Take back any benefit of the doubt you ever gave Fox News

[AcidLameLTE]

Because there's nothing evil about either of the two main parties in America. Calling either one of them "evil" seems a bit extreme.

As far as I'm aware, you guys don't even have all the extreme right-wing parties that Europe seem to be popping up all over Europe right now.

[antigoon]

They're both garbage.

[AcidLameLTE]

I agree. Doesn't mean they're evil though.

[Super Dude]

I don't think it is; I just happen to think the platform and underlying philosophy is more relevant to the world we live in today.

I'd be curious to hear what that actually is.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Not really. Honestly, it sounds like you're just trying to discount every Republican by saing the conservative way of thinking itself is inherently flawed or useless, because it's old or something. That's a jarringly black-and-white way of looking at politics, and the reason we're having the problem with government we're having now, because instead of actually working to find the common philosophical framework to meet relevant issues head-on, the intelligentsia of both parties just smugly assert the total corruption of the other from on high. It's a process that completely lacks any real philosophy at all, and instead is an endless round of semantic bickering and dishonest appeals to whatever is trendy at the moment.

But I guess I'll wait for you to answer the first question.

In the briefest and most concise form, Orion and Barto pretty much got it, but I'd add to it a great deal of faith placed in the market which I don't think is a bad thing necessarily but I think they give the market far more credit than it's due.  There also seems to be this sense in American conservatism of "Let X take care of Y issue," ranging from let the market worry about environmental issues to let the municipality worry about racial divides.  Leaving alone moral views on race and other things in both ideological poles, I guess I just get this big impression that conservatives here, rather than being activist, really stick to this "Let ______ take care of it."  They don't believe it seems that government can do anything, or that massive initiative is necessary in solving X issue, whereas I feel that liberals and the government intervention thing are born out of a feeling that change is key and change needs to be made to happen, and you can't let market forces or social forces take care of it.  And hey, I could be totally wrong here, but that's the impression I get.  Tea Partiers sure ain't no New Left or hippies.

[Perpetual Change]

As purely evil as the Democratic party is, the Republican party simply doesn't have anyone in the running who I would consider a good option for Chief Exec.

Oh my lord. I so need a break from PR. 

Super Dude, I get what your saying. All I'm saying is you don't need to look at everything black and white, and reject everything the other party says just because they're the "evil" guys who can't possibly have any good ideas. Basically, what I'm saying is, don't be like Bosk. 

[bosk1]

 

[Genowyn]

But the right in America are not really composed of real Conservatives. Neocons take all the worst crap from both liberalism and conservatism and have created some sort of hybrid monster of the worst political ideas anyone has ever had.

[Super Dude]

But the right in America are not really composed of real Conservatives. Neocons take all the worst crap from both liberalism and conservatism and have created some sort of hybrid monster of the worst political ideas anyone has ever had.

That's pretty much my sense.  Although again, I would like to emphasize that it's not so black and white from where I'm standing; I don't reject those values because they're conservative, I reject conservatism because those are the values it stands for.  A rose by any other name, right?

Also specific to my rejection of the Republican party, from an NYT op-ed:

It sometimes seems as if they are the only ones who talk about their values, but they put forward an elitist and narrow vision that largely favors the upwardly mobile, the healthy, the native-born American and the needs of the corporation.

This cold message is disguised, of course, cloaked in warm-sounding talk of solid American traditions and values.

That's my biggest problem with the party itself.

[hefdaddy42]

I agree wholeheartedly with El Barto that the best way to summarize what passes for Conservatism in America today (whether it be mainstream Republicans, neocons, Tea Baggers, or self-styled "Libertarians") is "Every man for himself."  That is why I, in large part, agree with Super Dude, because that philosophy is diametrically opposed to my personal sense of what is best for America and the world in general.

And lol at bosky for calling Democrats evil.  If either of the two parties could be considered evil, surely it is the Republicans.  And this comes from someone who is a registered voter Unaffiliated with either party.  The Democrats have their share of problems, but evil isn't one of them.

[William Wallace]

I agree wholeheartedly with El Barto that the best way to summarize what passes for Conservatism in America today (whether it be mainstream Republicans, neocons, Tea Baggers, or self-styled "Libertarians") is "Every man for himself."  That is why I, in large part, agree with Super Dude, because that philosophy is diametrically opposed to my personal sense of what is best for America and the world in general.

And lol at bosky for calling Democrats evil.  If either of the two parties could be considered evil, surely it is the Republicans.  And this comes from someone who is a registered voter Unaffiliated with either party.  The Democrats have their share of problems, but evil isn't one of them.

