okie
You'll be much better off if you do some more reading and thinking rather than just attending to whatever the hell it is you presently attend to.
Though there'd be a lot in this book with which I'd disagree to the point of wanting to go at the fellow with a weed-eater, there are other points or issues where I'd probably share some notions. Why don't you pick this up and do a careful read. Or until then, take a look at this short review from the WS. Or, even more briefly, take a look at this bit I've noted in red. What constitutes "conservatism" isn't so easily turned into simplistic cliches.
Quote:Gerson's idealism has two parts. The first, "idealism abroad," concerns the "promotion of liberty and hope" as "alternatives to hatred and bitterness." The second, "idealism at home," involves a "determination to care for the weak and vulnerable" while healing "racial divisions" by the "expansion of opportunity." Idealism is not the "ideology of minimal government," nor is it the "rigid secularization" that endangers "one of the main sources
of social justice in American history," religious faith.
Furthermore, idealism itself is endangered. Currently there is a "backlash" against it. Some on the right seek to replace idealism abroad with "realist" policies which are "deeply skeptical" that "other countries can sustain democracy." Others want to "get back" to what they see as the "real business" of conservatism: "cutting government." Gerson does not like these people. He saw their governing vision at work "in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina," when the "administration found men and women who had never had a bank account." Such a problem--"so clearly rooted in governmentally enforced oppression"--requires an "active response by government."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/872nozul.asp
And therein is a key difference between the liberal mindset and the conservative point of view.
Most liberals seem to think that the government is responsible to remove the risks, rescue every soul, and restore all losses to the unfortunate people caught in the path of a Katrina. If any perish or even suffer, it is the government's fault.
Conservatives more often think that the adults should have been doing whatever was necessary to take care of themselves and the children. Conservative men would have been out there hotwiring those school busses to take the people out. They would have packed up and gotten their families out when they were advised that they were in the path of a Cat 5 hurricane and they wouldn't have been standing around waiting for somebody else to do that for them.
Liberals blame the government if people have never had a checking account or a job or any incentive to get one. Well, in a way they might be right because. . .
Conservatives think the schools should be teaching kids about banking and checkbooks and the value of preparing oneself to support oneself and the virtues of being a contributor instead of a ward of government. The schools should be teaching kids that everybody has sh*t to deal with but we live in a country where nobody has to live in it as a permanent condition so stay in school and we'll give you what you need to competently take care of yourself. The only true self esteem is in your right to be proud of yourself for accomplishing success and excellence, and that is up to you.
Liberals seem to think it is the government's role to smooth the consequences for those who make destructive choices in life. Conversatives think governments primary role should be to encourage people to make better choices--many of the nations least fortunate aren't hearing about better choices from anybody. But nothing changes if people don't have to suffer the consequences of the choices they make. Without consequences they will have little incentive to make better ones.
and, of course ~ nothing could be further from the truth!
for a good fix for your problem, trying thinking nothing for 2 or 3 years.
So pray tell us what is the truth BillW. You are in New Orleans and your family and your neighbors are without transportation. A Cat 5 hurricane is bearing down on you. What do you do?
trying thinking nothing, the truth has no ability for you to comprehend at this early date, but it is promising that you seem to recognize your problem and are looking for help!
Foxfyre wrote:So pray tell us what is the truth BillW. You are in New Orleans and your family and your neighbors are without transportation. A Cat 5 hurricane is bearing down on you. What do you do?
But Foxfyre,
hotwiring a schoolbus is ILLEGAL!!!!!!
....
And when you've all answered the above question, here's the next one: You're in New Orleans. You've been hit by a Cat 5 hurricane, but didn't make it out of the city.
There's no food in the house, and nothing to drink. But there's a locked supermarket across the street.
As a conservative man, do you wait for the government to drop food and water for you and your family, or do you feel personally responsible for the welfare of your family, try to make it to the supermarket, break in and get some water and food?
You may also answer if you're a conservative woman.
It is interesting that Foxy don't see the conservative women doing any of the hotwiring.
Foxfyre wrote:And therein is a key difference between the liberal mindset and the conservative point of view.
