One of the differences between conservatives and liberals (IMO)

[Redress]

Neither of those statements are true... Yes, I know that you can find someone who said that, but that doesn't mean that it's true for most of us.

Which should illustrate my point about why it is not a good idea to tell others what they believe.

 

[Linc]

Neither of those statements are true... Yes, I know that you can find someone who said that, but that doesn't mean that it's true for most of us.

It's true for the ones in the US House and Senate who make and stall policy legislation.

That's all that should matter to anyone living in the real world.

Such as those Americans who realize TODAY we are less safe due to the actions of the Senate last night.

The GOP has been an abject failure running DC for it's first five months--because it can't agree with itself .

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Which should illustrate my point about why it is not a good idea to tell others what they believe.

Which is why you have Lindsey Graham's quote as your signature. And he just started running for president today.

 

[D_NATURED]

Im trying to create joy, kid. I DONT LIKE HOW IT IS-IM SIMPLY FIGHTING AGAINST THE TIDE.

No catch phrase will change this.

Dont fight the language-its gonna change for the worse!

But I don't know that you understand the tidal wave Im fighting against.

Its a mountain battle Im fighting, and I don't know that anyone else is fighting it.

Suffice to say Im all in.

My words dont do the truth justice.

Just an observation, but why do you call people "kid" and "kiddo"? That's extremely condescending.

 

[D_NATURED]

I smell what you are cooking, my problem is that a safety net takes away from others.

Why do that for your notion of "fairness"?

How is it fair for a big fat dude to walk past a bunch of starving people on the sidewalk? How is it fair that your children get an education but the children of poor people, no matter what their reason for being poor, don't?

I think that taxation for the purpose of creating a more stable and decent society is the most fair thing we can do. The alternative is the physical manifestation of the class war that has, historically, left the rich wishing there were more fairness by the members of angry mobs.

I disagree with the greedy tone of your post and your ilk, completely. In my opinion, there are no such thing as rich children or poor children. There are just children who didn't choose to be born and certainly didn't choose their parents. Some get lucky and some get very unlucky. If your idea of "fairness" is to allow these children to starve, not have warm clothes or remain uneducated, then your concept of fairness is ass-backwards.

No, taxing those who have an abundance of luxuries to provide basic living necessities to poor people and their children is vital to maintaining an ethical society. Any society that didn't do those things would be easily said to be a plutocracy, at best, and ruled by assholes at worst.

This issue of children should be exempt from conservative/liberal debates. No political ideology that allows for that much suffering among children, to mitigate the resentment of the rich for being taxed, is a moral one, no matter what you call it. If I were a conservative, especially a christian one, I'd run from being associated with the anti-tax, anti-poor, anti-child crowd with all my might.

 

[Superfly]

Just an observation, but why do you call people "kid" and "kiddo"? That's extremely condescending.

It is, and calling people "kid" and "kiddo" have gotten people gigged.

 

[gdgyva]

How is it fair for a big fat dude to walk past a bunch of starving people on the sidewalk? How is it fair that your children get an education but the children of poor people, no matter what their reason for being poor, don't?

I think that taxation for the purpose of creating a more stable and decent society is the most fair thing we can do. The alternative is the physical manifestation of the class war that has, historically, left the rich wishing there were more fairness by the members of angry mobs.

I disagree with the greedy tone of your post and your ilk, completely. In my opinion, there are no such thing as rich children or poor children. There are just children who didn't choose to be born and certainly didn't choose their parents. Some get lucky and some get very unlucky. If your idea of "fairness" is to allow these children to starve, not have warm clothes or remain uneducated, then your concept of fairness is ass-backwards.

No, taxing those who have an abundance of luxuries to provide basic living necessities to poor people and their children is vital to maintaining an ethical society. Any society that didn't do those things would be easily said to be a plutocracy, at best, and ruled by assholes at worst.

This issue of children should be exempt from conservative/liberal debates. No political ideology that allows for that much suffering among children, to mitigate the resentment of the rich for being taxed, is a moral one, no matter what you call it. If I were a conservative, especially a christian one, I'd run from being associated with the anti-tax, anti-poor, anti-child crowd with all my might.

even if i were to agree with your entire view, we cant see eye to eye on HOW to pay for it

here is the way i see this

there will NEVER be enough money to pay for all the ills of the world

there will be poor, starving, uneducated people.....and having a utopian view to where it all goes away is to me childish

so then, the question becomes how much can we afford.....and with that, who can, and who SHOULD we help

we have 47 million people plus now on some type of government aid

how many of those really should be taking care of themselves?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

How is it fair for a big fat dude to walk past a bunch of starving people on the sidewalk? How is it fair that your children get an education but the children of poor people, no matter what their reason for being poor, don't?

