Since you are not from the US and to help you put this into perspective, I pointed out that religion is much less "public policy" in the US than it is in Europe, both according to party platforms and according to spending.
Well this maybe one of those things were the numbers don't tell the full story.
First we must be careful when we use "Europe" as an example. When most people refer to "Europe", especially as an example of how things can be done better, they refer to North Western Europe (ie Germany, France, Benelux, Scandanavia, UK & Ireland etc). These countries are similar in wealth to the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and have a "Western Culture" so make suitable comparisons.
I only raise this because every other time this has been raised, someone will say, "well yeah America is better than Romania!"
I don't know what these countries spend on religion, but having been to most of them, I know it is as not important as some parts of the US if you don't go along with it.
There have been many Athiest leaders in many countries, but 53% of Americans say they would never vote for one, even if they are the most qualified candidate. That is barbaric, and not progressive using any definition of the word.
and a Christian attitude ("temperance, compassion and charity")
That's not a Christian attitude. Christians historically have done far worse than anything you claim against "Progressivism". So if you are to be consistent you should hate them even more.
progressivism seeks to achieve progress through political means and majority vote,
Well that's how politics should work shouldn't it?
and that doesn't work
It is precisely how democracy works. Everyone has an opinion, the opinion with the most support wins.
It fails in the same way as socialism and theocracies fail to lead to generous, temperate, compassionate, and charitable societies.
Theocracies fail because it is based on pure lies.
Socialism works, it is working in countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand etc. The 1950's communist version of socialism didn't work, but that's not the only model of socialism.
No, it isn't at all equivalent. In the late 19th century...
So you distaste for progressiveness (progressivism?) is based on the 19th century version? Do you also base your geography on the 19th century version? Your medical standards? Your treatment of women or other races?
Everyone got it wrong in the 19th century, that's the beauty of progress, we all learn from our mistakes. I can't speak for the 19th century, but I know all about the 21st century. Some people want to take us forward, while others (usually those with the money and power) want to keep us where we are. I prefer to move forward, And I think most people would agree.
Progress (like generosity, temperance, charity, and compassion) is an excellent value for individuals to hold, but you can't successfully impose it through government policy.
Of course it can. Because if you look on those OECD studies done on things like life expectancy, quality of life, access to health and education, social mobility, lowest corruption, most of them always have the same countries at the top of the list (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand). See the pattern there?
I said I did research and pulled from a variety of sources. It's you who is unwilling to research anything and reflexively forming an opinion.
You make the claims, you provide the citations. I try to form my opinions on facts, not other opinions. So if you can provide something more concrete than "The News" (And I'm guessing based on this exchange that your source is probably Fox News?), maybe we can make some progress here.
Remain blinkered.
Yes, blinkered to ignorance and baseless opinions.
doctors really don't like helping people, they just want your money
The first time you are turned away from a hospital while injured and in pain, because you cannot afford the copay on your worthless Obombercare "insurance", you will understand the truth of this statement.
Only because of the stupid medical situation in the US.
In my country, the govt (taxpayers) foot the bill, so no-one gets turned away. Taxpayers are happy with this outcome because we prefer our countrymen who are less fortunate than us to enjoy a basic level of health. Same goes for education.
America look like barbaric by comparison.
Even in single payer countries, though, I would be hesitant to ascribe altruistic motivations to doctors. They may want to help people, but people are complex and even when money isn't a primary motivator, doctors are people and have complex motivations which include ego-driven motivations which may transcend the desire to help people.
Of course, which is easily fixed by independent review panels.
The worst case here is that lots of people get cured of illness, and every now and again a few rogue doctors might scam the system for a few extra dollars.
The alternative is all the poor people get sick and lose their jobs and homes, breaking up families and creating a homeless epidemic. This contributes to the urban decay and crime and has numerous negative roll-on effects across the wider society.
I know which sounds like the least worst option, and I'm happy to contribute a little extra for it.
Some are facts, some are opinions, but I look at a wide variety of sources, do research, and read beyond the headlines. That you're still defending your position tells me you want to remain blinkered.
