Conservatives and Empathy

[Bern80]

Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight of another.

You'll no doubt note that most of the self proclaiming cons on this board display a complete lack of empthy.


Now whether these folks are just trying to sound like tough guys, or they're truly incapable of getting outside of their own shoes, is anyone's guess.

But one does frequently encounter people who are permanently stuck in their own heads who truly cannot remotely imagine another's POV, and almost without exception those types tend to be dogmatic cons.

Note, that I never mentioned Obama's health care? In fact, amigo, I am on record on this board as being in opposition to that policy.





You are PROJECTING, here sport.




Still projecting.





Now you're attempting to REWRITE my POV, too.

And that is what your are really after, not empathy. What you really want is for that empathy to translate into freely giving money to every poor soul you think deserves it.

I really struck a nerve didn't I?

You cannot even understand my POV when it is laid out for you in text.

Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight or POV of another...even if you DISAGREE with it.

What YOU just did was show us your near complete lack of EMPATHY.

Not only do you not understand words I wrote, but your lack of empathy forced you to INVENT what you imagine my POV is.

THANK YOU for completely proving my point, Bern.

Wrong ed. I am in complete agreement with the defintion of empathy you provided. And I understand your POV completely based on what you wrote. That it is mainly conservatives that lack empathy/ My point is the thing you claim the right lacks that you are calling empathy is not that at all. It isn't the right's lack of empathy you are concerned with, because frankly you can't possibly know how another person feels. That is all empathy is, a feeling. What the left seems to be upset about is a lack of an action that you are calling empathy. That action as far as I can tell is continuing to give the inept government money to fix social problems.

 

[Bern80]

A word on empathy. Empathy is an extremely hard concept to nail down for some people, they see it as a weakness. If, for instance, you are a Social Darwinist (SD) much of your thinking about any event is how you react to it, do you rise up and overcome any obstacle. While SD died as a scientific explanation of human behavior, it lives on in the ideology driven minds of modern American conservatives. How much it is just a piece of rhetoric is hard to say, but their constant use of government as 'nanny' demonstrates their thought patterns. Government rather than being an essential political entity for both creating a workable environment and also for settling and managing diverse and contradictory values and uses of property becomes a bogeyman. Bogeymen are always necessary for some as complexity often leads to anxiety. Now let me review replies.

No mid, it isn't a hard concept to understand how a person might be feeling about the position there in. The hard part is what am I supposed to do about it. And that is what the left seems to be upset about. I can certainly have empathy for a homeless person for example, but the fact that I don't take the time to do everything that needs to be done to improve said person's life is NOT an example of a lack of empathy.

 

[editec]

Note, that I never mentioned Obama's health care? In fact, amigo, I am on record on this board as being in opposition to that policy.





You are PROJECTING, here sport.




Still projecting.





Now you're attempting to REWRITE my POV, too.



I really struck a nerve didn't I?

You cannot even understand my POV when it is laid out for you in text.

Empathy is the ability to imagine the plight or POV of another...even if you DISAGREE with it.

What YOU just did was show us your near complete lack of EMPATHY.

Not only do you not understand words I wrote, but your lack of empathy forced you to INVENT what you imagine my POV is.

THANK YOU for completely proving my point, Bern.

Wrong ed. I am in complete agreement with the defintion of empathy you provided. And I understand your POV completely based on what you wrote. That it is mainly conservatives that lack empathy/ My point is the thing you claim the right lacks that you are calling empathy is not that at all. It isn't the right's lack of empathy you are concerned with, because frankly you can't possibly know how another person feels. That is all empathy is, a feeling. What the left seems to be upset about is a lack of an action that you are calling empathy. That action as far as I can tell is continuing to give the inept government money to fix social problems.

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

 

[Bern80]

Wrong ed. I am in complete agreement with the defintion of empathy you provided. And I understand your POV completely based on what you wrote. That it is mainly conservatives that lack empathy/ My point is the thing you claim the right lacks that you are calling empathy is not that at all. It isn't the right's lack of empathy you are concerned with, because frankly you can't possibly know how another person feels. That is all empathy is, a feeling. What the left seems to be upset about is a lack of an action that you are calling empathy. That action as far as I can tell is continuing to give the inept government money to fix social problems.

