Comments for Conservatives Happier Than Liberals »
Posted By daducha 1 year, 7 months ago in Science & TechnologyRegardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 551 of 554 Comments
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a crock of sh it.
You have enough problems of your own so you couldn't help anyone.
People are people, no one kind is better than the other, there are loser Cons, loser Dems, Loser Canucks and loser Americans,
only you seem to think you are above it all.....ROTFLMAO...you are no better or worse than any lib, just very poorly informed
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a crock of Canadian crapola! My biggest problem is having to read ignorant posts like yours. This article cited an empirical study. That means that the results came from scientific observations. Apparently, you are poorly informed or just anti-intellectual. Your embittered tone supports the results.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is what you are proud of?
""" "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."""
Sounds like "screw everybody else" is your philosophy. The kind of thing that lets you support crimes against humanity such as the killing of a million iraqis for oil and israel.
I think it is a good thing that by posting this article you have shown how useless you are in american society.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First of all, I didn't post this. I don't have a "screw everybody else" philosopy. I do, however, believe that there is no substitute for individual effort. It's called personal responsibility. Perhaps that's the concept that confuses you. In any case, I'm sure you'll find someway to trace the problem back to the zionists.
Reply-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why, Drop...you saying all Libs don't take personal responsibility for their lives and fates? My...talk about generalizing...
I might be a liberal Democrat, but I was raised with middle class ethics, and taught to always work hard and take responsibility for my thoughts and actions. I'm sure many other liberals were, too.
But how many conservatives will be happy and smiling after Obama wins on November 5?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah, but my one sister (the lone Republican in the family) says she and a few of her Republican friends are tired of what's happened the last 8 years (she did vote for Bush in 2000, but passed in '04) and says they're going for a Democrat, altho she didn't indicate which one she favors...yet.
So maybe that will balance out the other factor...
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, it means that we think only those who really need help should get it and everybody else should take care of their problems. Liberals want to solve every bodies problem for them so they stay up nights worrying how to help everybody.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unusual, I agree with your sister in several areas. I'm not fond of President Bush. Not because I'm currently based in Qatar or that we're at war but that he's not a conservative. He's like his father, closet liberals. As for McCain, he's the strongest Democrat running, when it comes to military and defense.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Frankly, I'm shocked to find out that cons know that anything other than a "far left" liberal even exists. And what makes you think anyone is left "out in the cold"? Because right wingers tend to be single issue voters? Maybe you should stop generalizing...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Ah, but my one sister (the lone Republican in the family) says she and a few of her Republican friends are tired of what's happened the last 8 years (she did vote for Bush in 2000, but passed in '04) and says they're going for a Democrat,"
Ever consider that your sister is telling you this just to keep peace in the family?
Are you planning on looking over her shoulder in the voting both? If not then how would you really know?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Ever consider that your sister is telling you this just to keep peace in the family?"
--What's scary about your post is that you probably have no clue as to how desperate and delusional you appear to be. What parts of "28% approval rating" and "least popular President in modern history" don't you understand? Bush is a colossal failure and even though Congress is less popular than he is, Democrats are still preferred over Republicans to lead our country. Face reality for once.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Drop, everytime 82% of Americans stand up and say something now that Dumya has turned the country the wrong way - and you call it liberal noninvolvement! Its you acquiescent repugs/eva... who allowed 800 years of accepted western law be thrown out, the Constitution violated by eavesdroping, torture and preemptive war in violation of Geneva... the list is too long of your loss of real Amercan values!
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don, where has the president really turned us the wrong way? The war here is going well. Locals are standing with us to push the terrorists and insurgents out of their communities. In Afghanistan, there is progress being made daily. Back home there are problems but most of that has been caused by laws not being enforced. The "housing" crisis was caused by people taking out loans on homes they couldn't possibly pay for. When you lie on the application and the banks failed to properly follow up, it's still not my problem. Banks have failed before and I'm sure they'll fail again. As to jobs, my new husband has had problems finding qualified people for their plants in Wisconsin and the new plant in Ohio. They're actually paying full wages for people to attend classes at the technical colleges.
As to American values, even though Bush is a liberal, I trust him more than I do comrades Clinton or Obama.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have read your last sentence at least 10 times, I have to admit I do not understand it.
This may sound strange, but you have been in my thoughts.
Your words and those of that little monkey beneath me have at times tempered my knee-jerk Liberal response.
This may be another opaque comment.
Please take it in a good way.
And by the way I usually disagree with both of you, but with respect.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don, where has the president really turned us the wrong way?
--Bush and the GOP brought you the largest government and debt in history and the scorn of most of the international community (so much for spreading democracy), ground our military down to the point we're begging our allies for help in Afghanistan and felons for help to fight in Iraq and you ask where he "really turned us the wrong way"? OMFG It's like cons live in a parallel universe. By the way, it's nice that you think the war is going "well." How do the Iraqis who weren't being blown to bits on a daily basis before we decided to illegally invade their country feel about the progress?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hey dimbulb, it WAS illegal, it STILL IS illegal and it will ALWAYS BE illegal. ESPECIALLY according to the UN. google hans blix, kofi annan, security council, etc, etc. and WHAT made it all the MORE illegal is that the reason bush, cheney, rice, rumsfeld, powell and the rest of the gang of criminals gave for it proved to be A BIG FAT LIE!! NO WMDS. NO WMDS. NO WMDS. NO WMDS. got that? NO.... W.... M.... D.... S.
Reply-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
btw, i didn't know the senate called the shots on what happens in this world. so what does that make the un? a rubber stamp? well then, they refused to rubber stamp the iraq war. kind of makes it ILLEGAL, huh? looks like they were right not to too.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What I love is how cons consider our government a monarchy one moment and then all about consensus and group decision making the next. When you want Bush to obfuscate the law, we hear "the buck stops here" and he's "the decider." When something in his administration goes horribly wrong (as has happened on numerous occasions), lo and behold, the bucks start getting passed with gusto. Bill Clinton balanced the budget (but we're quickly reminded that he was "forced" to do it by a Republican Congress). On second thought...maybe Bill Clinton left Bush with a recession (and suddenly any and all references to Congress are left out of the discussion). Cons are some truly acrobatic flip-floppers.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned26 Replies
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Suspect
I will be smiling because you and I both know that Obama can not win the Presidency. Get real the votes will not be there for him. Obama must have white males to vote for him enmass and that won't happen. You can call it racist bigotry but it won't change the fact that he can't be elected.
