Bear70 said:

---

Come decision time my son will do what's best for him. Part of the equation is he will have many more opportunities than I had. The rest of the decision making points aren't for this board. I've been able to see behind the curtain and I've shared that with him. Wilcox is incredible but he will get snatched away. That's part of the problem with Cal.

---

My kids went to Cal. The grand kids are at Davis and Irvine. Their college experience will be a lot better than if they were at Berkeley. My youngest grand daughter will be transferring for pre med. In a couple of weeks I'm taking her down to UCSD. I'll pay the difference in cost should she pick LaJolla.

BTW,,Bear 70, I was in school when you were. Met my wife on the steps of Bancroft library while the rioting was going on about PP. I had been in the army before. Had some bad grades in early sixties but I made it back. My best wishes to you and your family.
Hanky..you are my favorite poster on, at least. two boards. Keep it up.

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

So, no, I do not attack those who happen to disagree other than responding with counterargument. And I don't troll liberal posters like you, with my only response to you being SJW or left-wing crazy, do I?

---

No, and I'm not trying to suggest you do. My comment was saying that we all tend to only "call out" people on the opposite end of the spectrum for being rude or trollish with their comments. I tend not to call out rude liberal posters, you tend not to call out rude conservative posters.

And I'm also not really trying to call out anyone for not doing that, because I think it's natural. You're much less likely to call someone out for their tone if you still agree with their underlying assumptions/arguments. And perhaps even more importantly, that person is less likely to be attacking you personally if you agree with them politically. We are all way more likely to hit back if we feel attacked by someone personally.

---

Actually, I have called out and treated like the three liberal trolls one conservative troll who only engages in insults (don't even remember his full username but something about bancroft). While BF2, GB4L are rude to liberal posters, they are responding in an insulting manner and trolling in response to being attacked first. And unlike the trolls, they do provide substantive comments. I have yet to see anyone liberal here call out those three fake progressive trolls other than Yogi making fun of them from time to time.

And if one is trying to clean up the board of trolling (as DBB) and not just trying to attack conservative posters, then it is even more imperative to be even handed.

---

Who are the three liberal trolls again? I'm only thinking of one, but I'm probably just drawing a temporary blank. You can PM me if you want. Most of the liberals here usually provide some substance, as do a number of the conservatives. (I guess that's why I'm still here.)

---

AB, CP, and D9. Please let me know if you have found any substance in what AB or CP has ever written.

---

Why would "D9" be considered a troll? He discusses things reasonably. I don't get that at all. Just seems like he takes positions to the left of center, and thus pxsses off the right, but isn't far enough to the left for some and so doesn't pass their litmus test.

---

He definitely sometimes gets into a mode where he just wants to needle the other guy when he seems to get bored with an argument. I'm never on the receiving end of that because I never get into those debates with him. But if I were I could see being pissed off.

But he's not purely a troll. He tries to back up his claims.

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

It's a shame the quality of the discourse here is so poor because given our diversity the potential for better exists.

Is the pleasure of posting here in the exchange of ideas, or in the conceived belittling of perceived opponents? Do you see us as we, or tribally as an us and them?

Nationally our animosity is trending ever higher and to what end?

It could just be our nature, deterministic I suppose. Or maybe we're capable of better. It's a lot to ask of a sports forum.

When you visit here what draws you?
When you post here, what's your motivation?

And yes, I get that I'm a fool for asking.

---

Since 2016, the OT board was a safe space for liberals and leftists to vent after the most traumatic event in their adult lives, Hillary's loss to Trump. They could not find any comfort from their former ideological leader, Obama, who stepped down. But they found enormous pleasure in attacking Donald Trump. his voter base, and anyone here who disagreed with them.

This was never a place for the exchange of diverse viewpoints, there was only one view and it was horrible. The bubble was getting larger as they bounced their thoughts and feelings off one another for reassurance and validation like teenagers. It got to the point of being hideous, an unsightly zit that needed to be popped and properly drained before the juices overflowed and spread throughout the Bearinsider universe.

---

Which diverse viewpoint would you like to exchange?

---

You can start with Trump is not Hitler and his supporters aren't racist.