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says? Because if I were in the shoes of a 'typical' liberal on this board I believe I should think corporate america is the scourge of humanity and all righties are greedy because they want to keep their money and that the answer to every social problem is giving more money to the government. THAT is how I think I should feel, putting myself in the shoes of typical leftist. You can not tell me the left holds the corner on being more empathetic than the right because you really are empathetic than it means you have the ability to put yourself in ANYONE'S shoes and for the amount of leftist corporate america bashing that goes on here it is plain as day that the left doesn't have the very first clue what it is like to have that kind of respsonsibility.

So did you touch a nerve? Yes. When a statement that is insulting, such utter bullshit and hypocritical, I find it rather annoying.

 

[editec]

Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says?

You're missing the point.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

I CAN empathize with people with whom I completely disagree.

Why?

Because I CAN imagine what it is like to see the world from their POV.

I might think they're entirely wrong, but I can still understand how they arrive at their POV.

THAT is empathy.

 

[tonystewart1]

Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says?

You're missing the point.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

I CAN empathize with people with whom I completely disagree.

Why?

Because I CAN imagine what it is like to see the world from their POV.

I might think they're entirely wrong, but I can still understand how they arrive at their POV.

THAT is empathy.

There is a difference between empathy and pity.

I can empathize with anyones problems.

But I pity no one.

When you empathize with someone you can help them find a solution. When you pity them you just give to them.

 

[Bern80]

Have you ever considered that the reason you percieve a lack of empathy from the right is due the things the left does and says?

You're missing the point.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

I CAN empathize with people with whom I completely disagree.

Why?

Because I CAN imagine what it is like to see the world from their POV.

I might think they're entirely wrong, but I can still understand how they arrive at their POV.

THAT is empathy.

I understand that sympathy is not empathy. So no ed, I am not missing the point, but this post shows you are pretty clearly trying to dodge mine.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong ed. I am in complete agreement with the defintion of empathy you provided. And I understand your POV completely based on what you wrote. That it is mainly conservatives that lack empathy/ My point is the thing you claim the right lacks that you are calling empathy is not that at all. It isn't the right's lack of empathy you are concerned with, because frankly you can't possibly know how another person feels. That is all empathy is, a feeling. What the left seems to be upset about is a lack of an action that you are calling empathy. That action as far as I can tell is continuing to give the inept government money to fix social problems.

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

 

[Bern80]

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

All completely and utterly false. It isn't that the right thinks people shouldn't help one another. It's that they don't believe they should be forced to, especially through government which is inherently innefficient at helping people. As far as some of those government roles are concerned some of them are right. Protecting freedom (a legitimate role of government) is not the same thing as providing various things like health care and education (illegitimate roles of government) that allow you to do other things you would rather be doing.

And for a lot of us libertarians it has nothing to do with morality either. Government should not be in the business of legislating morality, period, much less forcing us to be moral by giving money to the government to attempt to 'fix' various social problems.

The only good thing you've done here is show, like ed that left can also display a complete lack of empathy because the above could not be farther from what the right believes.

 

[Bfgrn]

I think there are a few explanations of why the right lack empathy. The strongest argument is how they are raised.


In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it. ref ref

All completely and utterly false. It isn't that the right thinks people shouldn't help one another. It's that they don't believe they should be forced to, especially through government which is inherently innefficient at helping people. As far as some of those government roles are concerned some of them are right. Protecting freedom (a legitimate role of government) is not the same thing as providing various things like health care and education (illegitimate roles of government) that allow you to do other things you would rather be doing.

And for a lot of us libertarians it has nothing to do with morality either. Government should not be in the business of legislating morality, period, much less forcing us to be moral by giving money to the government to attempt to 'fix' various social problems.

The only good thing you've done here is show, like ed that left can also display a complete lack of empathy because the above could not be farther from what the right believes.

I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.

The social programs we have in America are the LEAST a nation who calls itself civilized should do. Social Security and Medicare are the very BEST of what government can and should do for We, the People.

Conservatives today are under the arrogant assumption that THEY know our founder's intent. Even though the best minds and scholars have been arguing things like the General Welfare Clause for over 200 years.

Thomas Jefferson believed every citizen should have a free education and he also believed the levers of government belongs to the living, not the dead.

 

[chanel]

The leftist weltanschauung sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

RealClearPolitics - Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character

 

[martybegan]

Wrong ed. I am in complete agreement with the defintion of empathy you provided. And I understand your POV completely based on what you wrote. That it is mainly conservatives that lack empathy/ My point is the thing you claim the right lacks that you are calling empathy is not that at all. It isn't the right's lack of empathy you are concerned with, because frankly you can't possibly know how another person feels. That is all empathy is, a feeling. What the left seems to be upset about is a lack of an action that you are calling empathy. That action as far as I can tell is continuing to give the inept government money to fix social problems.

