Jump to content

Economic Conditions - Nashville, TN, U.S., Global


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, samsonh said:

An incredibly poorly written and resourced opinion article. 

Nashville has made some bad decisions (funding mechanism for first horizon park), but this article seems to be written by the people trying to enact to tax rollback. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am mostly a lurker now that I have switched jobs and I am WFH 100% of the time now... but I used to walk around downtown and take pics.  I always love coming to this board.  I hit this site many tim

Instead of everyone being in total "fear" mode and panicking if their next door neighbor in their building has the virus...maybe it would be best if everyone banded together and made sure they provide

I'm not sure what your personal insecurities about the gender identities of other people have to do with fighting a global pandemic... but that aside, I think it should be pretty evident to everyone t

Posted Images

This guy is in NYC from all indications I can see, however his criticisms of the debt of Nashville are dead on. Metro has done an incredibly horrible job at money management, but the tax roll back is just as dangerous. 

There are two sides to the story and again you have the activist portion of the society trying to hijack the general public through a emotional fervor. When that happens common sense goes out the door. Activism is happening on both side of the political spectrum and getting worse. It is always the 20% on either side screaming the loudest to stir up the other 80% like a swarm of angry bees and it is only getting worse. This is not meant to be a political discussion, but when it comes to taxes, tax cuts, leadership, you can't have your cake and eat it too as far as not bringing some political discussion into the fray. IT IS Impossible! 

I am not saying one side is right or wrong. All I am saying is common sense and reasonable conversation has now flown out the window forever it does not seem to be coming back anytime soon until something very bad happens in this country. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, samsonh said:

His criticisms are not correct. He is using scare tactics. Sounds stadium, MCC, and mls stadium all have dedicated payment streams to pay down their debt. MCC in particular has so much cash that they will be able to pay off their debt early if they would like. He admits pension is fully funded but adds that the stock market having bad returns could change that. Well duh! That’s true of any defined benefit plan. Then he adds the bit about California style debt problems, without adding that California has the best economy in the nation and a massive budget surplus(unrelated to the stimulus I might add).

 

This is about math, and it’s not on his side.

Yep, the stuff he cites isn't even a drop in the bucket. Our budget issues come primarily from kicking the can down the road on our traditional property tax increase for eight+ years, which happened to be the 8 years we had exponential growth as a city. And of course, the increase was the only way to fix it, yet Cooper campaigned on not doing it until the pandemic left him no choice.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

Nashville’s debt is out of control and is one of the worst in the nation. Below is something from a non partisan  group putting Nashville in the bottom 5.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/tennessee/nashvilles-financial-health-earns-it-sinkhole-city-designation/article_10fd33ea-6cb1-11eb-9986-13ef5a61c4e3.html

This is not from a non-partisan group, unless you consider the TEA Party a non-partisan group...

I suppose it's time for a regular reminder that putting the word Center in your name does not mean that one's positions are in the middle of the ideological spectrum. 

More importantly, the ideological center between a serial killer and a Buddhist pacifist would be occupied by someone who only kills other people on rare occasions.  There are good ideas and bad ideas, but averaging them out together is not typically a very good or productive philosophy.

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not really matter who its from, Nashville is in bad fiscal shape and is one of the worst in the country. If you can prove me wrong, then throw those stats out there. Debt wise, rainy day fund wise, tax rate wise. I will pull my figures together and you pull your figures together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Let’s start with reputable news sources. US News & World Report. Tax Burden per citizen, Nashville ranks in the top ten worst. If you want to fight me with stats I will win because I can find them all day long.

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-01-28/study-many-us-cities-struggled-with-debt-in-2018

Now how about Wallet Hub. Looks. At the matrix and where Nashville ranks...at the bottom of the heap. Also 106 out of 150 of the best run cities. Yet we are still getting announcements despite ourselves.

