Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
Well, I am disappointed in him, but for far different reasons than yours, I'm sure.
But I personally have come to the conclusion that trying to argue with fanatics only frustrates you, and fuels the fanatics fires. You'll never change someone's mind here, as this forum seems to be the poster child for confirmation bias.
Is it time for fantasy football season yet?  |
I don't disagree with you on the last necessarily.
However, what I was trying to solicit is a response to the issue specifically. Personally, I believe the decisions this administration has had an indefensible effect on the economy. Indeed, I want to see someone defend this particular case in point - give me an ACTUAL benefit that we gain from these policies.
Ultimately, my wish is for people to take a moment, look back, and reflect upon whether or not the ideologies they've so invested in are actually helpful in attaining their goals. Surely the topic of this post helps nothing - not in growing/sustaining employment, and not in a reduction of carbon emmissions.
So we've screwed ourselves because it SOUNDS good to say that we won't guarantee financing for "non-green" projects.
You see what I'm saying?
Now, I have to divert this into a more broad generalization of the left (sorry, mookie) ... The Democrats claim to be a party of inclusion. Indeed, they are. They welcome all sorts of unlikely bedfellows - unions, gays, pro-abortion Catholics, athiests, Jews, blacks, whites, hispanics, rich, poor, socialist, corporate, big government, environmentalist etc.
The GOP, on the other hand, is fairly exclusionary in its viewpoint - generally, if you're conservative, you're a family-values Christian, anti-abortion, white, pro-business, free-market (not necessarily corporate but not anti-corporate), non-union, pro-gun, etc.
Here's the thing: the latter makes sense. Most of the right's values fits most of its members. On the other hand, the left has many groups who's values are in DIRECT opposition with other sub-groups within the party. For instance, in majority blacks are decidedly anti-gay. Atheists are decidedly anti-religion. Corporations are decidedly anti-union. Environmentalists have policies that are COMPLETELY anti-union.
How can a party be at such odds with one another and stay on message? And, as an extension of that, how can it actually be inclusive when so many of its viewpoints are mutually exclusive?
It's only yet another example of how what one says is more important than what one really stands for, when it comes to our nation's political environment.
This is why I consider myself independant, leaning conservative. The values of the GOP don't contradict my own in any meaningful way (okay, I'm an athiest who believes in environmentalism). However, Democratic viewpoints just don't add up. Okay, so we agree on environmentalism. But I believe in free-market economics. My viewpoint on the latter is directly impactful. And, while I agree with preserving the environment, steps the Democrats are taking have little promise of impacting THAT particular subject, but certainly have negative impacts on us economically. Unions believe in keeping American jobs here, but environmentalist promote policies that force jobs overseas (and have no real impact on the environment).
It's a long ramble, I know. But I think it's an important point to make. No one in their right minds would have promoted such a policy as is the subject of this thread, if their interest was American jobs. But the REAL impact was overlooked for the "feel good, we're doing something for the environment" impact.
This is disgraceful, and I think it stands as a prime, pragmatic example of what happens when high theoretical ideologies meet reality.