Which conservative principles should liberals understand or at least recognize?

[oFrosty]

BS given for STILL not answering the very first question put to you.

Read the 10th post, my response to USA4ME. I answered which principle guides my life the most.

[Dori]

So is the ideal country one with no need for empathy?

Of course not.

What is your opinion of those who feel it is their responsibility to help those who never learned this lesson or are simply unable to take care of themselves?

 How should those people go about doing that?

First of all, where is their family? They should be taking care of them.  If that isn't possible, then we should have care facilities for them if they are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves.  Letting them live on the streets isn't my idea of compassion.  We don't let stray dogs do that.

  



 

[oFrosty]

What is your opinion of those who feel it is their responsibility to help those who never learned this lesson or are simply unable to take care of themselves? One question, two directions.

Rephrased: Do you like people who want to help other people?

How should those people go about doing that? Who are "those people" and what is "that"?

As opposed to people who don't give a **** about helping other people, how should a good hearted, god-loving American Christian who wants to help poor people help those people?

Many liberals justify taxes because it helps people. That may not fit your understanding of liberal, but humor me, because these are the kind-hearted people I grew up with and these are their motivations.

I'm wondering what the conservative perspective on how good-hearted people can help those who are struggling to feed themselves? What are some ways to do this, when government welfare is out of the question?

So, how do we deal with irresponsible people? What do you mean "we", paleface? You have failed to establish that you are part of a "we" including anyone from the CC.

No sir, I'm talking about we the American people, because I am a part of those people every time you say that.

Go to the Introduction page, introduce yourself, and talk to people.

Of course!

[EagleKeeper]

Beware the self propelled goalpost.

Of course some folkes just like to argue, right?

 

[EagleKeeper]

You know, this is just another tired attempt to herd the conversation in a direction that the OP favors.

Why doesn't it just say what it thinks and let the conversation go from there?

[oFrosty]

Of course not.

I don't think so either.

First of all, where is their family? They should be taking care of them.  If that isn't possible, then we should have care facilities for them if they are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves.  Letting them live on the streets isn't my idea of compassion.  We don't let stray dogs do that.

Suppose it is a single mother, working two jobs over full time at minimum wage, struggling to take care of her two kids, with no family or friends to go to for help, trying to get her kids a good education and out of the poverty that they are stuck in so they can have a better future for themselves.

Liberals say, "taxes for welfare," which honestly as the conservative knows, don't help at all and take from people who earned that money.

Dori, how do you think this mother should be helped, if at all?

And to others, if you don't think this mother should be helped, why? Is she a lazy employee, jerking off all day, not working hard enough? Is it not a realistic example? Does she not deserve it?

I'm looking for a perspetive with which I go about helping these people in a way that makes conservatives happy.

[EagleKeeper]

Try teaching responsibility.

You know, when you do stupid things, stupid things happen to you.

[Duke Nukum]

So is the ideal country one with no need for empathy? What is your opinion of those who feel it is their responsibility to help those who never learned this lesson or are simply unable to take care of themselves? How should those people go about doing that?

What do you mean by 'empathy?' Isn't it possible that if I am able to empathize with someone I will feel even less inclined to sacrifice my good for theirs? I think, perhaps, you mean pity. And in a free society there will be those who feel it is their calling to minister to those. But a whole society ministering to those? Such a society would need to produce those helpless, wretched slackers for their economy would run on human misery.

Kind of like liberalism. Look to Detroit for that kind of world.

Haha ok. So, how do we deal with irresponsible people? (Whether via government or other means?)

That which one tolerates will have the tendency to flourish. And nearly everyone has the ability to pull raise themselves up and walk on their own once the debilitating oppression of government pity is lifted from their shoulders and expectations.

Why would you want to live in a world where the government or central committee purposefully cripples its citizens? Does it profit anyone to cut of the right hand of the majority of right handed people in order to make left handed people more equal?

[CG6468]

<Sniff-sniff>

Do I smell a troll?

[oFrosty]

You know, this is just another tired attempt to herd the conversation in a direction that the OP favors.

