Shared publicly  - 
Fascinating. When people are asked to explain their views, and find out they can't, they become more moderate. 
Paweł Chyl's profile photoJames Trimbee's profile photoEduardo Yeh's profile photoAmit Sheth's profile photo
Zen Locust
I find that all the time and it was very clearly illustrated on CNBC last week with Chris Mathews interviewing a the woman that called President Obama a communist. She couldn't or wouldn't explain herself when he asked her simply why she said that/felt that.
BLUSH - I've already learned this lesson, +Tim O'Reilly.  :-)
Still nice to read an explanation, thanks for sharing.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
I hate to admit it, but this explains me.
Clearly +Al Middleton speaks only for the sunshine wing of the political spectrum and has a strong bias against pharmaceutical companies who make life-saving antibiotics.  :p
Okey-dokes. Let us be partisan -- in extending kindness, caring and then understanding to each other, every day. OK?
Ha. minus confrontation, defending an untenable concept becomes ... ridiculous?
What happens when a partisan is able to explain exactly and accurately why he is for or against a policy? 
+Craig Froehle Then you fall in that extreme rare minority class who actually understand what they stand for
It drives me nuts when people are like this. You ask about something and the only response you get is "thats just what i believe and its my right to do so".

My opinion is if your going to have an opinion, have a why as well. Even if your wrong, or im wrong whichever, express it. And if some can explain why, listen to them. Even if you disagree you'll learn something. Too many people allow their opinions to be based on pure emotional response instead of reasoned critical thinking. 
+Jeremy Spradlin The problem with this is that many, many people think that their opinions are indisputable fact.  And if you dare challenge them on it, you are a moron/infidel/socialist.
Fine article...which really displays a bigger issue in the US-at-large. People of serious intellect, that challenge themselves and their positions, are hard to find, primarily because those in power are paid to have a position that they must attempt justifying through a particular prism (Democrat, Republican), and people are taught to either trust their representatives or gracefully bow to them.

If we were rigorously taught the Constitution throughout grade school, this would be a different country.

Of course, this isn't the case, since those in power (behind the curtain) have much to lose in reminding the people of their true power. Thus division is cast through the media, those in power remain (really, two Bush presidents...father and ten years?), and the people hold tight to views that are over-complex and destined for confusion. 

The mere fact that many voters believe that we live in a Democracy is disappointing enough. The fact is that "Democracy" is mob-rule, and we do not live in that political spectrum. We live in a "CONSTITUTIONAL Republic"...our orders come from the Constitution, which should not be infringed upon... The more we infringe (Drug Wars, Wars of Aggression, denying Gay Rights, the privately owned Federal Reserve System, denying a FAMILY'S Right to choose to abort, selecting our Representatives based on their belief system, allowing the Federal Government to have more power than the States), the less we are the country that the founders intended.

It's quite simple to me: READ THE CONSTITUTION... That's probably the best education for any American right now...
If you have your mind made up and are given the time, I've found that a thought process can fill in more and more blanks to support a position very thoroughly. Even a young adult has lived long enough to have accumulated lots of evidence which can be selectively recalled when it is useful to an argument.
I think it comes from the fact that we live in a sound bite world which turns are thinking into bumper sticker sayings. If that makes any sense. I find if you ask someone to explain their political philosophy all I get back are sound bites for the most part or their view on an issue or person and not a philosophy. I am not being a snob for I am not as smart as many here on Google but, I am smart enough to know a sound bite is not a view and a view is not a philosophy.  
I fmade up mind have u der stuff u inthink the end let us accomodate the je uder let's make it possible to unthink original uncomploshment the random unf unf unf then end.  <random spam link>
+Daniel Blanke I fear that it isn't an "environment" is an "agenda"... There's no way this is coincidental. Out of the people you know, who WANTS to be less informed...and thus ALWAYS at the short-end of the stick? 
+Craig Froehle Then you would be helping to prove the legitimacy of your views by using logic instead of partisan rhetoric. Partisanship generates energy, but logic provides purpose.
+Dusty Bradshaw Can you explain how Obama's position (which isn't far from Romney from what I observe) hurts business?

