What does it mean to be a Conservative

[Dr Adequate]

And don't forget that other people who advocate the handouts. It's those people who insist that no one is really lazy.

Who says that no-one is really lazy?

Could it be the same people who want to give handouts to these lazy people whom they deny exist?

Yes, it could! The magic Slag Fairy doesn't have to be logically consistent in its opinions : on the contrary, the whole point of the creed of the Slag Fairy is that True Believers can attribute to it opinions so monumentally dumb that no mere human being could possibly hold them.

 

[Snide]

And don't forget that other people who advocate the handouts. It's those people who insist that no one is really lazy.


(FWIW, I advocate some handouts to the lazy. I don't think ;lazy people should starve. But, folks, they really are lazy. It's not right wing propoganda.)

I wonder if you realize how close this is to the mainstream "left" position in the U.S.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

And don't forget that other people who advocate the handouts. It's those people who insist that no one is really lazy.


(FWIW, I advocate some handouts to the lazy. I don't think ;lazy people should starve. But, folks, they really are lazy. It's not right wing propoganda.)

But not everyone who finds themself in a position of needing a handout so he doesn't starve is in that position because he is lazy. Some no doubt are, but some people, life just decides to kick in the nuts.

 

[Snide]

But not everyone who finds themself in a position of needing a handout so he doesn't starve is in that position because he is lazy. Some no doubt are, but some people, life just decides to kick in the nuts.

A big part of what makes me "left-leaning" is my general skepticism, which means I recognize that I don't have all of the answers. Knowing that, then, I would rather error on the side of being too generous to the lazy poor, than too generous to the greedy rich.

Yeah, technically it's a false dilemma, but it was already set up by previous claims of people wanting handouts for the lazy.

 

[New Ager]

That's what they said about jews. It's striking how genocidal conservatives have become.

Well, that was quite a leap or exaggeration. Something else liberals are good at.

 

[Tony]

Well, that was quite a leap or exaggeration.

So you admit you were lying (i figured you would, like most cowards, you evade when confronted for your wacky beliefs). Good to know. We don't have to take anything else you say seriously (it's not like anyone did in the first place).

 

[New Ager]

(Jim)

My point is that the intention of welfare is not to reward the lazy. We can argue about how many (if any) people receive welfare who are merely too lazy to work, but to my knowledge no proponent of welfare has advocated giving handouts to the lazy. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Also I welcome evidence that welfare money commonly goes to those who are merely too lazy to work.

(New Ager)

More like too lazy to succeed.

When a number of years ago, they started saying people would have to do some work to get welfare, one man said, "No way, we've worked hard to get our welfare".

In a local welfare office, a friend of mine worked there and when she told one lady she would have to work, the lady walked out. Also, she told me welfare applicants were down about 60%.

 

[Snide]

(Jim)

My point is that the intention of welfare is not to reward the lazy. We can argue about how many (if any) people receive welfare who are merely too lazy to work, but to my knowledge no proponent of welfare has advocated giving handouts to the lazy. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Also I welcome evidence that welfare money commonly goes to those who are merely too lazy to work.

(New Ager)

More like too lazy to succeed.

When a number of years ago, they started saying people would have to do some work to get welfare, one man said, "No way, we've worked hard to get our welfare".

In a local welfare office, a friend of mine worked there and when she told one lady she would have to work, the lady walked out. Also, she told me welfare applicants were down about 60%.

No evidence, then, eh?

 

[New Ager]

So you admit you were lying (i figured you would, like most cowards, you evade when confronted for your wacky beliefs). Good to know. We don't have to take anything else you say seriously (it's not like anyone did in the first place).

I see you have reading comprehension problems.

And a wacky belief is liberals get in the way?!??!?

And then you say conservatives are genocidal??!??

It sounds you are evading the issue. Something else liberals are good at. Typical.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

(Jim)

My point is that the intention of welfare is not to reward the lazy. We can argue about how many (if any) people receive welfare who are merely too lazy to work, but to my knowledge no proponent of welfare has advocated giving handouts to the lazy. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Also I welcome evidence that welfare money commonly goes to those who are merely too lazy to work.

(New Ager)

More like too lazy to succeed.

When a number of years ago, they started saying people would have to do some work to get welfare, one man said, "No way, we've worked hard to get our welfare".

In a local welfare office, a friend of mine worked there and when she told one lady she would have to work, the lady walked out. Also, she told me welfare applicants were down about 60%.

Still, that doesn't prove that everyone who needs assistance is "too lazy to suceed". My son has a 60 IQ, if circumstances conspire to put him in a position where there is no one to take care of him (which can always happen, despite the best of planning), he is going to need assistance of some sort, but I guess it's his own fault for being too lazy to sucessfully cure his Down Syndrome. Lazy F*cker, should have gone out and researched a cure.

What about all the people who worked their entire lives and set aside money for their retirement, only to lose it when their company defaulted on their pension plans, so will have to depend on Social Security or starve? I guess, depsite working their entire lives and planning for their retirement, they were just "too lazy to succeed" too.

 

[Tony]

I see you have reading comprehension problems.

And a wacky belief is liberals get in the way?!??!?

And then you say conservatives are genocidal??!??

It sounds you are evading the issue. Something else liberals are good at. Typical.

I see you have multiple mental problems.

Discuss the topic, not the person.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Meadmaker]

Also I welcome evidence that welfare money commonly goes to those who are merely too lazy to work.