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

It has nothing to do with empathy, not being able to understand an opposite point of view is purely a lack of critical reasoning.

And dont try to play the line that only those on the right do it. The left is full of people that can't grasp the concept that someone can have an opposite opinion, and not be a "paid schill" or a "sheep" or "an idiot". The person that disagrees with you hase to have SOME OTHER REASON, because they cannot grasp the fact they may be wrong about something.

I usually understand perfectly why a person has the view they do. I am also comfortable enough with my own level of understanding that I am not so threatened by an opposite opinion that I have to make up some alterior reason why the person has that belief.

 

[MoistTrout]

Empathy comes from the heart, not from an edict from on high.

Then again, the left has shown themselves to be in possession of the tiniest hearts out there -as evidenced by the widely circulated annual lists of political types who give the most and least to private charities- so it's little surprise that they'd project their callousness onto everyone else.

Ah, THE Arthur Brooks study

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

All due respect to The Arthur Brooks... I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think a lot of the people tagged as liberals that volunteer, even if they tagged themselves with that label, are actually communitarians. There is a vast difference between a communitarian and the modern day "progressive" liberal.

 

[MoistTrout]

Considering organizations like the Jaycees and the Shriners have a conservative foundation, and have done more to actually help people than any "progressive" government program I can think of, I'd say there isn't much merit to the base of this thread.

[/quote]I have actually taught computer skills at Shriner's so that must make it a liberal foundation, you think? It would seem to me that helping people is liberal while telling them to get up out of that wheelchair and walk is conservative, your kind of conservative, am I close. I have no idea why these people just didn't be more careful in so many ways, you blame them right? You blame others down on their luck. And why does that bad old government even gives Shriner's tax-deductible status? Do you? Funny, I don't remember the people there being anything but concerned and caring, empathetic one would say.[/quote]


Yes, obviously some random person who taught computer skills is synonymous with an organization that was founded in 1870.

It would seem to me you are just fanning the flames of stereotypes and making baseless assumptions about me. But I suppose it only seems that way because that's exactly what you are doing.

Your offering nothing but garbage. It's tired "progressive" reasoning (I use that word loosely). "This is the reality I want to exist, so I'l simply say that it does." You break your arm patting yourself on the back while laying claim to anything good and applying anything bad to the people that don't vote the same way you do. Luckily, outside of the choir, nobody lends you any merit.

By the way, the Shriners stem from the Masons and experience their largest growth when soldiers returning home from World War II joined up. Oh, but you sat at a computer, so...

 

[editec]

We have read far too many right wing posters who have penned far too many posts that indicate that they simply cannot remotely understand another POV.

Not that they disagree, but that they simply are incapable of even remotely imagining WHAT THE OTHER IS EVEN TALKI8NG ABOUT.

THAT indicates a LACK of empathy.

Empathy is NOT sympathy.

It is the ability to imagine what it is like to be in another's shoes.

The extreme right winging posters on this board and every other board I have every posted on, display a near complete lack of empathetic ability.

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

But the RIGHT is the hands down winner when it comes to not only disagreeing, but not being able to even begin to understand the opposite POV.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

But when I read post after post that proves this to be the case?

I am left with no choice but to note that a lack of empathy is essential if one is going to be a RIGHT WING CRANK.

It has nothing to do with empathy, not being able to understand an opposite point of view is purely a lack of critical reasoning.

No it's more than that, I think.

And dont try to play the line that only those on the right do it.

Your reading comprehension leave a lot to be desired.

Editec noted, what Mafty failed to also note:

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

The left is full of people that can't grasp the concept that someone can have an opposite opinion, and not be a "paid schill" or a "sheep" or "an idiot".

Again: Editec noted, what Marty failed to also note:

Now I ALSO known lefies like that...limo lefites, mostly.

The person that disagrees with you hase to have SOME OTHER REASON, because they cannot grasp the fact they may be wrong about something

.

No that's another reason why people might disagree, but not the only reason, Lad.

I usually understand perfectly why a person has the view they do. I am also comfortable enough with my own level of understanding that I am not so threatened by an opposite opinion that I have to make up some alterior reason why the person has that belief.

The irony of your above statement is fairly obvious, isn't it?

Not only do you not uunderstand my POV, you also failed to read it.

Which indicates what?

That you PRESUME to understand me when you really haven't even bothered to read what I say.

