If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Has anyone ever convinced you to change from being conservative to being liberal (or vice versa)?   (fark.com) divider line 737
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1357 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 2:49 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



737 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-22 02:43:24 AM

Rincewind53: feckingmorons: Rincewind53: You think the purpose of more government is to tax people

Specifially the IRS as it relates to PPACA was the meaning of that.

You and I both know that no matter what John Roberts says, the Individual Mandate isn't actually a tax, it's a requirement to purchase health insurance that carries a penalty for failure to comply.


AKA, the usual Republican twist of the knife.
 
2013-07-22 02:45:29 AM

themindiswatching: feckingmorons: Isn't 40 hours a week at McD's better than a 20 hour cap?

You assume that people can actually get 40 hours at McDonalds, or even be able to take multiple part-time jobs to make up for it.


Now you're talking.
 
2013-07-22 02:45:35 AM

Satan's Chocolate Starfish: stilted: TuteTibiImperes: Maybe we should fund pharmaceutical development federally at various Universities with the resultant medications becoming public domain and open to generic production from day one, maybe we should just ban all pharmaceutical marketing and put severe limits on how pharma sales-reps can interact with doctors, I'm open so suggestions there.

In theory, sounds great. In practice, never gonna happen. Pharm lobby will shut that down at the first hint of it in DC.

Limiting pharma sales reps' interactions with doctors is going to put a lot of former cheerleaders out of work and diminish oral sex opportunities for doctors. That just isn't a nice outcome. It's too sad.


I still have my Oxycontin pen that I swiped from a doctor's office. Or at least I think I do, somewhere at my mom's place. Along with my Ambien pen, which has always been a wonderful ink stick. I could draw three-eyed people all night with that thing.
 
2013-07-22 02:47:24 AM

SuperTramp: feckingmorons

Isn't 40 hours a week at McD's better than a 20 hour cap?

Work a year or two on today's minimum wage trying to support yourself, much less a child, and get back to me with your answer.


I did this. With two kids.It sucked but it got me thru til I could get something better.
 
2013-07-22 02:47:31 AM

feckingmorons: Eventually you run out of other people's money.


I see the problem here - you get your ideas from bumper stickers, and don't actually think them out for yourself. So the answer to subby's question, for you, would be no.
 
2013-07-22 02:48:01 AM

monty666: I'm not into reading walls of text. What is currently going on here?


img.fark.net
 
2013-07-22 02:48:21 AM

Rincewind53: feckingmorons: Yes I realize they are not related, and they did a similar thing with Florida PD's budgets until they put up a stink. Luckily they are elected and can get away with that.

We are allowing our elected representatives to bullshiat us all day long with nonsense. They are doing things like investigating the IRS, immigration reform, what to do about Syria. Who gives a shiat about Syria, those people over there have been killing each other for millenia, we won't ever stop it.

Worry about this country. Worry that companies are closing left and right, worry that we have a federal rasin reserve that charges rasin farmers to grow rasins, worry about the shiat that keeps us from working. Worry about public employee pensions that are bankrupting cities and counties and find a solution that doesn't screw the worker or the city - find some middle ground. Quit growing the government for the purpose of taxing us

And that's the fundamental difference right there. You think the purpose of more government is to tax people. I think the purpose of larger government is to provide more services for people who need them. I think we're in fundamental agreement that a whole lot of government is badly managed, and priorities are often misplaced.

I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I strongly get the sense from you that your  preferred solution would be to just  get rid of the programs. Whereas mine would be to  fix them.


Therein lies the rub. Bureaucrats tend to look at government's function is to justify their salaries. They do this by managing problems. Not solving them, because if you solve a problem, funding goes away, and thus their budgets are reduced, their pull in their departments is lessened, and tiers of employees are shifted, fired, retired, or reduced in their hours. But, bureacrats are only part of issue, and while they certainly have their input on bills, and what they need, there is also the matter of lawmakers. And right now, laws are ballooning in size and scope. Not necessarily for more naked power grabs--though, there is some of that in some areas--but in terms of regulation, we have such fine gradations built into laws, that they create some odd pockets that attorneys--who oddly enough help craft such legislation--can find loopholes that exempt their clients from pretty much the spirit of the laws in question. In matters of taxation and subsidies, we are creating very much a client system where we are actively skewing from a free market, to an assisted market that rewards some players to help them freeze out competition. This IS an issue of government, but not so much about size, but the complexity, and building more layers of complexity, just to be able to shoe horn in clients' needs, over the needs of the populace in general.