Who said life was fair? Its not.

I think that taxation for the purpose of creating a more stable and decent society is the most fair thing we can do. The alternative is the physical manifestation of the class war that has, historically, left the rich wishing there were more fairness by the members of angry mobs.

What about a free society?

Not really most of the class wars end with a group of rich people being dictators, as worse as before if not more so which is very funny.

I disagree with the greedy tone of your post and your ilk, completely. In my opinion, there are no such thing as rich children or poor children. There are just children who didn't choose to be born and certainly didn't choose their parents. Some get lucky and some get very unlucky. If your idea of "fairness" is to allow these children to starve, not have warm clothes or remain uneducated, then your concept of fairness is ass-backwards.

Sorry but their are like Child actors. All self made.

Nothing is stopping you from feeding them, clothing them or paying for their education or giving your time or money for those goals..Why not lead the way, FORWARD! is that not what you moon bat love to chant?

No, taxing those who have an abundance of luxuries to provide basic living necessities to poor people and their children is vital to maintaining an ethical society. Any society that didn't do those things would be easily said to be a plutocracy, at best, and ruled by assholes at worst.

We are not a "ethical" society when we commit armed robbery in the name of emotion. We are based on Liberty not security.

This issue of children should be exempt from conservative/liberal debates. No political ideology that allows for that much suffering among children, to mitigate the resentment of the rich for being taxed, is a moral one, no matter what you call it. If I were a conservative, especially a christian one, I'd run from being associated with the anti-tax, anti-poor, anti-child crowd with all my might.

Really? we allow for suffering among children? Who supports murdering them in the womb?

Who supports keeping them in failed schools?

Who supports keeping the border open and harming American children with the hordes of the 3rd world?

 

[D_NATURED]

Who said life was fair? Its not.



What about a free society?

Not really most of the class wars end with a group of rich people being dictators, as worse as before if not more so which is very funny.



Sorry but their are like Child actors. All self made.

Nothing is stopping you from feeding them, clothing them or paying for their education or giving your time or money for those goals..Why not lead the way, FORWARD! is that not what you moon bat love to chant?




We are not a "ethical" society when we commit armed robbery in the name of emotion. We are based on Liberty not security.




Really? we allow for suffering among children? Who supports murdering them in the womb?

Who supports keeping them in failed schools?

Who supports keeping the border open and harming American children with the hordes of the 3rd world?

If you agree that "life isn't fair" then STFU about how unfair taxation is and just accept that it's part of life. The result will be good for you and me and the poor and you don't even have to get out of your chair. Real fairness is to make decisions that mitigate the most suffering, not bring about its end for one group or another. You paying taxes is NOTHING compared to watching your children be hungry or grow up ignorant. There is a greater harm and a lesser one. Your ideology creates the greater one.

 

[Fenton]

If you agree that "life isn't fair" then STFU about how unfair taxation is and just accept that it's part of life. The result will be good for you and me and the poor and you don't even have to get out of your chair. Real fairness is to make decisions that mitigate the most suffering, not bring about its end for one group or another. You paying taxes is NOTHING compared to watching your children be hungry or grow up ignorant. There is a greater harm and a lesser one. Your ideology creates the greater one.

Who says higher taxes on the " Rich " reduces suffering ?

And no, YOUR ideology creates the " greater harm '', as your agenda when implemented CREATES poverty, dependancy and mediocrity.

 

[catch22]

Liberals want to help up people who have fallen, conservatives want the fallen to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Which is better? Depends, I think the liberal philosophy is most beneficial to the poor but damages people's drive while the conservative philosophy is best for the middle class but leaves many poor unattended to who would of otherwise done great things. I do think that poor that rise into the middle and upper class are better off in a conservative system because of the work ethic required, it's just not as many poor people escape poverty in a conservative system. Honestly, there's no right answer and anyone who tells you that is a fool.

 

[Ikari]

I was thinking about the political implications of some issues today and I had an interesting thought about the difference in approach to most types of situations that conservatives take vs. liberals. MOST OF THE TIME, liberals tend towards an approach of trying to discourage failure, while conservatives tend towards an approach of encouraging success. Thoughts??

And can we avoid the standard off-handed insults and over-generalizations that usually come with this kind of thread. Remember that I'm not talking about 100% of the time for either approach, so pointing out examples where this idea isn't reflected are counter-productive.

Both tend to talk about how government will solve our problems.