FTR: I'm voting for Gary Johnson, so I could care less about either of the establishment candidates on the ballot...
+Zen Locust I'll explain for you. Chris Matthews is a partisan hack. He only asks hard questions to people who don't support his ultra-liberal world view. He also seeks out people who have no chance of defending themselves when he is going to lambast them. Why did that woman call Obama a communist? I will never know but I can posit some theories. In communism one central tenet is level the pay structure for everyone. Of course this just makes everybody just as poor as their neighbor and gives disincentives to taking on responsibility. Barack Obama routinely wants to raise taxes on the "Rich" so they can "Pay their fair share". Never mind that we already have a progressive tax structure. He also wants to take away the incentives of being successful so everybody can be just as poor as one another. This is probably why she called him a communist. Just a theory.
Yeah, but this assumes that the person in question is even trying for a rational argument. I have family members, for example, who will just respond with ad hominems when asked to defend their positions. Not much you can do there.
Pit Tan
16 trillion bucks and growing and my f king health insurance just went up 20 bucks a week. the entire political system is corrupt. john adams is rolling over his grave.
Works doesn't  it? Many ignorant people believe what they have been told
This is a great article. Specifically the following: "We should demand that Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney explain how in addition to why. And the last and best shot we'll have at hearing these "hows" will come tomorrow evening, in the final presidential debate. We will all be served if Bob Schieffer, the chief Washington correspondent for CBS News and moderator for Monday's debate, pushes both men to explain, not just assert." It has always bothered me that politicians toss these barbed statements back and forth just to keep the public occupied. And also that we, the public, allow ourselves to be corralled this way. We deserve better, but that doesn't mean we don't have to work for it.
Some people with the best character are the worst with memory and words so they're made to look bad all the time. Cruel world
+John Mark Walker Do you know what the fallacy of anecdotal evidence is? You just did it. Every body can come up with an example of some idiot saying something dumb to support or oppose anything. The point here that this article misses is that there ARE solid arguments on either side of the fence and just because the public is seriously confused about the exact facts doesn't mean that there not a divide in ideas about how policy should be applied.
It's because left vs right is irreconcilable today. 235 years ago left meant more laws and right meant fewer. Today we have Pat Robertson's moral majority and the left's socialist liberals who 'claim' to be for civil liberties. Everyone's confused!
It's obvious people are getting dumber, but let's not allow them to hijack terms like left vs right or liberal vs conservative. 
+Bryan Sheasby yes, some people respond to arguments and some don't. I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. If your point is that I don't have statistical evidence to show that X percentage of people don't respond to or even try to form an actual argument, then yes, guilty as charged. 
What is it with everyone and fox news stop watching MSNBC ABC CNN and especially the view and look things up for urselves 
Actually unemployment is up because since BO took office the BLS stopped reporting changes in the previous month's Seasonally Adjusted numbers and they also started changing the formula monthly. The actual job numbers are nowhere near as good as when BO took office. Nevermind people who have been unemployed so long they are not counted anymore in either U-3 OR U-6 numbers.
I rely dislike politics. The honesty is gone, the good intention not there, and all people focus on are these trigger words sold to you by media. For example the fallowing.. Obabmacare, Terrorist, Insurgent, Freedom, America, Socialist, so on and on. These are just words that have been fed to you and over, so you don't have to actually think any more, someone did that for you, and you just recite the shit the placed in you brain
Actually, partisans remain as partisans in core thinking. They continue with their explanations on that behalf in private. it is in public that they want to reveal that aspect. It is more so, if you want support from people who are not necessarily like-minded in the particular issues of partisan thinking. So, if you feel that a person is partisan in some sense, you have no way to know of any change in that person and this is a charitable view of that person.
Bryan, are you partisan? How do you know the SA numbers are being reported differently? What is the changed formula, and why is it any less accurate than the previously used formula? How do you support the statement that "the numbers (what are they?) are nowhere near as good as when Pres. Obama took office"? Where are the numbers for those who are no longer counted? How many are now out of the count due to death, accident, or retirement? Please explain.
Absolutely, but if I want to publish research, in my field it always contains literature reviews and data, there are ways to prove it is tenable, or throw it in the trash. This is part of the scientific method. 
I find the opposite is true when I'm asked to explain why I think the way I do.