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smeagolsfree said:

OK, Let’s start with reputable news sources. US News & World Report. Tax Burden per citizen, Nashville ranks in the top ten worst. If you want to fight me with stats I will win because I can find them all day long.

https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-01-28/study-many-us-cities-struggled-with-debt-in-2018

Now how about Wallet Hub. Looks. At the matrix and where Nashville ranks...at the bottom of the heap. Also 106 out of 150 of the best run cities. Yet we are still getting announcements despite ourselves.

https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869

Sorry if my post wasn't clear, Smeagols. I wasn't questioning your assessment of Nashville's economic situation, I was merely pointing out that it seemed you'd incorrectly identified your source as non-partisan. No big deal, of course, I just wanted to clarify. 

The main point I was trying to make was simply that your attempt to equate both sides of the political spectrum in your post this morning isn't particularly accurate or helpful, which is an issue I've raised with you before. If you'd like to put your statistical research skills to use, however, maybe you can prove me wrong by showing how the 20% from the extreme left and 20% from the extreme right are equally culpable for problems in this country or that each side's activism is equally problematic. I'd certainly be curious how you arrived at those figures in the first place, unless I misunderstood your point. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, talking about politics in general is a waste of everyone's time and energy if we're not talking about the advantages and disadvantages of specific policies. I don't think we gain much ground by talking about what people or groups are good or bad in general, I want to hear about what ideas and policies you (or anyone) think are good and bad and why you think those are good or bad policies. 

To reiterate, if one group thinks we should be driving on the left side of the road, and their political opposition all think we should be driving down the right side of the road, are centrists wise for proposing that we should all be driving right down the middle? Seems to me that's just a lazy answer and the only practical solution it provides is to the person using it to dodge the question at hand. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

Sorry if my post wasn't clear, Smeagols. I wasn't questioning your assessment of Nashville's economic situation, I was merely pointing out that it seemed you'd incorrectly identified your source as non-partisan. No big deal, of course, I just wanted to clarify. 

The main point I was trying to make was simply that your attempt to equate both sides of the political spectrum in your post this morning isn't particularly accurate or helpful, which is an issue I've raised with you before. If you'd like to put your statistical research skills to use, however, maybe you can prove me wrong by showing how the 20% from the extreme left and 20% from the extreme right are equally culpable for problems in this country or that each side's activism is equally problematic. I'd certainly be curious how you arrived at those figures in the first place, unless I misunderstood your point. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, talking about politics in general is a waste of everyone's time and energy if we're not talking about the advantages and disadvantages of specific policies. I don't think we gain much ground by talking about what people or groups are good or bad in general, I want to hear about what ideas and policies you (or anyone) think are good and bad and why you think those are good or bad policies. 

To reiterate, if one group thinks we should be driving on the left side of the road, and their political opposition all think we should be driving down the right side of the road, are centrists wise for proposing that we should all be driving right down the middle? Seems to me that's just a lazy answer and the only practical solution it provides is to the person using it to dodge the question at hand. 

 

But the numbers, and framework, in the article that Smeagolsfree linked to come from Truth in Accounting... a Koch funded group. And never mind 

Edited by Nashvillain
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Sorry if my post wasn't clear, Smeagols. I wasn't questioning your assessment of Nashville's economic situation, I was merely pointing out that it seemed you'd incorrectly identified your source as non-partisan. No big deal, of course, I just wanted to clarify. 

The main point I was trying to make was simply that your attempt to equate both sides of the political spectrum in your post this morning isn't particularly accurate or helpful, which is an issue I've raised with you before. If you'd like to put your statistical research skills to use, however, maybe you can prove me wrong by showing how the 20% from the extreme left and 20% from the extreme right are equally culpable for problems in this country or that each side's activism is equally problematic. I'd certainly be curious how you arrived at those figures in the first place, unless I misunderstood your point. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, talking about politics in general is a waste of everyone's time and energy if we're not talking about the advantages and disadvantages of specific policies. I don't think we gain much ground by talking about what people or groups are good or bad in general, I want to hear about what ideas and policies you (or anyone) think are good and bad and why you think those are good or bad policies. 

