The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: oFrosty on April 05, 2013, 11:37:24 AM
-
Russell Kirk wrote, "... the intelligent conservative ... thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise." Running on Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles," or sharing your own principles, my question is:
In a country of polarized conservatives and liberals, blind to one another's perspectives, name one or two conservative principles that you would most desire a liberal add to his or her tool belt of guiding principles?
(Russell Kirk: http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/)
-
Thanks for posting this. I am reading it slowly and will respond after digesting it some.
-
Thanks for posting this. I am reading it slowly and will respond after digesting it some.
Make sure you wipe well afterwards, and try a wet wipe too. Get that "ever so fresh" feeling.
-
Russell Kirk wrote, "... the intelligent conservative ... thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise." Running on Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles," or sharing your own principles, my question is:
In a country of polarized conservatives and liberals, blind to one another's perspectives, name one or two conservative principles that you would most desire a liberal add to his or her tool belt of guiding principles?
(Russell Kirk: http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/)
Welcome back. Just like a cold sore.
Why don't you tell us what you think, instead of asking our opinions? You'll get much more participation, pro and con.
Let's start here: Which of Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles guides your life the most?
-
Is it a PaulBot?
The essay seems interesting, at any rate.
-
Welcome back. Just like a cold sore.
This is my first time here. Was there someone else with the same username?
Why don't you tell us what you think, instead of asking our opinions?
I am interested in what conservatives think liberals should consider more in their perspective. There's nothing wrong with that.
-
Thanks for posting this. I am reading it slowly and will respond after digesting it some.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
-
Russell Kirk wrote, "... the intelligent conservative ... thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise." Running on Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles," or sharing your own principles, my question is:
In a country of polarized conservatives and liberals, blind to one another's perspectives, name one or two conservative principles that you would most desire a liberal add to his or her tool belt of guiding principles?
(Russell Kirk: http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/)
I would have to say self reliance and personal responsibility. I truly believe that human beings have alot more in their "tank" than they ever really realize. If there are liberals out there who believe that? I haven't come across them.
-
"First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order."
Though I would take it further than the writer did. But having a strong moral underpinning is where all other issues hinge.
"Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism."
Especially given the claimed viewpoints of the modern-day liberal. There's very little that citizens acting individually or in groups could not accomplish that the left "claims" they wish would happen via gov't oversight. And it could be done more effectively and efficiently.
.
-
"Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism."
Especially given the claimed viewpoints of the modern-day liberal. There's very little that citizens acting individually or in groups could not accomplish that the left "claims" they wish would happen via gov't oversight. And it could be done more effectively and efficiently.
You are hitting on what I believe precisely. Big Dog, you asked which principle guides my life the most from this list — this is it.
-
I would have to say self reliance and personal responsibility. I truly believe that human beings have alot more in their "tank" than they ever really realize. If there are liberals out there who believe that? I haven't come across them.
Do you have faith that people will have personal responsibility? Should government have faith that people will have personal responsibility?
-
Liberals are incapable of understanding anything to do with Conservatives or Conservative policies.
-
Do you have faith that people will have personal responsibility? Should government have faith that people will have personal responsibility?
Allegedly, in the American system, power flows from the people to the government.
To speak of 'government having faith in people' would be instantly decried as nonsense in a literate society.
But, then, government runs the schools, for the most part, doesn't it.
-
But, then, government runs the schools, for the most part, doesn't it.
And who/what runs the government?
-
Allegedly, in the American system, power flows from the people to the government.
To speak of 'government having faith in people' would be instantly decried as nonsense in a literate society.
But, then, government runs the schools, for the most part, doesn't it.
So I'll rephrase the questions:
Do you have faith that people will show personal responsibility?
Should we the people have faith that we will show personal responsibility?
-
And who/what runs the government?
People. Dumbed down people. And people who want to control other people.
-
So I'll rephrase the questions:
Do you have faith that people will show personal responsibility?
Should we the people have faith that we will show personal responsibility?
If a majority of people do not expect other people to show personal responsibility then I have faith that few will.
If I say, 'it is fine for me to be responsible because I am a special little snowflake but my brethren, tch, tch, tch, they are a bunch of simpering idiots! I will petition my government to collar them, for their own good,' then I have faith that government will soon collar me. And make me pay for my collar. And it won't be a very nice collar either.
-
I am interested in what conservatives think liberals should consider more in their perspective. There's nothing wrong with that.
Bitch slap for avoiding the question.
-
So I'll rephrase the questions:
Do you have faith that people will show personal responsibility?
Should we the people have faith that we will show personal responsibility?