Reply-
Neutral
UnusualSuspect1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah, wolfie..
To see you in person and wager a bet with you...I'd savor that...LOL...
You, DropKick, AsMuchSpinAsAnyoneElseDave, saint, and a few others will get a special e-mail from me for a full week after Obama wins...just so you know...be prepared for it...
It won't be gloating, of course...just a simple friendly told-you-so...LOL...
Reply -
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Get real the votes will not be there for him. Obama must have white males to vote for him enmass and that won't happen."
--That's really strange because depending on the thread I'm in, cons think racism is or isn't a problem in America. I wish wingjobs would stop flip-flopping like McCain (you vote for someone who, less than a year ago you swore to high heaven you couldn't trust in a million years--talk about lying, party-loyal neocon whack jobs). You're making sane people dizzy with your constant lies and inconsistencies.
Reply-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" --That's really strange because depending on the thread I'm in, cons think racism is or isn't a problem in America."
a lot say it's not a problem coz they don't want to talk about it. like the mom who knows dad's molesting the kids but pretends it's not happening and drinks instead
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why, Drop...you saying all Libs don't take personal responsibility for their lives and fates? My...talk about generalizing.."
"talk about generalizing" Ya mean like small town folks "get bitter" after which "they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Why support one "generalizing" and not the other?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL funny, a few months ago, a thread on here said that liberals were smarter and most liberals here beat their chests in agreement, now this one they have a problem with.
Though I don't believe any of them, just making an observation.
Reply -
-
Neutral
AntiNeoCon1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a tendency to agree with DropBrain, conservatives (like Rush Limball) are happier once they have their drugs. :)
Most are chronic complainers, whiners, and crybabies...so the drugs do work if they take large amounts often and smoke some weed. Hell, I saw one smiling just last week.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities. "
Enough said.
Conservatives are happy because they can lie to themselves just as well as the conservatives in office have been lying to the American public.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Geez, tanglang. Did you even read the article?
The quote in Dionys's comment came from there--and though you might dispute the study's findings, it came from NYU and was funded by the U.S. government. I don't believe the Dept. of Homeland Security (or anyone else) has labeled either of those institutions "Muslim terrorist" organizations.
In fact, did ANY of you reactionary conservatives read the article before commenting?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rationalization (psychology), the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization
but cons just think it's the opposite of irrational
Reply-
Neutral
pc251 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irrational
irrational
for the pythagoreans it came to mean something threatening, a hint that their world view might not make sense, which is today the other meaning of "irrational".
Adjective
Not rational; unfounded or nonsensical.
an irrational decision
Translations
unfounded or nonsensical
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You make me laugh, too, Tangy. Only it's a nervous laughter like I would if some guy wearing a tacky raincoat and smelling like day old greasy french fries stood really close to me in the subway with a look on his face that said he couldn't decide whether to grope me or shank me and then I suddenly remember it's not raining outside. Not that anything like that has ever happened to me. ;-(
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
slate1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just get tired of the sleazy pseudo psycho sexual things a lot of the more far left leaner's (Messed Up and a few others) on this blog use to get a point across, always talking about penis size, sex with animals, incest and such as a character reminiscent of the one on the Aqualung LP cover in the 70's. It's just too classless and so unnecessary.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should probably shut the hell up.
I loved the Aqualung album.
My wife hated it.
You nailed it though. I don't now about the whole Lib Con thing.
But the reason I liked the comment was a subliminal Jethro tull thing.
I don't think Tanglang has Locomotive breath or uses tanks to breath.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course wingjobs are happier. Because you derive some sort of sick sexual charge from seeing others in pain while you do nothing but point, laugh, and judge from the sidelines. That's your reason for living. You claim to be all about personal responsibility but we all know cons love them some handouts (and just because you don't call no-bid contracts in Iraq and welfare to Big Oil handouts doesnt' change reality). Cons are basically sleazy, mewling opportunistic tax wh0res. Period.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I will not put up with any more of your sexy psychotic sleazy pseudo whatchamacallits or whatever you accused me of in one of your posts above, slater. And don't think I don't know what that reference to naked monkeys is code for, either. Ya perv... ;-x
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Drop that's like the Comcast commercial, I have a New Conservative way. By now you know I can make a very long list of screw ups on every level that are directly tied to conservativeness. Take personal responsibility, is W or his VP poster children for what you are disillusioned by? Can they say recession? Get real, a few Cons went to jail and so many more were involved who never took responsibility for K-Street, Enron, bailouts, shooting people in the heart, or stuff like that? I have friends that are Cons, sort of reverse Rev Wright. I try to shock them out of their mental condition but they are in too deep, so I understand. Helpless, and not knowing it, so deep in denial; that's bad. Cons feel they have already been saved, and the evidence all around us spells trouble. The liberals will save you again. Wanna know what I mean by that? I got some solid stuff. Save a Con, a Liberal agenda, Vote for Change.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have been reading about inequity aversion.
It seems that it is almost instinctual among primates.
Economists and propagandists and advertisers are studying and arguing about the data big time.
Now if this study states that conservative are less likely to respond to it, would that mean that they are willing to work for less money?
Now I have no right to speak for anyone here, but I do believe that I have heard things like all folks should "pay the same rate in taxes" no mater what their income.
I will refrain from putting forth my argument against such at this time.
But would this not be characterized as inequity aversion.
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09...
Reply -
-
-
ekklesiawarriorComment removed: Hard Banned49 Replies
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I consider myself liberal, but only in the classic sense of the word, not in today's shape-shifted, leftward sense of it. I tend to believe that less government is, for the most part, better than more government. I believe, as did the original liberals who codified such things, that the role of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare"... not the other way around. On a personal basis, I am a "live and let live" sort of person.
Whether or not that outlook relates to happiness, I cannot say. However, I'd say that I'm a happy person... wanting only for the companionship of an attractive and compatible woman... and, perhaps, a small fortune to draw on at will.
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps you are a Cato Liberal?
How to Label Cato
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.
"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.
-cont
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals.
Reply-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Even-handedness, Open-mindedness, Generosity and Tolerance are noble atributes of individuals. Perhaps a disconnect occurs when one looks to find in (or judges) government (by) atributes only found in individuals. That would only be the case when "government" is comprised of a king, emperor or dictator.