Like anything, it's not a mater of too much or too little, it's a matter of taxing wisely. It's a matter of regulating wisely. It's a matter of doing the job that the nation needs, as opposed to the needs of those who are putting cash into your pocket for reelection, and that is sort of big one. And, oddly enough, campaign finance reform is one of those issues where you can see very clearly who opposes it, who supports it, by how much they are getting from those who might be barred from giving, or worse, not having anyone give anything at all, which terrifies our lawmakers and elected officials, because then they might actually have to try to survive on the salary that they'd be paid for public service, and who can really live on that? I mean besides someone who might actually want to actually serve the public, as opposed to their buddies and those who will give them jobs after they get out, or even slide some cash on the side to some favorite charity or company that they happen to have stock in?
 
2013-07-22 02:48:56 AM
I also had an OPANA stack of post-its that some house guest with a pen turned into OBAMA post-its.
 
2013-07-22 02:50:28 AM
 
2013-07-22 02:50:49 AM
All the time. Most of their "arguments" are blatantly wrong though, so they're really just making their side look less appealing than it already was.
 
2013-07-22 02:53:51 AM

hubiestubert: Therein lies the rub. Bureaucrats tend to look at government's function is to justify their salaries. They do this by managing problems. Not solving them, because if you solve a problem, funding goes away, and thus their budgets are reduced, their pull in their departments is lessened, and tiers of employees are shifted, fired, retired, or reduced in their hours. But, bureacrats are only part of issue, and while they certainly have their input on bills, and what they need, there is also the matter of lawmakers. And right now, laws are ballooning in size and scope. Not necessarily for more naked power grabs--though, there is some of that in some areas--but in terms of regulation, we have such fine gradations built into laws, that they create some odd pockets that attorneys--who oddly enough help craft such legislation--can find loopholes that exempt their clients from pretty much the spirit of the laws in question. In matters of taxation and subsidies, we are creating very much a client system where we are actively skewing from a free market, to an assisted market that rewards some players to help them freeze out competition. This IS an issue of government, but not so much about size, but the complexity, and building more layers of complexity, just to be able to shoe horn in clients' needs, over the needs of the populace in general.

Like anything, it's not a mater of too much or too little, it's a matter of taxing wisely. It's a matter of regulating wisely. It's a matter of doing the job that the nation needs, as opposed to the needs of those who are putting cash into your pocket for reelection, and that is sort of big one. And, oddly enough, campaign finance reform is one of those issues where you can see very clearly who opposes it, who supports it, by how much they are getting from those who might be barred from giving, or worse, not having anyone give anything at all, which terrifies our lawmakers and elected officials, because then they might actually have to t ...


You make some good points, and I couldn't agree with you more about campaign finance, but I think your broader point about the free market isn't entirely fair. I'd argue that the "free market" is largely a myth; that government has  always been the driver of market forces, and that the idea of an actual free market is utopian at best and dystopian at worst (depending on your particular political bent). I think in many ways, our government is more deregulated than it's been in thirty years. We have consistently failed to achieve any sort of regulation that will actually correct the problems of the financial sector, for instance. "Too big to jail" is, in essence, a way of throwing up our hands and saying that  big business won.
 
2013-07-22 02:53:52 AM

Bllasae: All the time.


Does this mean you bounce back and forth between the two ?
 
2013-07-22 02:53:54 AM

hubiestubert: Rincewind53: feckingmorons: Yes I realize they are not related, and they did a similar thing with Florida PD's budgets until they put up a stink. Luckily they are elected and can get away with that.

