T Nation

Proof We're Not Knee-Jerks

I thought it’d be interesting to post a list of issues where we agree with “the other side” more than our own–where a conservative has an isolated liberal viewpoint and vice versa.

For me:

I’m completely against affirmative action based on race/ethnicity.

Sandra Fluke does not have a right to contraceptives without copay.

I believe that abortion is highly immoral outside of cases of rape, though I do also recognize the very real problems that will arise from outlawing it.

Drugs should be legal. Homosexual relationships should NOT be legally treated differently. We need to bring our troops home. Water boarding is torture and anyone who did it or sanctioned it should be in jail. Blue laws are retarded. Uh… I’m sure there are others.

Edit: missed the “not” in there.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Drugs should be legal. Homosexual relationships should be legally treated differently. We need to bring our troops home. Water boarding is torture and anyone who did it or sanctioned it should be in jail. Blue laws are retarded. Uh… I’m sure there are others.[/quote]

Nice, thanks for sharing. I’m pretty sure every regular poster on this board can come up with a few.

I like it.

I am an admittedly non-doctrinaire in a number of areas, but since I most likely qualify as a conservative here (and I that label works just fine for me), I’d throw these out:

-I am skeptical of free trade (as it is currently promoted by the GOP) and think that trade agreements should be more limited and include stronger labor and environmental rules

-While I don’t like higher taxes, I do not oppose raising taxes in order to serve the higher principle of “don’t stick the next generation with the bill.”

I am sure I have more, if I sat down and inventoried - and I am trying to stick more to policy-specific type differences rather than broader philosophical distinctions.

Things like WIC and Unemployment Assistance are good, because they are temp help

Nothing wrong with fucking with school lunch menus, kids can bring their own lunch

I like the DREAM act, more so if the renewal was tied to a timely filed tax return

simple, clear and fair regulation that doesn’t hamper competition is fine.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I like it.

I am an admittedly non-doctrinaire in a number of areas, but since I most likely qualify as a conservative here (and I that label works just fine for me), I’d throw these out:

-I am skeptical of free trade (as it is currently promoted by the GOP) and think that trade agreements should be more limited and include stronger labor and environmental rules

-While I don’t like higher taxes, I do not oppose raising taxes in order to serve the higher principle of “don’t stick the next generation with the bill.”

I am sure I have more, if I sat down and inventoried - and I am trying to stick more to policy-specific type differences rather than broader philosophical distinctions.[/quote]

Policy-specific is a good idea. The one that comes most quickly to my mind is the Bush-era tax cuts: I don’t think they should expire on anyone at this time, and I’m glad Obama was forced to extend them.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I do not oppose raising taxes in order to serve the higher principle of “don’t stick the next generation with the bill.”

.[/quote]

Also strongly behind this. I don’t mind a small increase in taxes. But I want everyone to have skin in the game. If taxes go up, everyone’s does.

I strongly oppose the marriage penalties in the tax code though, and GWB largely eliminated them.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The one that comes most quickly to my mind is the Bush-era tax cuts: I don’t think they should expire on anyone at this time, and I’m glad Obama was forced to extend them.[/quote]

There were changes he made that weren’t just rate realted that make a lot of sense and should be perm.

This is good.

I need to give it a little more thought!

Mufasa

No problem with the gays marrying, just not in a church.

No problem with a ban on assault rifles (Just leave my shotguns and pistols alone).

No problem with leagalizing marijuana (will save and make the government millions).

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I thought it’d be interesting to post a list of issues where we agree with “the other side” more than our own–where a conservative has an isolated liberal viewpoint and vice versa.

For me:

I’m completely against affirmative action based on race/ethnicity.

Sandra Fluke does not have a right to contraceptives without copay.

I believe that abortion is highly immoral outside of cases of rape, though I do also recognize the very real problems that will arise from outlawing it.[/quote]

This is an interesting idea…
-I am against prohibition of any kind. I think it causes more problems than it solves. Further I don’t really think it’s the government’s business what a person puts in their own damn body. Truth of the matter is, none of it’s illegal because of safety, it’s about control.

  • I don’t care if gays have a recognized union with the perks that come with it. I am against calling it a marriage because it is not one. Anybody who has been or is married knows the uniqueness of that relationship and it cannot be emulated by same-sex couples. It cannot be because no matter how gay someone is, at their core a man is a man and a woman is a woman and joining to like sexes is not the same a joining the opposites and the natural dichotomy that ensues.

  • Public education. I don’t have a problem with the concept and the truth is that once the genie is out of the bottle it does not go back in. So rather than trying to reverse course, which simply is not going to happen, it should be made the best they can be and that is done at the community level. Ghetto schools suck because the ghetto sucks, rural trailer-trash schools suck because trailer trash communities suck. Suburban school don’t suck as bad because the suburban communities don’t suck as bad, etc. A lot of people think it’s about money, and as everything else goes, so does that. But just as much has to do with dignity. Communities where there is little self dignity and no respect for your fellow man is going to suck no matter how much money you throw at it. In the aforementioned communities, where there is entitlement and indignity and disrespect, there will be poor education and you cannot make it good unless the community makes the change.
    So public education is fine with me. It’s already done so we might as well make it the best it can be instead of trying to turn back the clock.