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I once called myself a liberal, also, until I realized how corrupted the word had become from the original. These days the common usage of the word translates to socialism. Socialism, which includes things like universal health care and a living minimum wage, fails every time it's tried. Capitalism works every time it's tried even with all kinds of socialist baggage hanging on it like here in the United States. It sure wasn't socialism that made my country what it is today but socialism can destroy it.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Socialism, which includes things like universal health care and a living minimum wage, fails every time it's tried."
--Especially considering that those are all things which your tax dollars fund for Bush and Republicans. You can pretend you don't see it all you want but you already support socialism for the wealthy and privileged in many, many ways. So that's why it's so hilarious that you would bemoan the fate of the word "liberal." A con's notions about consistency and accountability can be summed up in the follow quote by Lewis Carroll:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that it only follows that (true) conservatives are happier -- we tend to see the glass as half full and to work toward expanding the things, ideas and policies that are proven to work.
As a general philosophy (and, yes, there are many exceptions and I do know happy liberals and miserable conservatives), liberals tend to see the glass as half-empty and focus on the problems and the negatives. This can only bring you down. You can even see it on this thread, the liberals are attacking anyone who doesn't share their pessimistic view of our society as a mean,unfair and terrible thing.
.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, the playing field will NEVER be level, the opportunities will NEVER be equal and, most importantly, the results will ALWAYS be widely disparate. If you accept that from the start, you don't take it quite as personally when life kicks you in the teeth, than if you are convinced that everything should be "fair". If you feel that it is YOUR responsibility to make do for yourself, then you tend to be willing to accept what you have. If you believe you deserve what everyone else has and constantly compare your lot to theirs, you will always come up short and you will end up resentful
Reply-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was an interesting book about what underlies the different opinions to Liberals and Conservatives. I looked all over but couldn't find it. It studied what moral measures each group use to decide what's good and what's bad.
Conservatives are less concerned about issues of fairness applied to anyone outside themselves and their immediate family. Liberals feel that the moral imperative includes how they support others in need.
If anybody has a bookmark to the article, please post it, as it is very germane to this discussion.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't find any such book:
but there was an article in the journal Nature Neuroscience:
"scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information."
here is a link to a review:
http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/2003/fluid.html
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we tend to see the glass as half full and to work toward expanding the things, ideas and policies that are proven to work."
--oh DO please cite examples of this from cons over last 8 years (both the practices and results of which you speak so highly). Thanks. Can't wait...
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there have been no conservatives running things for the last 8 years.
However, whenever the tax rates are lowered, actual collections go up -- probably because people don't work so hard trying to find ways to avoid them.
when tax rates are raised, the amount collected generally goes down.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"there have been no conservatives running things for the last 8 years."
--And even though we experienced fairly prosperous times when a Democrat was in the White House last, and Republicans have virtually destroyed America during the last 8 years, you want to reward them with more power. Doesn't make one lick of sense whatsoever. None.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So many Conservatives are going to miss the point of this article. It isn't that Conservatives are happier because they see the world as just and acceptable, it's because they are better than Liberals at turning a blind eye to the inequalities and injustices in the world. To quote the article as others have done:
"Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities."
It's just another way to say ignorance is bliss.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How did I "prove your point"? If you think that the playing field will "NEVER" be equal and do not strive to make it as equal as possible does that make a person happier? According to the article, it does.
While it is true that each person brings unique gifts and talents to the table, which does not make us equal in ability, every effort should be made to make us equal in opportunity.
We are not and according to the philosophy you stated, there is no reason to try and make it so.
I think that is extremely short sighted.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I said that it never will be level -- (not stated, but meant to be implied) was...regardless of how you try to make it level.
But, more and more, I see those on the left not only decrying the lack of the level playing field -- but ESPECIALLY the lack of equal results..witness all the whining about and grasping at the assets of those who have achieved more than others.
In conversations I have with those who are more liberal than I, my opinion is generally disregarded as delusional, rationalizing, and other unflattering adjectives. I prefer to see it as optimistic. These same people consider themselves to be realistic and idealistic..to me, they look totally pessimistic and negative.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But, to fail to try and make it as level as possible stating that it's "never" going to happen is not only shortsighted it's also ignoring history.
I'm certain that many people thought women would "never" get the right to vote. I'm certain that many people thought Blacks would "never" be equal to Whites or that the Irish were "subhuman drunks" and simply incapable of hard work.
To fail to try and make opportunity as equal as possible is to fail the dream of the Founders.
As for "grasping at the assets of others" I find that laughable. Many of the people suggesting that we tax more heavily those who can most afford it would be effected by that same tax. So, to suggest that the Liberals "whining" about it are somehow "grasping" is simply a failure to understand who is suggesting what.
Your opinion isn't delusional, but it is based on a rationalization. That doesn't make it invalid.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
((Your opinion isn't delusional, but it is based on a rationalization. That doesn't make it invalid. ))
Oh thank you so much for your (extremely condescending) permission to hold my own opinion.
Of course, arrogance and a firm belief that there is no other way but theirs is also a hallmark of a modern liberal.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wasn't being condescending or giving you permission. Why would you think that? I don't get that. Your opinion isn't delusional and it isn't invalid. I can't see how you could possibly see that as condescending or giving "permission".
This is an interesting comment:
"Of course, arrogance and a firm belief that there is no other way but theirs is also a hallmark of a modern liberal."
We haven't talked about a single real issue and yet you're already making generalizations about an individual based on ideology. I'm CERTAIN that there are issues upon which we can agree. I am equally CERTAIN that there are better ways to do things than I have thought of and that only working together, in compromise, can we address the many pressing issues facing this great nation.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not making generalizations about an individual, I am making generalizations in general.
If you don't see the condescension in the comment I quoted, it is possible it wasn't meant to be, but that doesn't make it not.
As far as you're being convinced that you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong, read your posts -- while you give me "permission" to hold my opinion, their tone suggests that anyone who disagrees with you is of obviously inferior intellect and is, well, just plain wrong and misguided.
Now, this could be because it is written word with no nuance of expression or body language. But quoting "Ignorance is Bliss" is not very indicative of someone who is even trying to see another side of the issue.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your implication was that, as a modern liberal, I feel there is no other way than my own.