I don't know what to make of that comment. If you think that any conservative point of view is accurately summarized by "every man for himself," then you're confused. 

[Perpetual Change]

Saying conservatism means "every man for himself" is like saying progressive r  or liberal thinking means "every man for the state."

 

[Super Dude]

To once again make a distinction, I don't think he's referring to all conservatism throughout time and space, but American conservatism in the last decade or so.

[Genowyn]

Saying conservatism means "every man for himself" is like saying progressive r  or liberal thinking means "every man for the state."

Which is exactly how the right caricaturizes (is that a word?) the left.

[antigoon]

I think both political parties are pretty evil. *shrug*

edit: I mean, of course, the politicians who compose them.

[livehard]

New headline "Those who don't follow the scientific process embarass humanity"

[hefdaddy42]

I agree wholeheartedly with El Barto that the best way to summarize what passes for Conservatism in America today (whether it be mainstream Republicans, neocons, Tea Baggers, or self-styled "Libertarians") is "Every man for himself."  That is why I, in large part, agree with Super Dude, because that philosophy is diametrically opposed to my personal sense of what is best for America and the world in general.

And lol at bosky for calling Democrats evil.  If either of the two parties could be considered evil, surely it is the Republicans.  And this comes from someone who is a registered voter Unaffiliated with either party.  The Democrats have their share of problems, but evil isn't one of them.

I don't know what to make of that comment. If you think that any conservative point of view is accurately summarized by "every man for himself," then you're confused.

I'm not confused, although most of the prominent Republicans/Tea Baggers seem to be.

[jsem]

The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.

[hefdaddy42]

The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.

Then they need better PR people.

[antigoon]

Wasn't that Bush the Second's platform? The Compassionate Conservative?

[livehard]

The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.

Then they need better PR people.

I think the thing is that its not a super easy thing to see how the common man will benifit from hands off government.  Its a much quicker and easier thing to let the mind agree with the thinking "oh govt welfare = helping the poor".  It takes some thinking and studying about how incentives effect people, and how economics work to realize how things work quite the opposite.

Its the same as minimum wage, its easy to say "oh it helps those making little money" but its not easy to see how it has caused such a high unemployment rate in the teenage, minority, and low skilled worker communities...

[jsem]

I'm telling you, if it were all up to charity and no welfare state - my belief is actually that the conservatives would be the one helping out the most. Christian values, you know? Serving others. At least it should be that way, but you never know with the so called family values people.

[Super Dude]

The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.

Then they need better PR people.

I think the thing is that its not a super easy thing to see how the common man will benifit from hands off government.  Its a much quicker and easier thing to let the mind agree with the thinking "oh govt welfare = helping the poor".  It takes some thinking and studying about how incentives effect people, and how economics work to realize how things work quite the opposite.

Its the same as minimum wage, its easy to say "oh it helps those making little money" but its not easy to see how it has caused such a high unemployment rate in the teenage, minority, and low skilled worker communities...

I studied economics.  Your argument is false.

[livehard]

The notion that libertarians and or conservatives aren't compassionate is false.

Then they need better PR people.

I think the thing is that its not a super easy thing to see how the common man will benifit from hands off government.  Its a much quicker and easier thing to let the mind agree with the thinking "oh govt welfare = helping the poor".  It takes some thinking and studying about how incentives effect people, and how economics work to realize how things work quite the opposite.

Its the same as minimum wage, its easy to say "oh it helps those making little money" but its not easy to see how it has caused such a high unemployment rate in the teenage, minority, and low skilled worker communities...

I studied economics.  Your argument is false.

what a useless post... how so?

[yeshaberto]

watch it, livehard.  this is warning #2

[73109]

I think that's a record.

[jsem]

I studied economics.  Your argument is false.

Doesn't say much. There are people who have studied economics who have come to a different conclusion.

[pogoowner]

I studied economics.  Your argument is false.

Doesn't say much. There are people who have studied economics who have come to a different conclusion.

Indeed. Minimum wage helps those people on the low end of the wage scale, IF they still have a job. It hurts those who consequently lose their job or are unable to acquire one.

[Sigz]

[bosk1]

[El Barto]

He could probably do better.

[Progmetty]

No, she's a masterpiece.

[Orion1967]

Shit...   that's funny! 

[hefdaddy42]

[Perpetual Change]

OK, bumping this in case anyone forgot how awesome Fox's reporting is:



Here's the chart that belongs to Fox's "source":



You know, Fox never fails to remind me that there's no need to hold anything you do to high standards.

[bosk1]