We are allowing our elected representatives to bullshiat us all day long with nonsense. They are doing things like investigating the IRS, immigration reform, what to do about Syria. Who gives a shiat about Syria, those people over there have been killing each other for millenia, we won't ever stop it.

Worry about this country. Worry that companies are closing left and right, worry that we have a federal rasin reserve that charges rasin farmers to grow rasins, worry about the shiat that keeps us from working. Worry about public employee pensions that are bankrupting cities and counties and find a solution that doesn't screw the worker or the city - find some middle ground. Quit growing the government for the purpose of taxing us

And that's the fundamental difference right there. You think the purpose of more government is to tax people. I think the purpose of larger government is to provide more services for people who need them. I think we're in fundamental agreement that a whole lot of government is badly managed, and priorities are often misplaced.

I may be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I strongly get the sense from you that your  preferred solution would be to just  get rid of the programs. Whereas mine would be to  fix them.

Therein lies the rub. Bureaucrats tend to look at government's function is to justify their salaries. They do this by managing problems. Not solving them, because if you solve a problem, funding goes away, and thus their budgets are reduced, their pull in their departments is lessened, and tiers of employees are shifted, fired, retired, or reduced in their hours. But, bureacrats are only part of issue, and while they certainly have their input on bills, and what they need, there is also the matter of lawmakers. And right now, laws are ballooning in size and scope. Not necessarily for more naked power grabs--though, there is some of that in some areas--but in terms of regulation, we have such fine gradations built into laws, that they create some odd pockets that attorneys--who oddly enough help craft such legislation--can find loopholes that exempt their clients from pretty much the spirit of the laws in question. In matters of taxation and subsidies, we are creating very much a client system where we are actively skewing from a free market, to an assisted market that rewards some players to help them freeze out competition. This IS an issue of government, but not so much about size, but the complexity, and building more layers of complexity, just to be able to shoe horn in clients' needs, over the needs of the populace in general.

Like anything, it's not a mater of too much or too little, it's a matter of taxing wisely. It's a matter of regulating wisely. It's a matter of doing the job that the nation needs, as opposed to the needs of those who are putting cash into your pocket for reelection, and that is sort of big one. And, oddly enough, campaign finance reform is one of those issues where you can see very clearly who opposes it, who supports it, by how much they are getting from those who might be barred from giving, or worse, not having anyone give anything at all, which terrifies our lawmakers and elected officials, because then they might actually have to try to survive on the salary that they'd be paid for public service, and who can really live on that? I mean besides someone who might actually want to actually serve the public, as opposed to their buddies and those who will give them jobs after they get out, or even slide some cash on the side to some favorite charity or company that they happen to have stock in?


Why do you hate America?
 
2013-07-22 02:54:53 AM

Abacus9: feckingmorons: Eventually you run out of other people's money.

I see the problem here - you get your ideas from bumper stickers, and don't actually think them out for yourself. So the answer to subby's question, for you, would be no.


Look at the second post. The answer is no.

I should have stopped with that post.
 
2013-07-22 02:57:00 AM

violentsalvation: I also had an OPANA stack of post-its that some house guest with a pen turned into OBAMA post-its.


Thanks, OPANA!
 
2013-07-22 02:59:31 AM
Yup, the GOP leadership convinced me to become more liberal, or else maybe the mark has just been moved.

Honestly, I was against single-payer healthcare, until the compromise Obamacare passed, and I see what a piece of crap it is and how single-payer would have been better.
 
2013-07-22 03:03:08 AM
I went from an 18 yr old Reagan-worshiper to what-is-commonly-referred-to-as-liberal-in-the-United-States, yes, but on my own accord.  Education, experience and ceasing to hate/fear "different" people for no particular reason tends to do that to a person.  Mmmyeessss.

It's kind of amazing, like, if you open your mind and try to understand stuff, you can... better understand the world around you.

And teachers paved the way for everything.  Teachers rule.  Some of them are hot, too, and have firm thighs and perky breasts.

And science is farking cool as shiat.

