Conservatives and Empathy

[edjax1952]

In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first. I will not swallow it or try to. I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner. But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent. Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.

That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.

First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate. But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.

Second, some will hold up court rulings as evidence of the rightness and virtue of this or that law or policy, but ignore or shrug it off when the sins of past courts are pointed out as evidence that the courts, too, can get things wrong.

Our less enlightened brethren sanctimoniously demand that the GOP is unempatheic, unsympathetic, and opposed everything that is good and virtuous while ignoring or blowing off all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, some others will say that nothing good ever came out of the liberal point of view which can be proved to be just as wrong.

And those of us watching this drama play out day after day wonder if it is possible to have a serious give and take discussion without accusing or blaming somebody or demanding that the discussion become another flame thread?

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

I could have, but there comes a time when long, looooooooong posts become intimidating in themselves. I usually don't read a long, wordy tedious post--though I sometimes am guilty of producing them--and I appreciate things being kept more manageable. Huge blocks of nested quotes are especially off putting to me, and I believe others.

In this case, my intent was not to distort your comment in any way, but was to comment on the one paragraph I posted. And it was in close enough proximity to the full context, I didn't think anybody would miss that there was a larger context.

I do apologize if you think this mischaracterized your intent in any way as that was not my intent.

What is that you got in your coffee today?

 

[Immanuel]

In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first. I will not swallow it or try to. I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner. But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent. Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.

That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.

First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate. But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.

Second, some will hold up court rulings as evidence of the rightness and virtue of this or that law or policy, but ignore or shrug it off when the sins of past courts are pointed out as evidence that the courts, too, can get things wrong.

Our less enlightened brethren sanctimoniously demand that the GOP is unempatheic, unsympathetic, and opposed everything that is good and virtuous while ignoring or blowing off all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, some others will say that nothing good ever came out of the liberal point of view which can be proved to be just as wrong.

And those of us watching this drama play out day after day wonder if it is possible to have a serious give and take discussion without accusing or blaming somebody or demanding that the discussion become another flame thread?

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

I could have, but there comes a time when long, looooooooong posts become intimidating in themselves. I usually don't read a long, wordy tedious post--though I sometimes am guilty of producing them--and I appreciate things being kept more manageable. Huge blocks of nested quotes are especially off putting to me, and I believe others.

In this case, my intent was not to distort your comment in any way, but was to comment on the one paragraph I posted. And it was in close enough proximity to the full context, I didn't think anybody would miss that there was a larger context.

I do apologize if you think this mischaracterized your intent in any way as that was not my intent.

Agreed and I am guilty of the long posts occasionally myself.

I rarely read Frazzled(?) can't remember his full handle, despite the fact that his posts are usually well written and make sense, but he thinks every post has to be a doggone book by itself.

And imbedded quotes! Hate them and hate replying to them.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

I could have, but there comes a time when long, looooooooong posts become intimidating in themselves. I usually don't read a long, wordy tedious post--though I sometimes am guilty of producing them--and I appreciate things being kept more manageable. Huge blocks of nested quotes are especially off putting to me, and I believe others.

In this case, my intent was not to distort your comment in any way, but was to comment on the one paragraph I posted. And it was in close enough proximity to the full context, I didn't think anybody would miss that there was a larger context.

I do apologize if you think this mischaracterized your intent in any way as that was not my intent.

What is that you got in your coffee today?

Well I seem to have unintentionally offended you and I again apologize. I was attempting to agree with and expand on what I thought was a good comment by you. My mistake. I won't make it again.

 

[edjax1952]

I could have, but there comes a time when long, looooooooong posts become intimidating in themselves. I usually don't read a long, wordy tedious post--though I sometimes am guilty of producing them--and I appreciate things being kept more manageable. Huge blocks of nested quotes are especially off putting to me, and I believe others.

In this case, my intent was not to distort your comment in any way, but was to comment on the one paragraph I posted. And it was in close enough proximity to the full context, I didn't think anybody would miss that there was a larger context.

I do apologize if you think this mischaracterized your intent in any way as that was not my intent.

What is that you got in your coffee today?

Well I seem to have unintentionally offended you and I again apologize. I was attempting to agree with and expand on what I thought was a good comment by you. My mistake. I won't make it again.

It was so eloquently put, that I could not understand what you were saying. I have not learned the personalities in here and I appreciate the kudos, but you could have said something like ...good post...or git'er done.....<:^}

 

[Bern80]

It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a virtue to support legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a vice to appreciate that the best hope for all people, rich and poor alike, is within their own opportunities, choices, innovation, drive, ambition, and hopes and this happens mostly in the private sector free market.

It is not a virtue to promote government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems and thereby make people dependent upon government.

