Glimmerjim wrote:You're partially correct...."There are no absolutes", "the world isn't black and white".
So are you saying that liberals think that there are in fact no blacks and whites, no rights and wrongs, everything is just subjective?
BTW, if this is even just representative, how do liberals support a centralized government where by definition there is one set of rules for everyone, regardless of how complex and convoluted those rules are, there is but one black and white set by one central government.
This is probably a key difference. Conservatives believe there are some black and whites, but there is a large swath that is subjective. If you think San Fran has got the rules wrong, don't live there. If you think Utah has got it nailed down, you got a place to go. Is that not how no absolutes would look like and not a winner set all rules scheme of a central government?
Glimmerjim wrote:Change can be positive. It can be negative.
So don't gamble on the one-size-fits-all legislation that nobody read before it became the law of the land. After all, it could be negative. If Romneycare is the bomb, the people of every state will clamor for it. If Obamacare is a negative change, well we all suffer, do we not?
This is why I think liberals today are largely fools. You don't have to be a fool to be a liberal, it's just that today most liberals are fools and that makes liberal policies foolish and ineffective. What they say and what they do hold no logical connection. True intellectual thinking liberals, which unfortunately seems like an oxymoron today and true intellectual thinking conservatives, which I fully agree seems like it may have been an oxymoron a half century ago, will come to the same basic conclusions, but have significant difference of opinion on the relative importance of things that they both agree are important, but we have to prioritize them because of the inherently limited resources. For example, law enforcement, incarceration, and rehabilitation. All are important, but what is the best application of resources available to protect the non-criminals? People's opinion range the entire spectrum and I'll argue that there is no one answer and the optimum is going to vary dramatically from community to community and from crime to crime. Murder: no rehab, just death. Petty crimes: try rehab first (mandatory work programs or other punish/rehab combined).
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.