 

[eohrnberger]

Liberals want to help up people who have fallen, conservatives want the fallen to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Which is better? Depends, I think the liberal philosophy is most beneficial to the poor but damages people's drive while the conservative philosophy is best for the middle class but leaves many poor unattended to who would of otherwise done great things. I do think that poor that rise into the middle and upper class are better off in a conservative system because of the work ethic required, it's just not as many poor people escape poverty in a conservative system. Honestly, there's no right answer and anyone who tells you that is a fool.

Pretty close from my view, but I'd tweak it a bit and say that 'Liberals want to help up people who have fallen, conservatives want provide the means for the fallen to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.'

It's back to giving the person a fish, or teaching them to fish, the latter making the person far better off than the former.

 

[eohrnberger]

Both tend to talk about how government will solve our problems.

And some would say that the government IS one of our problems. Just had to throw that in.

 

[NonConformer]

Liberals support big, powerful government INSIDE our borders.

Conservatives support big, powerful government OUTSIDE our borders.

(Although, on occasions too numerous to mention, both have supported big, powerful government in the other side's domain.)

 

[D_NATURED]

Who says higher taxes on the " Rich " reduces suffering ?

And no, YOUR ideology creates the " greater harm '', as your agenda when implemented CREATES poverty, dependancy and mediocrity.

Keep telling yourself that. It will make the crowd of ignorant starving children seem less deserving of your pity. That's what the conservative agenda is, right? Guilt avoidance?

ALL children are dependent, if not upon their parents then whomever can provide. Lacking productive parents is NOT their fault. When conservatives insist that they starve or go uneducated, it is the CONSERVATIVES who perpetuate the dependency and mediocrity, and it's not the accidental kind that comes from being given too much. Instead, it's the kind that is born of apathy toward their suffering.

The greater harm is not measured in dollars, it's measured in wasted lives, Fenton. That right there underscores the primary difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives prefer self-placating fantasies to the hard, cold truth. They prefer to lie to themselves (One nation under god, family values, We built it) rather than face what greedy and immoral people they really are.

Privilege, or the defense of it, should never be an excuse to hurt another's children. Yet, so many conservative institutions, like the military and the church and Wall street do exactly that. I'm disgusted with you all but I also realize that your entire ideology is about being hard in the face of misery. It's what you guys do. It's not right but it's understandable when you realize that the outward expression of political opinions is directly related to the internal workings of the brain and the heart. If your priority system puts dollars at the top, you've begun upon a very inhuman road.

 

[Fenton]

Keep telling yourself that. It will make the crowd of ignorant starving children seem less deserving of your pity. That's what the conservative agenda is, right? Guilt avoidance?

ALL children are dependent, if not upon their parents then whomever can provide. Lacking productive parents is NOT their fault. When conservatives insist that they starve or go uneducated, it is the CONSERVATIVES who perpetuate the dependency and mediocrity, and it's not the accidental kind that comes from being given too much. Instead, it's the kind that is born of apathy toward their suffering.

The greater harm is not measured in dollars, it's measured in wasted lives, Fenton. That right there underscores the primary difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives prefer self-placating fantasies to the hard, cold truth. They prefer to lie to themselves (One nation under god, family values, We built it) rather than face what greedy and immoral people they really are.

Privilege, or the defense of it, should never be an excuse to hurt another's children. Yet, so many conservative institutions, like the military and the church and Wall street do exactly that. I'm disgusted with you all but I also realize that your entire ideology is about being hard in the face of misery. It's what you guys do. It's not right but it's understandable when you realize that the outward expression of political opinions is directly related to the internal workings of the brain and the heart. If your priority system puts dollars at the top, you've begun upon a very inhuman road.

Progressive policies DO create poverty, crime and dependance and mediocrity.

All you have to do is look at the amount of disproportionate violence, crime and poverty in Cities that have been run by Democrat monopolies for decades.

There's nothing humane about initiatives that enable generational dependance.

On a National scale all you have to do is look at Countries like Venezuela, Argentina, France, Greece, etc.

Policies, laws and mandates based on " fairness and equity " produce Socialist basket cases where the citizens wind up paying for thier Governments idiotic agenda.

 

[Texmex]

I don't like women calling me dude. Nothing you just said has anything to do with life in the mofo'in trenches.

At 60, you will know.

Well, guess what, the world don't revolve around you. Your life in the mofo trenches? Hyperbole, meet thy maker!

 

[AmericanSpartan]

If you agree that "life isn't fair" then STFU about how unfair taxation is and just accept that it's part of life. The result will be good for you and me and the poor and you don't even have to get out of your chair. Real fairness is to make decisions that mitigate the most suffering, not bring about its end for one group or another. You paying taxes is NOTHING compared to watching your children be hungry or grow up ignorant. There is a greater harm and a lesser one. Your ideology creates the greater one.