---

Trump can't be Hitler, but he can be Hitler-like. I'd say he's more un-Hitler-like than Hitler-like. I don't see him invading or genociding, but his instincts, derived from a lifetime of heading up business enterprises, are more fascist than democratic, and his ignorance of the value of our institutions threaten important pillars on which we all rely.

Not all of his supporters are racist, but do you think none are?

If your primary points are that Trump is not Hitler, and the great majority of his supporters aren't racist, I think that is fair.

I'm guessing that what people take issue with, including growing numbers from the right, is that Trump is both more like Hitler, and has played on race, more than any other president in our lifetime. I think that is also fair.

---

It's very simple actually. I don't care what people think of Trump but please don't be surprised that the discourse here is so poor when you hear you things like Trump is Hitler. Even your statement Trump is more un-Hitler than Hitler-like is ridiculous. And so from this everything else flows.

As for your last comment, it's the left that is obsessed with race and has played on race, not Trump. According to the left, the country is systemically racist, it's not just one person.

---

Well, nearly a day goes by that my kids don't call me ridiculous so go get in line on that one.

As for the issues you've raised, I'm willing to hear you out on this, but it's not my opinion nor anyone on the left that should concern you. It's the likes of George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, David Brooks and countless others who have been lifelong advocates of conservative principles that accuse him of this.

If there are conservative voices that you think get it right and articulate it well please pass those on, but the loudest voices and biggest megaphones are held by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson et. al. and they have hollowed out the conservative movement. There are many important conservative principles that need to be kept at the fore, but this group has opted instead for pocket-lining hyperbole that serves no one.

I'll say it this way. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to take yourself seriously.

It means first and foremost having respect for your audience, and then some humility that what you take as absolute is most certainly flawed to varying degrees. You need to have a genuine interest in understanding this weakness and you won't come to it without seeking it out.

You don't have to share them here, but you should have sources and resources that hold opinions in opposition to yours that your respect and that you can turn to to sharpen your understanding. But only if you're genuinely interested in sharpening your understanding. If this is something you do, it doesn't show in the way you express yourself.

The stuff I see you post, and I'll admit I probably haven't seen the majority of it, is often angry and hostile, and shows no discernable openness to challenge. You're not alone on this, you just happen to be the person who engaged me on it, but anyone here that genuinely wants to be heard isn't going to get there by kicking down the door.

Please share with me sources you think I would benefit from as I am earnestly interested in understanding them.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

There are many important conservative principles that need to be kept at the fore

---

Oh really? Let's see what some of those principles are.

Keep in mind that the parties that are "conservative" and "liberal" don't always stay the same. The Republican Party started out being the radical party. They were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives. They tried to hold on to what they had as desperately as they could.

There was a time in history when the Republican Party had a loyal voting base because they ended slavery and preserved the Union. That died with Harding, Coolidge, and good ol' Herbert "Tower" Hoover driving a stake through what was left of the Republican Party after Taft did everything he could do to undo Teddy Roosevelt's presidency.

The first progressive president was also a Republican.

Learn your history or be doomed to repeat it.

I made no reference to party.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

It's a shame the quality of the discourse here is so poor because given our diversity the potential for better exists.

Is the pleasure of posting here in the exchange of ideas, or in the conceived belittling of perceived opponents? Do you see us as we, or tribally as an us and them?

Nationally our animosity is trending ever higher and to what end?

It could just be our nature, deterministic I suppose. Or maybe we're capable of better. It's a lot to ask of a sports forum.

When you visit here what draws you?
When you post here, what's your motivation?

And yes, I get that I'm a fool for asking.

---

Since 2016, the OT board was a safe space for liberals and leftists to vent after the most traumatic event in their adult lives, Hillary's loss to Trump. They could not find any comfort from their former ideological leader, Obama, who stepped down. But they found enormous pleasure in attacking Donald Trump. his voter base, and anyone here who disagreed with them.

This was never a place for the exchange of diverse viewpoints, there was only one view and it was horrible. The bubble was getting larger as they bounced their thoughts and feelings off one another for reassurance and validation like teenagers. It got to the point of being hideous, an unsightly zit that needed to be popped and properly drained before the juices overflowed and spread throughout the Bearinsider universe.