I have to tone myself down so I don't look crazy
You know I have noticed this with my Republican friends when we engage in a civil conversation.
If you don't like partisianship, please explain why you don't like Gary Johnson!?! 
+Jayson Murdock please, consider me an innocent, opinion-free student of economics, and explain why you think your proposal would help.
LOL considering that Tim O'Reilly's views tend to be real partisan (liberal/progressive/democrat) in nature.
looks like a great article, unfortunately have work to get done.
"Fascinating. When people are asked to explain their views, and find out they can't, they become more moderate." ... this is why I really do try to discuss things with those who have opposing stances. I really want to understand the viewpoint of conservatives. Lately though, the straightforward questions I ask are answered with either silence or some useless ad hominem attack. :(
Tim O'Reilly...purveyor of media lies and king of the uneducated masses. It's amazing how much he will push the false narrative to such an extreme. But I would be willing to bet that, despite his amazing visionary prowess, he would never throw his hat into the ring to run for any political office to make put his vision under massive scrutiny.

I dare you to do it, Tim.

He knows, like any other spinster, that their vision isn't really a vision, but an amalgamation of popular opinions meant to seduce the masses into believeing what he wants you to believe. But I would be just as sure that no matter the outcome, he has already started hedging his bets based on whatever outcome comes to pass. It is doubtful he would ever give such knowledge to the "lower class" to help them work their way out of the cave. He needs them to believe the image on the cave wall, so that they won't climb out of the cave.
Speaking of... it's +Joe Adams , who failed to answer the questions I asked the last time I ran into him. This time though, he seems to be on some incoherent ramble. (I note that he can't even remember +Tim O'Reilly's name long enough to finish reading the post and then respond to it.)
Actually they begin to swear a lot "Libtard" is popular. :)
+Tim O'Reilly its not just partisans; a lot of prejucides and biases head towards the moderate benches when openly challenged on rationality.
Can we just go back to scantily clad beautiful women?
whenever he fill or get some exp by himself at that time he know that and fill and realise fact that thus types of activity is involved in our life#20
+Tim O'Reilly thanks for posting. And the miss mash of comments are wonderful and seems to prove a point. To my dismay and am disheartened by the speckdum of these comments. G+ is losing my interest, sad to say.
Most people confuse feelings (unthinking gut reactions) with actual opinions. Opinions have a basis.
A third presidential debate? Cripes, how many frigging presidential debates do you Americans need? :P
They cant decide if a boy or girl, whick way do i go.
It might be true that when "people" are asked to explain (not justify) a view, they tend to review that view more thoroughly against known facts. Perhaps politicians are a different species.  Just read this book review  In examining Ronald Reagan's history of communist witch hunt against declassified FBI records and other documents, the book inevitably touched J. Edgar Hoover's puppeteering in the matter.  I suspect that both men were asked to explain their views many times in their public lives; at least one of them had full access to all field reports (from hard working agents under the misguided premise).  Did any of these facts change their views?

Seth Rosenfeld's book is refreshing.
Looks like I missed an interesting discussion after my initial post... Found myself in what I thought was a Conservative thread, only to find many neo-conservatives with no true understanding of how the world works. 

Again, it is the lack of self-education and self-challenging that has lead to this...but again, this is intentional. And, at this point, once they finally succeed at censoring the internet...well...yeah...

Funny how the internet, with all of it's different contributors, is treated less trustworthy than the main stream media with only three or four contributors?

You can cross-reference things you find on the internet...your only cross-check of television is a sister station? 