Yes blinkered to your baseless opinion. Such as your examples above, you haven't provided actual references or specific events but vague headlines that make you angry. Headlines are designed to evoke an emotional response, if you take one of those examples above and dig into the detail, you probably find there's no great conspiracy to eat you babies, just people who saw an issue and thought they had a solution.
Based on your view, I could just completely ignore the news and pretend wars on not happening, for example, or pretty much nothing is happening besides what I directly experience.
Or maybe when you could read/watch the news, instead of forming you opinion right there and then, maybe do a little research to see how much the headline matches the facts.
You realise you are sounded like a loony right now?
Abraham Lincoln had slaves so all Republicans love slavery. This is the intellectual equivalent of your argument.
Progressive just mean to make progress, as in people who look for solutions, and don't fear change. You know like when someone said once, 'hey women shouldn't be treated like second class citizens', the first people to accept this mindset and challenge the established views were those who were progressive.
So maybe it means something different where you live, but this is what I mean. Be prepared to question authority, not for the sake of complaining, but because you have a better way, and you can demonstrate you opinion based on facts and reason. That is how progress happens.
Whatever it is you reading or watching, take a break. It's making you crazy.
Sarcasm detector broken?
The GP, seems to have jumped from research concept to lack of real world viability so is belittling the research.
This may or may not end up with a real world application, but that doesn't automatically discredit the effort, or the fact that it may lead to some thing slightly different but related. The GP's comment about the Engineers just shaking their head is ignorant, yet still manages +5. Seriously, what fucking dumb arse mods are polluting this place?
The news is shit actually happening. I suggest you stop blinkering yourself to reality just because you didn't personally experience it or because it disagrees with your political leanings.
The News is an opinion of what is happening. Depending of which news channel you watch you will get different opinions.
The fact that you are still defending this position explains a lot.
If something is real then send links to court transcripts, or actual filed complaints and we can discuss. You might be shocked to learn there's more to it than a news headline. Or maybe you are happy to be ignorant and prefer the News version of truth to the actual information?
I pointed out that economic freedom is important for sustained, long term economic growth and for political freedoms, not that it is sufficient.
No, your quote was "more economic freedom and smaller government", and in case you were wondering, the word 'and' actually means something.
To bring this back to your original point "So we can look at places like San Francisco and California to see what the long term effect of Democratic progressive government is." What exactly is that? I see blue states tend to be doing better than red states economically, so maybe you could clarify?
ie You are implying that all the red states should all being doing much better than all the states, since their economic policy is better. Since this is not the case, something must be wrong with your theory?
If you think you can prove economic relationships by cherry-picking some examples, you are an idiot, and the four examples you cited don't even support your point, such as it is.
From your own link: " our results do not imply that government must shrink for growth to increase." Did you even read it? It doesn't sound like it...
Now back to the original point, If liberal policies are so evil, how is Californian and New York among the richest economies in the US? How does you hypothesis explain this?
How is Qatar so wealthy despite an oppressive "unfree" political regime?
Do you think maybe there might be more to it than catch phrase slogans such as Freedom and Small Government for all!?
There's a huge difference between taking care of the truly mentally defective and providing taxpayer funded hospitalization for a skier who jumps off cliffs because "Hey, I don't have to pay." When people are allowed not to bear the consequences of their actions they will act irresponsibly; that's the basis of communism and it should be minimized.
As for the progressive movement, it has always been batshit crazy. Progressives used to support eugenics, racial segregation, trade barriers, and various forms of central planning. If anything, progressives have mellowed out a little: at least they aren't sterilizing, lobotomizing, or killing people anymore.
No, those are actual "progressive" values. I can't help you if you aren't paying attention to the news and are dismissive of things actually happening in the real world.
Dude the "real world" and "the news" are vastly different things. I suggest you stop watching TV and get out more. This could be the root cause of your concerns.
Wrong and you know it. Treatment is available for people who seek it.
