2
   

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

 
 
BillyFalcon
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 11:15 am
Conservatives, like liberals, also believe in the neccesity for change. But not now.

Conservatives are people who believe in the ideas of dead liberals.

Example:

"In 1916 Congress made its first effort to control child labor
by passing the Keating-Owen Act. The legislation forbade the transportation among states of products of factories, shops or canneries employing children under 14 years of age, of mines employing children under 16 years of age, and the products of any of these employing children under 16 who worked at night or more than eight hours a day."

Proponents of the act were vilified as Socialists, Communists , etc.

Do you know of any living conservatives who would advocate a return to twelve year olds working in coal mines?



 
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 12:55 pm
As far as the original idea of this thread....maybe it has to do with the fact that conservatives do tend to focus on their own immediate problems, themselves, the family, and perhaps a close circle of friends. If you are doing well, the family is doing well etc...you will be simply be happier.

This in itself is not easy, life is full of those crappy days that can bring the most optimistic persons outlook down to a dismal blahhh attitude. Life is hard, it is full of failure, and it is not fair...how well you deal with those facts goes a long way in determing your happiness. If you accept them and learn to deal with them, more often than not...you will be able to roll with the punches.

If you tend to focus on other peoples problems as well as your own, you are opening yourself up to the certainty of more failure in your life. If you really do care about others {as most Lib's usually do} you are going to be disappointed more often, especially those that put others before their own interests.

A Con might look at it this way: The bills are paid, we had a nice dinner tonight, kids are doing well in school...life it good.

A Lib might look at it this way: The bills are paid, we had a nice dinner tonight, kids are doing well in school...life is good, but what about those families that are not so fortunate, what can I do to ease their burden. And what about that poor spotted owl, aparthtide, the rain forest, world hunger, the ozone...etc.

Of course those are just stereotypes of Liberal worries, used just to make a point, I don't think those things are on the mind of every single Liberal minded person.

I do wonder about the people that volunteer in homeless shelters, does the satisfaction they receive from helping others equal the depression of seeing people in that state.
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 01:33 pm
Just my opinion, but the Op-ed topic was so inflammatory about liberals written by a writer who never appears happy. I mean for God's sake he looks like he sucks on lemons constantly! I have enjoyed some of his columns...he loved one of my favorite books, "Cold Mountain", he likes our good old American baseball pastime, and he humbly wrote some wonderful columns about his child who is Mongoloid.

This is just another one of those threads that we feel free to bach each other about. I have a feeling there are just as many curmudgeons on both sides of the political spectrum. Especially if they haven't had their morning cup of coffee! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 01:35 pm
bach=bash....can't type worth beans! Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:10 pm
2PacksAday wrote:
As far as the original idea of this thread....maybe it has to do with the fact that conservatives do tend to focus on their own immediate problems, themselves, the family, and perhaps a close circle of friends. If you are doing well, the family is doing well etc...you will be simply be happier.

This in itself is not easy, life is full of those crappy days that can bring the most optimistic persons outlook down to a dismal blahhh attitude. Life is hard, it is full of failure, and it is not fair...how well you deal with those facts goes a long way in determing your happiness. If you accept them and learn to deal with them, more often than not...you will be able to roll with the punches.

If you tend to focus on other peoples problems as well as your own, you are opening yourself up to the certainty of more failure in your life. If you really do care about others {as most Lib's usually do} you are going to be disappointed more often, especially those that put others before their own interests.

A Con might look at it this way: The bills are paid, we had a nice dinner tonight, kids are doing well in school...life it good.

A Lib might look at it this way: The bills are paid, we had a nice dinner tonight, kids are doing well in school...life is good, but what about those families that are not so fortunate, what can I do to ease their burden. And what about that poor spotted owl, aparthtide, the rain forest, world hunger, the ozone...etc.

Of course those are just stereotypes of Liberal worries, used just to make a point, I don't think those things are on the mind of every single Liberal minded person.

I do wonder about the people that volunteer in homeless shelters, does the satisfaction they receive from helping others equal the depression of seeing people in that state.


I disagree. While it is true that modern conservatives are currently the classical liberals and modern liberals more often than not emulate classical conservatives, it is generally modern conservatives who staff the soup lines, man the homeless shelters, minister in leper colonies, sort out used clothing in the thrift shops, show up to help at disaster scenes (the Mennonites are always there), and give the bulk of charitable contributions.

There is burnout, yes, among people working hands on with the disabled, addicted, dying, etc. and this is why there is always room for fresh recruits. But overall, none of us who have done this work are in any way depressed by doing it. And I think this is one reason conservatives may be happier. They generally see potential for improvement and people getting better instead of seeing people in perpetual victimization and in need of resuce.