It wasn't meant as condescension and my posts are no less and no more certain of my own truth than your posts are of yours. That is the way of things. However, if you have a point that is, in my opinion, valid, I will be happy to entertain some discussion on the issue. Throwing out generalities is not, in my opinion, talking about an issue. It is possible that I am wrong. It is also possible that you are.
The article says essentially that ignorance is bliss. The word "ignorance" has gotten a bad rap. It simply means that which is not known, it isn't meant in this case as a slap in the fact at all.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
((The word "ignorance" has gotten a bad rap. It simply means that which is not known, it isn't meant in this case as a slap in the fact at all.))
oh please,
any opinion or mindset based upon ignorance is obviously inferior to one that is based upon reasoning and facts.
I think you will find that those who don't believe that (whether they practice it or not) are few and far between.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"any opinion or mindset based upon ignorance is obviously inferior to one that is based upon reasoning and facts."
Absolutely true, which is what I said. However, ignorant does not mean "unable" it simply means that you haven't yet. If a person rationalizes away the facts (which is what the article asserts that helps conservatives be happy) is that not ignorance? And if that ignorance makes a person happy is that not bliss?
I still don't mean it as a slap.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Astounding!
A "study" such as this posits that some part of the world is happier than another whose political/life philosophies differ, as if such a determination were an actual reflection of the larger world in all its shades of gray!
And posters, responding to the red meat thrown at them by the article's "thesis," IMMEDIATELY respond defensively--and start arguing with each other about whose grass is greener!
Please! Can we be adults?
Thank you.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sure. We should be adult about it and recognize that the article is actually saying that relative happiness is based on being able to turn a blind eye to inequality.
If you can walk past a homeless guy and think to yourself that he should get a job and not think about the consequences that put him in that position you are probably happier than the person who walks past the homeless guy and wonders about the situation that put him there in the richest country on Earth.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is absolutely nothing wrong with you asking yourself what you can personally do to help that particular homeless person. I do the same. However, I also ask what I can do to help the other homeless people. I'm just one person with limited resources, I can't personally help them all.
Now, I do not think the government can solve all of the problems in the country and neither do the vast majority of liberals, that is a generalization that is completely overwrought. What I do think, is that the government has a responsibility to its citizens to provide equal opportunity to succeed. If the homeless guy is there because he's a drunk and has lost his job, it is in the best interests of the country to help him. If the homeless guy is there because he can't find a job, then it is in the best interests of the country to help him do so.
Reply -
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When I encounter a homeless person, I think about whether there is anything I, personally, can do to help him/her. The answer may be "yes" or it may be "no". That is an answer I reserve for my personal judgment... not a decision to be coerced by government fiat. Further, I do not ever first come to the conclusion that he/she would be better off if his/her life were placed in the hands of a government agency... a private, charitable agency perhaps.
If such an occurrence were to spark my internal public policy debate, I can say, for most situations, that the answer to a better life for that person would not be found through government.
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you ever think about the contributions of the "system" in making that person homeless?
Making a 'Killing' on the 'War on Terror'
Do No Evil â;; For a multitude of politicians, interest groups, professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and state governments and federal agency officials, the War on Terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza. This maelstrom of waste distracts us from more serious problems.
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/05/07/...
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republican Erosion of America
Politics â;; Prior to the rise of the radical right 30 years ago, America was the most innovative, prosperous, vital nation on Earth. And it wasn't just an obscenely rich fraction of 1% skewing the numbers, either...like it is today. Republicans are rogues and rapscallions who took a hearty, robust economy envied by the entire world and ran it into the ground.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/04/29/...
The Real Matrix: The Pentagon invades your life
Do No Evil â;; Taxpayer dollars in amounts that would have staggered Croesus have led to a revolving-door system of rampant corruption; more surprising is just how much that system is linked into your everyday life. The militarization of America is happening right in your apartment or house.
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/04/25/...
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Trillion Dollar Crisis: Bankers Saved, Human Rights Sacrificed
Money â;; Ministers for Finance of Western countries have strongly reacted to the IMF figure, as if it was dangerous to show the extent of the crisis. These same governments, unable to help their needy populations, quickly came to the rescue of private interests: nationalization of troubled banks, cash forexchange of distressed debt securities
http://money.propeller.com/story/2008/04/18/tri...
Reply-
Neutral
hyperbola1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A Trillion Dollar Rescue for Wall Street Gamblers
Money â;; If the move to a Unitary Executive of unfettered presidential power frightens you, America's radical right turn to Unitary Finance should compound your fears--and your debts as well. We are on the historical road to serfdom: debt peonage to a financial oligarchy concentrating wealth in its own hands.
http://money.propeller.com/story/2008/04/15/a-t...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That is an answer I reserve for my personal judgment... not a decision to be coerced by government fiat. "
--This is total horsecrap and you know it because your government "coerces" dollars out of you for wealthy people every second of every day and you cons say NOTHING about it. You also know that cons don't always achieve success through honest, hard work and education. It's as if you think that as long as the money is being doled out to the wealthy or multi-billion dollar corporations (well *certain* multi-billion dollar corporations, anyway), they must be deserving (because if you're a capitalist or already wealthy than we can all assume you achieved this through sweat and hard work).
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, B, it's all about the value people put on fairness.
I don't believe that conservs are typically completely callous in that regard, but I think other values--such as loyalty--trump fairness as a moral operative for them.
Crudely put, the idea of making the world a safer and safer place for those who hold all the cards seems like a reasonable proposition for many on the right, I believe.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure if it's that or if it's a matter of perception.
To many Conservatives the world is a black and white place. You are a member of the have nots simply because you won't work hard enough. Full stop. It is not relevant that you are a single mother with a high school education and a sick child. That is simply not part of the equation.
To many Liberals, on the other hand, the issues that surround an issue are more important than the issue itself.
An example is necessary. Many Conservatives are against illegal immigration, ignoring the economic and political realities that make it possible. Many Liberals support immigrants regardless of their legal status because all they see are the poor conditions of many of these people, ignoring the economic, social and political consequences of that support.
It's a a problem with both sides. Conservatives are happier because they can rationalize better the inequalities they see, Liberals can not.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it's not a matter of black and white, it's not a matter of callousness.