Unless you're a nutcase and a not aware you have a problem. Or you do, but you have no money to get it fixed.
The problem is that unless a person is a danger to themself or someone else, the law forbids forced treatment of any kind. Just being homeless whackos walking around on the street is not grounds to incarcerate them.
How do they get to be homeless whackos in the first place? A lot of these issue can be identified before they get to this stage, if you have easily available social and medical services.
There's the question of incentives and unintended consequences.
The doctor who works for the state/institution may have the incentive to keep people institutionalized because the more people who are in the institution, the more money it gets and the more authority and prestige the doctors have working in a large institution.
Yes, the good old conspiracy theory, doctors really don't like helping people, they just want your money.
It might sound scary if we didn't already have such systems in place in lots of other countries, where the results speak for themselves.
and government funding will never be adequate to cover it
Govt funding is never enough to make the world perfect, but we know from international comparison is a base level of state funded health and education for all citizens gives better results overall than none.
Yes this costs money, but all good things do. The ultimate decision is if you prefer a nicer society that comes at a slightly higher cost, or a homeless people defecating on your streets , but you save a few pennies each year in taxes.
The "progressive" left are hypocrites, authoritarian, and overall harmful to society. They're the useful idiots of the modern era.
Sounds like you label anything you don't like the sound of as "progressive", thus making it a foregone conclusion.
And you didn't actually give any real examples there, just some vague media headlines that are designed to invoke an emotional response, and boy did you get sucked in.
This is precisely what ideology is, and why it is so dangerous. You get fed a story and you get angry. There is no analysis, no investigation, or reasoned discussion, just hate.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you are not from the US and to help you put this into perspective, I pointed out that religion is much less "public policy" in the US than it is in Europe, both according to party platforms and according to spending.
Well this maybe one of those things were the numbers don't tell the full story.
First we must be careful when we use "Europe" as an example. When most people refer to "Europe", especially as an example of how things can be done better, they refer to North Western Europe (ie Germany, France, Benelux, Scandanavia, UK & Ireland etc). These countries are similar in wealth to the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and have a "Western Culture" so make suitable comparisons.
I only raise this because every other time this has been raised, someone will say, "well yeah America is better than Romania!"
I don't know what these countries spend on religion, but having been to most of them, I know it is as not important as some parts of the US if you don't go along with it.
There have been many Athiest leaders in many countries, but 53% of Americans say they would never vote for one, even if they are the most qualified candidate. That is barbaric, and not progressive using any definition of the word.
I'm simply pointing out that "Democratic and progressive policies don't work as promised" without saying anything about Republican policies.
You're playing with words. Some policies fail (on both sides), but the general trend is upwards but over the long term.
and a Christian attitude ("temperance, compassion and charity")
That's not a Christian attitude. Christians historically have done far worse than anything you claim against "Progressivism". So if you are to be consistent you should hate them even more.
progressivism seeks to achieve progress through political means and majority vote,
Well that's how politics should work shouldn't it?
and that doesn't work
It is precisely how democracy works. Everyone has an opinion, the opinion with the most support wins.
It fails in the same way as socialism and theocracies fail to lead to generous, temperate, compassionate, and charitable societies.
Theocracies fail because it is based on pure lies.
Socialism works, it is working in countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand etc. The 1950's communist version of socialism didn't work, but that's not the only model of socialism.
No, it isn't at all equivalent. In the late 19th century...
So you distaste for progressiveness (progressivism?) is based on the 19th century version? Do you also base your geography on the 19th century version? Your medical standards? Your treatment of women or other races?
Everyone got it wrong in the 19th century, that's the beauty of progress, we all learn from our mistakes. I can't speak for the 19th century, but I know all about the 21st century. Some people want to take us forward, while others (usually those with the money and power) want to keep us where we are. I prefer to move forward, And I think most people would agree.
Progress (like generosity, temperance, charity, and compassion) is an excellent value for individuals to hold, but you can't successfully impose it through government policy.
Of course it can. Because if you look on those OECD studies done on things like life expectancy, quality of life, access to health and education, social mobility, lowest corruption, most of them always have the same countries at the top of the list (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand). See the pattern there?
