/27/2022 9:45 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 14:16:28 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> I think people should mean what they say and say what they mean.
>
> I have to remind you that in previous threads you already said that you just argue for the sake of it and this does not necessarily represent your personal beliefs.
>

I've never said I argue for sake of arguing. I've said that sometimes I will consider both sides of an issue so that people might misconstrue my own beliefs. I would never say something as stupid as "I hate everything the Demorcratic Party stands for."

> Instead of passively griping against what others say, why don't you tell us exactly what you like and respect about the Republican Party? Give us a list. I know you won't, because that would mean coming out of hiding and actually making statements about your personal beliefs.

I've described myself many times as a Libertarian in outlook. I vote for Libertarian candidates when they exist on the ballot. If there are none it is not the case that I will automatically vote Republican. It depends on where the candidates stand on issues. I certainly never described myself as a Republican. If you construe that my disdain for a comment about hating "everything the RP stands for" means I am a Republican there is something wrong with your thinking.

As for what the Republican Party stands for, you can look it up. It's not difficult. But off the top of my head and bearing in mind this a a generalization:

Lower taxes
Smaller Federal government
strong national defense
pro-life (though not uniformly)
support for 2nd amendment
Conservative social values, meaning slower than Democrats to adopt new social norms.
traditional interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

Yes, I know these can be distorted into:

Not caring about the poor
not caring about social justice
interventionist, imoerialist foreign policy
hatred of women; denial of women's rights
not caring about gun victims
LGBT hatred
etc.

On 2/26/22 4:30 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 12:18 AM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 2/25/22 8:50 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Friday, 25 February 2022 at 23:41:56 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>>>> Yes, we get that Andy doesn't like the West.
>>>>> Bob Harper
>>>
>>> That's absolutely not true. I'm a huge European, and I support Europe
>>> in every way, especially for supporting all the science on Climate
>>> Change and leading the fight against it while most other nations
>>> don't give a damn.
>>>
>>> What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for, and
>>> the way it it trying to turn America into a one party state through
>>> downright lies, manipulation and creeping right-wing extremism in
>>> states with Republican majorities. And for me Trump was one of the
>>> worst ever US presidents, if not the worst. To believe in and support
>>> that man is unbelievable to most Europeans.
>>
>> I would say something unkind, but I choose not to. Suffice to say, I
>> believe you are mistaken.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.

Good advice for this thread.

Bob Harper

On 2/26/22 6:23 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 8:33 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 00:30:32 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> When people start talking in extremes they can't be taken seriously.
>>
>> I wish it were that simple. But we are talking extremes - tyrants
>> going beyond what we expected of serious mature politicians. Putin,
>> Trump...... let's hope we don't have to add more to the list with Xi
>> Jinping. These are extremely worrying individuals who have a really
>> bad track record and all are in charge of nuclear arsenals as Ray
>> says. Don't you think this is serious? Many others do.
>
> When someone says they abhor "everything" the Republican Party stands
> for I stop taking them seriously.

And when they seriously compare Donald Trump, for all the mean tweets
and bloviation that came from him, with a thug like Putin, I do the same.

Bob Harper

On 2/27/22 1:42 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 February 2022 at 04:37:23 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> And if he was asked to specify exactly what he things the RP "stands for" it would be an amalgam of distortions and hyperbole.
>>> Like I said, not to be taken seriously.
>
> When the Republican party ditches Trump and admits it was a total lie that he "won" the election, apologises for QAnon, starts meaningful curbs on gun sales and use by civilians, backs universal healthcare including for poor people, repeals anti-abortion laws creeping into RP states, and restores the previous system of voting in elections I'll reconsider. I think it will be a very long wait.

In other words, when it becomes the Democratic Socialist Party of Bernie
and AOC, right?

Doubtful.