I have faith in God. People on the other hand.....Well...lets just say that about half of this country needs to learn something their parents never taught them. Actions or for some of them inaction have consequences. Once one reaches adulthood one is supposed to be able to take care of ones self. It is neither the government or your fellow countrymen's responsibility to take care of your basic needs. A parent really does their child a great disservice by not imparting this lesson early and often. I personally am more than willing to help a person better themselves so they can get to that but I will not supplement their income so they can jerk off for the rest of their lives! We don't have to have faith that they show personal responsibility but we should let them learn from their mistakes.We don't do that anymore.
-
I see we have another retread troll.
-
Another bitch slap given for picking the blandest and most generic of top ten lists.
If you really want to learn about conservatives, TALK with us.
-
blind to one another's perspectives
I quit reading the piece after this bit of idiocy. Conservatives aren't blind to a damn thing about liberals.
-
Once one reaches adulthood one is supposed to be able to take care of ones self. It is neither the government or your fellow countrymen's responsibility to take care of your basic needs.
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?
If I say, 'it is fine for me to be responsible because I am a special little snowflake but my brethren, tch, tch, tch, they are a bunch of simpering idiots! I will petition my government to collar them, for their own good,' then I have faith that government will soon collar me. And make me pay for my collar. And it won't be a very nice collar either.
Haha ok. So, how do we deal with irresponsible people? (Whether via government or other means?)
-
BS given for STILL not answering the very first question put to you.
Question repeated below for illiterate trolls.
Please. No one discuss a thing with this fool until he shows the courtesy to answer a simple question.
Welcome back. Just like a cold sore.
Why don't you tell us what you think, instead of asking our opinions? You'll get much more participation, pro and con.
Let's start here: Which of Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles guides your life the most?
-
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?
Haha ok. So, how do we deal with irresponsible people? (Whether via government or other means?)
What kind of silly bullshit is this?
So is the ideal country one with no need for empathy? This is not even a sentence; it a random string of words which does not communicate a single coherent thought. The only rational answer is "WTF?"
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. Is this your version of "two women, one cup"?
How should those people go about doing that? Who are "those people" and what is "that"?
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.
Your grade for this exercise: F.
If you want to take part in discussion, then discuss. Go to the Introduction page, introduce yourself, and talk to people.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Beware the self propelled goalpost.
Of course some folkes just like to argue, right?
:popcorn:
-
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?
-
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.
-
Try teaching responsibility.
You know, when you do stupid things, stupid things happen to you.
-
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?
-
<Sniff-sniff>
Do I smell a troll?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
[youtube=425,350]tpAOwJvTOio[/youtube]
Time for a little comic relief.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Ooh, interesting. I like this.
What if A and B formed a plan to remedy D's suffering, inviting C's participation but without relying on C's participation or money?
Could you (or a willing conservative) work with those people, even if they were liberals, to help remedy D's suffering?
-
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.
Where do you recommend I go to learn about modern liberalism?
Additionally, what if these 'useful idiots' had an alternative avenue for compassion, which was more effective, as opposed to simply supporting taxation and welfare? Would they be liberals still?
-
Where do you recommend I go to learn about modern liberalism?
Additionally, what if these 'useful idiots' had an alternative avenue for compassion, which was more effective, as opposed to simply supporting taxation and welfare? Would they be liberals still?
I do not understand your question. If they would quit reaching into my pocket and ruining the free market, then I they would probably be capitalists, entrepreneurs, and all of those other things liberals hate unless someone like Michael Moore or Steve Jobs is one.
Did you know that liberal Steve Jobs cut all of Apple's charitable donations when he came back to head Apple and even after the company became profitable again, he never reinstated those charitable programs.
He understood the purpose of business. And was a Useful Idiot in that he supported the dog collar analogy I posted earlier in this thread.
Personally, I do not understand how a compassionate Marxist liberals can be a millionaire. Should all they have go to a general store to be redistributed based on need? I don't know who determines need and how the 'wealth' is distributed, but there it is.
-
I don't know who determines need and how the 'wealth' is distributed, but there it is.
I like that. Good place to start too. Define what the "need" is that taxpayers should support.
Wealth is subjective. It means different things to different people.
Also, is someone's monitary wealth really anyone else's business?
-
I like that. Good place to start too. Define what the "need" is that taxpayers should support.
Wealth is subjective. It means different things to different people.
Also, is someone's monitary wealth really anyone else's business?
Is food, water, shelter a right? Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it?
I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it.
-
I like that. Good place to start too. Define what the "need" is that taxpayers should support.
Wealth is subjective. It means different things to different people.
Also, is someone's monitary wealth really anyone else's business?