Dude, your reality is Fox News. Come back when you're off the kool-aid.
I said I did research and pulled from a variety of sources. It's you who is unwilling to research anything and reflexively forming an opinion. You make the claims, you provide the citations. I try to form my opinions on facts, not other opinions. So if you can provide something more concrete than "The News" (And I'm guessing based on this exchange that your source is probably Fox News?), maybe we can make some progress here.
Remain blinkered.
Yes, blinkered to ignorance and baseless opinions.
doctors really don't like helping people, they just want your money
The first time you are turned away from a hospital while injured and in pain, because you cannot afford the copay on your worthless Obombercare "insurance", you will understand the truth of this statement.
Only because of the stupid medical situation in the US.
In my country, the govt (taxpayers) foot the bill, so no-one gets turned away. Taxpayers are happy with this outcome because we prefer our countrymen who are less fortunate than us to enjoy a basic level of health. Same goes for education.
America look like barbaric by comparison.
Maybe "relatively trivial"?
The point was, the R&D is the harder part of the equation, so engineers shouldn't be scoffing at the results
Even in single payer countries, though, I would be hesitant to ascribe altruistic motivations to doctors. They may want to help people, but people are complex and even when money isn't a primary motivator, doctors are people and have complex motivations which include ego-driven motivations which may transcend the desire to help people.
Of course, which is easily fixed by independent review panels.
The worst case here is that lots of people get cured of illness, and every now and again a few rogue doctors might scam the system for a few extra dollars.
The alternative is all the poor people get sick and lose their jobs and homes, breaking up families and creating a homeless epidemic. This contributes to the urban decay and crime and has numerous negative roll-on effects across the wider society.
I know which sounds like the least worst option, and I'm happy to contribute a little extra for it.
Some are facts, some are opinions, but I look at a wide variety of sources, do research, and read beyond the headlines. That you're still defending your position tells me you want to remain blinkered.
Yes blinkered to your baseless opinion. Such as your examples above, you haven't provided actual references or specific events but vague headlines that make you angry. Headlines are designed to evoke an emotional response, if you take one of those examples above and dig into the detail, you probably find there's no great conspiracy to eat you babies, just people who saw an issue and thought they had a solution.
Based on your view, I could just completely ignore the news and pretend wars on not happening, for example, or pretty much nothing is happening besides what I directly experience.
Or maybe when you could read/watch the news, instead of forming you opinion right there and then, maybe do a little research to see how much the headline matches the facts.
You realise you are sounded like a loony right now?
Abraham Lincoln had slaves so all Republicans love slavery. This is the intellectual equivalent of your argument.
Progressive just mean to make progress, as in people who look for solutions, and don't fear change. You know like when someone said once, 'hey women shouldn't be treated like second class citizens', the first people to accept this mindset and challenge the established views were those who were progressive.
So maybe it means something different where you live, but this is what I mean. Be prepared to question authority, not for the sake of complaining, but because you have a better way, and you can demonstrate you opinion based on facts and reason. That is how progress happens. Whatever it is you reading or watching, take a break. It's making you crazy.
Sarcasm detector broken?
The GP, seems to have jumped from research concept to lack of real world viability so is belittling the research.
This may or may not end up with a real world application, but that doesn't automatically discredit the effort, or the fact that it may lead to some thing slightly different but related. The GP's comment about the Engineers just shaking their head is ignorant, yet still manages +5. Seriously, what fucking dumb arse mods are polluting this place?
The news is shit actually happening. I suggest you stop blinkering yourself to reality just because you didn't personally experience it or because it disagrees with your political leanings.
The News is an opinion of what is happening. Depending of which news channel you watch you will get different opinions.
The fact that you are still defending this position explains a lot.
If something is real then send links to court transcripts, or actual filed complaints and we can discuss. You might be shocked to learn there's more to it than a news headline. Or maybe you are happy to be ignorant and prefer the News version of truth to the actual information?
