Why liberals are better than conservatives

[LiberalAvenger]

I'll jump in...not 'instead of'...no...But in addition to? Sure...the military can use some cuts. So can our congress. So can the social services.

I agree:agree

 

[reefedjib]

I agree:agree

Me too. Cuts across the board.

 

[TurtleDude]

The old time plantation owners had the same philosophy. In fact, they fought a war for those beliefs.

slaves were hardly parasites stealing blood from the massa and giving nothing in return. Since you knew that why did you post such a completely wrong comment?

 

[Renae]

slaves were hardly parasites stealing blood from the massa and giving nothing in return. Since you knew that why did you post such a completely wrong comment?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

slaves were hardly parasites stealing blood from the massa and giving nothing in return. Since you knew that why did you post such a completely wrong comment?

I don't know if it is your bias or ignorance that caused you to misconstrue my post. I was saying that the slave masters were the parasites. I'll let the member decide who is right, you or me.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Look who is talking.

BTW, if the best way to avoid me, who you infer is a troll, by your post, then why not follow the advice on the picture and IGNORE me?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Please stop.

 

[other]

The old time plantation owners had the same philosophy. In fact, they fought a war for those beliefs.

I don't know if it is your bias or ignorance that caused you to misconstrue my post. I was saying that the slave masters were the parasites. I'll let the member decide who is right, you or me.

So your original intent was to show correlation between slaveholding planters and modern liberals, in the sense that both groups expect/expected others to provide for them through institutional force?

In a certain limited aspect I agree with you. Good job. After you've said this, however, I can't quite figure out why exactly are you trying to argue that "liberals are better than conservatives." Can't really see how pointing out similarities between slaveholders and liberals helps your argument at all--does the opposite, in fact.

 

[reefedjib]

There are a lot of elderly people who belong to the underclass. They are not the only ones, though.

Where did you get elderly from? I did not mention them. Are we supposed to hate them too, for being socialistic parasites?

Why is the government (i.e. the people) responsible to take care of the underclass? Shouldn't they take care of themselves?

As far as the elderly goes, the gov't requirements for the elderly is the fastest growing portion of the budget. If we want to reduce the deficit and start dealing with the debt, we have to reduce gov't services for the elderly. This trumps cutting the military and cutting services for the underclass.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Why is the government (i.e. the people) responsible to take care of the underclass? Shouldn't they take care of themselves?

As far as the elderly goes, the gov't requirements for the elderly is the fastest growing portion of the budget. If we want to reduce the deficit and start dealing with the debt, we have to reduce gov't services for the elderly. This trumps cutting the military and cutting services for the underclass.

If we do that, I really hope that there's some other societal method used to make sure the elderly were being taken care of. Before the New Deal, the elderly often worked past "retirement age", and were often comparatively poor. In some ways, SS was supposed to get the elderly out of the labor force so the young could take those jobs

 

[the makeout hobo]

I hate it when people see words, and assume they mean what they want it to mean when it could mean any number of things. All five of the five values mentioned are perfect examples of this. Without access to the original study, I have no idea what any of them mean.

I think that you're doing exactly what you're accusing people of doing: you assume "conservative" is a synonym for "libertarian" when historically that has never been the case.

 

[reefedjib]

If we do that, I really hope that there's some other societal method used to make sure the elderly were being taken care of. Before the New Deal, the elderly often worked past "retirement age", and were often comparatively poor. In some ways, SS was supposed to get the elderly out of the labor force so the young could take those jobs

Yes, it is called family. Prior to 1935 families took care of their elderly, when there was a family. Certainly there are elderly that don't have family to take care of them and are destitute. These folks would need to be taken care of by the community. I said community because I believe in local solutions to these problems, not federal solutions.

Elderly can definitely work past "retirement age". By the way, the Congress is going to change that retirement age to 70 so that SS remains solvent for a time. Unemployment is a related issue, of both the elderly and the young. Best that Congress enact measures to promote a healthy business environment. Though there are abuses, corporate America provides jobs.

As it stands, I will never see SS, although I am paying. I am paying for my parents to travel the world and live in a nice house on the beach. I have discussed this fact and requested that they pay back my sister and myself the SS money we are contributing.

 

[Renae]

Look who is talking.

BTW, if the best way to avoid me, who you infer is a troll, by your post, then why not follow the advice on the picture and IGNORE me?

I would put you on ignore, except that I despise the ignore function, and I would miss out on all the laughs you bring to the forum. And that PIC, was meant as a bit of a humorous response to the question I QUOTED which was aimed at you.

By your response to the pic, it appears what was meant as a bit of an elbow to the ribs over the top zinger was more accurate than I intended. Hit a nerve did I?

 

[Renae]

If we do that, I really hope that there's some other societal method used to make sure the elderly were being taken care of. Before the New Deal, the elderly often worked past "retirement age", and were often comparatively poor. In some ways, SS was supposed to get the elderly out of the labor force so the young could take those jobs

Where do you get your information on "before the New Deal?" I would really like to know.

And SS has failed, miserably in all aspects of what it was supposed to accomplish.

 

[the makeout hobo]

Where do you get your information on "before the New Deal?" I would really like to know.

And SS has failed, miserably in all aspects of what it was supposed to accomplish.