To reiterate, if one group thinks we should be driving on the left side of the road, and their political opposition all think we should be driving down the right side of the road, are centrists wise for proposing that we should all be driving right down the middle? Seems to me that's just a lazy answer and the only practical solution it provides is to the person using it to dodge the question at hand. 

 

Your assertion that my numbers were wrong were way off as noted by Nasvillain and your comments were taken wrong by me, but they came from the best place I could find. Unfortunately, these days it does not matter where you get the numbers or figures or news from, people take issue with it. 

"That source is too far left or too far right". You cant seem to find a news or information source that pleases the masses now. There is no longer a centrist approach in this country any longer. It is either black or white, thanks the the last 12 years of politics and the internet. Folks have lost their minds. 

Again, everyone wants a radical solution, and they want it now just like Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka. It took us a long time to get into these situations and it is going to take time to get out.

Apologies for the misunderstanding!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 7:08 AM, smeagolsfree said:

Your assertion that my numbers were wrong were way off as noted by Nasvillain and your comments were taken wrong by me, but they came from the best place I could find. Unfortunately, these days it does not matter where you get the numbers or figures or news from, people take issue with it. 

"That source is too far left or too far right". You cant seem to find a news or information source that pleases the masses now. There is no longer a centrist approach in this country any longer. It is either black or white, thanks the the last 12 years of politics and the internet. Folks have lost their minds. 

Again, everyone wants a radical solution, and they want it now just like Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka. It took us a long time to get into these situations and it is going to take time to get out.

Apologies for the misunderstanding!

Good points all around, Smeagols. I also think you hit upon a really key point that gets to the core of a lot of the issues we're talking about when you said that 'everyone wants a radical solution.'

Progressivism is designed to be radical and challenge the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, there are changes (from minor tweaks to major overhauls) that can be made to the systems around us that can lead to better outcomes. 

Conservatism, on the other hand, is designed to protect the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, any changes that are made (big or small, no matter how well-intentioned) have a very real possibility of making things worse.

Both of these ideas are true, but the result is that there really is no such thing as radical conservatism whereas the very core of progressivism requires some degree of radicalization. That's why radical progressives were responsible for promoting a lot of ideas that have become common and mundane despite being radical at the time (e.g. workplace protections, minimum wage, food/drug regulation, social security, interracial marriage, lgbtq rights, etc...) whereas I can't think of a single concept introduced by "radical conservatives" or the far right that has become similarly woven into the social fabric. That's not because conservatism doesn't have good ideas - in fact, it's because conservatism is founded on one of the most singular and important ideas that could possibly exist in the political realm. To borrow the wording from the medical field, that idea is 'first do no harm. I would argue that any political commentary or policy coming from the right that is not rooted in this very foundational idea is in fact not conservative at all.

So you're right, Smeagols, everyone is looking for a radical solution but the problem is that one side's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with radicalism. As a result, instead of radicalism what we get is a reactionary response and radical regressivism, which are very different things than traditional conservatism (which we could use a little more of these days).

As an analogy, lets pretend that our government is actually just a pretty great recipe for chili.  Different factions of progressives are going to spend a lot of time doing research and making the argument that our recipe for chili should have the ingredients apportioned differently. Some progressives think the recipe should have fewer beans, and some think it should have more cheese, and some of the more 'out there' progressives think we should forget about making chili at all and instead should shift gears toward tomato soup or a beef and bean stew. Given the opportunity to experiment, some of these progressive groups are going to make some damn tasty chili and some of them are going to go overboard and end up with a giant bowl of soggy onions or a big mound of melted cheese and chili powder that tastes awful and no longer resembles the serviceable chili we used to enjoy. Thus is the nature of progressivism: it will probably lead to some recipes that are arguably better than the status quo, but unchecked it's almost certainly going to lead to a lot of really terrible, inedible recipes too. 