Quite right to question that. I always see wealth as a state of being and get confused when liberals and Marxists speak of redistributing it. Wealth may be created or destroyed by attempting to redistribute it but that's it. I don't even think it can be maintained. Like the Mana in the desert, if it isn't fresh it isn't wealth.
-
Is food, water, shelter a right? Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it?
I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it.
Who's regulations keep the poor poor?
What if, suddenly, the 'poor' found their own power and didn't need the liberal power structure any more?
How do you think liberals and progressives and Marxists would be with that?
One only needs to look to 0bama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, even Nixon was a big time liberal and gave us such chains and collars as OSHA and the EPA.
How much do you think Big Government has impacted the life of the poor? Kept them poor?
And what about Ronald McDonald House charities? Would you bleed McDonald's to the point where they couldn't support that charity anymore?
And then what steps in to take the place of private sector charity?
Free collars, anyone!
Anyway, it has been interesting. I'm out for a while.
-
Is food, water, shelter a right? No.
Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it? That depends on the cause of the need.
I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Never.
Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it. A Big Mac with fries is a tasty meal.
If I came to you with my hand out and asked you for $500, would you give it to me without question or condition?
-
If I came to you with my hand out and asked you for $500, would you give it to me without question or condition?
The condition we're talking about is hunger. I would give you $10 for a good meal. If you were a sketchy-looking dude, or got the impression that you would blow the money on drugs, I would rather take you to a nice restaurant. I would much prefer to give you the capacity to feed yourself — grow your own food or work with other people to garden and cook together. The thing I wouldn't do is pretend your not there.
But that's me, and I don't think it's fair to demand that of everybody.
-
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?
Haha ok. So, how do we deal with irresponsible people? (Whether via government or other means?)
Did you miss this part of my post? I personally am more than willing to help a person better themselves so they can get to that but I will not supplement their income so they can jerk off for the rest of their lives!
Empathy is fine to a point. You may help them to your hearts content as long as it is "you" helping them and not "you" taking something from someone else(against their will) to help them.Whether you like it or not that is called stealing. I would help a person who didn't learn that lesson with the caveat that this help I give you has an end and if at any point I see that person not using my help to get themselves to a place of self sufficiency that help would end. As far as those who can't take care of themselves? I have no problem helping those folks.I do have a problem with the Federal Government running these programs because in my opinion outside of the interstate highway system and the military the government can "**** up a cup of coffee!" I know as a liberal you think they are the end all be all to existence....I however don't.Faith based orgs are so much better at this stuff than you guys are.
-
I know as a liberal you think they are the end all be all to existence.
If I don't think those programs are the "end all be all to existence," am I not a liberal?
-
Is food, water, shelter a right? Whether it is or isn't, should the taxpayers support people who cannot afford it?
A right? Humans would have died out a long time ago, including most Americans, who were not capeable of providing those things for themselves.
I hope in your studies you have read American history. Not the government stuff, but about the majority of the people themselves.
The real pioneers. [/quote]
I suppose the question really comes down to the quality of that food, water, and shelter. Also, the effects of the quality of that food should be considered. If poor people are only eating Big Macs and french fries, they're going to have major health issues, somebody else is going to have to pay for it or at the very least be forced to decided whether they should pay for it.
By poor, I'm assuming you don't mean stupid. Even little kids in school learn about nutrition, it's not brain surgery. However, you can't legislate stupidity. You could however, control what they purchase with food stamps.
-
"Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism."
Especially given the claimed viewpoints of the modern-day liberal. There's very little that citizens acting individually or in groups could not accomplish that the left "claims" they wish would happen via gov't oversight. And it could be done more effectively and efficiently.
You are hitting on what I believe precisely. Big Dog, you asked which principle guides my life the most from this list — this is it.
Since you're piggybacking on my response, just what part of "citizens acting individually or in groups" without gov't oversight are you not getting? I though I was pretty clear. "Voluntary community" means that either I alone, or others with whom I agree to participate, see to the needs of those who can't otherwise do for themselves and assist them. "Involuntary collectivism" has the gov't stepping in and collecting money from me via taxes to redistribute to others.
For example, an older widow lady in my neighborhood had issues with her home and needed some help generally getting it back in shape. A group of us in the neighborhood got together and agreed to help. We inspected the home to see what she needed to have fixed, we pooled our money and resources, and we met one Saturday morning and spent the better part of the day fixing her home and maintaining her yard. That was voluntary community.
Involuntary collectivism would have had her calling up some gov't agency, dealing with a bunch of beauracracy, and then having a bunch of people she didn't even know invade her home and yard, and at that probably only do a half descent job at 3 times the cost.