Life is hard. To a large degree, life even sucks. What are you going to do about it? Whine and moan about how that guy has more than you've got and it's not fair? Or do you do the best you can and make the most of what you got and be content?
As far as fair... what is "fair" about illegal immigration? Those who try to come here legally face quite a few obstacles, let alone a pretty good wait, but these illegals sneak over the border, cut the line and we should give them everything? If you think that anyone who manages to get here deserves to stay, that's fine. Open the borders completely and do away with the immigration bureaucracy completely. It would save us tons of money.
Otherwise, illegal is illegal.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think a great source of the liberal angst is that they tend to think with their hearts instead of their brains. I feel... is the main base of the current (not classical) liberal philosophy. When your emotions rule, pretty much you're guaranteed to be a mess!
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And I think a great source of conservative arrogance is they think with their wallets and not their brains.
There, now that we've got the completely ludicrous generalizations out of the way, can we talk like adults?
Liberals are no more or less likely to be influenced by their emotions than conservatives. The difference is which emotions are triggered by which events.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
((Liberals are no more or less likely to be influenced by their emotions than conservatives))
If you think that, you really need to go over the talking points of todays leading liberals. It is littered with "I feel.." statements. It is totally touchy- feely and strives to make people buying into it feel they are doing good and being kind, even in the face of obvious failure -- welfare, for example. It sounds great. It's all warm and fuzzy. Who can be against giving a poor kid a helping hand?
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But, when Johnson instituted his Great Society and his War on Poverty, the black family was extremely strong -- with, I am told, an equivalent or even lower, out-of-wedlock birth rate than whites. The black church was a huge influence in their lives and drugs were not endemic as they are now. These programs had great ideals and great goals, but as they were proven not to work, rather than cut them they were expanded -- so that now, we have rap stars PRETENDING to be thugs so they can be accepted.
Just one example.
There are many more..
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, you're cherry-picking. Some of Johnson's policies certainly did hurt some people. On the other hand, most of the policies helped. Overall poverty was reduced in the country by up to 10% from its historical levels.
Ultimately, however, the war on poverty was ineffective, not because of its inception, but because of a failure of the American people to buy into the idea. Giving people access to equal opportunity can not be bad for the country. Giving them a handout and not holding them responsible most certainly is.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The war on poverty in many areas, such as Appalachia, was ineffective because of intergenerational dependence on public assistance. When my son was born, my own mother in law, who's from Tennesee, said to my wife: "Isn't it too bad you can't get WIC?" I told my wife later, "Yeah, it's too bad that we aren't indigent."
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, but why? See, that's the question that too few people are asking. The conservatives say, "pull yourself up, quit whining" and the liberals say, "here, let the government help you and we'll keep you from being incredibly poor".
They're neither one asking the main question: why?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree. We have to ask what circumstances caused (and cause) parts of the country and certain social groups to be cut off from the general rise of economic prosperity in the country.
There is NO excuse for any person in this country to be poor, un or under educated, homeless or hungry. None. There are a large number of contributing factors and many of them are out of the control of the people who are in those circumstances. Not all, of a certainty, but many.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, it's not mysterious at all. It is definitely related to job skills, although I wouldn't go to Appalachia and tell them they're institutionally poor because of a lack of work ethic. Ask your mother-in-law.
Mostly, it is a lack of vision on the part of the American people and a lack of hope on the part of those most affected by the issue. Your dad and grand-dad were coal miners and you will be too. The coal mine shuts down and you're screwed. You have no marketable job skills, other than a coal miner, and you have no ability to go where the jobs are (China). The company isn't under an obligation to retrain you (free market economy), so what are your choices? How do you retrain without money? How do you feed your family while you're retraining? Where do you go for health care? How do you pay for college for your children?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You don't know many intergenerational welfare recipients, I'm guessing. They usually have spotty work records and are content surviving on the margin. Many in Appalachia were subsistence farmers prior to welfare and at least realized that there was no substitute for feeding oneself. Many do not realize that today.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look at what I said in total. Context is everything.
"Liberals are no more or less likely to be influenced by their emotions than conservatives. The difference is which emotions are triggered by which events."
Listen to today's leading conservatives talk about things like terrorism, illegal immigration and the economy.
It's totally touchy feely and it strives to make people feel that they are doing the "right" or "patriotic" thing. How can someone be against protecting America?
See what I'm saying?
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but if you read my posts, I'm talking about classic conservatism. These people in the administrtation we've got today aren't conservatives -- they're not even neo-conservatives.
I'm also not talking about classical liberals -- I'm talking about today's liberals.
For the most part, I would suspect that you are more of a classical liberal than a modern liberal.
I will grant you that the current administration (both sides of the aisle, if the truth be told) have used the fear of terrorism as a springboard for a massive power grab (the Patriot Act and whatnot). I'm not really getting the touchy-feely part of being against illegal immigration and giving gov't services and handout to those who are here ILLEGALLY. The touchy-feely emotional aspect of that really seems to be more from the left -- well we can't let these people (who don't belong here, anyway) starve, go without medical attention, etc. ?
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How is the belief that people should be able to control the money they earn more of touchy-feely position than --well, those guys have more than they know what to do with, so let's take it from them (they have so much they'll never miss it) and give it to these guys who for whatever reason -- too stupid, too lazy, too unlucky - can't do for themselves? That's pure emotion. Emotionally, OF COURSE, you should give it to the poor guy, but does it help him in the long run if you do, or does it make him more dependent. There is something to that Chinese proverb -- if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.
It's really not that we don't want to help people, it's that we'd rather help them become independent rather than just keep giving out handouts that subjugates them and makes them dependent upon the handouts.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Think of wild bird that is pushed out of the nest as an infant. someone comes along and saves it, but it can never be released back into the wild because it has become too dependent on the handouts. That is the same type of thing that happens with so many of these well-intentioned gov't programs.
I am all for paying for education and training for people who can't afford it for themselves. I am all for providing day care while people go to work. I am all for rent assistance and food stamps and heat assistance for those who actually take those minimum and near minimum wage jobs.
I am NOT for paying people who do not attempt to help themselves. I had a cousin who had many talents. She was a gifted chef -- catered her sister's wedding, she went around lecturing for the Adam Foundation -- and, because she was unmarried, had a kid and blew out her knee, she was able to collect disability and welfare, refusing to get a job and give up the dole.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hear you, but those are cultural issues, not ideological ones.