The most amazing thing to me is that people have accepted the idea that less is more:

-Less Information
-Less sources of information
-Less societal support

Use your brains, folks... The less-intelligent, bought off parrots are winning... You wanna lose to a parrot?
I find this is the case with Christianity and Islam in the states. I am a Christian apologist and when I ask someone why they believe what they believe they rarely can defend it logically.
That theory may hold true for some, but not for me. I have already explained my positions to myself, so I have no problem explaining them to others. And when people ask, it does not make me more moderate.
This is a call for reform
Lets fix the process for elections. If the process is skewed, which I believe it is. Lets fix it...
A short list of suggested reforms...
- National elections should be decided by popular vote
- Get all private funding out of politics
- Equal time or equal funding spread out to top 5 (or whatever the number) candidates or parties. Each network or print source gives equal time to those running for ads and positions.
- A very clear position on specific topics by each candidate
- State elections broken down by city, county and state, not arranged districts

A two party system with private funding by its very nature abuses the system.
#politics #republicans #debates #reform

In the end, it's about perceived threat to their identity,belief,well-being from one side or the other. It is heavily emotional and instinctive rather than critical and rational thinking but then for majority, that's how decisions are made in life issues also. Why should we expect anything else in voting +Tim O'Reilly ? Thanks for sharing..
It's always funny when people (like +Joe Adams above) frame their own personal opinions as fact.
Thats sooo cool its like weirs though a man and a woMan attached?????
Thisi s a bunch of nonsense, and not because it's wrong. Until the Republican party comes into the current century on social issues I couldn't care less on what they have to say about anything. Sure, a lot of people don't understand today's politics, but it's not because they're stupid. It's because things have become so polarized that they're able to pick a side without finding out more than what's on the surface. Until the Republicans move away from the religious anti-science movement, we'll never be able to actually care about policies. It's ultra-conservative vs. the rest of us. After that you add those that go to church when it's convenient and they want to make up for their lack of church consistency by voting right wing. Until we get religion out of politics there will consistently be a lack of political reality because it simply doesn't matter. It's us vs. imaginary Jesus. GIVE ME AN ATHEIST REPUBLICAN THAT IS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAT KNOWS HIS HISTORY AND PARTY AND I'LL CAMPAIGN FOR HIM (as will a lot of us bleeding hearts)  
Our systems turned into a joke...  like watching little league football...
I don't know. They're talking about in this article what happens when you listen to the two main presidential candidates, and using that as an example. Of course their plans may not work, but if you're locked into supporting one of these two, you'll not see that. This is precisely why Democratic and Republican candidates only agree to debates so long as there are no third party candidates and that they get the questions in advance. If the debate were opened up, people would see that the choice wasn't some binary thing, but actually that there are third and fourth ways of doing things.
My opinion on everything is simply non-aggression.
It was Winston Churchill who said the best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
The article applies only to people who don't base their "views" on fundamental principles. The problem is them most people don't. Most base their "views" on what will benefit themselves on the short term. For example, "take from the rich and give to me." Yes, that may benefit you in the short term, but in the long term it will end the incredible prosperity that we take for granted today.
Does that mean that those of us who can explain our views completely aren't partisan? Or just that we're not the ones being dicks on national television?

Your vaguely political discourse is hilarious.

You talk about fundamental principles and just state ideas without a factual basis as facts.
+Adam Gleason your post is in fact true to a good economic basis.....on the other hand, these giants of industry and service have stepped well beyond that of fair or competitive. Giants like Apple and Mobil/Exxon now use their power to jack up prices, rape their customers and squash out any chance of competition. Have you ever looked into Apples profit margin on a iPhone?....or what Exxon makes on a gallon of gas? They both love that the average Joe will still rationalize this for them, and much like this worlds powers, they will continue on with their business as usual mindset.
When I became involved with lobbying, spending real money and putting serious time into it, it changed my attitude about political parties. I am very much on the right, but I am no longer able to feel the partisan loyalty that the parties vie for. I know what the parties and the politicians do now, I understand their "industry" and no longer feel I can be a paying fan of what they sell. I simply use parties to affect the issues I care about.
Douglas Adams in H2G2: "The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Critical thinking in examining and developing political policies is so under utilized. Our politicians need to act more like engineers and scientists and less like politicians. Americans themselves need to understand that correlation does not imply or dictate causation. Similarly, one solution may not be the only solution, in fact, the best solution may be many different implementations of different solutions, nor will those solutions necessarily be simple or elegant. In fact, optimal solutions probably wouldn't be. Finally, long term stability, efficiency should be prized in certain solution design and that may mean necessitating solutions that change or update frequently.
Is this my opinion?