Bob Harper

On 2/27/22 7:19 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
(snip)
> As for what the Republican Party stands for, you can look it up.  It's
> not difficult. But off the top of my head and bearing in mind this a a
> generalization:
>
> Lower taxes
> Smaller Federal government
> strong national defense
> pro-life (though not uniformly)
> support for 2nd amendment
> Conservative social values, meaning slower than Democrats to adopt new
> social norms.
> traditional interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
>
> Yes, I know these can be distorted into:
>
> Not caring about the poor
> not caring about social justice
> interventionist, imoerialist foreign policy
> hatred of women; denial of women's rights
> not caring about gun victims
> LGBT hatred
> etc.
>

A very good description of my views, and an accurate summation of the
typical distortion thereof. BTW, I'm not a Republican, but rather a
conservative. I generally vote Republican, as their candidates are
nearer my desires than their normal opponents, but I have never belonged
to any political party formally.

Bob Harper

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> As for what the Republican Party stands
> for, you can look it up. It's not difficult.
> But off the top of my head and bearing
> in mind this a a generalization:

It is all hand waving without supporting,
quantifiable evidence.

> Lower taxes

Would "lower taxes" raise enough money
to cover government obligations now and
in the future? Can anyone present actual
numbes?

> Smaller Federal government

Would a "smaller Federal government" be
able to provide all the functions govt must
provide, and still function reasonably well?
Clearly as population grows govt needs to
grow as well. How would it be possible to
do more work with fewer resources?

> strong national defense

Wouldn't that require and lead to some
govt growth?

> pro-life (though not uniformly)
> support for 2nd amendment
> Conservative social values, meaning
> slower than Democrats to adopt new
> social norms.

The adoption of new social norms
should be driven by the people, not
by political parties.

> traditional interpretation of the
> Constitution and Bill of Rights

The Constitution and the Bill of
Rights are written in a manner
that allows plenty of diverging,
even conflicting interpretations.
Even the top 9 jurists in the land
cannot agree on many of them.

> Yes, I know these can be distorted
> into:
>
> Not caring about the poor
> not caring about social justice
> interventionist, imperialist foreign
> policy hatred of women; denial of
> women's rights not caring about
> gun victims
> LGBT hatred
> etc.

"Distorted into"? The above list
has been de facto reactionary
right wing practice for centuries.

dk

On 2/26/2022 5:11 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 2/26/22 12:57 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Saturday, 26 February 2022 at 17:26:01 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>> The man is worse than Putin. Far worse.
>>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
>>> Ray, of all the things you have said in this forum, that is the
>>> silliest.
>>>> Bob Harper
>>
>> At this moment when Putin is invading Ukraine he looks a lot worse,
>> granted.
>>
>> But put it in context. After 4 years Trump already had a history of
>> downright lies, manipulation and lack of care for the health of his
>> country. He operated in a democratic country, but one which he is
>> trying to turn into a one party state. Scroll forward and ask yourself
>> what he would do if he were president for 23 years. The USA would not
>> invade one of its neighbours - the geography isn't the same. But I
>> hate to think what 23 years of Trump would end up giving us. What a
>> nightmare.
>
> One of the reasons we have a Constitution, and in this case the 22nd
> Amendment thereto, is precisely to make such a thing impossible. As I'm
> sure you know, there was an unwritten tradition, beginning with Geo.
> Washington and extending to FDR, of two terms and no more. FDR violated
> that tradition, and the 22nd Amendment codified the two-term limit. If
> you would like to argue that Donald Trump could have overridden that
> prohibition, I respectfully suggest that you are simply incorrect. In
> 1960, some Republicans would have liked to give Ike a third term, which
> he likely would have won, and which would have been a bad idea, given
> his health, but the Constitution forbade it. I have little doubt that
> Barack Obama (about whom many of the same things you say about Trump
> could be said--he was just smoother) would have run for a third term had
> he been permitted to, but he couldn't. Donald Trump at the end of a
> second term would have faced the same restriction, and it would have
> stuck. But you know, he's gone and will continue to decline in
> importance, no matter how much the Democrats continue to try to make a
> boogie man of him. You heard it here.
>
> Bob Harper

....b-b-but the EMAILS!!!