/science even works fairly well on a social science like economics, provided you abide by all the definitions and the entire framework
//*COUGH*that means you can't make up your own rules and pretend that externalities don't exist, silly libertarians*COUGH*
/was a libertarian for a couple months a few decades ago when i was still transitioning. sorry about that. reason.com is gay
 
2013-07-22 03:03:17 AM
i'm not even really sure just wtf value words like 'conservative' or 'liberal' really have in modern american politics, with the exception of some kind of 'brand' identity that has no real ideological core.

'conservative' in power looks a helluva lot different than 'conservative' in power, for examples sake - the word either has no real meaning, or we have to alter it with election cycles so frequently that it's anybody's guess what it means at that moment.

but to the question in the headline, yah, somebody convinced me to change my political registration, if nothing else. his name was Jerry Fallwell.
 
2013-07-22 03:04:05 AM

feckingmorons: If we were competitive in the global market place we could still manufacture stuff.


We can't be competitive in the global marketplace when our competitors can find a practically endless supply of labor willing to work 60-80 hours per week for $1 per hour.  Manufacturing, in the global economy, will flow to the poorest nation that still has the infrastructure to support the manufacturing.

Unless you want to race to the bottom and try to out-poverty the third-world nations, most of our manufacturing is gone for good, unless we decided to change either our trade or immigration policies.  A free movement of money and goods with a highly restricted movement of people favors sending the jobs to wherever the poorest people live.
 
2013-07-22 03:05:04 AM
What is the saying?

"If you're 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're 50 and not a conservative you have no money"

I'm pretty much a liberal on all things but spending, but I make exceptions and don't live in a world where math doesn't matter.

Also the more extreme the GOP and their fundies go, the more I want to stay away from that mental illness.
 
2013-07-22 03:05:45 AM
erm....make that second one 'out of power'. or don't, i suppose it still kinda works.
 
2013-07-22 03:05:59 AM
I want to say liberal but whenever I think about any political issues I always just end up as an anarchist. I know that it doesn't work at all, I think I just listened to too much Crass back in the day and now thats that.
 
2013-07-22 03:07:37 AM

OhioUGrad: What is the saying?

"If you're 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're 50 and not a conservative you have no money"

I'm pretty much a liberal on all things but spending, but I make exceptions and don't live in a world where math doesn't matter.

Also the more extreme the GOP and their fundies go, the more I want to stay away from that mental illness.


My 89-year-old rich doctor grandfather routinely sends me articles complaining about the horrible things Republicans are doing.
 
2013-07-22 03:09:30 AM
OhioUGrad

What is the saying?

"If you're 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're 50 and not a conservative you have no money"


There is also another saying, ""A woman in advancing old age is unstoppable by any earthly force"
 
2013-07-22 03:10:15 AM
When I was younger, I was a long-haired anti-establishment goon. I've since learned many things about human nature and what people will do when left to their own devices - leading me to understand just how much we need the system to thrive.

log_jammin: the words "conservative" and "liberal" mean nothing in american politics anymore beyond name calling.


You're right - those "both sides are the same" blockheads ARE exceedingly annoying.
/I'm sure everything looks the same from all the way over there in Loony Libertopia
 
2013-07-22 03:10:42 AM

Triumph: angrymacface: Once I realized that conservatives are horribly selfish people, I realized I didn't want to be one.

I know, right - BLAARRGGH oh look, vomit everywhere.


**SLAP**

Now clean that sh*t up. You reek.
 
2013-07-22 03:11:55 AM
YOU CAN'T MAKE ME GO TO REHAB!


/wtf happened in here?
 
2013-07-22 03:14:26 AM
I was born and raised in a republican household, and attended catholic school my whole life. In NY, mind you, so not "religious-right-conservative", but certainly "Reaganomics".

I became liberal gradually through education in economics, history, and science.
 
2013-07-22 03:15:05 AM
AverageAmericanGuy

/wtf happened in here?

...aaaaannddd I'm out. no time left for the derp brigade.

Who knew AAG would get a song by Canadians?
 
2013-07-22 03:16:52 AM
I can't imagine it being a specific enough process for it to be one person alone to cause it.
 
2013-07-22 03:19:23 AM
I enjoy having the liberty to conserve the things that work and change the things that don't.