My wife's aunt does not work, yet she receives a stipend from the government (she's ex-military) because she is 100% disabled due to a bad back. Now, that doesn't keep her from doing all of the things in daily life, but if she were to work it could become a problem. However, there are things she could be doing (and should be) to earn the money she now receives for free. She could certainly do data entry, etc.
See, we agree that people that need help should get help and we can't do that without taxing those who have more, well, more. On the other hand, I would say also that we agree that people should do what they can to avoid needing that help. The issue becomes, how do we set aside the emotion (on both sides) and address the REAL issue which is WHY are people in these situations. Why is there a cultural acceptance of mediocrity and a sense of entitlement in all aspects of our society from top to bottom?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, but it's across the board. It isn't just a liberal notion or we wouldn't have corporate bailouts and subsidies for companies that are making billions or tax breaks for small businesses.
The sooner we see that the entitlement issue is a broad based American issue rather than an ideological issue, I believe the better off we will be.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a liberal. Classical liberalism and modern liberalism are buzz-words that are used to separate us as a people and have little meaning. I believe in progress, the essential goodness of the human animal, personal autonomy and the protection of civil and political rights. I believe that governments have a contract with their people to provide for them the basic needs of human existence. Governments, as the collective expression of the people, should provide the requisite means for the people to thrive. That means basic health care, education, assistance when in need and the equality of opportunity. It does not mean that the government should provide its people with a guarentee of a "good" life. That is the responsibility of the individual.
I agree that the argument about illegal immigrants is about emotion, but it is emotional on BOTH sides of the issue. Rationally, illegal immigration is not acceptable, but it is couched in emotional terms by both sides.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I did not mean to give you a good, meant to reply.
Rationally, illegal immigration is not acceptable, but it is couched in emotional terms by both sides.
Why is it emotional to say -- either change the laws so these people can come here legally (as well as all the others that we are turning away) or enforce the laws on the books?
That is not emotional. That is rational, even you admit it.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's okay, I know you didn't mean it. LOL>>>
Both of those are rational arguments, I wouldn't disagree. On the other hand, most of the arguments that you hear from conservatives don't focus on those two arguments. And most of the arguments you hear from liberals don't either.
It's an emotionally charged issue on both sides of the equation.
(by the way, opening the borders is, in my opinion, a terrible idea)
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''I think a great source of the liberal angst is that they tend to think with their hearts instead of their brains. ''
huh?
I can't help but think of the GOP's wolf and bear ads
were those made to appeal to the brain?
all those sound bytes and one liners like 'they hate us for our freedoms', 'they'll follow us home' etc I've wasted hours debunking weren't an appeal to the intellect
I'm not sure what liberal angst is, but I know conservatives seem to be manipulated by their feelings, because the BS rhetoric that's been spouted since 9/11 is easily defeated by brains
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is a matter of seeing in black and white and you basically proved. Life doesn't suck. Life is neutral. What we do with our lives is what sucks or doesn't.
My concern is not just for myself or my family. My family is doing well. But, when I look around I see how much better my family would do if more people were doing better and it is my duty as an American to try and help make this country better. That means, as a Liberal, that I need to try and help make the opportunity for everyone as equal as possible.
Thanks for proving my point about the Conservative stance on illegal immigration. It's more complicated than that.
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''. What we do with our lives is what sucks or doesn't.''
you sound like my mother
'life is what you make it' She said that about 1,578 times
but it can be hard to make a good loaf of bread without any dough, and no arms to need it with
I'm in the Mark Twain camp
life has it's moments but it is pretty harsh
life sucks
'I envied the dead more than the living, but more than both I envied he that has never been born, he that has never seen the evil under the sun'
taken as a whole, there are but a handful of fortunate people in the world who have health and wealth and the wisdom to appreciate both
[by wealth I mean 3 hots and a cot and clean drinking water, which maybe half the earth doesn't have]
so I'm guessing you have good reason and the wisdom to feel blessed[or the secular 'fortunate'], and more power to you
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would cost an incredible amount of money.
---
so does the war and reconstruction of Iraq.. yet you are whole heartedly in favor of that....
rebuild roads and infrastructure in Iraq while the American infrastructure goes to hell... and vital projects are underfunded..
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I read an interesting thing:
some time ago, 100 or so of our top border guards were taken from their posts and sent to Iraq to teach them how to guard their borders
so we are protecting the homeland from terrorists by sending our best guards to Iraq
It all makes perfect sense
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's see, Conservative "logic". Obviously, the have nots in South Africa today are poor because they are lazy. Years of apartheid government and the complete lack of education for one class couldn't have anything to do with their situation.
If you have to accept ridiculous BS like that to be a conservative, color me liberal. I am happier when I don't have to constantly swallow BS.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Making the world a safer place for those who make the effort to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. No one has bailed me out. The property I own, the family for whom I care, are there as a result of my accpetance of personal responsiblity.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We know, we know...Your resume would put Mother Theresa to shame. We get that. What you refuse to acknowledge is that you cherry pick what qualifies as a handout or bailout, DKL. If you're a hypocrite don't lie about it. That just makes things worse. ;-(
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not hypocrite. No one asked me if it was ok to bail out Bear Stearns. Why do you insist on blaming everyone who is Conservative for what the President does? He's no more a Conservative than you are. Don't lie and repeat some more Dem catch phrases.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I don't believe that conservs are typically completely callous in that regard, but I think other values--such as loyalty--trump fairness as a moral operative for them."
--Loyalty doesn't always trump fairness. Look at...I don't know, Katherine Harris. Well, don't *look* at her (unless you want to be instantly turned to stone or struck blind by her unbelievably monstrous ugliness) but consider her sad, disgraceful plight...In 2000, she spread all four of her repulsive hooves for Bush and the GOP and what did she get for her time on her back? Exactly... Republicans threw some loose change on the bed, told her they'd screwed sheep who were a better lay than she was, turned on their heels and never looked back. There's a couple of stomach-churning lessons here. A. Katherine Harris is one hideously deformed skanky right wing shrew and B. That's the best most Republicans can do.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"She likes men though, right? Hillary, on the other hand..."
OMG, you are reading my mind, DKL... Girl-on-girl action. Holy Cow! Can we all say "ewwwwwwwww"? Why do these women even bother getting out of bed in the morning. I wouldn't. (Especially if I was in bed with two women) ;-x
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, agree, B.