  • Work place regulation. I do agree to make it hard to get rid of people from jobs. I agree if you flat suck at your job, you should be fired. But I believe it should be illegal to treat people as normal company assets. I have been in the corperate world a long time now. It’s way to frequent that normal decent employees are laid-off because of the stupidity and mismanagement by higher-ups. The people who make bad decisions should get the boot before the people who were hired to implement said bad decision. It happens all the time. In my company, we had a $200 million project scrapped and a bunch of people laid-off after 10 years of trying to shove square pegs into to round holes. It was bad conception and band design, the people who were hired to implement were given an impossible task of making the unworkable work. Obviously I cannot go into details, but us hamsters on the wheel, knew at least 5 years ago what they were trying was never going to work. We work with the market place, we know it and we knew it couldn’t and wasn’t going to work. 5 years later management catches up and scraps it, but they scrap people while the idiots who tried to make it work got to stay. Sorry, that’s BULLSHIT.
    I hate unions, but I do agree with protections for workers because of crap like that.

I too, THEORETICALLY, would be willing to see a tax hike if coupled with steep spending reductions. And, I mean STEEP. There isn’t anything remotely close to enough wealth for us to tax our way out of the approaching financial swamp we’re running into. Spending is where it’s at. Now, I say theoretically because I have zero confidence that the following election wouldn’t bring anything but a reversal on spending cuts, while maintaining the tax hikes.

I know no default ‘side’ and argue frequently as a satanic barrister but let’s see:

-Gay marriage is a bit overstressed as a right per se. If laws call explicitly for man and woman, I don’t really see a point, although for legal reasons etc there should be adequate options for gay partners.

-sure, ban marijuana and steroids and whatnot, as long as you ban and persecute poss./use of alcohol, cigs, sugar etc. Would be awesome to watch.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

-sure, ban marijuana and steroids and whatnot, as long as you ban and persecute poss./use of alcohol, cigs, sugar etc. Would be awesome to watch.

[/quote]

Sure, all drugs/sugar are the same. Because I consume sugar I’m a hypocrite for wanting heroin to remain illegal. Good Lord, what nonsense!

Great idea for a thread-I know it’s been tried before (take the other side) but this IMO is more effective. +1 internets for you and to all!

-I am firmly against affirmative action-it should be blind admissions.

-I believe companies should have the ability to cover medicines/conditions as they see fit, so long as they do not receive government funds. Tax breaks for religious institutions do not count as funds in this case. They should however be up front about their coverage limitations and point employees in the direction of alternate plans

-I believe that there is a liberal bias in the general media that varies source to source.

-I don’t believe the “obstructionism” of the current Congress is unique to Repubs. Democrats did a good amount of filibustering in the past…to be clear, I think it’s ridiculous in both cases.

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
Great idea for a thread-I know it’s been tried before (take the other side) but this IMO is more effective. +1 internets for you and to all!

-I am firmly against affirmative action-it should be blind admissions.

-I believe companies should have the ability to cover medicines/conditions as they see fit, so long as they do not receive government funds. Tax breaks for religious institutions do not count as funds in this case. They should however be up front about their coverage limitations and point employees in the direction of alternate plans

-I believe that there is a liberal bias in the general media that varies source to source.

-I don’t believe the “obstructionism” of the current Congress is unique to Repubs. Democrats did a good amount of filibustering in the past…to be clear, I think it’s ridiculous in both cases.

[/quote]

I want to high five you so bad right now.

I love this thread lol.

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
-I believe that there is a liberal bias in the general media that varies source to source.

[/quote]

I will second this. I believe that editorial choices at major national news outlets tend to be slanted leftwards. This applies to things like choosing what to cover, choosing what to ignore, etc.

I don’t believe that a great amount of bias turns up in the actual reporting of the stories once they are chosen, because in general by that point most of the emphasis at a reputable outlet is on not fucking anything up and not having to print a correction (this is where Fox ends up being worse, because they are often willing to play fast and loose with the facts and not just the story selection).

But the initial bias–universally liberal excepting the WSJ, Politico, and sometimes the Economist–in choosing the content is unmistakable.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

-sure, ban marijuana and steroids and whatnot, as long as you ban and persecute poss./use of alcohol, cigs, sugar etc. Would be awesome to watch.

[/quote]

Sure, all drugs/sugar are the same. Because I consume sugar I’m a hypocrite for wanting heroin to remain illegal. Good Lord, what nonsense![/quote]

High quality gibberish from you, the usual.

You could very well classify sugar as a drug.
Regular high amounts of sugar interact with receptors the body has reserved for opiates.

I’ve known someone who tried heroin for kicks and got nothing out of it. He did it twice, quit cold turkey without any side effects.
At the same time, 90% of all girls consume large amounts of high caloric sugary crap although their number one concern seems to be about beauty.
Hint: It’s not because it tastes so yummy.

So, again, in the spirit of the thread, I guess I could try out living with bans as long as they’d treat all addictive foods and drugs equal.

p.s. have you ever changed your opinion on something you thought was an important issue?
Maybe you should stop watching TV so much?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

-sure, ban marijuana and steroids and whatnot, as long as you ban and persecute poss./use of alcohol, cigs, sugar etc. Would be awesome to watch.

[/quote]

Sure, all drugs/sugar are the same. Because I consume sugar I’m a hypocrite for wanting heroin to remain illegal. Good Lord, what nonsense![/quote]

I’m wondering if there are any viewpoints stereotypically considered “progressive” or “liberal” with which you agree, Sexmachine.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

High quality gibberish from you, the usual.

You could very well classify sugar as a drug.
Regular high amounts of sugar interact with receptors the body has reserved for opiates.

I’ve known someone who tried heroin for kicks and got nothing out of it.

[/quote]

He probably bought a bag of sugar.

Amazing. Quit cold turkey after using it twice with no effects?

Heroin and sugar are equal. That’s what you’re saying? Okay, I’ve had enough now.

Yes. I’ve become decidedly more libertarian in recent times.

Don’t watch any TV. Not sure what you’re trying to say here anyway.