....it really is that f*cking simple.

far left is delusional idiots
far right is delusional assholes

period
 
2013-07-22 03:19:26 AM

Gig103: Yup, the GOP leadership convinced me to become more liberal, or else maybe the mark has just been moved.

Honestly, I was against single-payer healthcare, until the compromise Obamacare passed, and I see what a piece of crap it is and how single-payer would have been better.


The GOP leadership has perhaps convinced you to switch labels.

Living in Japan with "socialized" medicine, it's pretty clear which system is better, when comparing to the healthcare system in the U.S.
 
2013-07-22 03:20:45 AM

SuperTramp: feckerd?

do you have those files on me?

The incept date

The longevity


I WANT MORE LIFE, FATHER
 
2013-07-22 03:21:59 AM

craigdamage: I enjoy having the liberty to conserve the things that work and change the things that don't.


....it really is that f*cking simple.

far left is delusional idiots
far right is delusional assholes

period


Fortunately the far left has almost no one in political power, and the far r-OH HOLY HELL WHO GAVE THEM THE KEYS TO THE GOVERNMENT??
 
2013-07-22 03:29:26 AM
Bush and Mittens made me go republican to libertarian by... well... sucking.  To be fair to Bush, it really didnt happen until the election when I realized the cliche about the republicans just caring about the rich was not only accurate, it could be personified into an actual human named Mitt.   Of course, being liberal, was out of the question, so I found a home in the party that cared about EVERYONEs rights not just those with money, and not just ones that get free money from the ones with money.

And of course now that the government is tracking vehicle movement, phone calls, email, text, breaths per hour and caloric intake, I am very solidly in this camp.
 
2013-07-22 03:34:08 AM
*PAGING WEAVER95*

*PAGING WEAVER95*

Seriously though, he made a fascinating transition. He went from being one of the more abrasive right-wing characters on Fark to being one of the most engaging and interesting regular posters on the website.

I wouldn't say that that was a Conservative to Liberal conversion, but he certainly converted into something I think is pretty awesome.
 
2013-07-22 03:39:42 AM

I sound fat: and not just ones that get free money from the ones with money.


Who's getting this free money I keep hearing about?
 
2013-07-22 03:44:45 AM

OhioUGrad: What is the saying?

"If you're 20 and not a liberal you have no heart, if you're 50 and not a conservative you have no money"


I was pretty conservative (uk sense, not batshiat US style) at 20. I then went out and saw most of the world. at an affluent 45 I am very much 'liberal' in the american style. People are worth more than money.
 
2013-07-22 03:48:52 AM
craigdamage
I enjoy having the liberty to conserve the things that work and change the things that don't.

You make it sound like unzipping your pants.
 
2013-07-22 03:49:38 AM
No, but lately many knee-jerk liberals have been convincing me that I'm more conservative than I'd thought.
 
2013-07-22 03:53:37 AM
I am liberal mostly because they are the least religulous party. I say least, because they are still religulous. But in tendency, they favor secular policy over religious policy.

We only need to look at the lowest rungs of both parties to see this is true.
 
2013-07-22 03:56:54 AM
I haven't been "convinced to change" except that while I never voted GOP before (while giving candidates at least the benefit of inspection of their positions), the recent wave of teatards/Palinites/etc has now made me morally commit to never do so at all again.
 
2013-07-22 04:00:24 AM
goatleggedfellow

No, but lately many knee-jerk liberals have been convincing me that I'm more conservative than I'd thought.

Keep your legs a little straighter
 
2013-07-22 04:03:58 AM
I was extremely conservative due to my upbringing until about 18 years old. I decided I wanted to learn more about the conservative cause, so I started listening to to talk radio, namely Laura Ingram and Rush Limbaugh. I was never religious but I could appreciate the ideals of smaller government and personal responsibility. But the longer and closer I listened (i was just reaching the age that I could even appreciate the meaning of half the stuff they were talking about.)  I began noticing that there wasn't a whole lot of actual news  or information being shared, just hour long rants about how THEY (liberals, gays, atheists, scientists, aliens, etc) were out to destroy the true Americans.  I began researching all of these horrendous plagues that the liberal agenda was releasing into society, and realized very quickly that about 98.9% of the Wharbergharble was pure fear mongering.  So in a weird way i feel like I should thank Rush for converting me.  To bad it makes it extremely difficult to talk with my parents about ANY topic, as they usually feel the need to let me know what Fox News has to say on the matter.
 