Now seriously, Marty...why should I take you seriously?

 

[MoistTrout]

I remember watching a newscaster talking to a woman in her twenties several years back and asking her what could be done to help the handicapped.
Her response was that they should be executed.
The newscaster asked her how she could be so callous and her response was to be taken aback and say that she considered herself to be a nice person.
That woman clearly had a lack of empathy toward others and I am sure fits right in with the likes of Glenn Beck and the ultra-right wing conservatives.
There is no empathy from the uber-rich. They are simply money addicts and consider all others to be no more than bugs. They want this nation to be turned into what the third-world nations have for a work force. No unions. No decent wages. No irritating government regulations for the safety of said workers. No environmental regulations. All such things hamper.....more riches.

I remember seeing a liberal try to give his ideaology credit for the very foundation of a conservative based organization because he taught basic computer skills... Oh yeah, that was just a few minutes ago.

 

[Oddball]

Methinks that leftloons in general, and the pious blowhard OP in particular, equate pity with empathy.

A crying shame they have absolutely no empathy for taxpayer, who has to bear the financial burden for the imposition their faux empathy upon everyone else.

 

[Bern80]

I wish it were false Bern, but it is not. I hear it every day on this and other boards. I hear conservatives calling for cutting off extended unemployment, even though there is only ONE job for every five people out of work. But conservative solutions never include human capital. Their solutions always require some group of people to just evaporate.

No Bf, that;s your issue. Again assuming that if government won't help people they are doomed. There is a pretty good list of traits other than empathy that left is lacking; introspection, perspective and foresight immediately come to mind.

The social programs we have in America are the LEAST a nation who calls itself civilized should do. Social Security and Medicare are the very BEST of what government can and should do for We, the People.

The measure of a civilized nation is how much it's government takes upon itself to do for people (remembering that for our government to do something for one they must first take from another)? Sorry I simply don't buy into that premise.

Conservatives today are under the arrogant assumption that THEY know our founder's intent. Even though the best minds and scholars have been arguing things like the General Welfare Clause for over 200 years.

It isn't arrogance. We know their intent because they told us in accompanying documents they wrote along with constitution like the federalist papers. Madison very clearly stated in one of the federalist papers what the general welfare clause means and how it was to be applied. The only hand ringing over it is by the leftists who wish it allowed government to do more than it actually says.

Thomas Jefferson believed every citizen should have a free education and he also believed the levers of government belongs to the living, not the dead.

by which I'm fairly certain did not extend to ignoring the constitution if it doesn't fit your world view. And maybe he did believe in free education. That isn't the question. The quesiton is did he believe the fed was supposed to fund it. There is no authority over educuation by the fed found in the constitution, though a state would certainly have that authority.

 

[midcan5]

For the thoughtful reader notice how the right can only project an often imaginary or exaggerated characteristic on the left. The right has no answers and if it were not for liberals they would have to look at their ideology's lack of any real accomplishment.

Shriner's is conservative according to one conservative but consider it helps handicapped and injured children but our government which helps a great many more people in all conditions is bad. If you can reconcile those thoughts in the same head, you can perform any ideological magic. And that really is the problem for any rigid ideology, when the real world intrudes it becomes someone else's fault. That sort of simplistic thinking makes life easy, finger pointing has always been the weak man's crutch; note too, no one answered my perennial question below.

PS The greatest progressive achievement was social security, followed by medicare and voting rights for all. I have asked for years for a conservative accomplishment equivalent to any of these and never ever get an answer. I wonder why. asked here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-conservatives-and-empathy-4.html#post4049757


"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." Matt Santos

 

[martybegan]

No it's more than that, I think.




Your reading comprehension leave a lot to be desired.

Editec noted, what Mafty failed to also note:


The left is full of people that can't grasp the concept that someone can have an opposite opinion, and not be a "paid schill" or a "sheep" or "an idiot".

Again: Editec noted, what Marty failed to also note:



.

No that's another reason why people might disagree, but not the only reason, Lad.




The irony of your above statement is fairly obvious, isn't it?

Not only do you not uunderstand my POV, you also failed to read it.

Which indicates what?

That you PRESUME to understand me when you really haven't even bothered to read what I say.

Now seriously, Marty...why should I take you seriously?

I understand you can't quote things properly. If you are going to be nitpicky over me missing a few words in your post, I'm going structure nazi on you with the quote thing.

Also you missed the meat and general gist of my response.

But of course, online message boards are Seriez bizness.