Nope, because we can do something about it, like not pay. Then make the decision to give away more of your money.

Really? Your ideas have created Detroit, Baltimore, Trenton, Camden, L.A, St Louis, Ferguson.

 

[Linc]

I don't like women calling me dude. Nothing you just said has anything to do with life in the mofo'in trenches.

At 60, you will know.

Let all of us know when YOU get to 60--since YER about 30 years away--YER words in this forum .

 

[Mycroft]

I was thinking about the political implications of some issues today and I had an interesting thought about the difference in approach to most types of situations that conservatives take vs. liberals. MOST OF THE TIME, liberals tend towards an approach of trying to discourage failure, while conservatives tend towards an approach of encouraging success. Thoughts??

And can we avoid the standard off-handed insults and over-generalizations that usually come with this kind of thread. Remember that I'm not talking about 100% of the time for either approach, so pointing out examples where this idea isn't reflected are counter-productive.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "discourage failure".

If you mean liberals want to use the government to protect...and compensate...people for their failures, then I agree. But I see them as going further than that...liberals want to use the government to provide for people who don't even want to try...whether they have a possibility of success or failure.

 

[D_NATURED]

Progressive policies DO create poverty, crime and dependance and mediocrity.

All you have to do is look at the amount of disproportionate violence, crime and poverty in Cities that have been run by Democrat monopolies for decades.

There's nothing humane about initiatives that enable generational dependance.

On a National scale all you have to do is look at Countries like Venezuela, Argentina, France, Greece, etc.

Policies, laws and mandates based on " fairness and equity " produce Socialist basket cases where the citizens wind up paying for thier Governments idiotic agenda.

Nothing you wrote addresses my points about your kind allowing, no DEMANDING, that children be forced to suffer the poverty of their parents. Actually, all you've done is demonstrate that where the poorest, blackest people live, they vote in favor of politicians with a more socialist, populist message. Of course Detroit and Baltimore are violent places where desperate people vote for the only party that even pays lip service to their problems. Of course!

All you've done is blame the problems on the ideology of the politicians who represent the poorest places. That's the equivalent of saying that black people cause equatorial heat because where black people are native are hot places. The coincidence does not show causality and the suggestion you've made is classic conservative guilt avoidance and poor logic.

Let's also not forget that local governments do not, ultimately, determine the quality of the education of their children. They are dependent upon a horribly racist national education policy, continually made more racist by conservatives who propose things like charter school vouchers rather than allow our education system to exist in service to ALL children, regardless of socioeconomic factors. The idea that the quality of your education is relative to the value of the local real estate is exactly what I said, putting dollars at the top of the priority list. Rich suburban schools have resources that inner city schools lack due to the additional struggles and costs of attempting to educate children who are poor, hungry and distracted by imprisoned or disconnected parents.

Save your breath on the response. The irony of your ilk weeping and moaning about abortion while you deliberately advocate that REAL children starve or go uneducated, in order to punish their parents for being unproductive, is the height of hypocrisy. There is nothing you can say that will be mistaken for socially responsible or intelligent. Nothing.

 

[D_NATURED]

Nope, because we can do something about it, like not pay. Then make the decision to give away more of your money.

Really? Your ideas have created Detroit, Baltimore, Trenton, Camden, L.A, St Louis, Ferguson.

You know what created those places? Four hundred years (and counting) of the white, conservatve, Christian establishment treating black people like animals, perpetuating the dysfunction within their communities to legitimize their further oppression with this "proof" of their genetic lack of social sophistication. It is fiscal eugenics taken to an immoral extreme.

You know what your ideas have created? Centuries of feudalism, fascism and slavery.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

You know what created those places? Four hundred years (and counting) of the white, conservatve, Christian establishment treating black people like animals, perpetuating the dysfunction within their communities to legitimize their further oppression with this "proof" of their genetic lack of social sophistication. It is fiscal eugenics taken to an immoral extreme.

No, 50 years of welfare, and race baiting from self hating White Leftist.

Those cities are all Black Majorities have had them for some time and yet they have supported such failed ideas and the people that support election after election.

You can not and will not Blame Whites, Conservatives, or Fill in group name here.

You know what your ideas have created? Centuries of feudalism, fascism and slavery.

Do you know what your ideas have created Trillions in debt, ruined cities and failing nations, loss of Liberty and the nation, culture and people that created them to secure it.

 

[Amandi]

Pretty close from my view, but I'd tweak it a bit and say that 'Liberals want to help up people who have fallen, conservatives want provide the means for the fallen to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.'

It's back to giving the person a fish, or teaching them to fish, the latter making the person far better off than the former.

Can you give examples of means that conservatives want to provide? I, personally, don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive.