If you look at the broad spectrum of the issue,

Abortion
Budget & Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy & Oil
Environment
Familes & Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Gov't Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles and Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War & Peace
Welfare & Poverty

You'll see that he fits perfectly in the Left Liberal position. Take a good look at this excellent page and scroll to the bottom before you hit the back button.

liberalism goes too far.>

Golly gee, sounds like poverty fixing
turning into high crime areas, where black people die, and are incarcerated.

At a cost of trillions to the taxpayer.

...and here I thought that was just a kooky diceman idea.

The dogs always looked happy, healthy. >

See, this is why I laugh at your posts. You really think that this is relevant? How Hitler treated German Shepherds?

I hear this all the time on the <rogoff> page, but it's really a rather trite remark.

The ability to take what is complex and make it simple is the sign of an intelligent person with great understanding.

This is kind of like the old saying that any complex machine can be understood by identifying its components as either a lever or a wheel.

People who lack understanding and clarity are forever lost in a sea of apparent complexity, unable to ever find their way or see any truth or have any real understanding of an issue.

As Einstein said, <If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.>

People often resent the formation of an issue into binary parts because it forces them to answer in such a way that makes them uncomfortable. It takes away the wriggle room that pride requires in face saving emergencies.

Yes, it is true that not all issues can be broken down into binary choices, but concepts can be stacked categorically, increasing in broadness, until a binary set of positions can be juxtaposed and asked about.

I spend a lot of time reflecting on complex issues until they can rightly, honestly and accurately be understood in opposing, broad concepts.

You'll see that he fits perfectly in the Left Liberal position. Take a good look at this excellent page and scroll to the bottom before you hit the back button. >

Well, first of all, nothing I like more than to be able to have a dialogue with folks who disagree with me, yet can cogently express their ideas. I view continual learning as essential to good quality of life, and I won't learn by talking to an echo chamber.

Now I will proceed to address your post, but only on the points I want to talk about. I am a little selfish that way.

<Budget & Economy>

Budget??? A balanced budger is "Music to my ears". As much as I dislike Newt Gingrich, the hypocrisy of him on marriage fidelity, I have praised him for working with <MY MAN> Bill Clinton to <BALANCE THE BUDGET>.

If a balanced budget is liberalism to you, then I recant and proclaim myself an adherent, because this is my number one cause in the political arena.

In fact, if <diceman> were campaigning for a balanced budget I would consider voting for him!

<Civil Rights>

I don't consider this to be a liberal issue. If you want your rights, then by the golden rule you should be willing to see other people in society enjoy the same rights you want to enjoy.

The Golden Rule is embraced by Christianity and other religions across history. To me, it is self evident. If I can vote, you should be able to vote too. No matter your skin color.

If I can drink at this water fountain, you should be able too as well.

<Crime>

A hundred thousand more cops on the street. Remember that? I do. It was part of his campaign!

I agreed with Bill Clinton on that. I thought we needed more police on the streets back then. Today? More needed in some places, less in others. Take it case by case.

<Drugs>

"I smoked, but I didn't inhale"

Liar. You did too. That's the point of smoking MJ. I wished he would have admitted it. Anyway, clearly the Clintons watch the polls too much. Nowadays, if Bill was 30 years younger and running today, I suspect he would admit to inhaling. I do!

<Foreign Policy> Bombing the Balkans is hardly liberal!!! Google Bill Clinton bombing Kosovo.

<Technology> As Bill said in his farewell address, he needed to get ready for a job interview (humorously). He listed one of his accomplishments as "supervising Al Gore during his invention of the internet".

<Welfare & Poverty>

Welfare reform. FWIW, Bill infuriated some hardcore liberals with welfare reform, which is still lamented to this day in far left circles.

I could go on, but you basically spammed me with your list of a zillion topics. If you want further dialogue, I really think you should state why you think Bill Clinton was liberal on the topics I did not address.

Then we can take it from there.

<You'll see that he fits perfectly in the Left Liberal position>

1. Reparations
2. Feminism

You may or may not recall a few posts I made a week or two ago about a liberal guy I used to work with. He used to be a hardcore lefty but he announced to me, rather hilariously, that he was no longer a lefty. He's not a righty either, but more importantly he's not a lefty - and he voted for Trump.

His main reasons are:

1. Feminism
2. Tolerance for the Intolerance That is Islam

You call it Radical Feminism but he and I just call it feminism. I think all feminism is radical. I do not fall for the idea that the fundamental concept underlying feminism is merely <equality>. Equality is a dumping ground for all kinds of ridiculous ideas. Equality is always being misused to force certain points.

Imagine if it became law that all the men of a town had equal sexual access to all the wives in town, because, after all, we should all enjoy equality. Why should better looking or nicer, or more successful men be able to hog up all the nice looking women? That's not equal. The ugly guys, the guys that can't offer a woman a good living, the a - holes, all these guys should have their equality too.