2013-07-22 04:10:47 AM

Sum Dum Gai: feckingmorons: If we were competitive in the global market place we could still manufacture stuff.

We can't be competitive in the global marketplace when our competitors can find a practically endless supply of labor willing to work 60-80 hours per week for $1 per hour.  Manufacturing, in the global economy, will flow to the poorest nation that still has the infrastructure to support the manufacturing.

Unless you want to race to the bottom and try to out-poverty the third-world nations, most of our manufacturing is gone for good, unless we decided to change either our trade or immigration policies.  A free movement of money and goods with a highly restricted movement of people favors sending the jobs to wherever the poorest people live.


Uh no.
1. Labor isn't the only input. Among many other companies,  GE found out the hard way that you can't export manufacturing institutional knowledge, experience. or quality.
2. Manufacturing in the US has shifted to higher-value production.
3. The perverse TAX incentives that led to companies exporting jobs can and should be reversed.
4. American workers are extremely productive.
 
2013-07-22 04:11:14 AM
Nobody who knows me would even try.
 
2013-07-22 04:19:16 AM
Richard Nixon cured me of conservatism.
 
2013-07-22 04:21:13 AM
When I was age 5-6-7, I frequently heard my parents and their friends talk about President Kennedy saying things like "He is good for the country". "He makes us proud to be Americans"

When I was 12 and Richard Nixon was elected, my science teacher said "I am a Democrat, but I think he will be good because Republicans reduce inflation". That would be 1968.

By 1969, I was in high school and the news was filtering down about college kids protesting the war in Vietnam, people burning draft cards, moratoriums, the Kent State shootings, Edwin Starr's song "War, what is it good for" and all the other anti-war music.

Beyond the war which was the primary issue in the news when I was aged 13-16 I staked other liberal positions that just made sense compared to what the Republicans were offering.

One other influence was listening to my 11th grade history teacher debate a conservative after class, which led me to see that liberal positions made sense. But the only thing I remember was the conservative saying but but but socialism in South America, and my history teacher saying "a little bit of socialism would help South Amrerica"

January 1973, America's fighting in Vietnam ended, but news about Watergate and Nixon sending spies to break in to Daniel Ellsberg's doctor to seek his medical records and the year and a half of Republican bulldog defending that Nixon did no wrong pretty much cemented my view of the parties, and the Republican positions on the issues just were just as sucky.

The Republicans talk freedom, but want to take away a women's right to an abortion in the first trimester. They talk about freedom, but wanted to arrest people for "sodomy" (read:homosexuality). And when Republicans were Dixiecrats, they were against interracial marriage until the Supreme Court cemented it's universal legality.
 
2013-07-22 04:29:29 AM
It would be unfair to say that Bush convinced me to become a liberal.  It would be more accurate to say that the majority of the Republican party during the early 2000s convinced me.

I voted for Dole in 1996 (that's how conservative I was) and Bush in 2000.  Didn't vote in 2004.  Been the libbiest lib who ever libbed since.
 
2013-07-22 04:43:52 AM

I Like Bread: When I was younger, I was a long-haired anti-establishment goon. I've since learned many things about human nature and what people will do when left to their own devices - leading me to understand just how much we need the system to thrive.

log_jammin: the words "conservative" and "liberal" mean nothing in american politics anymore beyond name calling.

You're right - those "both sides are the same" blockheads ARE exceedingly annoying.
/I'm sure everything looks the same from all the way over there in Loony Libertopia


Yesterday in the Samsung Galaxy vs iPhone thread some blockhead managed to get into the thread to announce to all the people discussing the differences that they're really all the same. I imagined that his dumbphone might have been a BSABSVRphone.
 
Displayed 50 of 737 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report