Mark 8:34-9:1 - "Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples & said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself & take up his cross & follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me & for the gospel will save it." [cont..] And he said to them, “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

The Book of Enoch 19:1-3 (Apocrypha) - "Uriel said to me: 'Here shall stand the angels who have connected themselves with women & their spirits assuming many different forms are defiling mankind & shall lead them astray into sacrificing to demons as gods"

Just like holy angels (Genesis 18:2/Daniel 9:21), the devil & his angels also appear as men & it is they whom Jesus was referring too amongst the crowd."

Hebrews 12:1 - "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders & the sin that so easily entangles, & let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us."
True every one may not be as atriculate as an average graduate should be. Thanks to our skewed education focus. But at the same time the entanglement of the being with the undiferentiated being gives us a sense of what is it that goes well with us or otherwise. The money bags try to distort this picture by creating a la orwelian 1984 environ.
By finding and pointing out that a person that he can not express his views does not disqualify him to hold a view. It only robs him off his ego momentarily. 
It's also tragically evident when the United States competes abroad.. all we hear is USA, USA, USA! Brainwashed drones, very sad!
+Chatur Sen It doesnt just "rob him of his ego momentarily". It fills in holes, exposes weakness in arguments. 
How many words and concepts does yone use that you dont really understand properly ? I think most people (definitely including myself) would find alot of holes on ones understanding of things.. 
And it doesnt seem strange that this would lead to a more resonable stance on issues. Complex issues are complex. 
+Daniel Freysinger no they do not. Lee Atwater in the 1980's proved that once you give details the other candidate/party will/can attack the smallest detail and distract the general populace with "red flags".  James Carville got sick of Mr. Atwater killing Democrats in that way and convinced Mr. Clinton to run a campaign in that fashion and they won. Now it is the standard way to run a campaign here in the United States. When you are talk to a major consultant or read Campaigns & Elections Magazine you learn that down to how to dress.
+Daniel Blanke here let me help him out a bit. There are 23 million people in the country unemployed keep in mind that is only the number that currently qualify for unemployment benefits many had benefits expire many never qualified so I'd say a safe number would be closer to 35 million unemployed and 47 million on food stamps again thats only for those qualified. So we are looking at close to 100 million Americans below poverty line struggling. That's damn near 1/3 of our country. Now on top of that inflationary rates are at a true rate of near 8% not the bullshit claim of 2.3 that is completely padded. We are on the verge of monetary collapse and all the president wants to do is expand government programs who pays for those? The private sector does. Have you ever heard of the Rahn Curve or did you miss Econ class? When the size of government becomes too large in relation to the GDP then economic growth stops. 
There is a psychological mechanism at work here, a precedence on external cues that keeps one's behavior linked to the group. In a way this is essential, but I agree that more of us in these groups should take responsibility for the knowledge situated among us and improve the sophistication with which we elect our representatives.
The day we can explain everything is the day our civilization comes to an end.
Most of the economic problems are too complex to have only one correct answer.
Growth spiritually is where its@
An article well worth reading :- "We typically feel that we understand how complex systems work even when our true understanding is superficial." #twt #fb
Totally agree. Have you ever tried to debate those who scream the Iraq war was all about oil?
Have you ever tried to debate those who scream it was about an existential threat to the United States?
The purpose of ambiguity is to stir emotional response, marketing 101.
This article fails to explain the view that partisans cannot explain their views.
Dosti ka taufa har kise ko nahi milta,
Ye phool har baagh mein nahi khilta,
Is phool ko kabhi tutne mat dena,
Kyunki tuta hua phool fir nahi khilta.
-via Bhagwat
Hmmm.  Try me!  I can explain!  It's just that the explanations aren't popular.  Luckily, I'm not running for anything, so I can say what needs to be said without pandering for votes...
+Stefan Otto Huber , what the hell are u even talking about? Ever try reading one of your comments? Hilarious!
Ryan Ng
That is 1. confusing and 2. an oxymoron.
Joey C
I find that debating policy with 'conservatives' is more or less like debating evolution with creationists. You just can't get enough foothold in reality to formulate a dialog.

Gretzky shoots...he scores!!