---

Which diverse viewpoint would you like to exchange?

---

You can start with Trump is not Hitler and his supporters aren't racist.

---

Trump can't be Hitler, but he can be Hitler-like. I'd say he's more un-Hitler-like than Hitler-like. I don't see him invading or genociding, but his instincts, derived from a lifetime of heading up business enterprises, are more fascist than democratic, and his ignorance of the value of our institutions threaten important pillars on which we all rely.

Not all of his supporters are racist, but do you think none are?

If your primary points are that Trump is not Hitler, and the great majority of his supporters aren't racist, I think that is fair.

I'm guessing that what people take issue with, including growing numbers from the right, is that Trump is both more like Hitler, and has played on race, more than any other president in our lifetime. I think that is also fair.

---

It's very simple actually. I don't care what people think of Trump but please don't be surprised that the discourse here is so poor when you hear you things like Trump is Hitler. Even your statement Trump is more un-Hitler than Hitler-like is ridiculous. And so from this everything else flows.

As for your last comment, it's the left that is obsessed with race and has played on race, not Trump. According to the left, the country is systemically racist, it's not just one person.

---

Well, nearly a day goes by that my kids don't call me ridiculous so go get in line on that one.

As for the issues you've raised, I'm willing to hear you out on this, but it's not my opinion nor anyone on the left that should concern you. It's the likes of George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, David Brooks and countless others who have been lifelong advocates of conservative principles that accuse him of this.

If there are conservative voices that you think get it right and articulate it well please pass those on, but the loudest voices and biggest megaphones are held by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson et. al. and they have hollowed out the conservative movement. There are many important conservative principles that need to be kept at the fore, but this group has opted instead for pocket-lining hyperbole that serves no one.

I'll say it this way. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to take yourself seriously.

It means first and foremost having respect for your audience, and then some humility that what you take as absolute is most certainly flawed to varying degrees. You need to have a genuine interest in understanding this weakness and you won't come to it without seeking it out.

You don't have to share them here, but you should have sources and resources that hold opinions in opposition to yours that your respect and that you can turn to to sharpen your understanding. But only if you're genuinely interested in sharpening your understanding. If this is something you do, it doesn't show in the way you express yourself.

The stuff I see you post, and I'll admit I probably haven't seen the majority of it, is often angry and hostile, and shows no discernable openness to challenge. You're not alone on this, you just happen to be the person who engaged me on it, but anyone here that genuinely wants to be heard isn't going to get there by kicking down the door.

Please share with me sources you think I would benefit from as I am earnestly interested in understanding them.

---

Thank you for your words of instruction Yes, we should take ourselves seriously and humble ourselves to open our minds and hearts to understand others.

And if you have sources that could benefit everyone here to show how Trump is more un-Hitler that Hilter, in your words, please share them. But please don't share them if it's coming from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Tucker Carlson. Only share them if they're coming from George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks.

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

It's a shame the quality of the discourse here is so poor because given our diversity the potential for better exists.

Is the pleasure of posting here in the exchange of ideas, or in the conceived belittling of perceived opponents? Do you see us as we, or tribally as an us and them?

Nationally our animosity is trending ever higher and to what end?

It could just be our nature, deterministic I suppose. Or maybe we're capable of better. It's a lot to ask of a sports forum.

When you visit here what draws you?
When you post here, what's your motivation?

And yes, I get that I'm a fool for asking.

---

Since 2016, the OT board was a safe space for liberals and leftists to vent after the most traumatic event in their adult lives, Hillary's loss to Trump. They could not find any comfort from their former ideological leader, Obama, who stepped down. But they found enormous pleasure in attacking Donald Trump. his voter base, and anyone here who disagreed with them.

This was never a place for the exchange of diverse viewpoints, there was only one view and it was horrible. The bubble was getting larger as they bounced their thoughts and feelings off one another for reassurance and validation like teenagers. It got to the point of being hideous, an unsightly zit that needed to be popped and properly drained before the juices overflowed and spread throughout the Bearinsider universe.

---

Which diverse viewpoint would you like to exchange?