Now, take that principle and apply it elsewhere. Easy enough.
.
-
I'm going out for dinner and bluegrass music. I'll be back to spank this useful idiot tomorrow.
-
I read through all this.......stuff and come to the conclusion something has been overlooked.
As a Christian, yes those that liberals seem to want to eliminate, I give to my church because my church takes care of people or at least as many people as it can given today's political climate.
THE GOVERNMENT, I am convinced, is trying to squeeze out churches and replace them with big government slavery.
YES it's slavery. Tax people so people have less money to give to those churches and the people in need become dependent and thus SLAVES to the government. The government wastes about $0.40 out of every dollar collected to provide welfare and other programs.
Look at all the money given to the "green energy" B-S. Who benefitted ???? Political contributors benefitted.
Many of these projects went bankrupt BUT the political contributors got their money.
So conservatives are very generous to helping people we just object to being forced to give money to a
government that wastes MORE than it helps.
And THAT is my conservative principle.
-
I read through all this.......stuff and come to the conclusion something has been overlooked.
As a Christian, yes those that liberals seem to want to eliminate, I give to my church because my church takes care of people or at least as many people as it can given today's political climate.
THE GOVERNMENT, I am convinced, is trying to squeeze out churches and replace them with big government slavery.
YES it's slavery. Tax people so people have less money to give to those churches and the people in need become dependent and thus SLAVES to the government. The government wastes about $0.40 out of every dollar collected to provide welfare and other programs.
Look at all the money given to the "green energy" B-S. Who benefitted ???? Political contributors benefitted.
Many of these projects went bankrupt BUT the political contributors got their money.
So conservatives are very generous to helping people we just object to being forced to give money to a
government that wastes MORE than it helps.
And THAT is my conservative principle.
H5
-
Since you're piggybacking on my response, just what part of "citizens acting individually or in groups" without gov't oversight are you not getting? I though I was pretty clear. "Voluntary community" means that either I alone, or others with whom I agree to participate, see to the needs of those who can't otherwise do for themselves and assist them. "Involuntary collectivism" has the gov't stepping in and collecting money from me via taxes to redistribute to others.
What makes you think I'm not getting it?
For example, an older widow lady in my neighborhood had issues with her home and needed some help generally getting it back in shape. A group of us in the neighborhood got together and agreed to help. We inspected the home to see what she needed to have fixed, we pooled our money and resources, and we met one Saturday morning and spent the better part of the day fixing her home and maintaining her yard. That was voluntary community.
That's awesome.
Involuntary collectivism would have had her calling up some gov't agency, dealing with a bunch of beauracracy, and then having a bunch of people she didn't even know invade her home and yard, and at that probably only do a half descent job at 3 times the cost.
You're conflating involuntary collectivism with bad government execution, but I agree with your point.
-
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.
Re the bolded above - One idea would be to allow for school choice through vouchers. There are determined students in our country who are trapped in failing schools. Many liberals are against this idea. Can you explain that?
-
What makes you think I'm not getting it?
Because if you were getting it, questions you asked here:
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?
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...how do you think this mother should be helped...?
… would have been things that the understanding of “voluntary community†would have answered. I understand voluntary community and immediately knew the answers just by its definition.
You're conflating involuntary collectivism with bad government execution, but I agree with your point.
I expect bad gov't execution. Having me pay taxes in order to fund it when I know voluntary community would be more effective and efficient is a form of involuntary collectivism.
.
-
I expect bad gov't execution. Having me pay taxes in order to fund it when I know voluntary community would be more effective and efficient is a form of involuntary collectivism.
.
But think of the hundreds of thousands of poor government workers (gov. workers :lmao:) that would lose their jobs. That money is being better spent on keeping the government workers up and insuring their middle class retirement and healthcare than some lower class democrat voter.......does that truth deserve a sarcasm tag?
-
...snip...
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.
...snip again...
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.
I like that you used the term "plan." And then inferred to the need for such a plan with your reference to "cycle of dependency" which is absolutely-spot on.
But you are deluding yourself if you think Congress has such a plan. They have nothing but the need to see themselves reelected.
That's what this has come to. We have a huge chunk of our population who are accustomed to having their every need fulfilled by the state. Their attitude is, "You owe me."
Screw that. I owe these shitsticks nothing.
So then you think that it's okay to raise taxes to address this problem that's taken three entire generations to develop. And then you think, rather naively IMHO, that politicians will "pull back" on the welfare, which is the very carrot they use to convince the sheeple that it is they, and only they, who can see the light.
That's not a good plan, Dori.
-
You are hitting on what I believe precisely. Big Dog, you asked which principle guides my life the most from this list — this is it.