Our conservative chili cooks, however, think we've got a pretty good chili recipe already, and they're right that a lot of the kitchen experiments proposed and attempted by progressive chili cooks will ultimately lead to worse outcomes. Many conservatives will even prefer the original chili recipe over a lot of the new recipes that progressives believe are superior to the original, though many will also come to appreciate the new recipes over time and will slowly come around to preferring it even (e.g. the "get your government hands off my medicare!" meme). Thus is the nature of conservatism: it's never going to win top prize at the chili cook off, but it's going to be much more consistent in flavor and quality relative to the progressive batches.

Throughout the history of the US, we've had various proportions of conservative and progressive cooks in the kitchen all whipping up new variations of the American chili we've all been wolfing down for generations. At our best, the conservative cooks have put a stop to some of the worst of the progressive ideas so we don't end up with too many bowls of soggy onions and cheese mounds, and conservatives have also done a great job of then shaping some of the better progressive ideas into a dish that's more palatable to everyone. While this happens in reverse upon rare occasion too (e.g. Romney care morphing into the ACA), this sort of conservative moderation has truly been an essential function that has allowed our country to thrive for 245 years now.

What does a radical conservative chili cook bring to the kitchen, however? When progressive cooks want to try more cheese in the blend, the traditional conservative chili cook may make the argument that the chili is pretty cheesy already and if we're going to add more cheese, then we should at least start out by adding just a very small amount of additional cheese and seeing how it goes. The radical conservative chili cook, however, responds to the progressive proposal by making the case that there should actually be 'less' cheese in the recipe, that the status quo is too cheesy already, and that maybe we should get rid of cheese from the recipe entirely. When the progressive cook makes the case that maybe less chili powder would yield better results, the radical conservative responds by making the case that more chili powder is needed, and maybe a lot more. To be fair, of course, the radical conservative may be "right" that less/no cheese and more chili powder will lead to a better recipe (or at least a recipe that radical conservatives will prefer), but the bottom line is that they are no longer adhering to the most fundamental element of conservatism when doing so. By becoming radical, by definition, they have become something other than conservative. That chili is no longer a safe bet. 

These are the uncharted waters we find ourselves in today. What happens when the right becomes equally if not more radicalized than the left?  At the Grand Ole Tennessee Chili Cook-offs in the years to come, I think we're all going to be longing for a big old pot cooked up by the Bill Frists, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, and Bill Haslams of the world in the not-too-distant future. Their particular batches have always been a bit bland for my taste at least, but please sir, can I have some more. 

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, but I am afraid its going to take us a long time to get back to the point where everyone wants the same kind of chili again and right now everyone has got a really bad case of heartburn with no tums laying around.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Good points all around, Smeagols. I also think you hit upon a really key point that gets to the core of a lot of the issues we're talking about when you said that 'everyone wants a radical solution.'

Progressivism is designed to be radical and challenge the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, there are changes (from minor tweaks to major overhauls) that can be made to the systems around us that can lead to better outcomes. 

Conservatism, on the other hand, is designed to protect the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, any changes that are made (big or small, no matter how well-intentioned) have a very real possibility of making things worse.

Both of these ideas are true, but the result is that there really is no such thing as radical conservatism whereas the very core of progressivism requires some degree of radicalization. That's why radical progressives were responsible for promoting a lot of ideas that have become common and mundane despite being radical at the time (e.g. workplace protections, minimum wage, food/drug regulation, social security, interracial marriage, lgbtq rights, etc...) whereas I can't think of a single concept introduced by "radical conservatives" or the far right that has become similarly woven into the social fabric. That's not because conservatism doesn't have good ideas - in fact, it's because conservatism is founded on one of the most singular and important ideas that could possibly exist in the political realm. To borrow the wording from the medical field, that idea is 'first do no harm. I would argue that any political commentary or policy coming from the right that is not rooted in this very foundational idea is in fact not conservative at all.