Here in Michigan, I remember an event that made me realize just how far out of touch the Democrats were. John Engler, our governor had pushed welfare reform. Basically, there was a time limit and mandatory job training for people receiving welfare.

When running for reelection the Democrats ran an attack ad. It criticized Engler's reform plan because only half the people who lost their benefits under the plan had found jobs.

At the time, the Engler plan didn't cut you off completely just because you couldn't find a job. It had elements like mandatory job training. OK, maybe there's some other explanation for why 50% of the people receiving welfare managed to find work when society no longer picked up the tab, but "lazy" strikes me as one possible explanation, and it's the one I'm going with unless someone has some pretty powerful evidence to the contrary.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Here in Michigan, I remember an event that made me realize just how far out of touch the Democrats were. John Engler, our governor had pushed welfare reform. Basically, there was a time limit and mandatory job training for people receiving welfare.

When running for reelection the Democrats ran an attack ad. It criticized Engler's reform plan because only half the people who lost their benefits under the plan had found jobs.

At the time, the Engler plan didn't cut you off completely just because you couldn't find a job. It had elements like mandatory job training. OK, maybe there's some other explanation for why 50% of the people receiving welfare managed to find work when society no longer picked up the tab, but "lazy" strikes me as one possible explanation, and it's the one I'm going with unless someone has some pretty powerful evidence to the contrary.

ANd once again you are making the fallacious argument that because you can deomnstrate that SOME people receiving assistance are lazy, that all people receiving assistance must be.

 

[Snide]

ANd once again you are making the fallacious argument that because you can deomnstrate that SOME people receiving assistance are lazy, that all people receiving assistance must be.

Agreed. And in doing so, ironically being too lazy to find the facts, while instead going with the "lazy" explanation because it could be one.

 

[Meadmaker]

ANd once again you are making the fallacious argument that because you can deomnstrate that SOME people receiving assistance are lazy, that all people receiving assistance must be.

I made no such assertion. The fallacy is all yours. My assertion is that a significant number of people who receive welfare are lazy.


I also asserted that the Democratic party was out of touch to cite the fact that 50% of those cut off from welfare got jobs. This was in a Democratic ad. Engler was reelected, handily.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I made no such assertion. The fallacy is all yours. My assertion is that a significant number of people who receive welfare are lazy.


I also asserted that the Democratic party was out of touch to cite the fact that 50% of those cut off from welfare got jobs. This was in a Democratic ad. Engler was reelected, handily.

But you said what you said in defense of the assertion that public assistance = "handouts to the lazy". The original assertion was most assuredly not mine, and in defending it, I can only assume you agree with it.

 

[Dcdrac]

I used to be quite apolitical until i started examing the claims made by the right, i am from a very conservative family, i found that on hte whole the conservative position relies largely on spin and little in the way of hard evidence, and when i looked into the claims of the liberals and the left there was still spin yes but a lot more evidence to back up what they were saying.

So on the whole from what i can tell so far the conservative position seems to bae alot of bluster backed up by thin or no existant evidence and the liberals and left tend to back up what they say to the hilt. Troulbe is you have to do alot of reading and research which a lot of people can't be bothered to doso the conservatives get an easier ride.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I used to be quite apolitical until i started examing the claims made by the right, i am from a very conservative family, i found that on hte whole the conservative position relies largely on spin and little in the way of hard evidence, and when i looked into the claims of the liberals and the left there was still spin yes but a lot more evidence to back up what they were saying.

So on the whole from what i can tell so far the conservative position seems to bae alot of bluster backed up by thin or no existant evidence and the liberals and left tend to back up what they say to the hilt. Troulbe is you have to do alot of reading and research which a lot of people can't be bothered to doso the conservatives get an easier ride.

Really? Because to be honest, I have found that most people's political opinions, left AND right, are " a lot of bluster backed up by thin or non-existant evidence". I find that in the realm of politics, the majority of people care only about hearing their own biases confirmed, not in pesky facts.

 

[Snide]

Really? Because to be honest, I have found that most people's political opinions, left AND right, are " a lot of bluster backed up by thin or non-existant evidence". I find that in the realm of politics, the majority of people care only about hearing their own biases confirmed, not in pesky facts.

I agree, but I also agree with the point Dcdrac makes, in general, about which side tends to do a better job with the facts. At least when you look at the pundits (Coulter v. Franken, for example).

Again, it's a tendency, and you could cherry-pick to argue either way, which is why it'll never be settled.

 

[Chaos]

Still, that doesn't prove that everyone who needs assistance is "too lazy to suceed". My son has a 60 IQ, if circumstances conspire to put him in a position where there is no one to take care of him (which can always happen, despite the best of planning), he is going to need assistance of some sort, but I guess it's his own fault for being too lazy to sucessfully cure his Down Syndrome. Lazy F*cker, should have gone out and researched a cure.

What about all the people who worked their entire lives and set aside money for their retirement, only to lose it when their company defaulted on their pension plans, so will have to depend on Social Security or starve? I guess, depsite working their entire lives and planning for their retirement, they were just "too lazy to succeed" too.

Oh, come on, you know that this is far too much detail for conservatives to look into. People on social security are a bunch of lazy bastards - that´s about as complex as they want to hear it. Nuance is for communists. There is only good (conservatives) and evil (liberals).