Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by Sarah G, Oct 22, 2012.
The leftist-regressive motto is "charity begins in the pocket of your neighbor."
I know I sound hateful to you because that is the way you have been taught to think about people like me. Nevermind that study after study shows conservatives to be more generous with their own time, talent, and resources than liberals are generous with their own time, talent, and resources.
I suspect you have been taught that somebody like Mitt Romney is selfish and greedy and don't want to hear about the years and years of service without pay that he has given on behalf of others. He took no salary as governor of Massachusetts. He donated every penny of salary he receied working for the Olympics. He doesn't ask for an honorarium to speak to groups he is invited to, and if they give him one, he signs it back over to them. He has never taken a dime or enriched hmself doing public service. And yet he has given away many millions of his own fortune to help others.
And you know nothing about me or what I give of my own time, talent, and resources on the behalf of others.
So I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe a program ought to actually do good rather than just have a great sounding title. . . .for me to believe that private charities do a far better job with far less unintended negative consequences than most government programs can do. . . .that it is not cost effective to establish a government bureacracy to help the poor when that bureaucracy swallows up as much as two thirds of the money it receies to help the poor.
And I accept that you think it is mean and hateful for me to believe that children benefit from seeing their parents get up in the morning, get cleaned up prepare breakfast for the family, and go to work to earn the money they need for housing, food, clothing, etc. And it harms children to see their able bodied parent receive a government check for doing nothing and encourages them to believe they are entitled to other people's money just because they were born. And people earning their own way and being encouraged to reach for their full potential is a far better anti-poverty program than anything the government will ever do.
I think Mitt Romney understands pretty closely as I understand it. I wish everybody did.
Drop dead, you jerk.
What an awful lot of assumptions you are making that have no rhyme or reason. Your post is very pompous, self-righteous, and completely overblown. I can see why you like Mitt Romney.
So what you're saying is that Fox applies logic, reason, and common sense to her analysis, where an Obama supporter is content with "eye candy?"
That DOES accurately define the distinction between the two camps....
A little bit off topic.
I think the FIRST Debate infected the next two debates.
The first debate was such a massive disaster for The ONE that even his admittedly improved performances in the second debate (with Candy Crowley assisting him) and in the third debate were still impacted (negatively) by that first massive fail.
That gets me to the piece I found so interesting. Noonan's column in the WSJ.
Noonan: When Americans Saw the Real Obama - WSJ.com
Thank you. If you can see that, that is a good first step. The next step is understanding why. And then you are on the way to know what real concern for the poor is, and why liberal socialism isn't.
Eye candy??? Damn, but you are an ass.
First step to what?? Thinking like you?? No thanks!!!
Fine remain stupid. See how that works?
Separate names with a comma.