So you're right, Smeagols, everyone is looking for a radical solution but the problem is that one side's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with radicalism. As a result, instead of radicalism what we get is a reactionary response and radical regressivism, which are very different things than traditional conservatism and which we could use a little more of these days.

As an analogy, lets pretend that our government is actually just a pretty great recipe for chili.  Different factions of progressives are going to spend a lot of time doing research and making the argument that our recipe for chili should have the ingredients apportioned differently. Some progressives think the recipe should have fewer beans, and some think it should have more cheese, and some of the more 'out there' progressives think we should forget about making chili at all and instead should shift gears toward tomato soup or a beef and bean stew. Given the opportunity to experiment, some of these progressive groups are going to make some damn tasty chili and some of them are going to go overboard and end up with a giant bowl of soggy onions or a big mound of melted cheese and chili powder that tastes awful and no longer resembles the serviceable chili we used to enjoy. Thus is the nature of progressivism: it will probably lead to some recipes that are arguably better than the status quo, but unchecked it's almost certainly going to lead to a lot of really terrible, inedible recipes too. 

Our conservative chili cooks, however, think we've got a pretty good chili recipe already, and they're right that a lot of the kitchen experiments proposed and attempted by progressive chili cooks will ultimately lead to worse outcomes. Many conservatives will even prefer the original chili recipe over a lot of the new recipes that progressives believe are superior to the original, though many will also come to appreciate the new recipes over time and will slowly come around to preferring it even (e.g. the "get your government hands off my medicare!" meme). Thus is the nature of conservatism: it's never going to win top prize at the chili cook off, but it's going to be much more consistent in flavor and quality relative to the progressive batches.

Throughout the history of the US, we've had various proportions of conservative and progressive cooks in the kitchen all whipping up new variations of the American chili we've all been wolfing down for generations. At our best, the conservative cooks have put a stop to some of the worst of the progressive ideas so we don't end up with too many bowls of soggy onions and cheese mounds, and conservatives have also done a great job of then shaping some of the better progressive ideas into a dish that's more palatable to everyone. While this happens in reverse upon rare occasion too (e.g. Romney care morphing into the ACA), this sort of conservative moderation has truly been an essential function that has allowed our country to thrive for 245 years now.

What does a radical conservative chili cook bring to the kitchen, however? When progressive cooks want to try more cheese in the blend, the traditional conservative chili cook may make the argument that the chili is pretty cheesy already and if we're going to add more cheese, then we should at least start out by adding just a very small amount of additional cheese and seeing how it goes. The radical conservative chili cook, however, responds to the progressive proposal by making the case that there should actually be 'less' cheese in the recipe, that the status quo is too cheesy already, and that maybe we should get rid of cheese from the recipe entirely. When the progressive cook makes the case that maybe less chili powder would yield better results, the radical conservative responds by making the case that more chili powder is needed, and maybe a lot more. To be fair, of course, the radical conservative may be "right" that less/no cheese and more chili powder will lead to a better recipe (or at least a recipe that radical conservatives will prefer), but the bottom line is that they are no longer adhering to the most fundamental element of conservatism when doing so. By becoming radical, by definition, they have become something other than conservative. That chili is no longer a safe bet. 

These are the uncharted waters we find ourselves in today. What happens when the right becomes equally if not more radicalized than the left?  At the Grand Ole Tennessee Chili Cook-offs in the years to come, I think we're all going to be longing for a big old pot cooked up by the Bill Frists, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, and Bill Haslams of the world in the not-too-distant future. Their particular batches have always been a bit bland for my taste at least, but please sir, can I have some more. 

Your example is good…but you also have to allow for the “action and equal and opposite reaction.”  Within a Progressive and Conservative party, both sides are going to have a “left…a middle…and a right.”  The left of the Progressives will take you towards extreme socialism / Communism and some of your anarchist groups that are intolerant of others, even within their own party.  Middle will be true liberalism…and right will give you a moderate liberal.  On the Conservative side…the left will give you a moderate conservative…middle will give you a true conservative…right will give you the tea party that longs for less and less government and brings in some of the outer elements that are intolerant of others, even in their own party.