On a more serious note, the thing about Internet political arguments I find most aggravating is the citing of false information as fact in support of one's argument. For example, "I heard it on Rush" is not a legitimate citation. A close second is ad hominem attacks -- well, any logical fallacy, actually -- in lieu of a thoughtful response. Take a debate class,'ll learn a lot. 
Why do you want specifics? Giving specifics just alienates people. The basic framework allows for compromise behind-the-scenes which is really how bipartisanship works. Romney has tried to explain that. What's so difficult to understand? You seem to engage and encourage division rather than unity. Obama failed miserably in this area. His tactics alienated Republicans. Is that leadership?? Not in my book. Go into work today and dictate your demands... see how that works for you.
Ryan Ng
Well duh that's how it is
Joey C
Romney tried to explain that to the Massachusetts Assembly, by vetoing 800 items and being overridden almost every time. This is the problem right here. Conservatives latch onto any little piece of rhetoric and start regurgitating it as fact in the most transparent sophistic charade at making affirmative arguments.  

Obama failed miserably to be the king of a democratic state with 3 branches of government. Obama failed miserably to make nice with a group of conservatives that set out, openly, overtly, to obstruct the recovery of our economy, for the stated purpose of bullying the American people into voting him out of office.
Joey C
Unfortunately Obama has nothing to do with the obstruction in congress. They weren't doing it because of partisanship or racism.

The sad truth is that as ugly as those motivations are, they are convenient cover for the real objective, destroying the US labor market.

No less was the intention of the conservatives in congress, but to hand the multinationals they serve a desperate and pliable labor market willing to take any wage at all.

All the racism did was get white blue collar Americans to cheer for them while they did it.
It is easier to just put a bumper sticker on the car and point to it as an explanation.
In other news, this is why I try to never talk about politics. I'm not nearly smart enough to really understand what drives political thought or action, so why Monday-morning quarterback it? I'm sure my views are more or less moderate, but I question all politics equally.
Follow me on instagram and I'll follow you back: hkkova
michael moskau this is precisely why you SHOULD talk politics. just dotn focus on the platituds, but actually try to explain why you hold the views you do. this will help close the partisan divide
+Nick Pierre *sarcasm alert* WMD 
The Iraq war is a good example of people becoming entrenched in their opinion when challlenged. As the article states "Interestingly, asking people to justify their position — rather than asking them to explain the mechanisms by which a policy would work — doesn’t tend to soften their political views."

WMD were a valid concern, but doesn't justify the war unless you can plan the war in such a way that you end up controlling or destroying them.  The war was not "all about oil" but the anticipated effects on the oil market certainly made some more likely to support the policy.
@ those throwing around the terms communist and Marxist, when did Obama or the public school system advocate state ownership of the means of production?
To be factual when I see people, average people being interviewed it is clear that they sought out the stupidest ones around. Bit I will say that most people are so distracted by either the latest game on TV or some other thing that those in charge have been using to distract the public with for years that they have no real clue as to what is going on in their world just outside their bubble. 
+clifford lowe : They didn't.  At least, not publically.  Obama, however, DID buy out the auto industry and still has the government's hands in it.  Sure, they give them the choice: we buy you out and we run you, or your company dies.  What people forget is that it's the government that allowed the laws to pass which in turn prevented the auto industry's success.  So they don't say that the government should own the means of production, but they sure do all they can to make it that way.
these are not solutions rebuilding anything in any part of the sense of cleaning up,PLEASE Don't hand me the standard pile a B.S.; I'm over 50 years old and I've spent my life work protecting others from their own stupidity, but now I'm rebuilding my own world view that is open to wonder and amazement  you can be angry about allot of things. But it never changes anything, so why do it.
+Adam Nickle GM made the decisions that put it on the path to bankruptcy. The bailout gave them another option. If government laws and regulations "prevented the auto industry's success" what were those laws and why didn't Ford go into bankruptcy.