It is mostly conservatives who are looking at possibile solutions to existing problems and projecting a better way to get it done while it is mostly liberals who are wringing their hands, taking up their protest signs, gnashing their teeth that there is a problem, and crying 'the sky is falling!"

It is mostly conservatives who join the armed forces, are doing volunteer watch duty at our borders, join the Guardian Angels, organize self defense classes and firearms training and do what they can to make their family, communities, and nation safer.

Conservatives put together think tanks to do research to recognize new innovations and/or to solve problems. Liberals put together think tanks to combat conservatives.

And while all this is dealing in broad generalities and there will be many anecdotal exceptions, it ultimately comes down to the fact that talking and doing are very different things. I know many liberals that I am proud to call friend, coworker, coactivist, etc. etc. etc. and many who accomplish tremendous things. But these do seem to be in a minority among those who call themselves liberal.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:13 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
McGentrix wrote:
Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
Yah but Liberalism means relaxed sexual mores and that's good enough for me :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:17 pm
BillyFalcon wrote:
Conservatives, like liberals, also believe in the neccesity for change. But not now.

Conservatives are people who believe in the ideas of dead liberals.

Example:

"In 1916 Congress made its first effort to control child labor
by passing the Keating-Owen Act. The legislation forbade the transportation among states of products of factories, shops or canneries employing children under 14 years of age, of mines employing children under 16 years of age, and the products of any of these employing children under 16 who worked at night or more than eight hours a day."

Proponents of the act were vilified as Socialists, Communists , etc.

Do you know of any living conservatives who would advocate a return to twelve year olds working in coal mines?



 


There have always been the amoral and immoral among the population regardless of professed ideology.

But you are right. The modern conservative is much closer to the classical liberal than is the modern liberal. And the modern conservative is most likely to be pro marriage, pro family, pro community, pro country. And the modern conservative is going to almost always be pro child which means that unnecessary or careless child endangerment is not an option.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:24 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

But you are right. The modern conservative is much closer to the classical liberal than is the modern liberal.


But only - and this even 'only eventually' - when you think of 'modern liberal' in the American terminology.

Which is - pardon me - rather stupid, since liberals elsewhere outsite the USA are still proud of their liberal traditions and don't fit at all in this pigeonwhole.

See: Liberal International
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
BillyFalcon wrote:
Conservatives, like liberals, also believe in the neccesity for change. But not now.

Conservatives are people who believe in the ideas of dead liberals.

Example:

"In 1916 Congress made its first effort to control child labor
by passing the Keating-Owen Act. The legislation forbade the transportation among states of products of factories, shops or canneries employing children under 14 years of age, of mines employing children under 16 years of age, and the products of any of these employing children under 16 who worked at night or more than eight hours a day."

Proponents of the act were vilified as Socialists, Communists , etc.

Do you know of any living conservatives who would advocate a return to twelve year olds working in coal mines?



 


There have always been the amoral and immoral among the population regardless of professed ideology.

But you are right. The modern conservative is much closer to the classical liberal than is the modern liberal. And the modern conservative is most likely to be pro marriage, pro family, pro community, pro country. And the modern conservative is going to almost always be pro child which means that unnecessary or careless child endangerment is not an option.


So conservatives of the future will accept Gay marriage, support a woman's right to choose and let scientists decide what is taught in science classrooms?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:36 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

But you are right. The modern conservative is much closer to the classical liberal than is the modern liberal.


But only - and this even 'only eventually' - when you think of 'modern liberal' in the American terminology.

Which is - pardon me - rather stupid, since liberals elsewhere outsite the USA are still proud of their liberal traditions and don't fit at all in this pigeonwhole.

See: Liberal International


Well excuuuuuuuse, me, Walter. Would you enlighten me on why the American definition of liberal or conservative is stupid and the European version is not? I believe George Will was writing for an American audience as was the Pew Research poll he cited done with Americans.

Do you see it as your moral responsibility to dictate to us what definitions we use for anything?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 03:47 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Would you enlighten me on why the American definition of liberal or conservative is stupid and the European version is not? I believe George Will was writing for an American audience as was the Pew Research poll he cited done with Americans.

Do you see it as your moral responsibility to dictate to us what definitions we use for anything?


I didn't talk about conservatism.

Perhaps 'stupid' is the wrong word, incorrect would be better. Sorry.

I don't neither dictate you nor the American public wjhat to say and what words to use.


I didn't notice that you still were referring to the Will article.

I feel awfully sorry and excuse very much for having disturbed you.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Feb, 2006 05:27 pm
I am in a snarly mood today, Walter, that has nothing to do with you. I reacted to your post more harshly than I normally would, and I'm sorry too.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
If that were true, I doubt he would have bothered to write such a lengthy essay on how miserable liberals truly are.


There's an unbelievable irony that hasn't appeared as yet and I'm on page 3.

George Will <----> happiness

Those two things are polar opposites.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:12 am
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
I find a lot of anger in white male conservatives who think they are some kind of threatened species.