For peace, I personally believe we need more true liberals and true conservatives as well as moderates on both sides.  But what we’ve gotten is more far left and far right (radicals) that have popped up because both sides have allowed it to happen and have appeased those elements.  The further left or right we go, the more “far left” and “far right” people in each party will become in an effort to bring it back to the middle.  Sadly…this is also where more unrest and destruction come from.  There is “radical” that leads to advances…and then there is “RADICAL” that leads to chaos.

Eventually…we need some leaders will cooler heads.

Edited by titanhog
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Good points all around, Smeagols. I also think you hit upon a really key point that gets to the core of a lot of the issues we're talking about when you said that 'everyone wants a radical solution.'

Progressivism is designed to be radical and challenge the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, there are changes (from minor tweaks to major overhauls) that can be made to the systems around us that can lead to better outcomes. 

Conservatism, on the other hand, is designed to protect the status quo. It is based on the idea that no matter how bad or how good things are going right now, any changes that are made (big or small, no matter how well-intentioned) have a very real possibility of making things worse.

Both of these ideas are true, but the result is that there really is no such thing as radical conservatism whereas the very core of progressivism requires some degree of radicalization. That's why radical progressives were responsible for promoting a lot of ideas that have become common and mundane despite being radical at the time (e.g. workplace protections, minimum wage, food/drug regulation, social security, interracial marriage, lgbtq rights, etc...) whereas I can't think of a single concept introduced by "radical conservatives" or the far right that has become similarly woven into the social fabric. That's not because conservatism doesn't have good ideas - in fact, it's because conservatism is founded on one of the most singular and important ideas that could possibly exist in the political realm. To borrow the wording from the medical field, that idea is 'first do no harm. I would argue that any political commentary or policy coming from the right that is not rooted in this very foundational idea is in fact not conservative at all.

So you're right, Smeagols, everyone is looking for a radical solution but the problem is that one side's political philosophy is entirely incompatible with radicalism. As a result, instead of radicalism what we get is a reactionary response and radical regressivism, which are very different things than traditional conservatism and which we could use a little more of these days.

As an analogy, lets pretend that our government is actually just a pretty great recipe for chili.  Different factions of progressives are going to spend a lot of time doing research and making the argument that our recipe for chili should have the ingredients apportioned differently. Some progressives think the recipe should have fewer beans, and some think it should have more cheese, and some of the more 'out there' progressives think we should forget about making chili at all and instead should shift gears toward tomato soup or a beef and bean stew. Given the opportunity to experiment, some of these progressive groups are going to make some damn tasty chili and some of them are going to go overboard and end up with a giant bowl of soggy onions or a big mound of melted cheese and chili powder that tastes awful and no longer resembles the serviceable chili we used to enjoy. Thus is the nature of progressivism: it will probably lead to some recipes that are arguably better than the status quo, but unchecked it's almost certainly going to lead to a lot of really terrible, inedible recipes too. 

Our conservative chili cooks, however, think we've got a pretty good chili recipe already, and they're right that a lot of the kitchen experiments proposed and attempted by progressive chili cooks will ultimately lead to worse outcomes. Many conservatives will even prefer the original chili recipe over a lot of the new recipes that progressives believe are superior to the original, though many will also come to appreciate the new recipes over time and will slowly come around to preferring it even (e.g. the "get your government hands off my medicare!" meme). Thus is the nature of conservatism: it's never going to win top prize at the chili cook off, but it's going to be much more consistent in flavor and quality relative to the progressive batches.