There's a world of difference between loaning money in exchange for being a shareholder in a single company and controlling all means of production.
TL;DR this is wrong and Republicans are right for reasons I can't explain.
+clifford lowe unions and the epa have hindered (not prevented) the success of the auto industry in the USA. They drive up prices which makes it much more difficult to compete with international Auto companies. 
+Devin Christensen And labeling him a Communist avoids any discussion of whether those environmental and labor protections are worthwhile. Getting back to "asking people to justify their position — rather than asking them to explain the mechanisms by which a policy would work — doesn’t tend to soften their political views. "
+Devin Christensen The problem isn't so much the unions themselves as the antagonistic relationship between them and management.  Without strong protection from government, unions are the only thing keeping management from reverting labor conditions back to the industrial revolution. 

Companies' unwillingness to let go of old business models makes them fight tooth and nail against labor and environmental reforms rather than adapting and investing in technologies and manufacturing philosophies that are equally or more profitable without placing undo burdens on employees and the environment.

The problem is, a lot of these reforms require sacrifice from employees as well, the result being you get two entities put in a deliberately adversarial situation who stubbornly refuse to budge an inch for fear of appearing weak, or ceding negotiating position.  The entire structure of the economy needs to change, and it's going to be painful at first, but it's the only way to build an economy that will be flexible enough to maintain dominance in the 21st century.

I don't have any ideas how to fix it... just my thoughts.
+clifford lowe I justified my view of why he's a communist. Now you want to dive into things I did not mention in hopes of what? Discrediting the idea that there is a communist in the Whitehouse?

Communism has nothing to do with labor protection. That's only a front to steal power from the people. Look at china, North Korea, and the old ussr, they're not models for labor protection. Nor are they examples for environmental protections. Straw man arguments are what the left does best. 
+Jake Miller I can agree with your first sentence. An most of your point. They need to work together instead of antagonizing each other. 
This is the same principle used in psychology to get patients to try and put their feelings into words so they themselves can see things better.
Too bad it was Tim O'reilly not Bill O'reilly 
Arik, please explain hire taking money out of my pocket via taxes and giving it to someone else in the form of SS (or any other welfare program) has a bigger (you implied positive) impact than my investing the money into growing my business and hiring new workers?
Tyler, i understand that apple make a huge profit, but so what? Please explain how you are forced to subsidize their profit? You CHOOSE to buy at the price they set, or you can CHOOSE to not buy from them.

Unlike govt who cab decide they want more of your money and just take it out of your check before you even see your money.

As for Exxon, i thought their profit outer gallon was a few cents (like 4 cents per gallon, don't have time to look it up now) compared to the govt that averages around 40 cents per gallon in taxes. So, again, who is the one being unfair?

Apple competes with dozens if Android phones, Exxon competes with Texaco and BP, etc. the govt doesn't compete, they compel by the use or threat of force.
+Dusty Bradshaw Don't bother using facts, logic, resources, or citations. Those things just anger the wild liberal in his den of confusion. :-/
Daniel, you are correct in the statement that making everyone poor hurts the govt... But you missed 2 very important point. First, the poor who rely on govt are more likely to do as told when threatened with losing their free money (i.e. Vote dem or you won't get welfare check next month) and second that you start with the assumption that Obama WANTS the country to remain strong. If his philosophy is to weaken the US (anti colonialism, maybe) then reduction in income down the road doesn't matter.
+Brian Peterson i invite you to ask me any questions, as I'm: pretty darn conservative and i have arrived at that reasoning based on what I've experienced in my life.

Also i hate the partisan bickering as no progress is made in the discussion. I feel the same way you described when trying to talk to liberals. 
and rMoney's religion tells him that he should take this country apart to create a Mormon only country.
Clifford, do you believe GM's decisions were made in a vacuum? Most of the bad decisions deal with union pay and bennies... Which the govt forced GM to accept by not allowing GM to fire those bastards when they go on strike and replace then with people who want to work.

The employees should have the right to form a union. The company should have the right to tell the union workers to go bugger themselves and replace them.
Jake please show me how you come to the conclusion that "...that are equally or more profitable..." I have personally never known a business owner who want looking at how to make things more profitable... So i believe you are full of crap.

Case in point, Toyota makes cars in the US for less than GM while paying a good wage. 
+Ken Clive you hit the core. It would seem that you are one of the few paying attention to the world around you.
Jim, please show me where Romney has proposed dividing the country?