---

You can start with Trump is not Hitler and his supporters aren't racist.

---

Trump can't be Hitler, but he can be Hitler-like. I'd say he's more un-Hitler-like than Hitler-like. I don't see him invading or genociding, but his instincts, derived from a lifetime of heading up business enterprises, are more fascist than democratic, and his ignorance of the value of our institutions threaten important pillars on which we all rely.

Not all of his supporters are racist, but do you think none are?

If your primary points are that Trump is not Hitler, and the great majority of his supporters aren't racist, I think that is fair.

I'm guessing that what people take issue with, including growing numbers from the right, is that Trump is both more like Hitler, and has played on race, more than any other president in our lifetime. I think that is also fair.

---

It's very simple actually. I don't care what people think of Trump but please don't be surprised that the discourse here is so poor when you hear you things like Trump is Hitler. Even your statement Trump is more un-Hitler than Hitler-like is ridiculous. And so from this everything else flows.

As for your last comment, it's the left that is obsessed with race and has played on race, not Trump. According to the left, the country is systemically racist, it's not just one person.

---

Well, nearly a day goes by that my kids don't call me ridiculous so go get in line on that one.

As for the issues you've raised, I'm willing to hear you out on this, but it's not my opinion nor anyone on the left that should concern you. It's the likes of George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, David Brooks and countless others who have been lifelong advocates of conservative principles that accuse him of this.

If there are conservative voices that you think get it right and articulate it well please pass those on, but the loudest voices and biggest megaphones are held by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson et. al. and they have hollowed out the conservative movement. There are many important conservative principles that need to be kept at the fore, but this group has opted instead for pocket-lining hyperbole that serves no one.

I'll say it this way. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to take yourself seriously.

It means first and foremost having respect for your audience, and then some humility that what you take as absolute is most certainly flawed to varying degrees. You need to have a genuine interest in understanding this weakness and you won't come to it without seeking it out.

You don't have to share them here, but you should have sources and resources that hold opinions in opposition to yours that your respect and that you can turn to to sharpen your understanding. But only if you're genuinely interested in sharpening your understanding. If this is something you do, it doesn't show in the way you express yourself.

The stuff I see you post, and I'll admit I probably haven't seen the majority of it, is often angry and hostile, and shows no discernable openness to challenge. You're not alone on this, you just happen to be the person who engaged me on it, but anyone here that genuinely wants to be heard isn't going to get there by kicking down the door.

Please share with me sources you think I would benefit from as I am earnestly interested in understanding them.

---

Thank you for your words of instruction Yes, we should take ourselves seriously and humble ourselves to open our minds and hearts to understand others.

And if you have sources that could benefit everyone here to show how Trump is more un-Hitler that Hilter, in your words, please share them. But please don't share them if it's coming from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Tucker Carlson. Only share them if they're coming from George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks.

---

What is it you want to say?

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

What do you think the word conservative means politically? And by the definition of that word, does Reagan qualify as a conservative?

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route instead of holding him accountable. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that he wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a fantasy that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. It didn't work. In my view, that illustrates the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

What do you think the word conservative means politically? And by the definition of that word, does Reagan qualify as a conservative?

---

I'm asking you. You seem to have an issue with drizzly's definition of "conservative" but without knowing what you think that word means I'm not sure anyone can engage in the argument.

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

Is it your point that what qualifies for conservative changes and even oscillates with time? Or are you trying to go more esoteric to stuff like Hume and Burke? When I think of conservatism, and I assumed where most current conservatives think of themselves, but maybe this is where I went wrong, I think of the modern conservatism of the William F. Buckley conservatism of last half century. The one over which we've argued these last several decades.

Why do you insist on playing silly semantic games? Always the smug pedantic approach with you.

Besides, the historical or dictionary definitions of conservatism are not at issue - we are discussing the term conservative in today's American political arena.

It's called context. Would you like a refresher lesson on using context clues to identify word meaning?

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that a resident wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a belief that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. it didn't work. To me, that's the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

I think people consider "conservative" in different ways.

In technical terms, "conservative" is how we would use it in other context. Conserving the current way of being, hesitant to change, cautious in moving in a different direction, moderation.

