Conservatism and Skepticism
- Thread starter HarryKeogh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conservatism skepticism
This hits the nail on the head. Few people are truly well represented by their national party.
I used to be a liberal Republican of the northwest style. The national Republican party is now led by conservative southerners. The Democratic party have never represented me economically.
I am sure that most intelligent, informed people have strong dislike with both parties.
CBL
phildonnia
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,439
Savagemutt said:
GWB seemed to try to cast himself this way 4 years ago.
Damn, I believed him at the time. I bring shame to skepticism. As a sign of pennance, I will cut off my little finger and mail it to Ft. Lauderdale.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Just out of curiousity, do you feel that Clinton with a Democatic majority in Congress, lived up to his promise to gays in the context of being able to openly serve in the military, or to get married?
He couldn't even pass health care!
Clinton never promised gays marriage.
But he moved gay rights forward.
Even if Clinton was totally silent on gay rights, it was better than what the Republicans were offering. Boos and hisses from the floor of their convention in 92.
Clinton never promised gays marriage.
But he moved gay rights forward.
Even if Clinton was totally silent on gay rights, it was better than what the Republicans were offering. Boos and hisses from the floor of their convention in 92.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
But he wasn't silent...he repeatedly promised that gays would be able to serve openly in the military, and that they would be equal members of American society.
Not that any other candidate has kept many of their campaign promises, but usually the people who are shortchanged don't go to such lengths to claim that they were never promised anything.
And going back to my earlier post, as a minority, I personally don't feel as bad when attacked or bellittled by someone who is openly antagonisitc to 'my kind' as I do when someone is smiling to my face, and stabbing me in the back.
Not that any other candidate has kept many of their campaign promises, but usually the people who are shortchanged don't go to such lengths to claim that they were never promised anything.
And going back to my earlier post, as a minority, I personally don't feel as bad when attacked or bellittled by someone who is openly antagonisitc to 'my kind' as I do when someone is smiling to my face, and stabbing me in the back.
I started writing a long answer to this thread, but it turned into a manifesto with threats and a list of demands to the Australian Zoological Society. Perhaps it's best to go one example at a time. That's life afterall-- a long series of anecdotes. In no special order.....
One fine example is the microcosm of giving money to the homeless who hold signs like "will work for food", "jesus loves you", and "I smell like piss and rat droppings". They only spend your charity on booze, and if you buy them food, they go spastic. They will freeze to death rather than go to a shelter. If they do go to a shelter, it's with one purpose-- to take care of themselves JUST LONG ENOUGH so they can go get drunk again.
None of that has anything to do with anything. It's just sad and pointless.
The anger (ie conservatism) comes when a mostly wealthy group of do-gooders (liberals) quite literally invite themselves into my pocket, take out a dollar, and give it to-- who? the homeless? No, they give it to a social worker; a person who will lobby for another $3 from my pocket to spend on the hopeless.. I mean homeless. They can make $25 and $30K a year doing this, and think themselves saints for the job they do. Their managers make $40 and $50K a year supervising them. Those managers commission million-dollar studies to determine that it sucks to be poor, and if you're poor and an addict, then you'll end up homeless. Things we all learn by the 2nd grade.
If they're really good at their jobs, state and federal social workers can win huge contracts to build new facilities in the form of 10-year projects for unionized construction labor (in spite of their murderous and coercive tendencies), staffed with a full array of state workers, nurses, etc, so that a poor drug-ridden neighborhood can have a rec center, as if more idle time is what they need. (ps, why don't I get a rec center? Oh that's right- I work all the time, ever since being a minimum wage teenager. Working people don't need rec centers, and if they do then they pay for a membership rather than force wealthier folks to bulid them a free health club using guilt-tactics, crying racism, and making veiled threats that we'll riot or sell drugs if they refuse.)
And so a microcosm turns into the macrocosm of government. Forced charity in the form of taxes supports a large army of useless careers, whose main objective is not helping the poor but advocating for their own occupations and getting ridiculous overtime pay for thug Teamsters (who build centers for thug gangsters) and pay traffic cops to oversee worksites so that nobody gets the notion to run them down with their vehicle.
That's massachusetts government. Build a billion-dollar safety net when a cheap bungee would do, all for people who don't even walk the high-wire (me), and those who do either refuse to use a shelter, or carelessly abuse its existence because they know they can... there will always be a liberal there to catch them with a portion of my paycheck.
(For the record, I will read any replies out of interest, but I won't debate anything extensively. There's no point in arguing, since these are all basic values that one sees as good or bad, and thus a matter of opinion and not fact.)
One fine example is the microcosm of giving money to the homeless who hold signs like "will work for food", "jesus loves you", and "I smell like piss and rat droppings". They only spend your charity on booze, and if you buy them food, they go spastic. They will freeze to death rather than go to a shelter. If they do go to a shelter, it's with one purpose-- to take care of themselves JUST LONG ENOUGH so they can go get drunk again.
None of that has anything to do with anything. It's just sad and pointless.
The anger (ie conservatism) comes when a mostly wealthy group of do-gooders (liberals) quite literally invite themselves into my pocket, take out a dollar, and give it to-- who? the homeless? No, they give it to a social worker; a person who will lobby for another $3 from my pocket to spend on the hopeless.. I mean homeless. They can make $25 and $30K a year doing this, and think themselves saints for the job they do. Their managers make $40 and $50K a year supervising them. Those managers commission million-dollar studies to determine that it sucks to be poor, and if you're poor and an addict, then you'll end up homeless. Things we all learn by the 2nd grade.
If they're really good at their jobs, state and federal social workers can win huge contracts to build new facilities in the form of 10-year projects for unionized construction labor (in spite of their murderous and coercive tendencies), staffed with a full array of state workers, nurses, etc, so that a poor drug-ridden neighborhood can have a rec center, as if more idle time is what they need. (ps, why don't I get a rec center? Oh that's right- I work all the time, ever since being a minimum wage teenager. Working people don't need rec centers, and if they do then they pay for a membership rather than force wealthier folks to bulid them a free health club using guilt-tactics, crying racism, and making veiled threats that we'll riot or sell drugs if they refuse.)
And so a microcosm turns into the macrocosm of government. Forced charity in the form of taxes supports a large army of useless careers, whose main objective is not helping the poor but advocating for their own occupations and getting ridiculous overtime pay for thug Teamsters (who build centers for thug gangsters) and pay traffic cops to oversee worksites so that nobody gets the notion to run them down with their vehicle.
That's massachusetts government. Build a billion-dollar safety net when a cheap bungee would do, all for people who don't even walk the high-wire (me), and those who do either refuse to use a shelter, or carelessly abuse its existence because they know they can... there will always be a liberal there to catch them with a portion of my paycheck.
(For the record, I will read any replies out of interest, but I won't debate anything extensively. There's no point in arguing, since these are all basic values that one sees as good or bad, and thus a matter of opinion and not fact.)