It's a bit too late for me to really go searching for the source tonight, but I think it was from Generations by Strauss and Howe

 

[Renae]

It's a bit too late for me to really go searching for the source tonight, but I think it was from Generations by Strauss and Howe

Kewl, I'll go dig into it. Obviously I have a different understanding of life "pre-New Deal" I'm always looking for new information.

 

[cpwill]

So, radical conservatives feel free to post from your favorite conservative sites.

Let's fight.:gunsmilie oke:boxer

Why Being Liberal Really Is Better Than Being Conservative | | AlterNet

i love how this article is supposedly about how being liberal is better than being conservative; but starts out with a major concession to conservatism: You may have heard about this. It's been in the news and the blogosphere, and has been making the rounds at the nerdier water coolers and cocktail parties. A number of researchers are coming to the conclusion that ethics and values aren't entirely relative, and aren't solely derived from particular cultures...

 

[the makeout hobo]

Kewl, I'll go dig into it. Obviously I have a different understanding of life "pre-New Deal" I'm always looking for new information.

I heavily recommend the book. It's not primarily a political book, it focuses on how different generational cohorts interact... it was written in i think 92, so it can be a bit dated, but it's a great read

 

[the makeout hobo]

Yes, it is called family. Prior to 1935 families took care of their elderly, when there was a family. Certainly there are elderly that don't have family to take care of them and are destitute. These folks would need to be taken care of by the community. I said community because I believe in local solutions to these problems, not federal solutions.

Families may have taken care of the elderly in theory, but it was never as prevalent as people would like to think. I suspect it'd be even less prevalent nowadays. And let's say we do away with social net programs for the elderly.... there's no gaurentee or even much incentive for society to change. It's all very well to say "well families SHOULD deal with this problem", but there's no convincing reason why they WILL.

As it stands, I will never see SS, although I am paying. I am paying for my parents to travel the world and live in a nice house on the beach. I have discussed this fact and requested that they pay back my sister and myself the SS money we are contributing.

What did your parents say?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

i love how this article is supposedly about how being liberal is better than being conservative; but starts out with a major concession to conservatism: You may have heard about this. It's been in the news and the blogosphere, and has been making the rounds at the nerdier water coolers and cocktail parties. A number of researchers are coming to the conclusion that ethics and values aren't entirely relative, and aren't solely derived from particular cultures...

I don't know CP, it sounds as if it were making fun of conservatives and was a sarcastic comment.

 

[reefedjib]

Families may have taken care of the elderly in theory, but it was never as prevalent as people would like to think. I suspect it'd be even less prevalent nowadays. And let's say we do away with social net programs for the elderly.... there's no gaurentee or even much incentive for society to change. It's all very well to say "well families SHOULD deal with this problem", but there's no convincing reason why they WILL.

That's not my problem. I am not working my butt off to pay for some family's negligence of their elderly.

What did your parents say?

They laughed and were extremely non-committal.

 

[Winston Smith]

Certainly there are elderly that don't have family to take care of them and are destitute. These folks would need to be taken care of by the community.

That's not my problem. I am not working my butt off to pay for some family's negligence of their elderly.

So, you want them to be taken care of, but only as long as the program is locally administered and you don't have to contribute to it?

 

[reefedjib]

So, you want them to be taken care of, but only as long as the program is locally administered and you don't have to contribute to it?

Yeah, I am being inconsistent. I honestly don't know what the solution is.

On the one hand we have a situation now where ALL elderly receive state funds, paid for by us, whether the elderly need it or not. My parents use it to go vacationing. This is completely unsustainable.

On the other hand, if we don't supply any public funding, local or federal, then destitute elderly with no family are in for a very rough time.

I want to support the destitute with public money, and I am willing to pay into that program. I do not want to support the middle class in case they attempt to abuse the system, but can otherwise support themselves, through family or otherwise. I don't know how we distinguish them. I do not think we can look at a person's assets. It is an invasion of privacy, they could have funds offshore and it is a bad precedent to offer or deny services based on net worth.

 

[Winston Smith]

Yeah, I am being inconsistent. I honestly don't know what the solution is.

On the one hand we have a situation now where ALL elderly receive state funds, paid for by us, whether the elderly need it or not. My parents use it to go vacationing. This is completely unsustainable.

On the other hand, if we don't supply any public funding, local or federal, then destitute elderly with no family are in for a very rough time.

I want to support the destitute with public money, and I am willing to pay into that program. I do not want to support the middle class in case they attempt to abuse the system, but can otherwise support themselves, through family or otherwise. I don't know how we distinguish them. I do not think we can look at a person's assets. It is an invasion of privacy, they could have funds offshore and it is a bad precedent to offer or deny services based on net worth.

I think it's inevitable that we'll go to a "need-based" system at the very least. That means if you're destitute you'll get a break, if you're rich you'll get squeezed but still be comfortable, and if you're middle class you'll pay into the system your whole life and then get ****ed in the ass yet again. I sympathize with people who use the money for vacations. They've earned it.

 

[Goobieman]

So, you want them to be taken care of, but only as long as the program is locally administered and you don't have to contribute to it?

Well, sure - don't YOU object to having someone else's morality forced upon you?