In the way it is often used in politics, "conservative" means the recent but pre-Trump historical platform of the Republican party. I think that is where you were going with your post.

Now, "conservative" means Trumpism, which is not conservative in either sense of the word.

What you are writing about is "individual accountability" versus "community accountability". It is not absolute in either way, but you and I tend to think that if there is a problem in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, we think that we have individual accountability, blame and responsibility. We will fix our own problem. Others view the same as community problem. If there is something wrong in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, the community or the society has failed to provide all of the means or not removing the barriers. The way I am built, I like the individual accountability because it gives me dignity to control my future and destiny instead of waiting for others to take care of it for me. And the way we view this will dictate how address issues.

But in either case, I say I am a fiscal conservative, but I am starting to think that I am a fiscal rebel since I actually believe in being responsible in tax policy and spending to curb our deficit. Other than Clinton, neither party has been very fiscally responsible.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

It's a shame the quality of the discourse here is so poor because given our diversity the potential for better exists.

Is the pleasure of posting here in the exchange of ideas, or in the conceived belittling of perceived opponents? Do you see us as we, or tribally as an us and them?

Nationally our animosity is trending ever higher and to what end?

It could just be our nature, deterministic I suppose. Or maybe we're capable of better. It's a lot to ask of a sports forum.

When you visit here what draws you?
When you post here, what's your motivation?

And yes, I get that I'm a fool for asking.

---

Since 2016, the OT board was a safe space for liberals and leftists to vent after the most traumatic event in their adult lives, Hillary's loss to Trump. They could not find any comfort from their former ideological leader, Obama, who stepped down. But they found enormous pleasure in attacking Donald Trump. his voter base, and anyone here who disagreed with them.

This was never a place for the exchange of diverse viewpoints, there was only one view and it was horrible. The bubble was getting larger as they bounced their thoughts and feelings off one another for reassurance and validation like teenagers. It got to the point of being hideous, an unsightly zit that needed to be popped and properly drained before the juices overflowed and spread throughout the Bearinsider universe.

---

Which diverse viewpoint would you like to exchange?

---

You can start with Trump is not Hitler and his supporters aren't racist.

---

Trump can't be Hitler, but he can be Hitler-like. I'd say he's more un-Hitler-like than Hitler-like. I don't see him invading or genociding, but his instincts, derived from a lifetime of heading up business enterprises, are more fascist than democratic, and his ignorance of the value of our institutions threaten important pillars on which we all rely.

Not all of his supporters are racist, but do you think none are?

If your primary points are that Trump is not Hitler, and the great majority of his supporters aren't racist, I think that is fair.

I'm guessing that what people take issue with, including growing numbers from the right, is that Trump is both more like Hitler, and has played on race, more than any other president in our lifetime. I think that is also fair.

---

It's very simple actually. I don't care what people think of Trump but please don't be surprised that the discourse here is so poor when you hear you things like Trump is Hitler. Even your statement Trump is more un-Hitler than Hitler-like is ridiculous. And so from this everything else flows.

As for your last comment, it's the left that is obsessed with race and has played on race, not Trump. According to the left, the country is systemically racist, it's not just one person.

---

Well, nearly a day goes by that my kids don't call me ridiculous so go get in line on that one.

As for the issues you've raised, I'm willing to hear you out on this, but it's not my opinion nor anyone on the left that should concern you. It's the likes of George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, David Brooks and countless others who have been lifelong advocates of conservative principles that accuse him of this.

If there are conservative voices that you think get it right and articulate it well please pass those on, but the loudest voices and biggest megaphones are held by the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson et. al. and they have hollowed out the conservative movement. There are many important conservative principles that need to be kept at the fore, but this group has opted instead for pocket-lining hyperbole that serves no one.

I'll say it this way. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to take yourself seriously.

It means first and foremost having respect for your audience, and then some humility that what you take as absolute is most certainly flawed to varying degrees. You need to have a genuine interest in understanding this weakness and you won't come to it without seeking it out.

You don't have to share them here, but you should have sources and resources that hold opinions in opposition to yours that your respect and that you can turn to to sharpen your understanding. But only if you're genuinely interested in sharpening your understanding. If this is something you do, it doesn't show in the way you express yourself.

The stuff I see you post, and I'll admit I probably haven't seen the majority of it, is often angry and hostile, and shows no discernable openness to challenge. You're not alone on this, you just happen to be the person who engaged me on it, but anyone here that genuinely wants to be heard isn't going to get there by kicking down the door.

Please share with me sources you think I would benefit from as I am earnestly interested in understanding them.

---

Thank you for your words of instruction Yes, we should take ourselves seriously and humble ourselves to open our minds and hearts to understand others.

And if you have sources that could benefit everyone here to show how Trump is more un-Hitler that Hilter, in your words, please share them. But please don't share them if it's coming from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and Tucker Carlson. Only share them if they're coming from George Will, David Gergen, Bill Kristol, and David Brooks.

---

What is it you want to say?

---

BearForce2

I read your top 40 most popular posts (primarily snark, but so were many of my earliest). In a little over a year you've posted an impressive 1,600 times of which almost all of it is here in Off Topic. I'm guessing this is your political profile that you don't want to mix with your Cal sports profile.

You'd think someone this purposefully active would have something to say.

Your posts are mostly anecdotal which makes them not very useful.

The South Bronx in the 1970's really? Well that was urban blight created in part not by welfare programs but by urban renewal- the expressway through the borough that tore apart the borough and plunged property values leaving the area a blighted Island , so , yes, poor government but are conservatives against highways? But recently the area has over $5 billion in housing investment and is no longer Fort Apache- the billions didn't come from people taking personal responsibility but government investment- maybe good government?

Newsome? I don't know that any politicians have followed science from either persuasion. Do you think Abbott has been better? He has been worse- first telling people not to wear a mask then to wear one. In truth politicians shouldn't be telling us to do much of anything- the entire democratic apparatus of representative government has been replaced in this pandemic by petty authoritarians.

Also I think the individual argument is largely mythology. Truthfully, every immigrant who ever came to this country did not survive or prosper on personal responsibility. They survived because of community support- some government, some relatives, some family, some churches, some social groups, some labor unions, some crime families, some community organizations- these aren't necessarily conservative or liberal. It's still going on but especially in rural areas these institutions - ironically which also served locals not immigrants- have been gutted.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles.

---

Your view is incorrect.

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves.

---

Without getting into your specific examples and whether or not they are relevant, yes, this is also how I see "classic conservatism," particularly as tied to economic policies. As drizzly notes, the William F. Buckley school of political philosophy.

I'm curious how Yogi/Matthew sees the idea of "conservatism" in politics if not as this. I agree with him that it's not about party; as history moves along the party that was once the progressive one can morph into the conservative one. But the underlying idea of what is "conservative" should be something that can carry on through those political shifts. I'm still not sure what he thinks that is, and so far he is just dodging the question.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

Is it your point that what qualifies for conservative changes and even oscillates with time? Or are you trying to go more esoteric to stuff like Hume and Burke? When I think of conservatism, and I assumed where most current conservatives think of themselves, but maybe this is where I went wrong, I think of the modern conservatism of the William F. Buckley conservatism of last half century. The one over which we've argued these last several decades.

---

No. Conservatism and liberalism get relabeled by political opportunists in coalition building.

Modern so-called conservatives define them as such because they identify with one or more parts of Reagan's coalition, but there's nothing particularly conservative about them. They believe in small government when it suits their purposes and large government overreach when it serves other purposes.

LMK5 said:

---

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route instead of holding him accountable. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that he wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a fantasy that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. It didn't work. In my view, that illustrates the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

That doesn't surprise me. You seem exactly like the kind of asshat who would love being on a homeowner's association.

The hilarious thing? Homeowner's associations are a lot like what you accuse Gavin Newsom of. They take away the individual freedom of the homeowner to do as he wants with his property (property rights) and enforce a set of rules that force the individual to conform to a group, rather than granting him the liberty to do what he wishes with his property. They tax the people in their developments and tell the homeowners how that money will be used. The individual owners have no say in how their money is spent.

It's the very antithesis of the so-called libertarianism that you fools claim to support in your elected leaders.

AunBear89 said:

---

Why do you ....

---

I'm sorry, you must have confused me with someone who cares about anything you post.

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves.

---

Without getting into your specific examples and whether or not they are relevant, yes, this is also how I see "classic conservatism," particularly as tied to economic policies. As drizzly notes, the William F. Buckley school of political philosophy.

I'm curious how Yogi/Matthew sees the idea of "conservatism" in politics if not as this. I agree with him that it's not about party; as history moves along the party that was once the progressive one can morph into the conservative one. But the underlying idea of what is "conservative" should be something that can carry on through those political shifts. I'm still not sure what he thinks that is, and so far he is just dodging the question.

---

I'm not dodging. I'm just testing your ability to think for yourselves, rather than letting other people do their thinking for you.

Ayn Rand had her own definition of what conservatism meant. Buckley had a different one. How do we decide which one is the "proper" definition of what it means to be a conservative political thinker?

"Conservatives" and "Liberals "agree:

Propping up China to serve their corporate masters

Increasing the Defense budget and continued involvement in foreign wars.

Create and Increase Homeland Security budget

Border defense and money for same

The Patriot Act. FISA- spying on Americans and the growth of the Security State

Private health insurance

Corporate tax cuts.

Unlimited funds and protection of the State of Israel even if it means denying speech by prohibiting BDS

Growth of Executive Power- "treaties" on climate and Iran. Build a wall, Federal Troops in US cities

Militarization of police forces

Corporate pandemic relief priorities

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves.

---

Without getting into your specific examples and whether or not they are relevant, yes, this is also how I see "classic conservatism," particularly as tied to economic policies. As drizzly notes, the William F. Buckley school of political philosophy.

I'm curious how Yogi/Matthew sees the idea of "conservatism" in politics if not as this. I agree with him that it's not about party; as history moves along the party that was once the progressive one can morph into the conservative one. But the underlying idea of what is "conservative" should be something that can carry on through those political shifts. I'm still not sure what he thinks that is, and so far he is just dodging the question.

---

I'm not dodging. I'm just testing your ability to think for yourselves, rather than letting other people do their thinking for you.

Ayn Rand had her own definition of what conservatism meant. Buckley had a different one. How do we decide which one is the "proper" definition of what it means to be a conservative political thinker?

---

Okay, but in an earlier response in this thread you stated that something was not "conservative principles." That tells me that you have some idea of what conservatism really is. I am well aware that there could be more than one definition. That's why I'm trying to figure out what yours is.

I think he's just playing his part as a smug, pedantic, and shyte stirring jerk. Some say troll - but I suspect this is the way he is most of the time off line as well.

AunBear89 said:

---

I think he's just....

---

Once again, nobody cares

Matthew Patel said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route instead of holding him accountable. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that he wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a fantasy that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. It didn't work. In my view, that illustrates the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

That doesn't surprise me. You seem exactly like the kind of asshat who would love being on a homeowner's association.

The hilarious thing? Homeowner's associations are a lot like what you accuse Gavin Newsom of. They take away the individual freedom of the homeowner to do as he wants with his property (property rights) and enforce a set of rules that force the individual to conform to a group, rather than granting him the liberty to do what he wishes with his property. They tax the people in their developments and tell the homeowners how that money will be used. The individual owners have no say in how their money is spent.

It's the very antithesis of the so-called libertarianism that you fools claim to support in your elected leaders.

---

You're displaying quite a bit of ignorance as to how HOAs work. Everyone who moves into a HOA agrees to the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions before they buy the property--no one is forced. The people who do move in realize that agreeing to a very basic set of guidelines protects them against imbeciles who want to park on the front lawn or conduct a business in their driveway. The tradeoffs greatly benefit responsible people.

The "tax" is something they know of before they move in. It provides real benefits. The Community gets to decide on how well their common areas are maintained, when equipment is replaced, and if they want to add safety improvements such as lighting. HOAs don't have to beg and pray that the city will come do it for them. It's a prime example of people working for the collective good in a very efficient way.