Why doesn't it just say what it thinks and let the conversation go from there?

I come from a liberal perspective. I grew up with a liberal family. I'm trying to understand the perspective outside of my institutionalized ideology.

I am not interested in an emotionally-driven quarrel.

[EagleKeeper]

I come from a liberal perspective. I grew up with a liberal family. I'm trying to understand the perspective outside of my institutionalized ideology.

I am not interested in an emotionally-driven quarrel.

Fine, so say something that pins you down as you would like to pin us down.

Make a statement, stop trying to be so sneaky, just say what you mean.

[EagleKeeper]

Look, out of the kindness of my heart, I will give you an idea.

Start a new thread, type out your communist manifesto and at the end of it say "so what do you think about that?"

I'm a giving person.

[oFrosty]

And in a free society there will be those who feel it is their calling to minister to those.

Let's call those people liberals. How should they go about doing so without welfare?

That which one tolerates will have the tendency to flourish. And nearly everyone has the ability to pull raise themselves up and walk on their own once the debilitating oppression of government pity is lifted from their shoulders and expectations.

So if the US government stopped helping poor people feed themselves, they would immediately be able to get a real job, with real money, for real food, to help them pay for their children's education, and raise themselves up from poverty?

I'm not necessarily for welfare, if those people can be given the opportunity to take care of themselves — but I have yet to find a solution from the conservative perspective.

Why would you want to live in a world where the government or central committee purposefully cripples its citizens? Does it profit anyone to cut of the right hand of the majority of right handed people in order to make left handed people more equal?

Is money a limb?

[Duke Nukum]

I don't think so either.
Suppose it is a single mother, working two jobs over full time at minimum wage, struggling to take care of her two kids, with no family or friends to go to for help, trying to get her kids a good education and out of the poverty that they are stuck in so they can have a better future for themselves.

Liberals say, "taxes for welfare," which honestly as the conservative knows, don't help at all and take from people who earned that money.

Dori, how do you think this mother should be helped, if at all?

And to others, if you don't think this mother should be helped, why? Is she a lazy employee, jerking off all day, not working hard enough? Is it not a realistic example? Does she not deserve it?

I'm looking for a perspetive with which I go about helping these people in a way that makes conservatives happy.

Suppose a government that doesn't tax the fruit of their citizen's labor to the point of poverty and that doesn't regulate business to the point of setting a 'minimum wage' and one that doesn't award single mothers for having no husband around?

Would that not be more empathetic(your word) to the society?

[Duke Nukum]

I come from a liberal perspective. I grew up with a liberal family. I'm trying to understand the perspective outside of my institutionalized ideology.

I am not interested in an emotionally-driven quarrel.

Were this true, you would ask honest questions out of genuine curiosity. Instead, you load questions to your institutionalized POV in such a hamfisted manner few can trust your sincerity.

Instead of asking a questions and accepting the answer, you constantly modify the question until you are leading it back to your institutionalized POV.

Seems a tad emotional to me. Certainly not honest.

[Big Dog]

but humor me

That's not how we play this game.

You are attempting to make a point based on emotion. You lose. Present your point of view, based on facts (not emotion), and be prepared to defend it.

[Big Dog]

Were this true, you would ask honest questions out of genuine curiosity. Instead, you load questions to your institutionalized POV in such a hamfisted manner few can trust your sincerity.

Instead of asking a questions and accepting the answer, you constantly modify the question until you are leading it back to your institutionalized POV.

Seems a tad emotional to me. Certainly not honest.

GMTA.

[Big Dog]

Typical emo bullshit

Time for homework, young leftist. Look up William Graham Sumner's "The Forgotten Man" and be prepared to defend the position that C would have his money confiscated and given to D to make A and B feel better about themselves.

[Duke Nukum]

Let's call those people liberals. How should they go about doing so without welfare?

So if the US government stopped helping poor people feed themselves, they would immediately be able to get a real job, with real money, for real food, to help them pay for their children's education, and raise themselves up from poverty?

I'm not necessarily for welfare, if those people can be given the opportunity to take care of themselves — but I have yet to find a solution from the conservative perspective.