I have never heard such and i thought i had followed all the lies the left was spewing.
+Jake Miller I think the problem in the Unions topic is that people need to stop trying to categorize everyone and everything and look for ways to make sure everyone is equal.  I guess technically I would be considered a "worker" as I am not in management, however I don't view my bosse(s) as the enemy as it seems to be the case with a lot of union workers.  I consider myself an employee of my company, just as my boss is an employee.  The only difference between myself and my boss is his experience which better suits him to be in the position to lead.  I constantly strive to better myself and my career so that one day I am in that position.  I think that's the biggest problem with unions, instead of inspiring people to better themselves in their career, they only focus on bettering wages with no gain for the company.  This is what leads to the inflated wages that killed GM.

Now I will admit, that unions did have a good intention, and last century were responsible for changing and improving wages and conditions for the lower rungs of the ladder, however I feel that they are an outdated model in our society where competition among workers is more fierce, and people by and large less afraid to demand better wages based on their self worth.

And public unions?  I am ok with unions existing, but I think in the private sector they should not be allowed to extend outside the company they are for.  But in the public sector, they just shouldn't be allowed period.

Why?  Not because I'm for less pay for teachers, or think that police are overpaid, far from it.  But because unions work off of having an inevitable profit margin to work with.  They can look at a companies profits and say last year you mad this much, so we want a raise.  Public sector unions, having no profit margin to work within, are able to demand more and more money with no regards or safe stops to prevent the "payers" from running out of money.  This is why many cities and state's budgets are in the state they are in.  Public sector unions give too much power to the unions involved in politics, leading to relationships that we see such as the unions and the democratic party.  You get a lot of "back scratching" so to say.
Shoot - meant to add that a lot of taxpayers dollars end up in union bosses pockets where the only job they do is demand more taxpayer dollars.
when you suffer the underpriveledge to pay more, and you refused to close loopholes for the wealthiest; refused to raised taxs on those making 250, 000 to help strenghtened our broken economy---the economy that the rich and the irresponsible politicians caused to be shattered, because of greed and deals, then you automatically create divisions---as the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider and wider
Jeremy, i just found a basic flaw in your argument. "...make sure everyone is equal" is both impossible and wrong.

Since i cannot run, should they break your legs so we are both equal? If you have a mental disorder should they limit the mental capacity of everyone else so you are equal?

I hope that isn't what you are suggesting... And the test of the post doesn't continue in that path, but the idea is so completely wrong that i felt compelled to say something.


I mean, their answers tend to be dogma, which is not rationally defendable.
Can't we just have another Civil War and get on with our lives. It's pretty obvious the Corporatists aka "Republicans" and Collectivists i.e. "Democrats" are talking past each other. Why not just kill everyone on the other side? The corporatists want to reduce us to wage slaves and death camp "useless eaters" and the collectivists want to take all your stuff and give it to people who don't work and are darker skinned than you. 

This whole bullshit about "measurable, objective, reality" and respecting the basic rights and dignity of other humans isn't getting us anywhere. Death to the enemy. 
except perhaps for that lady calling Obama a communist the other night on MSNBC.  Would be most curious to do a study based on samples of Fox only viewers ....
I say we divide the country Southerners Unite haha JK JK  JK JK
+Brian Wood I actually didn't write that very well.  I meant that the problem is people are trying to both categorize everyone and insure that all these different categories are created equal.
*Treated equal.. Man, Mondays typos are kickin my rear today lol.
Fancy that! This reminds me Socrates and the Maieutics (470 B.C./469 B.C. – 399 B.C.)...
If you think you understand this article and believe it, you have fallen into the "illusion of explanatory depth" that you understand the article.
Been telling everyone for months that human beings have blue ad red blood finally some artistic evidence. Too bad main arterial paths not named.
This doesn't surprise me.  The drive not to look like an idiot to the world at large is surprisingly strong.
George Lakoff, cognitive linguist, UC Berkeley.  Most recently the Little Blue Book - but also The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist's Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics 
Wow, that is just soooooo wrong.
What can motivate a person to make such a claim?
"Fascinating. When people are asked to explain their views, and find out they can't, they become more moderate." Such an amazing fiction.
Add a comment...