On 2/27/2022 2:05 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>
>> As for what the Republican Party stands
>> for, you can look it up. It's not difficult.
>> But off the top of my head and bearing
>> in mind this a a generalization:
>
> It is all hand waving without supporting,
> quantifiable evidence.
>
>> Lower taxes
>
> Would "lower taxes" raise enough money
> to cover government obligations now and
> in the future? Can anyone present actual
> numbes?
>

This begs the question of the proper scope of government activity.

>> Smaller Federal government
>
> Would a "smaller Federal government" be
> able to provide all the functions govt must
> provide, and still function reasonably well?
> Clearly as population grows govt needs to

Ditto.

> grow as well. How would it be possible to
> do more work with fewer resources?
>

Ditto.

>> strong national defense
>
> Wouldn't that require and lead to some
> govt growth?
>

Growth in absolute size is different from, say, the share of Government spending in GDP. The share could be much lower than it is, and it could be constant, while the size of government grows along with the size of the economy.

>> pro-life (though not uniformly)
>> support for 2nd amendment
>> Conservative social values, meaning
>> slower than Democrats to adopt new
>> social norms.
>
> The adoption of new social norms
> should be driven by the people, not
> by political parties.
>

The positions of the political parties reflect the beliefs of their constituents.

>> traditional interpretation of the
>> Constitution and Bill of Rights
>
> The Constitution and the Bill of
> Rights are written in a manner
> that allows plenty of diverging,
> even conflicting interpretations.
> Even the top 9 jurists in the land
> cannot agree on many of them.
>

This in not way conflicts with what I said. I didn't argue FOR a strict interpretation, I said what the RP stands for.

>> Yes, I know these can be distorted
>> into:
>>
>> Not caring about the poor
>> not caring about social justice
>> interventionist, imperialist foreign
>> policy hatred of women; denial of
>> women's rights not caring about
>> gun victims
>> LGBT hatred
>> etc.
>
> "Distorted into"? The above list
> has been de facto reactionary
> right wing practice for centuries.
>

Missing the point. I don't know if "reactionary" is necessarily pejorative. The point is conservative (reactionary if you like) points of view are frequently and baselessly demonized by the Left.

I am not saying the Right doesn't do exactly the same thing with respect to Liberal/Progressive views, but I am reacting to frequent attacks by members of this newsgroup on the morality, ethics, etc. of all things conservative.

> dk

Just a couple of examples of distortion of conservative views:

The position that marriage should be between men and women (one of each, I guess) has been a standard conservative view. The Left likes to equate this with hatred for LGBT people. Or course, that does not follow and many people who oppose same sex marriage don't hate LGBT people.

Opposition to minimum wage laws is ALWAYS attacked as reflecting no concern for the working poor, while the position is based on the view that minimum wage laws causes the loss of jobs among the very group they are intended to help.

Opposition to extensive unemployment benefits because of the disincentive to work that they create.

I could go on, but won't.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 2/27/2022 2:05 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>
> >> As for what the Republican Party stands
> >> for, you can look it up. It's not difficult.
> >> But off the top of my head and bearing
> >> in mind this a a generalization:
> >
> > It is all hand waving without supporting,
> > quantifiable evidence.
> >
> >> Lower taxes
> >
> > Would "lower taxes" raise enough money
> > to cover government obligations now and
> > in the future? Can anyone present actual
> > numbers?
>
> This begs the question of the proper scope
> of government activity.

Certainly. Does anyone believe that legislating
and regulating people's private lives lies within
the purview of government ?!?

> >> Smaller Federal government
> >
> > Would a "smaller Federal government" be
> > able to provide all the functions govt must
> > provide, and still function reasonably well?
> > Clearly as population grows govt needs to
>
> Ditto.
>
> > grow as well. How would it be possible to
> > do more work with fewer resources?
> >
> Ditto.
>
> >> strong national defense
> >
> > Wouldn't that require and lead to some
> > govt growth?
> >
> Growth in absolute size is different from,
> say, the share of Government spending in
> GDP. The share could be much lower than
> it is, and it could be constant, while the size
> of government grows along with the size of
> the economy.

And how does that provide "a strong defense"?

> >> pro-life (though not uniformly)
> >> support for 2nd amendment
> >> Conservative social values, meaning
> >> slower than Democrats to adopt new
> >> social norms.
> >
> > The adoption of new social norms
> > should be driven by the people, not
> > by political parties.
> >
> The positions of the political parties
> reflect the beliefs of their constituents.

Unfortunately.

> >> traditional interpretation of the
> >> Constitution and Bill of Rights
> >
> > The Constitution and the Bill of
> > Rights are written in a manner
> > that allows plenty of diverging,
> > even conflicting interpretations.
> > Even the top 9 jurists in the land
> > cannot agree on many of them.
> >
> This in not way conflicts with what
> I said. I didn't argue FOR a strict
> interpretation, I said what the RP
> stands for.

You didn't "argue" for strict intepretation,
however you opened the door for it.

> >> Yes, I know these can be distorted
> >> into:
> >>
> >> Not caring about the poor
> >> not caring about social justice
> >> interventionist, imperialist foreign
> >> policy hatred of women; denial of
> >> women's rights not caring about
> >> gun victims
> >> LGBT hatred
> >> etc.
> >
> > "Distorted into"? The above list
> > has been de facto reactionary
> > right wing practice for centuries.
> >
> Missing the point. I don't know if
> "reactionary" is necessarily pejorative.

"Reactionary" is reactionary. Retrograde.
Impeding progress. Trying to hold society
hostage to antique and irrational beliefs.
Obession with Greek "democracy". 23
Athens and 22 Romes in the US alone.
And only 7 Jerusalems! ;-)

> The point is conservative (reactionary if
> you like) points of view are frequently
> and baselessly demonized by the Left.

No need to demonize obvious stupidity.

> I am not saying the Right doesn't do
> exactly the same thing with respect to
> Liberal/Progressive views, but I am
> reacting to frequent attacks by members
> of this newsgroup on the morality, ethics,
> etc. of all things conservative.

That obviously shows bias.

> Just a couple of examples of distortion
> of conservative views:
>
> The position that marriage should be
> between men and women (one of each,
> I guess)

Other cultures disagree.

> has been a standard conservative view.

No one is entitled to opinions about
other people's private lives. Making
such views part of political platforms
is a clear attack on individual rights.

> The Left likes to equate this with
> hatred for LGBT people. Or course,
> that does not follow and many people
> who oppose same sex marriage don't
> hate LGBT people.

Explain that to Abbott and Paxton.

> Opposition to minimum wage laws is
> ALWAYS attacked as reflecting no
> concern for the working poor, while
> the position is based on the view that
> minimum wage laws causes the loss
> of jobs among the very group they are
> intended to help.

It depends on how things are legislated
and implemented.

> Opposition to extensive unemployment
> benefits because of the disincentive to
> work that they create.

As if having jobs was entirely under the
control of employees and labourers?
Perhaps you could explain why no
other Western nation takes such a
harsh extreme view of employment.
The US is the only Western nation
where employment by contract is
the exception rather than the norm.

> I could go on, but won't.

Don't bother. You are parroting
political propaganda.

dk

In article <b1352b3e-40ee-4c42-868c-cc402eee9e4an@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>The positions of the political parties reflect the beliefs of
>>their constituents.
>Unfortunately.

The statement isn't even true. The positions of the political
parties *drive* the beliefs of their constituents -- at least as
much.

On 2/27/2022 3:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 2/27/2022 2:05 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As for what the Republican Party stands
>>>> for, you can look it up. It's not difficult.
>>>> But off the top of my head and bearing
>>>> in mind this a a generalization:
>>>
>>> It is all hand waving without supporting,
>>> quantifiable evidence.
>>>
>>>> Lower taxes
>>>
>>> Would "lower taxes" raise enough money
>>> to cover government obligations now and
>>> in the future? Can anyone present actual
>>> numbers?
>>
>> This begs the question of the proper scope
>> of government activity.
>
> Certainly. Does anyone believe that legislating
> and regulating people's private lives lies within
> the purview of government ?!?
>

Almost everyone seems to support some type if interference by government in people's private lives.

>>>> Smaller Federal government
>>>
>>> Would a "smaller Federal government" be
>>> able to provide all the functions govt must
>>> provide, and still function reasonably well?
>>> Clearly as population grows govt needs to
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>> grow as well. How would it be possible to
>>> do more work with fewer resources?
>>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>>>> strong national defense
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that require and lead to some
>>> govt growth?
>>>
>> Growth in absolute size is different from,
>> say, the share of Government spending in
>> GDP. The share could be much lower than
>> it is, and it could be constant, while the size
>> of government grows along with the size of
>> the economy.
>
> And how does that provide "a strong defense"?
>

You are doing it again. In theory you could spend less on domestic spending and more on defense spending and still spend less. Republicans may not have achieved that, but they would have liked to (i.e., what the stand for). Libertarians would achieve it. Of course with less than 3% of the vote in most elections they are not likely to get the chance.

>>>> pro-life (though not uniformly)
>>>> support for 2nd amendment
>>>> Conservative social values, meaning
>>>> slower than Democrats to adopt new
>>>> social norms.
>>>
>>> The adoption of new social norms
>>> should be driven by the people, not
>>> by political parties.
>>>
>> The positions of the political parties
>> reflect the beliefs of their constituents.
>
> Unfortunately.
>

You just contradicted yourself.

>>>> traditional interpretation of the
>>>> Constitution and Bill of Rights
>>>
>>> The Constitution and the Bill of
>>> Rights are written in a manner
>>> that allows plenty of diverging,
>>> even conflicting interpretations.
>>> Even the top 9 jurists in the land
>>> cannot agree on many of them.
>>>
>> This in not way conflicts with what
>> I said. I didn't argue FOR a strict
>> interpretation, I said what the RP
>> stands for.
>
> You didn't "argue" for strict intepretation,
> however you opened the door for it.
>
>>>> Yes, I know these can be distorted
>>>> into:
>>>>
>>>> Not caring about the poor
>>>> not caring about social justice
>>>> interventionist, imperialist foreign
>>>> policy hatred of women; denial of
>>>> women's rights not caring about
>>>> gun victims
>>>> LGBT hatred
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> "Distorted into"? The above list
>>> has been de facto reactionary
>>> right wing practice for centuries.
>>>
>> Missing the point. I don't know if
>> "reactionary" is necessarily pejorative.
>
> "Reactionary" is reactionary. Retrograde.
> Impeding progress. Trying to hold society
> hostage to antique and irrational beliefs.
> Obession with Greek "democracy". 23
> Athens and 22 Romes in the US alone.
> And only 7 Jerusalems! ;-)
>
>> The point is conservative (reactionary if
>> you like) points of view are frequently
>> and baselessly demonized by the Left.
>
> No need to demonize obvious stupidity.
>

You are confounding stupidity and evil. You've just illustrated the only point I am trying to make. Thank you.

>> I am not saying the Right doesn't do
>> exactly the same thing with respect to
>> Liberal/Progressive views, but I am
>> reacting to frequent attacks by members
>> of this newsgroup on the morality, ethics,T
>> etc. of all things conservative.
>
> That obviously shows bias.
>

I defend where defending is needed. Not to many people here demonizing liberals. Just disagreeing with them.

>> Just a couple of examples of distortion
>> of conservative views:
>>
>> The position that marriage should be
>> between men and women (one of each,
>> I guess)
>
> Other cultures disagree.
>

Holy crap. Can't you even try to stay focused?

>> has been a standard conservative view.
>
> No one is entitled to opinions about
> other people's private lives.

I am entitled to any opinion I wish to hold. I may not be entitled to constrain someone else's behavior. I may be if that behavior negatively affects me. A conservative is likely to believe that same sex marriage harms society, therefore himself and so opposed it. That same conservative might totally support civil unions that provide exactly the same (dubious) benefits. He may not hate gay people. He may love all people When the government intrudes into the private lives of people by having legal marriage, that legal marriage has to be defined somehow. Traditionally it was one man and one woman. Is it a "right" for same sex people to legally marry? Only if the law says it is. Many concervatives accept that there is a natural right for LGBT people to engage in any behaviors they want, as long as it isn't called legal marriage. Note that the whole problem disappears were government to cease sanctioning marriage.