We can misapply the word equality all over the place, including in feminism and gay marriage.

<reparations>

I agree with you all the way. Anyone with common sense should also agree and that's all that really needs to be said.

The difference between us is that I see this disdain of common sense coming from the liberals is applied to much more than feminism and reparations. I've found that liberalism rejects or misrepresents the foundational concepts underlying traditional wordviews and in order to be consistent with these misunderstood worldviews, liberalism ends up embracing a whole lot of nonsense.

I'm always digging deeper into the issues than most people because I'm trying to find categorical ways of understanding the worldviews, and expressing them or their incongruence in simple ways.

I think the most basic worldview is that of theism/atheism. I think this is base level. Everything stems logically or rationally from here. There is no other category that is more fundamental to a worldview. Therefore, I start from here and work toward unified philosophies as I go. The reverse works as well. If you realize that theism vs atheism is the foundation of any worldview, then you can begin on the edges and question your way back to this binary position.

I think that theism makes the most sense of the world we live in and that conservatism is more closely linked to this worldview than liberalism. This is why I think that liberalism is built on a lie: the idea that "God does not exist" is true or a rejection of "God exists".

Budget??? A balanced budger is "Music to my ears". As much as I dislike Newt Gingrich, the hypocrisy of him on marriage fidelity, I have praised him for working with <MY MAN> Bill Clinton to <BALANCE THE BUDGET>.

If a balanced budget is liberalism to you, then I recant and proclaim myself an adherent, because this is my number one cause in the political arena.

In fact, if <diceman> were campaigning for a balanced budget I would consider voting for him!

<Civil Rights>

I don't consider this to be a liberal issue. >

I'm not saying that those issues are liberal. I'm listing those issues as issues people can take a position on. Then, we can look at which positions they took on these issues and have a broader understanding of one's political leanings.

I got the list from the link in that post to ontheissues.org. If you open that links and scroll down, you'll see that I went one by one and copied all of the headline issues and put them in the post.

So I'm not saying that balanced budget is liberal. See what I mean? When you have time later, I highly recommend making some coffee and reading that link. It's very interesting. Anyone that enjoys politics would probably greatly enjoy ontheissues.org. It's an awesome website and it's a great place to go when deciding how to vote.

I've got it bookmarked for frequent visits.

I think you are close to being right. But the way you phrased it: <You'll see that he fits perfectly in the Left Liberal position.> just didn't resonate with me, and I cited the exceptions to your summation which lead me to the conclusion.

But enough about the 20th century, wouldn't you rather talk about today?

I also like your suggestion of getting coffee (it implies early morning, my favorite time of day) and digging in.

As for your acquaintance at work: <He's not a righty either, but more importantly he's not a lefty - and he voted for Trump.

His main reasons are:

1. Feminism
2. Tolerance for the Intolerance That is Islam >

He sounds like a pragmatic guy! After 911 I didn't get why my <male> friends, who are by no means hard-core leftists, opposed my suggestion of profiling Muslims to keep them out of the country.

I reminded them that Muslims were the ones who perpetrated 911, and they objected that this was profiling. Well, duh. Of course it is, but what other religion is hijacking planes and flying them into buildings full of innocent civilians?

But of course <AI> points out that there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

OK, do the math. How many Christians are there in the world? How many Hindi? And Atheist? And agonostic? Etcetera. Put them all together and you get about 6.0 billion <non Muslims> in the world, and about ZERO of them hijack planes and fly them into buildings full of innocent people.

Anyway, I could go on, blah blah blah, and so could you.

The bottom line is, San Bernardino happened for a reason. Do we want to honestly assess that reason, or do we want to bury our heads in the sand?

I almost voted for Trump. He won. Am I angry? Fearful? Sad? Despondent?

No, not at all. I am fine. I don't think Trump is evil or any of the other stuff I hear.

My Aunt, god love her, is going to board a bus at 2 AM in upstate NY, in the freaking cold, to go down to Washington, D.C., to protest at the inauguration of Donald J. Trump into the presidency!

Wow. I love my Aunt, but I think this is dumb. Trump won! Give him his due, and give his supporters their due, even if you opposed Trump.

The only reason I can see for going to D.C. to protest the inauguration is if it <isn't> Trump! Hell, he won, that's our system, and the people spoke. Now let's go forth and have a great 4 years, just as I did with Obama (twice).

And no matter his views, I like Obama the man. I think he's cool, calm, collected, and smart.

The bottom line is, San Bernardino happened for a reason. Do we want to honestly assess that reason, or do we want to bury our heads in the sand?>

People like your friends bury their heads in the sand because they are more afraid of being labelled "Islamophobes" than they are of seeing their country destroyed and their fellow citizens murdered in random acts of terror.