Still--or perhaps "and"--it seems to me we're dealing with the ancient issue of to whom justice, in the broadest and most inclusive sense of the principle, should go.
To the strong because they are and have "earned" it? Or too...well, we're talking about a more equitable distribution here.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you know, what I tell my kids is that, if you don't like the opportunities you are given, make your own opportunities.
Who says you have to work for the man? Start your own business. There are many things you can do and types of business that you can start up on a shoestring.
To say that you can't get a job because no one will hire you is just an excuse.
Will this startup necessarily be your dream job? Probably not, but if you can provide a decent service, you can probably make a living at it.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In an unregulated unrestricted free market economy, which is what capitalism is (we currently have a regulated market economy, which is moderate socialism) there would come a time when it would be impossible to start a business due to market forces beyond your control. You would HAVE to work for the "Man" at whatever wages you could receive.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is true that if monopolies and monopsonies take over, it is very difficult to start up in those industries where the monopolies and the monopsonies are operating. But, unless the GOVERNMENT prevents or restricts the startup of a new business (through licensing and / or regulation -- off the top of my head, think hack licenses in NYC), an enterprising person can find some niche in which to do business.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But, can they succeed? It's possible, but does that give the same opportunity that regulation does? I think not.
Look at AT&T. The break-up of AT&T caused a massive growth in the technology sector and out of the break-up came more innovation and more wealth.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
first, even most free market conservatives agree that monopolies serve no one but the monopoly, although AT&T was a "natural" monopoly and it is arguable if our phone (landline) service is cheaper, more reliable or more efficient than it was under the regulated monopoly.
Quite frankly, in my business 85% of my problems (and tons of my expenses) are caused by gov't regulations many of which are not only ridiculous but contradict other regulations.
Reply-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nope, transportation, and auto/truck repairs. The amount of regulation we have to deal with is ridiculous, in addition to our governor "declaring war on trucks" every couple of years. Here in CT, we're having a war on trucks right now. It's awesome.
Reply-
Neutral
quackpot1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps you are complaining about:
---The pollution control laws that bring huge numbers of customers into your shop (although I'm eqaully sure that you will state you make no money on them).
---The laws that prevent you from dumping used tires along the roadside for others to pick up
---The laws that make you recycle oil rather than dump it into Long Island Sound.
---The laws that require the recycling of heavy metals such as lead.
---The laws that require you to provide basic work site protection for your workers
My point is that nearly all of these laws are there because of previous abuses that have cost the public huge dollars in clean up costs or in disabled workers or in other negative public problems.
I say this being a small business owner myself.
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, I have no problem with those laws -- we were disposing of our hazardous wastes properly before it was mandated, except for the ultra low sulfur diesel -- more expensive, we get about 30% fewer miles per gallon (hence more C02 emissions) and because sulfur is a lubricant, our maintenance costs have already gone up because our trucks were not designed to run on it. I am bothered by random inspections by DOT which always result in fines. We have towed trucks with less than 5000 miles on them out of DOT inspections where they were deemed "unsafe" for the road. I am bothered by OSHA regs that say that everyone MUST wear eye protection and/or hearing protection and Dept of Labor regs that say I can't fire someone because they won't use the protection I have provided. But I'm glad the gov't is your friend.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, it always implies some level of government ownership of the means of production. Here are the two definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It implies collective ownership of production, not necessarily government. For instance, many utilities would qualify. In recent years it has also come to mean control and regulation not just ownership.
You notice that I didn't call our system of economics socialism in the main. It is a regulated market economy. What I should have perhaps said is that this is similar in effect to moderate socialism.
However, your point is taken.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In modern practice, it always means government ownership. Even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation due to some market tendencies, such as the tendency to form monopolies. Therefore, you can't really categorize regulation as indicative of socialism.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps in your circles. For instance, a single payer health care system in which the government pays for health care run and administrated by private insurance companies would be called socialism by many (if not most) conservatives, but under your definition would not be. A "privatized" Social Security system where you give the money to the government and they give you options on where to place the money with private firms would also be called socialism by many, but under your definition it is not.
Publicly owned utility companies (such as a co-op) would not qualify under your definition even though they are classically socialist.
And if we don't want to call regulation socialist, then let's call it progressive or liberal instead. But, you can't call me a socialist then.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not my definition. I gave you the formal definition of socialism but you play fast and loose with it. Since Adam Smith made allowances for regulation, you can't claim the idea for the progressives either. Any business enterprise owned by the government would be socialistic.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm fine with that, but you can't call all health care for everyone socialist if the government doesn't own any of it.
You can't keep calling people socialists if they don't meet the definition that you are yourself arguing for. You're using it as a buzzword to stir the emotions (which is the argument that so many conservatives use against liberals) when what is being suggested doesn't even fit your own definition of socialism.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If a private company is acting as a surrogate for the government in running such as system and other insurance companies are excluded from competition, it would appear to be socialistic in a defacto sense. It certainly isn't a free market operation.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In my hometown, we have a group of African-Americans who have been in town forever. They had a pretty rough time (one family had the audacity to try to move out their "section" and their new house got firebombed before they moved in, I'm embarassed to say -- that was in the late 60's). Obviously no one would hire them. These families are all quite well off regardless. Why? They made their own opportunities -- they are the septic tank cleaners, garbage men, junk recyclers.
Now, I can't imagine that any of these people got out of bed one morning and declared that their life's dream was to be a sh1t sucker...but you know what? That's what they could make a living at .. and they are living quite well now -- nice cars, nice houses, vacations..
They made their own opportunities...
Of course, they could have sat around moaning how unfair it was that no one would hire them,and broken up their families so that they'd be eligible for welfare...
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
hell the ONLY black family in the county that I grew up in Indiana.... sent his childern to a private boarding school.. Culver Military Academy.. very exclusive and very expensive even in the 60's...
he hauled away peoples trash.. and did clean up work..
he paid for and had built a branch bank for the bank that gave him a small loan to buy a truck to get his business started....
he was also "according to rumor" that banks LARGEST DEPOSITOR.. by far...on a 3rd grade education...
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And I'm not. You are. Go through the thread and find a place where I said outsourcing was a bad thing. I'll bet you can't find a place, because I didn't say it.