Should it surprise anyone that snood finds a lot of anger in white male conservatives? I know I am not surprised.


And neither am I, NOT in the least!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:17 am
Lightwizard wrote:
George Will, the eternally sour-faced TV "personality," who more often looks like he just had a meal of sour grapes and just removed a splintered broomstick from his ass represents "happiness." This is a profound joke.


Half way thru, ... I knew that irony so profound could not possibly escape everyone.

BIIIIIINGO, Lightwizard!!
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 09:16 am
Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Individual people, even conservatives, are usually able to find something to smile about once in awhile on an individual personal level. That, however, was not the thesis of this thread.

It was, actually. At least the actual data Will refers too, stripping away the rhetorical flourishes, was. His column is based on a piece of research that shows more conservatives call themselves "very happy" then liberals, and that this has been so since the 70s. The "very happy" in the research did not actually specifically refer to the political context as you imply (being "very happy" with the political situation, or something); just: "very happy", period. More conservatives call themselves "very happy" - period - than liberals. Thats all we have to go on. The rest is (gratuitous) interpretation.

Perhaps you missed this paragraph in Will's piece:
"Such puzzles show why social science is not for amateurs. Still, one cannot -- yet -- be prosecuted for committing theory without a license, so consider a few explanations of the happiness gap." He wasn't claiming any authority on this subject. He was making a personal observation. In his opening comment, McG concurred and offered it for discussion.

For all these pages now, however, the liberals have been mostly taking shots at the messenger(s) rather than considering whether the message had any merit. And so far, only eBrown has offered a theory to dispute it. It is that phenomenon that causes conservatives to think of liberals as angry, accusatory, dissatisfied people and, yes, unhappy people.


As for me, when I look at a conservative like McG who actually posted this article - or at you, say, for example - I dont actually see you "very happy" much at all - gleeful or smug, often enough, but not just happy. There's a bunch of lefties for whom the same goes, mind you. But re: this thread, there's a certain irony in hearing someone who doesnt, here at least, ever seem to be very happy him/herself, gloat about an article that shows that, well, at least many of his fellow conservatives are apparently happier than those damn liberals who annoy him/her so much all the time. :wink:

You also presume to be judge and jury of what the rest of us are all about don't you? Are not most of your own postings directly targeted at one of us conservative types and aren't they usually quite negative, judgmental, or even insulting? Who are you to presume whether McG or anybody else is happy or unhappy? This thread was not about that.

Foxfyre wrote:
I've heard too that there are people who actually understand the concept of the big picture and don't engage in perpetual naval gazing and/or nitpicking.

Ah yes, "but its about the big picture!" - the last resort for those who dont care to get their facts straight.

What facts? What facts are necessary to have a philosophical discussion? Is the idea of discussing a philosophy or idea that foreign to you? When we first started exchanging posts, you were able to see the big picture on many subjects. You were even capable of seeing opposing points of view and I enjoyed your thoughtful analysis of them. Who have you been hanging out with lately that causes you to now see that as a 'last resort to those who don't care to get their facts straight'?

Foxfyre wrote:
There are some members, McG included, who do understand this and who can actually discuss something, even something positive, without making a point to be personally insulting to another member.

You must be joking, right? I mean, you could have pointed at many most polite fellow conservatives, from Georgeob1 to JustWonders, but McGentrix is, well, actually often enough quite witty in his insults, but it's definitely something of a specialty (I assume he's quite proud of it, actually). And his contributions to "discussion" seem to oscillate between lengthy copy/pastes and short putdowns, exclusively. Again, the putdowns are funny enough sometimes - I think it's called South Park conservatism (and there are worse kinds I suppose) - but it hardly makes for the poster child to your submission... :wink:


No I'm not joking at all. If you're going to gig McG on his occasional pointed one-liners, then you should at least be decent enough to gig the many liberal members who engage in that activity. And frankly, sir, you do not have the moral authority to judge anybody on courtesy given your custom of regularly 'putting down' those of us you evidentally have decided are unworthy as your intellectual equals.


Occasional? Most of McGentrix's FREQUENT putdowns are girly insinuations (you probably don't get most of them) that if stated directly would get her banned.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:48 am
Geez, is McGentrix a "she"?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 12:49 pm
Roxxxane has adopted The Governator's "girly men" stale joke.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 01:26 pm
snood wrote:
Geez, is McGentrix a "she"?


Wouldn't that just blow your mind?

No, I am not a she. Just roxxxanne, harper, redheat, etc's attempt to get a response.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 01:43 pm
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Geez, is McGentrix a "she"?


Wouldn't that just blow your mind?

No, I am not a she. Just roxxxanne, harper, redheat, etc's attempt to get a response.


Yeah, that woulda knocked my hold on reality for a loop.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:42:43