Throughout the history of the US, we've had various proportions of conservative and progressive cooks in the kitchen all whipping up new variations of the American chili we've all been wolfing down for generations. At our best, the conservative cooks have put a stop to some of the worst of the progressive ideas so we don't end up with too many bowls of soggy onions and cheese mounds, and conservatives have also done a great job of then shaping some of the better progressive ideas into a dish that's more palatable to everyone. While this happens in reverse upon rare occasion too (e.g. Romney care morphing into the ACA), this sort of conservative moderation has truly been an essential function that has allowed our country to thrive for 245 years now.

What does a radical conservative chili cook bring to the kitchen, however? When progressive cooks want to try more cheese in the blend, the traditional conservative chili cook may make the argument that the chili is pretty cheesy already and if we're going to add more cheese, then we should at least start out by adding just a very small amount of additional cheese and seeing how it goes. The radical conservative chili cook, however, responds to the progressive proposal by making the case that there should actually be 'less' cheese in the recipe, that the status quo is too cheesy already, and that maybe we should get rid of cheese from the recipe entirely. When the progressive cook makes the case that maybe less chili powder would yield better results, the radical conservative responds by making the case that more chili powder is needed, and maybe a lot more. To be fair, of course, the radical conservative may be "right" that less/no cheese and more chili powder will lead to a better recipe (or at least a recipe that radical conservatives will prefer), but the bottom line is that they are no longer adhering to the most fundamental element of conservatism when doing so. By becoming radical, by definition, they have become something other than conservative. That chili is no longer a safe bet. 

These are the uncharted waters we find ourselves in today. What happens when the right becomes equally if not more radicalized than the left?  At the Grand Ole Tennessee Chili Cook-offs in the years to come, I think we're all going to be longing for a big old pot cooked up by the Bill Frists, Lamar Alexanders, Bob Corkers, and Bill Haslams of the world in the not-too-distant future. Their particular batches have always been a bit bland for my taste at least, but please sir, can I have some more. 

Anyone else craving chili? 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Nashvillain said:

Anyone else craving chili? 

Not a chili fan (texture is an issue),  but I am craving Chili Cheese Fritos now haha. 

Edited by bigeasy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

no such thing as radical conservatism

There is a far right  beyond conservatism. Reactionary. They wish to move politics to what they were prior (regression).

The political spectrum as I understand it:

L                                                                                                                      R
Radical - Liberal - Centrist - Conservative - Reactionary

 

Edited by Rockatansky
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

There is a far right  beyond conservatism. Reactionary. They wish to move politics to what they were prior (regression).

The political spectrum as I understand it:

L                                                                                                                      R
Radical - Liberal - Centrist - Conservative - Reactionary

 

In the end…I believe both the far left and far right can be very radical to the point of destruction.  I think we’re seeing small signs of that now.  They weirdly have something in common…that neither the far left or far right trust the current government structure…it’s just that the two FAR edges want a different outcome.  One wants more of a “total” government control…while the other wants “no” government control.  Both of those would lead us to be much worse off than we are now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Luvemtall said:

I try not to be to political. I am a proud American , I lost my oldest son to the war in Afghanistan back in 2009 . He was out there for all of us! Not one group or the other. Not for Republicans or Democrats... he was out there for ALL AMERICANS. Your absolutely right in your above statement, I ask why can’t we move forward as Americans United... why must it be one way or no way. Why can’t we all understand that a little debate, doesn’t need to be all out war with each other. We need to listen to each other, and try to put ourselves in their shoe and see that prospective. Try to meet in the middle and make decisions with everyone, for as you said moving to far either way would lead us to me much worse then we are now. 

Amen.  Ultimately…we are on the same side.  America is not perfect…but there’s a reason so many millions upon millions have escaped persecution elsewhere to come here.  We are still the #1 choice of immigration of every other nation on earth because there is still freedom and opportunity here that is worth saving.  We don’t always get it right…but at our heart, we’re a kind and generous nation.  We just take that for granted and forget about it sometimes.  As they say, we need both wings of this bird to fly.

And btw…I’m so sorry to hear about your son.  God bless him and his sacrifice…and my sincere condolences. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.