And you were questioning my patriotism as an emotional device. Outsourcing is a good thing, not a bad one.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The success of others didn't stop me from going to college and becoming gainfully employed.
or holding yourself to be superior to all beings.. you've done nothing special to gain your self righteous attitude.. you are NORMAL.. nothing more nothing less.. no more learned that most of us.. and have no right to talk down to others with differing opinions..
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i just KNEW you were going to call me a LIB.. what a fool you wouldn't know ANYTHING ABOUT CONSERVATISM.. nothing...
you think you got where you all by your pathetic little self...
but since you think I'm a LIB.. maybe you'd like to come around and TRY to Dropkick me..
NOW THAT WOULD BE SOME REAL FUN..
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"There's nothing self-righteous about holding others to the same standard to which I hold myself"
But that's a lie because you vote for people who dole out corporate welfare like it's candy. As the article points our, you cons are very adept at rationalizing your hypocrisy. When the fetus is in the womb, cons are all "It Takes A Village" blah blah blah...but when the innocent babe is born and needs health insurance, wingers scream, hide their wallets, cry "socialism" and disappear like cockroaches into gaps in the floorboards. You can't deny this, DKL. Cons are duplicitous and hypocritical to the core. ;-(
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"socialism"
Yes...We want the same handouts Bushco gives to defense contractors and Big Oil and we want tax payer subsidized health and life insurance, and other perks and benefits like Bush and the GOP are getting. Is that too much to ask, DKL? ;-P
Reply -
-
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user34 Replies
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think one problem that jimdoze somewhat touched upon is that the definitions of conservative and liberal today are not in sync with the classic definitions. There is nothing classically conservative about our current administration.
The definition of conservative is not "those that support the policies of the current administration. Conservatives conserve. They conserve in all things. Fiscal, ecological, resources, effort... I find that many that are branded as liberal are really conservative. They are branded because they are different, not because of their opinions are liberal.
Helping others is not outside the conservative mantra, but we need to find a more efficient and beneficial way to help those that need help and to eliminate the waste that our current system enjoys.
Conservatives should lead by example. Name calling and finger pointing isn't helpful and is inefficient.
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dropkick apparently did not like finding out that they are a closet liberal.
DK, if you have a different definition of conservatism, I'd love to hear it. Surprisingly, no one has ever responded to this question when I have asked before. I wonder why. Maybe it is because they do not have a definition.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A Liberal in the traditional free market sense of the term. The definition of Conservative is more complex:
http://www.conservative-resources.com/definitio...
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no issues in how they have defined conservatism, though it is generally political in definition and really should include broader issues. Please now apply it to our current administration.
I do commend you on being the first to take a swing at the question, though I am not sure how your on-screen name represents those values. You don't need it to argue your position.
Reply -
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dropkick:
I have no problem with the concept of conservatism.
I do have a problem with equating liberalism with the devil.
If you read my Bio you will see that I believe there should be a balance between the concepts.
Although there does seem to be a consistent view point from each side, it also seems that the sands shift underfoot.
Forgive me as I make a stretch about 3. Preference for liberty over equality
(Sometimes I think the word Justice could replace equality In the perception of what I have read from folks on the right)
Okay I have a little problem with the second part of #4: Suspicion of human nature.
Not pragmatic: but part of my faith. I believe that there is that of God in all Humanity and I can not deny it in my heart.
I can only speak for myself, but my "feeling" is that it is not pragmatic to live among desperate people.
I have no problem with an exceptional individual being rewarded for their efforts.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is something wrong ...
life is not fair ...
it's not their fault ...
They didn't earn what they have ...
They don't pay their fair share ... 35% is not enough.
They don't care about the planet ...
They don't care about their own Grand Children, let alone mine ...
They're greedy bastards ...
They like to kill things ...
So ... are these liberal or conservative positions?
Happy thoughts or unhappy hate thoughts?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not saying it's productive; its a fact and it's totally unproductive! That's the mindset you choose for yourself.
How can you expect to be happy when your head is constantly filled with negative thoughts?
I can take care of business ...
I can do better ...
I've done OK considering my background ...
If you notice, the conservative mindset is around "I", not "they".
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Come now, simon, that's an incredible generalization and you know it. My head is certainly not always filled with negative thoughts.
They are trying to kill us...
Liberals all hate the wealthy...
Liberals don't love America...
The poor are just lazy...
You know how "those" people are...
Yeah, it's all about "I" not "they".
Come on, you're better than that, don't get sucked into that mentality, you know it's plain old everyday horse puckey.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But, Bush was the best man at your wedding! You saved his life, - twice. You drink from the same bottle without wiping the top first, - it was your funny joke to change the N on the warboard to a Q so that it read 'invade iraq'.
He dedicated a song to you on the radio!
I could go on but I won't. I'm not complex.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ichabod1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most of the people I know who I consider Conservatives are the next thing to dead. No sense of imagination and no sense of humor and are mostly very critical. I think the first George Bush said a lot of the people out there are upset at the thought that there is someone who is having a good time.
Reply-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find the opposite ...
I have both in my circle of friends and my experience is that those with conservative mindsets are active physically, have high hopes and expectations for themselves, their children are more popular,
Those I would consider liberal worry a lot about things they cannot control. Waste of time and energy.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The factors that create or encourage homelessness represent a reciprocity between the social and individual.
One can't usually intervene in a single case and expect to help the larger group thereby. So action on the social level is required.
Most problems have a good and better solution. It's just common sense that, in the case of homelessness, the government (as well as private agencies) should do its best to fix a social evil.
Reply -
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Simon: "Those I would consider liberal worry a lot about things they cannot control...."
But this is spurious. Who can control potentially solvable problems involving people if not people?
I, personally, can't eliminate world hunger, for example. But if I join others intent on doing so...well, the first, necessary step has been taken.
If, instead, however, I throw my hands up and say, "Well, nothing *I* can do about it..." then the car remains is the garage. As it were.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
C'mon ... you know what that means equal protection from the government! Liberals are about trying to change that.
They want the government to make me do things. I don't feel protected.
"The ability to tax is the ability to destroy" ...
Churchill?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was replying to your comment that somehow a million men rebelling against tyranny are somehow a "disaster" as you put it.
So do conservatives. I don't feel any safer.
I don't know I'll find out. Maybe Churchill, but I don't know.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