> Making
> such views part of political platforms
> is a clear attack on individual rights.
>
>> The Left likes to equate this with
>> hatred for LGBT people. Or course,
>> that does not follow and many people
>> who oppose same sex marriage don't
>> hate LGBT people.
>
> Explain that to Abbott and Paxton.
>
>> Opposition to minimum wage laws is
>> ALWAYS attacked as reflecting no
>> concern for the working poor, while
>> the position is based on the view that
>> minimum wage laws causes the loss
>> of jobs among the very group they are
>> intended to help.
>
> It depends on how things are legislated
> and implemented.
>

Not according to research. No one says that an increase in the minimum wage causes an immediate increase in the unemployment rate. It doesn't work that. It may be to costly to businesses to fire people, but in the long run they make adjustments like substituting part time for full time workers and making capital investment to replace labor. Note the introduction of automated burger-flipping.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/03/06/flippy-burger-grilling-robot-fast-food-orig.cnn

>> Opposition to extensive unemployment
>> benefits because of the disincentive to
>> work that they create.
>
> As if having jobs was entirely under the
> control of employees and labourers?

A "job" is an agreement between an employer and an employee. All jobs have standards which both parties are expected to adhere to. There are state and Federal labor laws regulating this relationship. No one can make me work and I am not entitled to a job. That's freedom. Contracts determine the working condition that have been freely and voluntarily agreed to.

> Perhaps you could explain why no
> other Western nation takes such a
> harsh extreme view of employment.

I do not see mutually beneficial agreements as harsh or extreme.

> The US is the only Western nation
> where employment by contract is
> the exception rather than the norm.
>
>> I could go on, but won't.
>
> Don't bother. You are parroting
> political propaganda.
>

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 10:37:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> And I was referring to Andy's comment, which was precisely:
>
> "What I don't like is the Republican Party and all it stands for..."
>
> It's not enough to object to the party supporting Trump, or disagreeing with its general approach, or disagreeing with 50, 60 or 70 percent of it's policy preferences. He has to disagree with "all that it stands for."

I think the key word is "stands". What the Republican party bothers to speak up about, to raise as an issue, is generally a load of twaddle. No doubt elected Republican officials actually have some priorities that aren't about what makes the Fox news cycle go around, and that is what you imagine: a party with some core beliefs that it holds as important and that connect to the traditional values of the party. And I do believe that animates party leaders, if privately. But the people with the most integrity, the must unwavering conservative principles are all in a collective doghouse. Witness Mitch's shrewd calculation that speaking up about the party's priorities ahead of the election can have no positive impact.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 8:16:28 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> I think people should mean what they say and say what they mean. Sloppy talk reflects sloppy thinking. And I don't believe for a nanosecond that you would excuse such hyperbole coming from someone on the Right.

You're the one who can't forgive it, and insisting that someone else would do the same is no excuse for your own choices.

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 9:19:10 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Lower taxes
> Smaller Federal government
> strong national defense
> pro-life (though not uniformly)
> support for 2nd amendment
> Conservative social values, meaning slower than Democrats to adopt new social norms.
> traditional interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
>
> Yes, I know these can be distorted into:
>
> Not caring about the poor
> not caring about social justice
> interventionist, imoerialist foreign policy
> hatred of women; denial of women's rights
> not caring about gun victims
> LGBT hatred
> etc.

Insisting from the get-go that you are going to be misconstrued really does not help. Why sully what you care about by bringing all this up?

On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:44:02 PM UTC-6, Bob Harper wrote:

> And when they seriously compare Donald Trump, for all the mean tweets
> and bloviation that came from him, with a thug like Putin, I do the same.
> Bob Harper

I'm not understanding.
Trump declares admiration for dictators and thugs, and just about nobody else. That he doesn't have the power to execute his political enemies doesn't make him a better person. The de likes people who do things like that should be all you need to know. But the party is committed to looking past that, even today.