I pointed out that economic freedom is important for sustained, long term economic growth and for political freedoms, not that it is sufficient.
No, your quote was "more economic freedom and smaller government", and in case you were wondering, the word 'and' actually means something.
To bring this back to your original point "So we can look at places like San Francisco and California to see what the long term effect of Democratic progressive government is." What exactly is that? I see blue states tend to be doing better than red states economically, so maybe you could clarify?
ie You are implying that all the red states should all being doing much better than all the states, since their economic policy is better. Since this is not the case, something must be wrong with your theory?
Yet "believing in magic fairies" is much more public policy in Europe than in the US,
Interesting. What is your point?
Religious nutters have mostly lost the power to drain your wallet. Progressives base their lives on draining your wallet.
Money is all you care about?
We may as well give up then. If there's one sure fire way to make new things happen it's by complaining about it and giving up....
If you think you can prove economic relationships by cherry-picking some examples, you are an idiot, and the four examples you cited don't even support your point, such as it is.
From your own link: " our results do not imply that government must shrink for growth to increase." Did you even read it? It doesn't sound like it...
Now back to the original point, If liberal policies are so evil, how is Californian and New York among the richest economies in the US? How does you hypothesis explain this?
How is Qatar so wealthy despite an oppressive "unfree" political regime?
Do you think maybe there might be more to it than catch phrase slogans such as Freedom and Small Government for all!?
There's a huge difference between taking care of the truly mentally defective and providing taxpayer funded hospitalization for a skier who jumps off cliffs because "Hey, I don't have to pay." When people are allowed not to bear the consequences of their actions they will act irresponsibly; that's the basis of communism and it should be minimized.
Why?
As for the progressive movement, it has always been batshit crazy. Progressives used to support eugenics, racial segregation, trade barriers, and various forms of central planning. If anything, progressives have mellowed out a little: at least they aren't sterilizing, lobotomizing, or killing people anymore.
Wow. You can't make this shit up...
When you keep quoting 'the news" as your source of truth you have issues.
No, those are actual "progressive" values. I can't help you if you aren't paying attention to the news and are dismissive of things actually happening in the real world.
Dude the "real world" and "the news" are vastly different things. I suggest you stop watching TV and get out more. This could be the root cause of your concerns.
Wrong and you know it. Treatment is available for people who seek it.
Unless you're a nutcase and a not aware you have a problem. Or you do, but you have no money to get it fixed.
The problem is that unless a person is a danger to themself or someone else, the law forbids forced treatment of any kind. Just being homeless whackos walking around on the street is not grounds to incarcerate them.
How do they get to be homeless whackos in the first place? A lot of these issue can be identified before they get to this stage, if you have easily available social and medical services.
There's the question of incentives and unintended consequences.
The doctor who works for the state/institution may have the incentive to keep people institutionalized because the more people who are in the institution, the more money it gets and the more authority and prestige the doctors have working in a large institution.
Yes, the good old conspiracy theory, doctors really don't like helping people, they just want your money.
It might sound scary if we didn't already have such systems in place in lots of other countries, where the results speak for themselves.
and government funding will never be adequate to cover it
Govt funding is never enough to make the world perfect, but we know from international comparison is a base level of state funded health and education for all citizens gives better results overall than none.
Yes this costs money, but all good things do. The ultimate decision is if you prefer a nicer society that comes at a slightly higher cost, or a homeless people defecating on your streets , but you save a few pennies each year in taxes.
The "progressive" left are hypocrites, authoritarian, and overall harmful to society. They're the useful idiots of the modern era.
Sounds like you label anything you don't like the sound of as "progressive", thus making it a foregone conclusion.
And you didn't actually give any real examples there, just some vague media headlines that are designed to invoke an emotional response, and boy did you get sucked in.
This is precisely what ideology is, and why it is so dangerous. You get fed a story and you get angry. There is no analysis, no investigation, or reasoned discussion, just hate.
I used to worry about the religious nutters, politically, but these days I'm more worried about the "progressive" nutters.
Why?