Is money a limb?

This actually happened with welfare reform in the 1990s! Look up Star Parker.

I remember at that time a woman from Milwaukee getting a much better paying job then the government check and she was amazed, she said, at how good she felt about herself.

And let's not call them liberals. Liberalism is anything but compassionate.

Let's call them individuals with a calling, like the people who join the Salvation Army and don't drive around in ritzy cars and live in McMansions by conning the compassionate.

Liberals seem to have a great deal of problem with both the individual and the Christian. So let us never mistake them for compassionate again.

Deal?

[Dori]

I don't think so either.
Suppose it is a single mother, working two jobs over full time at minimum wage, struggling to take care of her two kids, with no family or friends to go to for help, trying to get her kids a good education and out of the poverty that they are stuck in so they can have a better future for themselves.

First of all, where is the father?  She didn't make those babies by herself.  He needs to be supporting his kids or put into jail.  

I'm all for short term support (2 years) where mom is required to train for a job that isn't minimum wage as a condition of receiving such support.  She also needs to spend some of her time working in a state or charity run nursery school for kids of single moms, while others are taking classes.  

Liberals say, "taxes for welfare," which honestly as the conservative knows, don't help at all and take from people who earned that money.

I don't think conservatives think paying taxes doesn't help those who truly need it.  I don't like the way the system is abused and used as a way of enslaving people, which is very much a liberal plan.  

I'm looking for a perspetive with which I go about helping these people in a way that makes conservatives happy.

Check these out;

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It,
http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantation-Government-Enslaves/dp/1595552235

Blacklash: How Obama and the Left Are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation
http://www.amazon.com/Blacklash-Driving-Americans-Government-Plantation/dp/1451642865

I'm all for breaking the cycle of dependency.  It's generational, and we are now in the thrid generation of that mentality.  If it takes taxes to break that cycle in this current generation, then so be it.  Once that's successful, then pull back on the welfare.  But able bodied people should not be getting handouts without having to put some work into getting them. And the same goes for prisoners.  They need to be working to pay for their keep.  




 

[Undies]

[youtube=425,350]tpAOwJvTOio[/youtube]

Time for a little comic relief.

[oFrosty]

Look, out of the kindness of my heart, I will give you an idea.

Start a new thread, type out your communist manifesto and at the end of it say "so what do you think about that?"

I'm a giving person.

Thanks for the recommendation. I started an introduction thread here: http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,85749.0.html.

[oFrosty]

And let's not call them liberals. Liberalism is anything but compassionate.

Let's call them individuals with a calling, like the people who join the Salvation Army and don't drive around in ritzy cars and live in McMansions by conning the compassionate.

Liberals seem to have a great deal of problem with both the individual and the Christian. So let us never mistake them for compassionate again.

Deal?

I don't know how you're comfortable making such a sweeping generalization.

So many people who identify as liberals are compassionate. Are they actually liberals? If they're not actually liberals, then what are they, because there are a lot of them!

[oFrosty]

Were this true, you would ask honest questions out of genuine curiosity. Instead, you load questions to your institutionalized POV in such a hamfisted manner few can trust your sincerity.

Instead of asking a questions and accepting the answer, you constantly modify the question until you are leading it back to your institutionalized POV.

Seems a tad emotional to me. Certainly not honest.

Hm, I'm not trying to be sneaky. I'm trying to get to the root of certain things, and perhaps I'm putting into language I can better understand.

I'll keep it in mind.

[Duke Nukum]

I don't know how you're comfortable making such a sweeping generalization.

So many people who identify as liberals are compassionate. Are they actually liberals? If they're not actually liberals, then what are they, because there are a lot of them!

One of the liberal's great icons had a name for many of them: Useful Idiots.

If you truly want to understand American Conservatism, you first need to understand the true nature of modern liberalism.

You guys have had your way for 5 years and things are worse than ever.

Detroit was the model city of LBJ's Great Society, it's current state certainly doesn't look like compassion to me.

First, understand and know what you are and then own it.

Then you may begin to understand American Conservatism instead of simply engaging in Sophist debate.