I am an extreme liberal

JLNobody wrote:

Let me add, Lash, that showing astonishment regarding opposing perspectives is not an effective argument against those perspectives.

JLN-- I am astonished at the black/white thinking expressed. I am a Republican and I am not accurately characterized--nor are many other Republicans--by some of these nutty irrational statements.

Jpin--

Thanks for taking the time with your post.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think we should send POM in there to drop cowpies.

I'll take jp's posts anytime over such as above.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Well, I see Jp's posts as whapping me about the head as I veer to the streets. I have been almost all classes over my life, except very high.
I tire of arrogance rampant, from all sides, but more from the Middle Secure and Middle Insecure.

Are you calling me arrogant, Osso?

Which part of my post offended you?

0 Replies

JP, I agree with much of what you say. Do you think that all liberals want to encourage a life of self-destruction and decadence? What we do not want is for people to starve. It IS a problem that social service STOPGAP measures often become the economic foundation for a CULTURE of poverty. I know no "liberals" who would not want to put an end to the unintended consequences of welfare programs--they should be called survival programs.
I am glad that you want programs that will assist people to rise out of their poverty and lack of education. And I'm sure you would not want to withdraw "survival programs" and let the the poor AND THEIR CHILDREN simply starve as a way of turning them into good tax-paying citizens. These are real problems that are, to my knowledge, never addressed by conservative politicians.

0 Replies

I'm not sure about this post, jp, but I have in my mind many times in the past. I'll try to address different points.

0 Replies

Oh, well, just talking, the first few paragraphs put me off from the superiority tone.

I've not been on welfare, up to what might be a year from now, maybe in 2008.

There is this "all these folks need to learn to face life and organize it" thing that bespeaks little understanding of having $300. and 800. worth of bills, even without presumed drug fests.

The lack of empathy is cold.

I've been on my present side of things, the low end, before, but not so much - and may get back above again - I've done it before and will probably repeat.

Each time through it, though, I remember the coldness.

0 Replies

Gus, you're right, but for the wrong reason. People don't know what is happening in Washington because nothing is happening in Washington. For the past eight months, both sides of the aisle engaged in interminable election-year posturing regarding gay marriage, flag burning, and illegal immigration. As a result, every pertinent pressing issue was ignored. Since election day, the Democrats have been so busy partying and telling the public how wonderful they will be that no plan of any substance has been revealed. I fail to see that there will be any substantive difference between the last Congress and the next. Most western local officials are fearful of a liberal attitude toward public lands issues, but I personally doubt if a whole lot will change. Finally, you may have thought you were quoting Elvis, but that's a Mac Davis song.

0 Replies

On past perceived arrogances, jp, I'll do a search if you want. I've been 'put off' several times, as I could guess you have by my posts. I did take them as arrogant and will search if you like. I'd rather just talk now and understand each other, however separate in view.

0 Replies

responding to Lash; the first thing I would change would be public education because of this;

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/images/s03535u.jpg

0 Replies

My preference for a first would be universal health insurance for all children in our country. Second comes an education based on the three R's.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

responding to Lash; the first thing I would change would be public education because of this;

There's something missing there Dys.... could be a big part of the problem.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

JP, I agree with much of what you say. Do you think that all liberals want to encourage a life of self-destruction and decadence? What we do not want is for people to starve. It IS a problem that social service STOPGAP measures often become the economic foundation for a CULTURE of poverty. I know no "liberals" who would not want to put an end to the unintended consequences of welfare programs--they should be called survival programs.
I am glad that you want programs that will assist people to rise out of their poverty and lack of education. And I'm sure you would not want to withdraw "survival programs" and let the the poor AND THEIR CHILDREN simply starve as a way of turning them into good tax-paying citizens. These are real problems that are, to my knowledge, never addressed by conservative politicians.

JL,

The reason for my post was to highlight what Ithought would be a good plan for helping people out of a rough spot. I did not say anything about "liberals want(ing) to encourage a life of self-destruction and decadence."

I have also stated that there does need to be "survival programs" for people. What I don't like is interjecting things like "let the the poor AND THEIR CHILDREN simply starve." These kinds of statements do nothing to forward the discussion and merely try to make people feel guilty. It is statements like this that lead to decisions based off of emotion... which are often the wrong decision.

We all want to help people, but we spend so much time trying to prove that our side has moral superiorty over the other, that nothing good is accomplished. Instead we end up with rules and regulations and programs that look good and make us feel good but don't do anything to help the people that need it.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Oh, well, just talking, the first few paragraphs put me off from the superiority tone.

I've not been on welfare, up to what might be a year from now, maybe in 2008.

There is this "all these folks need to learn to face life and organize it" thing that bespeaks little understanding of having $300. and 800. worth of bills, even without presumed drug fests.

The lack of empathy is cold.

I've been on my present side of things, the low end, before, but not so much - and may get back above again - I've done it before and will probably repeat.

Each time through it, though, I remember the coldness.

Osso,

I'm not sure why you are taking this so personally or what I said that offended you so much. My first few paragraphs were directed towards those that take advatage of the system. That steal tax payers dollars and in return provide nothing towads the advancement of society.