Individual owners have no say? BS. All board members have to be residents, must be voted in and are restricted to one-year terms. All meetings are completely open to the residents and any capital projects must be voted on by the entire community.

In my experience, there is no "tax" that is more efficiently spent than HOA dues.

Riiiiight

calbear93 said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I made no reference to party.

---

You also made no reference to what these so-called "principles" are either.

Put up, nwbear's brother.

---

Well principally as a counterpoint to the left, but smaller government, property rights, individual liberty, preserving traditions, free market economics, national defense are all important to our national conversation.

---

Those aren't conservative principles though. Apparently my explanation of the history of different parties being conservative had no effect on you. Those are principles of the current Republican Party.

---

What, in your view, can be defined as "conservative principles"?

---

Which forces in American politics do you imagine are railing against free markets? (even though such a thing doesn't exist in this country) Which forces are working against national defense? Which forces are saying that property rights are unimportant? Which forces say individual liberty doesn't matter?

That's all tilting at windmills.

---

I get it, you disagree with those. What do you think conservative principles are? Or do you think there are none?

---

My view of conservative principles translates to rational principles. A 'conservative" tends to give the citizen the benefit of the doubt with accountability attached to it. It is clearly a "teach him to fish" rather than a "give him a fish" philosophy. Look at the massive spending on social programs spent in the major cities over the decades. They certainly haven't yielded the expected results, they've only made people more dependent on the programs themselves. I saw urban decay driven by these programs first hand growing up around NYC. Remember the "Bronx is Burning" telecast of the Yankees World Series game of 1977? Despite massive government spending in the area, the South Bronx became a poster child for urban decay.

Here's a more contemporary example: Remember how Newsom kept assuring us that he was going strictly by the "science and data"? Well, when it came to opening the schools this fall the science and data--strongly pointing to opening the schools--didn't count for much. It turns out that science and data only drove decisions to close schools, not open them. Was anyone surprised? It's the "I know better than you and I don't trust you" way of thinking.

Here's another example of the difference in approach. I was an HOA board member for many years. At one point we had a homeowner who walked his dog in the neighborhood but didn't clean up the poop. He did this every day. The board had a well-defined fine structure for this. But the HOA president, a left leaner, insisted on installing doggie-bag dispensers along this guy's dog-walking route. She was convinced that he didn't pick up after his dog because he didn't have convenient access to plastic bags. She just couldn't bring herself to believe that a resident wasn't picking up after his dog because he just didn't feel like it. The fines would have held him accountable; the doggie-bag installations idea was a denial of reality, and a belief that spending HOA funds would somehow change his behavior. it didn't work. To me, that's the difference between conservative and liberal thinking.

---

---

Quote:

---

In technical terms, "conservative" is how we would use it in other context. Conserving the current way of being, hesitant to change, cautious in moving in a different direction, moderation.

---

Just tweaking you a bit, but given this definition, where would the progress come from?

Quote:

---

In the way it is often used in politics, "conservative" means the recent but pre-Trump historical platform of the Republican party. I think that is where you were going with your post.

Now, "conservative" means Trumpism, which is not conservative in either sense of the word.

---

Trump isn't conservative so much as opportunistic I think, but he's a byproduct, and it's those who support him that are the issue. I think it's anger the buoys him, and what he excels at is deriding those with whom his supporters hate.

Where would you put Tea Party conservatism? It feels to me the precursor to whatever it is we have now in Trumpism and seems to have risen on the hate fanned by hate fanners.

Quote:

---

What you are writing about is "individual accountability" versus "community accountability". It is not absolute in either way, but you and I tend to think that if there is a problem in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, we think that we have individual accountability, blame and responsibility. We will fix our own problem. Others view the same as community problem. If there is something wrong in our lives and if we have failed to accomplish something, the community or the society has failed to provide all of the means or not removing the barriers.

---

This I believe is the heart of it, and difficult to debate, but our positions are typically dictated by our takes on human nature. Without pretending to have the answer, I think it's a mistake to project onto others what we believe to be best for us.

The virtues of individualism and self-sufficiency are immensely attractive, but our specie's legacy is built on cooperation.

Economically speaking, is it more important we be producers or consumers? (I think this question is germane and less rando that it seems.)