AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So how do you choose one necessity of life over another as something that it is mandatory to provide another person?

I have a mind capable of making judgments. I use it. That is how I choose one necessity over another. Some things are more necessary than others.

Quote:

Everything on the list could be a necessity in order for somebody to be able to provide for himself and/or his family.

This is untrue.

Quote:

But if you say he has to provide his own shave and haircut and his own car, etc., why not his own healthcare if he is able to afford that?

A shave and a haircut is not something which costs a lot of money. I use a disposable razor myself which costs 3/$1.00 and cut my own hair. Anyone else who wanted to could do the same; therefore little intervention is required. Once again, I used my brain to make a judgment.

I also own no car, yet I somehow manage to keep my job and feed my family. It is not a necessity to own an automobile, only for the fat and lazy and unimaginative is it a requirement.

Quote:

How do you intelligently draw the line between what is a necessity and what is not on that list?

By using my intelligence. Isn't that how people normally intelligently do things?

Quote:

And how do you determine who gets to receive the freebies and who must be the provider in any kind of fair manner?

Everyone is a provider. That's an easy one.

Only the very, very poor receive the freebies. Also an easy one.

Your claims/threats that you could give up your life and force others to provide for you are a joke. You would never do such a thing, b/c you would not be satisfied with the quality of life you would receive. This is the heart of the problem with your argument; you somehow feel that others are getting more than they deserve, and you are getting a raw deal. But at the end of the day, you are still a business and property owner, who owns cars, has someone else cut their hair, buy many different types of food, and has savings for disasters or the future. The person who receives money from the gov't in a variety of ways still has none or very little of those things. Even though you are paying taxes and they are not, even unto the point of getting back more taxes than they paid in at all, you have much, much more than they do.

So your complaints are meaningless to me. Live a month on the gov't dole, or the equivalent you would have to make in order to qualify, and then come back and complain. I know people who are very, very poor and it's a shitty existence even with government assistance. All this bitching about how you have to support others is indicative of some sort of mental problem you have inside in my opinion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

MACs and/or conservatives in general are by far the most compassionate and generous of all Americans and probably at or near the top of generous people of the world.

Statements like this one make this thread so outrageously funny.

You're making statements that you could never, ever, possibly back up. You make statements that clearly only have validity to anyone as entrenched in conservative ideology as yourself. There is simply no way to reach those conclusions when looking at things from an objective angle.

These blanket statements about how much better all members of a particular ideology - whether conservative or liberal, authoritarian or anarchist - are compared to everybody else, or, as you put it, to all the people of the world, just make me cringe.

You postulate that the ideology you've made up is the perfect ideology. Much like the "New Soviet man", you claim that "MACs" possess crucial traits that every other human being lacks.

And the funny thing is that you will answer a post like mine by saying that you're just talking about the ideals of "MACism", that people will not necessarily be able to live up to all those ideals, but that getting "MACs" into office is so very, very important, because they are at least way closer to unreachable ideals than Democrats.

And of course, pointing out that Republicans have failed to adhere to those ideals is immaterial, because in that case, those Republicans were really just Democrats, Liberals in disguise, "RINOs", "CINOs" or "MALs". Which simply means that there's no way to invalidate your theory. Your ideology will always be right. Opponents will always be wrong. If people following your ideology **** up royally, it doesn't mean your ideology is flawed. It merely means that those people were no true followers.

MACism never fails. Only people fail MACism.

2 Replies

@old europe,

oe, All excellent points for which I was waiting for somebody else to reveal. In all my years of donating to charity, I have never been asked what party affiliation I belonged to. None.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Did you sort of overlook the reference to the exhaustive Arthur C. Brooks study conducted last year--posted just a little while ago? That study has not been successfully challenged by ANYBODY.

Do you work in social services? I don't mean the glitzsy socially elite ones, but the ones where you get up to your elbows in soapsuds in an inner city soup kitchen? Have you gone through dirty clothing in a stuffy back room of a clothing bank trying to find something usable to wash and iron that would not be an insult even to the poorest of the poor? Have you cleaned and fumigated the upholstery of an old chair to be given to a burned out family so they could partially furnish a donated apartment? Have you sat with a dazed battered woman and her terrified children in the Salvation Army chapel waiting for the police to arrive because the drunken bum was still out there looking for them?

It usually isn't the liberal do-gooders you find in places like that, but much more often it is the crusty, hard-hearted, greedy, selfish conservatives.

At least that's the way it is here in America.

Now since you wrote a most judgmental and insulting post, perhaps you would like to provide your evidence to dispute mine on just that one part of it? I offer that Arthur C. Brooks study--Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism -- and my own experience as my backup here. (The summary is in that piece I linked awhile ago.)