If you are not one of these persons, but merely a person that needed some help during a rough patch, then you should not be offended because I wasn't talking about you. If you are one of those persons that merely takes advantage of the system... well, I can understand why you would be offended, but I certainly do not apologize for my statement because I think I am right.

Everybody needs help sometime in their life... and we should have a system in place to help people out. But no matter how much we give a person, eventually they need to take responsibility for their life and responsibility for their actions. Giving people the tools to accomplish that is not arrogant... it is the best thing that we could do for them and for society.

0 Replies

jp, for a few years I was the director of federal assistance programs for 9 counties in western colorado, this included a wide variety of programs but few actual rules/regulations. I rented a one room office, used my own personal computer, hired a secretary/bookkeeper and 3 "outreach workers" I went to all the country commissions and city councils and asked them for space in local libraries as well as other public structures. At the end of the first 2 years a team of washington beuraucratic types flew out to visit me because I had the most people helped with the lowest cost (I think they came to ski) I spent the day with them explaining that being a westerner I wasn't very bright on developing forms of application or eligibility as I has had a one page form asking them what they needed and why. One situation I remember is that a family had come in and stated that they took in their grand-mother in order to prevent her going to live in a nursing home (medicaid expense) they had closed in their garage to give her a room to sleep in but it was unheated so my outreach worker bought them a space heater. In essence I simply asked what people needed and attempted to provide for those needs. In my experience, a republican would have demanded strict controls on who got what assistance while ignoring the simple needs of families and independence. I was way too liberal.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

In essence I simply asked what people needed and attempted to provide for those needs. In my experience, a republican would have demanded strict controls on who got what assistance while ignoring the simple needs of families and independence. I was way too liberal.

Perhaps... but there needs to be some controls in place. From the Social Security scam article I linked to earlier:

Quote:

19 people have been charged in federal court in Milwaukee with scamming the Social Security Administration out of some $270,000

That is 19 people in one city in one state that stole $270,000. Had you asked them what they needed they probably would have told you they needed money and had a nice story to go along with it. The system is to full of loopholes and ripe for fraud. While I commend you for helping out the family help out their grandmother, and understand the point of your post, I also see the necessity for having some safegaurds in place.

Katrina is an excellent example of this. We rushed to send as much money as possible as fast as we could down there and what we got was rampant fraud and people stealing money from the people who needed it most.

0 Replies

Funny you mention Katrina, one of the worst boondoggels of the Bush Admin, If you don't have a plan , send money and then bitch about how it is spent but never accept any responsibility when you can blame others.

0 Replies

I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond to that...

I thought we were talking about helping people and the need for there to be some safeguards in place. I wasn't blaming (or defending) anybody and certainly didn't agree with sending the money down there without a plan.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand?

0 Replies

JP, when I refer to our obligation to help poor children I AM appealing to our sense of guilt. If American children are hungry and uneducated we ARE guilty and should own up to it. Guilt is a necessary emotion, without it we have, what we see in the Bush administration, a group of socio-pathic power holders
You say "We all want to help people...". You know, surely, that that is a gross exaggeration. Indifference to the plight of the poorest among us is endemic. You are right in that so much of what "do gooders" do is mere show. What you should call for is the improvement of, and oversight on all government programs. I think we need some kind of generalized bi-parisan or non-partisan institution that maintains a careful watch on the ethical status of such programs--and don't tell me that that's merely another layer of bureacracy.

By the way, unlike "ditto heads," you are the kind of conversative with whom we liberals CAN talk. You have my appreciation, even when you have my disagreement.

0 Replies

JP, when I refer to our obligation to help poor children I AM appealing to our sense of guilt. If American children are hungry and uneducated we ARE guilty and should own up to it. Guilt is a necessary emotion, without it we have, what we see in the Bush administration, a group of socio-pathic power holders
You say "We all want to help people...". You know, surely, that that is a gross exaggeration. Indifference to the plight of the poorest among us is endemic. You are right in that so much of what "do gooders" do is mere show. What you should call for is the improvement of, and oversight on all government programs. I think we need some kind of generalized bi-parisan or non-partisan institution that maintains a careful watch on the ethical status of such programs--and don't tell me that that's merely another layer of bureacracy.

By the way, unlike "ditto heads," you are the kind of conversative with whom we liberals CAN talk. You have my appreciation, even when you have my disagreement.

0 Replies

JP, when I refer to our obligation to help poor children I AM appealing to our sense of guilt. If American children are hungry and uneducated we ARE guilty and should own up to it. Guilt is a necessary emotion, without it we have, what we see in the Bush administration, a group of socio-pathic power holders
You say "We all want to help people...". You know, surely, that that is a gross exaggeration. Indifference to the plight of the poorest among us is endemic. You are right in that so much of what "do gooders" do is mere show. What you should call for is the improvement of, and oversight on all government programs. I think we need some kind of generalized bi-parisan or non-partisan institution that maintains a careful watch on the ethical status of such programs--and don't tell me that that's merely another layer of bureacracy.

By the way, unlike "ditto heads," you are the kind of conversative with whom we liberals CAN talk. You have my appreciation, even when you have my disagreement.

0 Replies

I am an extreme liberal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know