They are more afraid of being called "racist" (even though Islam isn't a race) than they are of seeing sharia law introduced into their society.

And why do Muslims want Sharia Law?

<Islamism promised to remove the spiritual confusion associated with individualism and seemingly unlimited choices.

I'll never forget sitting in the back of a Cairo cab with a random guy, who was getting high on hashish and going on about the need for shari'a, or Islamic law.

He wanted an Islamic state to force him to stop doing drugs because he didn't want to sin. But he didn't know how, at least not on his own.>

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/arti...

That's their mentality!

Hand outs? I think they actually require military personnel to do something to get a check, or at least I had too? Is getting paid to serve ones country no different than getting a check after sneaking into a country and entering illegally while doing nothing?

The highway department gets hand outs too?

Not that I agree with over half the things our military is involved in these days but a hand out implies something for nothing which isn't the case.

So Colonel Mortimer are you a Trump supporter as it turns out? I understand unlike Hillary he was against the Iraq invasion?

Wait he supports Israel's right to exist and not be thrown into the sea which Trumps the former Trump position never mind,

Get over what?

1)Dead/incarcerated blacks
2)Trillions in the toilet
3)Lies
4)Failure
5)Intolerance/hate

Why don't you get a set, and start definitively saying something, instead of hiding like a coward.

I'm going to start callin tga, "Abdel#2." Abdel is in the process of redefining "free speech" because his delusion wont allow him to be a liar.

Hand outs? I think they actually require military personnel to do something to get a check, or at least I had too?>

The irony is liberals hate the military.

...and it's the only thing in their
"house of worship" (the government) that works.

At least the bombs explode, planes fly, and ships don't sink.

The Romans were awful mean to my ancestors. Killed some, dragged others into slavery, and practiced cultural imperialism on them all. I think all persons of Italian descent owe me for that! C'mon, c'mon--pay up!>

You stopped at the Romans?

Get over what? >

What I said, of course. Here it is again:

<And no matter his views, I like Obama the man. I think he's cool, calm, collected, and smart. >

Doesn't make me a liberal, anymore than liking George Clooney would make me a liberal.

Maybe if I quote Trump you will understand. When asked about his association with the Clintons, what did he say?

<I get along with people>

I know he said it - I watched the debates. Guess what? I get along with people too!

As Einstein said, <If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.>>

Hmmm,

I skipped over this post a couple of days ago. Lots going on.

The Romans were awful mean to my ancestors. Killed some, dragged others into slavery, and practiced cultural imperialism on them all. I think all persons of Italian descent owe me for that! C'mon, c'mon--pay up!>

Exactly! What have the Romans ever done for us???

I see a spectrum of abrasiveness.

(rim shot).

Liberals deal with what they want, what they wish, how things would be if only this or that, and conservatives deal with reality.

If you want proof, try discussing the FMLA with a member of each group. I can tell you what each side will say:

Liberal: If it worked like it's supposed to, it would be very good.

FMLA is a lot like Unemployment Insurance. But I digress.

The only way to evaluate if something works or not, is to define what it means for it to "work".

I think most people would say something works if it mostly achieves the intended result at a reasonably close to predicted cost. As for your example, was the AC working when you bought it? If not, did you get a discounted price in compensation? Were you only looking for something to get you from home to work 3 miles away? All those questions and others would impact the answer.

In that regard, I think the FMLA was an unmitigated disaster, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a Republican Congress address it.

Well, the "I" in UI stands for insurance.

I support UI. It's kind of like "comp & collision" auto insurance.

UI is insurance against getting laid off by your employer. In the event it happens, the person suffering the lose is paid a defined benefit.

Whereas the purpose of comp & collision is to provide a monetary benefit to be used for repairing the car or obtaining a new car, the UI benefit is to be used for household expenses while the unemployed person looks for new employment.

Typically in America it is paid for a six month duration. In special circumstances, such as the Great Recession, it is extended.

I was laid off by my employer during the Great Recession, and I needed the insurance benefit to help cover my household expenses. It was not enough, and I wound up depleting my savings, but at least I didn't become homeless!

The layoff was involuntary - I wanted my job! It was a great job and I enjoyed it immensely.

The UI benefit was much much lower than my salary, so <of course> I did NOT want to stay on UI my entire life (and it wasn't an option). But at least the UI benefit was enough for me to get by, and get groceries, until I found another job.

To me, getting rid of UI makes about as much sense as outlawing comp & collision insurance.

It is not "paying someone to be out of work". If it were, we would pay it to people who never had jobs in the first place. But we don't - we pay it to people who work for a living and who want to keep their jobs, and who want new jobs when they lose the old one. That is why most states make UI recipients document and prove that they are actively seeking work.