Has a political forum debate ever changed your position on an issue?

So do principles count as ideology?

 

Do you understand the sentence you quoted? It says that centrism does not support policy based upon ideology alone, but there has to be some evidence involved. This is how I feel about religion, as well as the absurd transgender issue.

 

Had I found it perfectly understandable, I'd not have asked the question. Am I supposed to find in it a definition of "ideology" that either includes or excludes principles?

None of that answers the question.

 

It's not that difficult to understand. It's a pretty simple and straightforward concept. If you need help with understanding words, then use your dictionary.

 

Then surely someone who understands it (that would be you, presumably) could easily answer the question with a straight up yes or no, so why deny this lesser mortal the enlightenment?

What you hope to achieve with such condescension I have no idea, but you may rest assured I'm not dumb enough to let it irritate me.

 

changed my mind... no,
open my mind... yes
I agree with conservatives on some things but the more I learn, the more I agree with liberals .

 

It just did about 5 minutes ago.

 

Well change it back.

- - - Updated - - -

Kidding

- - - Updated - - -

So you're open to new opinions but those new opinions won't change your opinions?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you listening to Russian fake news again?

 

Get smart... click my name and have a look at my Activity tab.
If you have the ability to read quickly with good comprehension,
within 3 minutes you will have your answer.

With over 20 years experience on political forums, I have learned how
to get the most benefit from my time spent reading and writing posts.

 

Not necessary. I believe you.
My comment about you being a bot was just a joke (probably).

Twenty years ago I was just starting first grade and learning that not only could I eat crayons but I could write with them too.

 

I'm pretty sure I already attempted to explain it to you.

 

No, it's clear that you dodged the question, to which an explanation would have included, at a minimum, a straight up yes or no answer.

 

I didn't dodge anything. The link I posted didn't say anything about rejecting ideology or principles. It states that it does not support ideology without evidence to back it up or if the ideology in question doesn't really make a positive difference.

 

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

All of which might be interesting if an answer to the question could be extracted from any of it, in which case you'd presumably have done so in the first place. Things being what they are, it is safe to conclude that you find the question threatening.

 

What question is that? Your question about principles? It's irrelevant to the post of mine that you quoted.

 

How very amusing.

Assuming you refer to this, the time to call the question irrelevant would have been immediately, which would have saved us both the tedium of you lecturing me about stuff I never asked about.

More to the point, though, anyone who thinks the distinction, or lack thereof, between ideology and principles is irrelevant to what I initially quoted most likely doesn't understand what principles are.

 

But my potatoes only have eyes for you!

 

Go to the last two pages of the reputation thread and take a bite of my apple.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.politicalforum.com/member-casual-chat/491376-reputation-points-5.html


Mmmm delicious

 

And the discussion never ends. I was intrigued to read what you had to say, I'm a recently retired business person and as such, might be considered an obvious "right wing" person, which of course I'm not. I am a centrist (some will say there is no such thing, which is complete horsesh*t) and I have been swayed by certain view points, those that make sense. Bernie is right, if a person works full time, their wages should be such that they should be able to exist without need for assistance (food stamps for example). As for federal income tax, we have done a great disservice to the country in how we have handled the top marginal rate and the level it is assessed on. I'm old, I remember full well the "old days" and how decent they were. I also remember how we got so modern, especially with what I call "plastic pumpkins" (consumer goods from overseas) and how we couldn't get enough of them, LOL. There is absolutely nothing wrong with change however, when CEO's who made 30 to 40 times the average wage 40 years ago now make 300+ times the average wage, we have a problem. Wealth & income inequality are THE topics of the day, as they should be.

When I entered the work force virtually everyone received employer paid benefits and was entered into a defined benefit pension plan (which I have benefitted from). Today is starkly different and I fear for our young people, we've skewed the game in the favor of a smaller percentage of people. I'm lucky, I am part of the top percentiles but I see what we are doing....and it isn't pretty. Without intervention I do fear for the future.........

Not all is doom & gloom, there are good people in both the public & private sector, we'll sort this out, hopefully before it's to late.

P.S. Why I even wrote this, I do not know. It's late......but for the premise of the thread, I repeat, yes - I have been swayed by a reasonable argument that changed how I considered a topic.

 

You don't need a reason to post in any thread I start. Just glad to have you. Anyone who admits that they can change their mind, thus showing we're not all just wasting our time arguing for no reason, is okay by me.

 

Good writing, old guy.

I also benefit from an employer-provided defined benefit retirement. I also had employer-provided health insurance. And I agree with you ... I find it hard to believe that we can't compensate our workers better (at least to the minimum needed to survive), but we can pay CEOs 300 times the average wage. Somehow things have gotten completely out of whack.

 

Well, maybe you don't have very good reading comprehension or something. *shrugs* Seems this is more of a "you" problem than a "me" problem.

 

Actually, war is responsible for most of the ills of the world. Nationalism is responsible for much of the Enlightenment's accomplishments. Without a country to call home, without a sovereign government to protect that country you have absolutely NO means for productivity. The global world sacrificed the horde of the masses for select individuals. How can anyone supporting that world claim to fight for the middle class?

Now, to answer the question: Have my political thoughts changed since joining PF? A few have, but most have been solidified. I look at politics like a sculpturer would view his handcraft. You keep perfecting it overtime. If in fact you have to change a vast majority of your positions, then it means that your positions were incorrect or you yourself have a thinking problem.

As for me, with the positions I've changed my core philosophy has been the same: To help people. Even as a Fascist-Technocrat, I still believe I'm helping other people. People might scorn me for reviving the philosophy that was in the midst of WWII and then improving on it. But I found it had more merit than flaws, especially compared to contemporary democracy and republicanism.

Now, as for what I changed: Monetary policy and the concept of printing money. Akiphi(not sure if he's still posting or not) had the argument with me over monetary spending. And through his words, I realized that the strength of the dollar laid in our positive debt-GDP ratio, rather than the national debt itself.

It's like a scorecard, and the scorecard is like a golf scorecard. -70 is good, +1 is terrible. In economic terms, if we're spending 20 trillion but making 25 trillion, that's a score of a 5 trillion dollar surplus. Our problem is that we're spending 20 trillion and making....20 trillion.

That BTW, includes with higher taxes. The issue isn't taxes. The issue is the hollowing out of the US Economy. We need to make more than 20 trillion dollars. This is also why the Republican increases were not as detriment(during their terms) anyway, because in spite of the spending increase we still had a surplus. But it got smaller and smaller with every year as we spent, but never made it back.

It's like an investment(in fact, government is the biggest investment engine in the world.) The US Government is not getting the bang for its buck. When you consider the trillions in wasteful spending, imagine redirecting that into pro-growth investments. We could put a few dollars in the Middle Class, and get back 10x what we spent.

What we need to convince conservatives is that the investment today, will pay off for tomorrow. Just like how Eisenhower built the highways and despite our complete abandonment of enhancing them, they're still functional lol.

 

What the hell is all this "we" and "our" stuff? Are We the People supposed to be cutting checks to Walmart employees?

No, you have an honesty problem, and no maybe about it.

Actually it will be obvious to any careful and dispassionate observer that the problem is entirely on your end. Enjoy.

 

If someone works full time at WalMart should they still need taxpayer assistance to get by?