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/26010000/26010793.JPG

So where's yours? Re the generosity of conservatives and all the other stuff you choose to include in your (cough) objective insight?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you work in social services? I don't mean the glitzsy socially elite ones, but the ones where you get up to your elbows in soapsuds in an inner city soup kitchen? Have you gone through dirty clothing in a stuffy back room of a clothing bank trying to find something usable to wash and iron that would not be an insult even to the poorest of the poor? Have you cleaned and fumigated the upholstery of an old chair to be given to a burned out family so they could partially furnish a donated apartment? Have you sat with a dazed battered woman and her terrified children in the Salvation Army chapel waiting for the police to arrive because the drunken bum was still out there looking for them?

It usually isn't the liberal do-gooders you find in places like that, but much more often it is the crusty, hard-hearted, greedy, selfish conservatives.

At least that's the way it is here in America.

Well, I did and do such (at least similar) what you described above.

Since McG correctly pointed at: you're talking about 'there' (your 'here'). So my response and what I perhaps could have added now here and now is useless for this discussion and thread ...

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Found this in this morning’s WSJ Best of the Web section today. Although there are no bullet riddled crazed chimpanzees involved it is quite humerous. Of special note was the parent's and school official's reaction to a child’s innocent tribute to our President

Quote:

Eleven-year-old Dru Lechert-Kelly of Portland, Ore., is an admirer of Barack Obama: "He said he would try to change the world and make the economy better," the boy explains to the Oregonian. "Also because somebody told me he has a Wii all hooked up to a huge flatscreen in the White House. That's cool."
Dru, a fifth-grader at Llewellyn Elementary, wanted to pay tribute to the president in his school talent show. At a rehearsal Tuesday, the Oregonian reports, "he wore a navy blue suit, white shirt, red tie, black shoes and an Obama mask purchased at a costume shop. The choreographed routine ended with Dru on the floor in the splits":
After Thursday's performance, the "crowd went wild," Dru said. But so did some of the adults in the audience.
"I talked to the parents who are coordinating the talent show, and they feel it's inappropriate and potentially offensive," Llewellyn Principal Steve Powell said.
When asked what was offensive about Dru's skit, Powell refused to discuss it.
"I won't say why it's inappropriate," he said. "I'm not saying anything to The Oregonian. Why? Because I don't want to."
Well, that's certainly mature. Dru was told he could perform only if he doffed the mask--which apparently was similar to one Obama himself wore in a pre-election "Saturday Night Live" skit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123722236247443801.html

Apparently the adults felt Dru had re-invented the minstrel shows of old.
Wink

JM

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Not useless at all and good for you that you do that. You would be a real prince (and rarity) among strong liberals here though there are a few of those I've worked with and know of so I'm not saying that no liberals ever get involved in the down and dirty work of helping people. My daughter is one of those too and in addition to a very demanding job and playing with a band, she cooks for a soup kitchen in downtown Washington DC and I'm very very proud of her for doing that. She's no conservative by anybody's definition though she did swing quite aways to the right once she became a serious taxpayer. Smile

But by and large, other than in political activist causes and the 'status' charities, most private charities that do hands on work with the poorest of America's poor are founded and staffed by mostly conservatives here in America.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Debra law has, by implication, given us all an example of presisely the kind of idealogical fervor and intolerance of which she assuses conservatives.

Not an accusation. It's the reality that reveals itself over and over and over again. We know the "conservative" agenda frontwards and backwards.

georgeob1 wrote:

She, of course, only hopes that the Democrat Congress and our new president won't fall victim to the hubris that too often attends sudden vistory and the venality that attends power. Unfortunatelky for her - and all of us - both appear to be happening very quickly and even very early in the game.

A Democrat victory wasn't sudden. It was a long time in the making. And what did the party win? A sink hole created by your beloved GOP. America's anger with the GOP is justified. At this point, the entire country is observing that your party of obstructionists offers nothing to this country but self-serving rhetoric. The GOP has no right to demand respect.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

Look it up yourself on the internet

That is what I thought you would say. Since you have no evidence to back up your argument, I cannot except your initial statement.

JM

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

At least that's the way it is here in America.

Foxfyre wrote:

MACs and/or conservatives in general are by far the most compassionate and generous of all Americans and probably at or near the top of generous people of the world.

Contradiction alert.

Are you conceding that you have nothing to back up your earlier post, or are you subtly changing the topic, acting all insulted, so that you can argue the topic from more secure ground and from a point of moral superiority?

---

Also, I wonder why you feel the need to ask a bunch of unrelated questions about my personal experience in working for charities. I happen to have some experience, across several countries, but even from that, I wouldn't really be able to make a sweeping statement as you have done in the above post.

But maybe that was really just empty rhetoric.

2 Replies

@old europe,

I answered you OE with a very credible source to back it up. You can accept my source or not, but so far you have yet to provide a single credible source to challenge it. You never like or accept my answers anyway, so why do you continue to ask me questions? (Even overlooking that you usually won't answer mine at all.)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You seem to think that if Obama were just a Republican, he'd be doing fine. the truth is he's doing fine anyways; his approval ratings are fine and the Republican's are in the toilet.