Most liberals seem to think that the government is responsible to remove the risks, rescue every soul, and restore all losses to the unfortunate people caught in the path of a Katrina. If any perish or even suffer, it is the government's fault.
Conservatives more often think that the adults should have been doing whatever was necessary to take care of themselves and the children. Conservative men would have been out there hotwiring those school busses to take the people out. They would have packed up and gotten their families out when they were advised that they were in the path of a Cat 5 hurricane and they wouldn't have been standing around waiting for somebody else to do that for them.
Liberals blame the government if people have never had a checking account or a job or any incentive to get one. Well, in a way they might be right because. . .
Conservatives think the schools should be teaching kids about banking and checkbooks and the value of preparing oneself to support oneself and the virtues of being a contributor instead of a ward of government. The schools should be teaching kids that everybody has sh*t to deal with but we live in a country where nobody has to live in it as a permanent condition so stay in school and we'll give you what you need to competently take care of yourself. The only true self esteem is in your right to be proud of yourself for accomplishing success and excellence, and that is up to you.
Liberals seem to think it is the government's role to smooth the consequences for those who make destructive choices in life. Conversatives think governments primary role should be to encourage people to make better choices--many of the nations least fortunate aren't hearing about better choices from anybody. But nothing changes if people don't have to suffer the consequences of the choices they make. Without consequences they will have little incentive to make better ones.
So, you represent the 'true' or the 'proper' version of Conservatism. Gerson, on the other hand, is an apostate, a liberal?
In true modern liberal fashion, you're all missing the point here.
The point is that 'real men' don't sit around waiting for somebody to save them. They get busy and get it done. And yes, if you are stranded during an emergency and the children are hungry and there is no food, you do whatever is necessary to get it including breaking into the abandoned supermarket if that is necessary. And yes, if you need to get your family out of harms way you would even hotwire a schoolbus if that was the only way you had to save people.
We aren't talking every day normal circumstances here. We are talking about an extreme situation that could call for extreme measures. There is a huge difference between that and doing illegal activities because you were too lazy or stupid or ignorant to stay in school and prepare yourself to support yourself or just because doing something illegal is easier than doing honorable work.
The point is that some look to the government to be their mommy, daddy, savior, protector, and benefactor.
And some look to the government to produce an environment where we can and should take care of ourselves as much as we can reasonably do that.
That is in no way suggesting that there is no place, purpose, value for the military, regulators, police officers or fire fighters, etc.. Of course we need practical government services to help during the normal difficulties that are part of everyday life and/or prevent as much as possible the violence or misery that some people intentionally heap on others. Conservatives are quite happy to hand over their hard earned money in taxes to support these services. And conservatives are usually pretty big on benevolence that helps the less fortunate--they just think the government shouldn't have the ability to order them to be charitable.
And this does not mean that there won't be anecdotal instances that will be exceptions to the rule.
The reason the conservative movement is in so much trouble is that it is rife with contradictions.
It is OK to break into a supermarket, or hotwire a schoolbus to keep your kids from starving... but crossing a border is out of the question.
The "us vs them" arguments are the conservative attempts to avoid these contradictions.
Border security is neither a conservative nor liberal issue--some pro illegal immigration liberals tend to be sufficiently hostile, however, that my previous immigration thread was closed, never to be reopened, because of it. On a board where 3/4ths of the active members are professed liberals or Democrats though, the evidence in the attached poll is pretty clear that the rule of law re illegal immigration is preferred by as many liberals as conservatives. National statistics support that as well.
But again, we aren't talking about national policy or everyday events here. We are talking about decisions that must be made in unusual and extreme circumstances. Most people can grasp that concept. I accept that some simply cannot.
I don't think that republicans will be able to call themselves conservatives until they distance themselves from the extreme views of Christianity.
T
K
O
As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?
Foxfyre wrote:As many liberals are Christian as are Conservatives. So does that work both ways?
And we know they are Christians by the love they have for one another.
There are at least five different Greek words for love, ebrown. Which one are you using here?
Foxfyre wrote:There are at least five different Greek words for love, ebrown. Which one are you using here?
Eros is probably inappropriate between conservative and liberal Christians.
But either of the other major two would be a nice change.