If you truly believed it, you would oppose government redistribution programs.
Since your very next post said, "Should government have faith that people will have personal responsibility?", and you then wrote "So if the US government stopped helping poor people feed themselves", you have shown that you believe in a benevolent paternalistic central government which is intended to be the great fixer for every individual's problems- which tells us clearly that you are either ignorant or a liar.
Own one- you choose.
-
Kid, you are not Socrates. It's time to stop with the round-and-round questions and start make statements.
Your homework assignment: Clearly articulate your opinion, without the use of the question mark.
-
Kid, you are not Socrates. It's time to stop with the round-and-round questions and start make statements.
Your homework assignment: Clearly articulate your opinion, without the use of the question mark.
Don't hold your breathe while waiting for that to happen.
-
I am interested in what conservatives think liberals should consider more in their perspective.
The Constitution.
-
The Constitution.
QFT.
-
I like that you used the term "plan." And then inferred to the need for such a plan with your reference to "cycle of dependency" which is absolutely-spot on.
But you are deluding yourself if you think Congress has such a plan. They have nothing but the need to see themselves reelected.
That's what this has come to. We have a huge chunk of our population who are accustomed to having their every need fulfilled by the state. Their attitude is, "You owe me."
Screw that. I owe these shitsticks nothing.
So then you think that it's okay to raise taxes to address this problem that's taken three entire generations to develop. And then you think, rather naively IMHO, that politicians will "pull back" on the welfare, which is the very carrot they use to convince the sheeple that it is they, and only they, who can see the light.
That's not a good plan, Dori.
I cringed when I read that too, because I "USED" to think that way as well.
The reason (and oFrosty should think about this) I oppose ALL INCREASE in government "revenue", "taxes", "programs", ANYTHING the government does.........is because the "DECREASE" NEVER happens. The government, any government, is like Zoysia grass it will overtake any healthy lawn, it will even overtake your neighbors lawn. You MUST CUT IT OUT completely in order to stop the growing.
Anyone who thinks the government will stop growing is ignoring history.
.
-
Another failed troll. :lmao:
-
So then you think that it's okay to raise taxes to address this problem that's taken three entire generations to develop. And then you think, rather naively IMHO, that politicians will "pull back" on the welfare, which is the very carrot they use to convince the sheeple that it is they, and only they, who can see the light.
That's not a good plan, Dori.
Well, in my own self defense, I don't think I said anything about raising taxes. We already have dozens of state and federal programs now and throwing more money at them is not the solution to breaking the cycle of dependency.
My response was also to a young college liberal who obviously hears the repeated lie, that conservatives don't care about the poor. He (for whatever reason) has come here to question conservatives about what they would do about it. I am game to give him my opinion as to what I think might work.
IMO - He is very bright, but something of a dreamer and a bleeding heart. The old Churchill quote comes to mind here... "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
-
Well, in my own self defense, I don't think I said anything about raising taxes. We already have dozens of state and federal programs now and throwing more money at them is not the solution to breaking the cycle of dependency.
Bullshit, Dorie. Pure and simple. You can't even remember what the **** you wrote, so let me help you with that;
If it takes taxes to break that cycle in this current generation, then so be it.
Bolded emphasis mine. I did that, I own it, and I'll TELL you I did it.
When are you going to stop playing word-parsing games? Did you use the word "raise?" No, you did not. But there is no other way to interpret your post. You think it's perfectly okay to raise taxes or keep the shitsticks slopping at the public trough until the politicians can "pull back" on welfare.
You're playing both ends against the middle, dearie, and I'm here to tell you it ain't working.
Bitchslapped for lying.
-
So where did the n00b with the question run off to?
-
So where did the n00b with the question run off to?
He had a term paper to write, and he got all the answers he needed to write it right here. No need to think, to postulate. Just pose a bunch of questions, get the answers, and walla [sic]. :whatever:
Just another toe dipper. He got it wet and it's time to move on.
-
If I don't think those programs are the "end all be all to existence," am I not a liberal?
I don't know what you are! I just know what folks who believe what you apparently believe tend to lean toward government being the source from which all things are made right! On further reading in your other thread you sound like a young guy with some very idealistic leanings, reminding me of what Winston Churchill once said.
-
He had a term paper to write, and he got all the answers he needed to write it right here. No need to think, to postulate. Just pose a bunch of questions, get the answers, and walla [sic]. :whatever:
Just another toe dipper. He got it wet and it's time to move on.
Had the same kind of idiot show up at ToS doing the same kind of hit and run.
Wonder if they're connected.
-
I don't know what you are!
Sure you do! It's another asshole!