If I remember correctly, when Bush's approval ratings were high you said that the ratings didnt matter, or that the people approving of him were all idiots.

Now you seem to be saying that the ratings matter.
Why the about face?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I also own no car, yet I somehow manage to keep my job and feed my family. It is not a necessity to own an automobile, only for the fat and lazy and unimaginative is it a requirement.

I have to take exception to that statement.
If you live in an urban area, with plenty of public transportation or plenty of bike trails, then you are correct, you dont need a car.

However, if you live in a rural area, one with no public transportation and no bike trails, then owning a vehicle IS a necessity.
Here in the county I live in, its about 25 miles to Henderson where most of the jobs are, so if you dont own a car you dont get to work.

Your statement may apply to your situation, but it most definitely does not apply to everyone, but I think you knew that.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
You seem to think that if Obama were just a Republican, he'd be doing fine. the truth is he's doing fine anyways; his approval ratings are fine and the Republican's are in the toilet.

If I remember correctly, when Bush's approval ratings were high you said that the ratings didnt matter, or that the people approving of him were all idiots.

Now you seem to be saying that the ratings matter.
Why the about face?

You do not remember correctly, sir; for you and I never conversed while Bush had a high approval rating.

You are correct, however, that I do believe the people approving of Bush were idiots. And events bore that out to be true, for he was an utter failure of a president, by any estimation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

As far as I'm aware Brooks' research showed that in America, religious people are statistically more likely to give than people without religious affiliation, and that the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservatives are virtually identical.

You, on the other hand, have argued that

Foxfyre wrote:

MACs and/or conservatives in general are by far the most compassionate and generous of all Americans and probably at or near the top of generous people of the world.

If you think that Brooks' book backs up your claims, feel free to quote the relevant material.

Making sweeping statements and, when challenged, saying "I've posted relevant material months ago - go and look it up. I've proven my point." does not actually prove your point.

I realize that this is you mode of operation, though, and I doubt you'll take the time to actually find material that would back up your claims.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I also own no car, yet I somehow manage to keep my job and feed my family. It is not a necessity to own an automobile, only for the fat and lazy and unimaginative is it a requirement.

I have to take exception to that statement.
If you live in an urban area, with plenty of public transportation or plenty of bike trails, then you are correct, you dont need a car.

However, if you live in a rural area, one with no public transportation and no bike trails, then owning a vehicle IS a necessity.
Here in the county I live in, its about 25 miles to Henderson where most of the jobs are, so if you dont own a car you dont get to work.

Your statement may apply to your situation, but it most definitely does not apply to everyone, but I think you knew that.

What forces you to live in a rural area? You could move to the city to find employment and not have to own a car. You could move closer to the town of Henderson, so it's just a 5 mile bike ride to work. I work with people who ride their bikes 15 miles each way every day, and not on bike paths, either. You have made the choice to live in an area which has no public transportation. That isn't someone else's fault.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What forces you to live in a rural area? You could move to the city to find employment and not have to own a car. You could move closer to the town of Henderson, so it's just a 5 mile bike ride to work. I work with people who ride their bikes 15 miles each way every day, and not on bike paths, either. You have made the choice to live in an area which has no public transportation. That isn't someone else's fault.

This is almost to funny.
I made those exact same arguments about people whining that they cant find work, or they arent safe in their neighborhoods, etc. and you and others attacked me and lambasted me for having no heart, that I didnt undrstand, that I was mean, etc.

Now, you are using the exact same arguments I used, and you dont see the contradiction.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
What forces you to live in a rural area? You could move to the city to find employment and not have to own a car. You could move closer to the town of Henderson, so it's just a 5 mile bike ride to work. I work with people who ride their bikes 15 miles each way every day, and not on bike paths, either. You have made the choice to live in an area which has no public transportation. That isn't someone else's fault.

This is almost to funny.
I made those exact same arguments about people whining that they cant find work, or they arent safe in their neighborhoods, etc. and you and others attacked me and lambasted me for having no heart, that I didnt undrstand, that I was mean, etc.

Now, you are using the exact same arguments I used, and you dont see the contradiction.

It is difficult for me when you accuse me of taking positions for which I have no record or memory of taking, MM. I can't move forward with the conversation based upon your memories what I may or may not have said.

Do you believe I am being heartless when I say these things to you?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@old europe,

I DID quote the relevant material OE....not months ago....maybe an hour or two ago with a link to the source of it. You however usually won't answer counter questions presented to you and rarely post anything to support any statement of merit or to support your sometimes self-righteous, hypercritical opinion. So....I've done my part to support what I wrote. It's your turn to show that you have anything other than prejudice to support yours.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Do you believe I am being heartless when I say these things to you?

No, I believe you are advocating personal responsibility, just like most conservatives do.

You are starting to come around, albeit slowly.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know