It is not a vice to see the purpose of government as to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

It is not a virtue to see people as incapable of solving their own problems and needing a 'king' to rule over them.

WHY is the right wing argument always a polarized one and radical one? Tell me Foxfyre, can a person promote and support government programs that REALLY help fellow Americans, and at the same time NOT believe government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems, or needing a 'king' to rule over them?

You couldn't come up with ONE piece of legislation authored by Republicans that helped poor or middle class Americans. And now you want to pontificate about 'unintended consequences'

What programs, and what 'unintended consequences'? Be specific and provide proof.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Do you know why he couldn't Bf? Because it isn't government's job to help people. Their job is to protect your liberties and that's about it. How can such a large group of people be so blind to the unintended consequences of compassionate government that is 'just doing what's best for people'.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not a vice to oppose legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a virtue to support legislation that has a noble and compassionate sounding title, but will inevitably produce unintended negative consequences.

It is not a vice to appreciate that the best hope for all people, rich and poor alike, is within their own opportunities, choices, innovation, drive, ambition, and hopes and this happens mostly in the private sector free market.

It is not a virtue to promote government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems and thereby make people dependent upon government.

It is not a vice to see the purpose of government as to secure our rights and then leave us alone to live our lives.

It is not a virtue to see people as incapable of solving their own problems and needing a 'king' to rule over them.

WHY is the right wing argument always a polarized one and radical one? Tell me Foxfyre, can a person promote and support government programs that REALLY help fellow Americans, and at the same time NOT believe government as the big brother, nanny, end all for all solution to most human problems, or needing a 'king' to rule over them?

You couldn't come up with ONE piece of legislation authored by Republicans that helped poor or middle class Americans. And now you want to pontificate about 'unintended consequences'

What programs, and what 'unintended consequences'? Be specific and provide proof.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Do you know why he couldn't Bf? Because it isnt' government's job to help people. Their job is to protect your liberties and that's about it. How can such a large group of people be so blind to the unintended consequences of compassionate government that is 'just doing what's best for people'.

Not only that but he has consistently ignored the considerable efforts of several to educate him on how wrong he is about that. It is true that true conservatives are very suspicious of and rightfully oppose so-called 'benevolent' government that will always provide some anecdotal evidence of positives, but will also almost always produce unacceptable negative results. Meanwhile, the government makes whole societies dependent on the government while the fame, fortune, prestige, power, and personal fortunes of politicans and bureaucrats are increased with each borrowed dollar allocated at the taxpayer's expense.

Where is the liberal empathy for the plight of those trapped in government programs and the taxpayer who is ever increasingly burdened because of it?

 

[Bfgrn]

In all of these rights and entitlements of legislation, nowhere does it preclude my right to the persuit of happines. I still stand strong on my ideas that the present generation is in the midst of destroying the structure that made America great. If they cannot see the result of those actions, maybe it is the responsibility of myself and people who are like minded to bring it to their attention.

In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first. I will not swallow it or try to. I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner. But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent. Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.

That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.

First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate. But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.

Second, some will hold up court rulings as evidence of the rightness and virtue of this or that law or policy, but ignore or shrug it off when the sins of past courts are pointed out as evidence that the courts, too, can get things wrong.

Our less enlightened brethren sanctimoniously demand that the GOP is unempatheic, unsympathetic, and opposed everything that is good and virtuous while ignoring or blowing off all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, some others will say that nothing good ever came out of the liberal point of view which can be proved to be just as wrong.

And those of us watching this drama play out day after day wonder if it is possible to have a serious give and take discussion without accusing or blaming somebody or demanding that the discussion become another flame thread?

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

 

[Maple]

Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.

"[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."

Category: But we knew this already, why does it now matter?

Note my new category of thought, I have always wondered what goes into making a person of conscience and what goes into making a conservative? So the piece below struck me again as well, 'I already knew that.' But a Fox conservative talking head learning something still is worth a thought, if only to say why did she not know that before she knew that. How is it we know anything.

'Falling into the empathy gap'

"Fox, of course, would be the very same news network that endorsed a comparison between birth control and "pedicures," so this is no small change of heart on Kelly's part. The Family and Medical Leave Act, under which she received her post-birth benefits, was introduced by a Democratic representative, approved almost entirely by Democratic legislators (with Republicans voting almost entirely against it*), and signed into law by a Democratic president - and Kelly, believe it or not, doesn't think the bill is liberal enough. As tempting as it is, though, just to deride her for lacking the sort of minimal empathy that we expect from children, I want to add a little bit of a wrinkle to Savage's analysis."

Rust Belt Philosophy: Falling into the empathy gap

I just hate to break your bubble, but it is a long known fact, Republicans by far give more to charity than do Democrats. Democrats like to raise everyone else's taxes to give to the poor, they have very difficult time splitting with their own cash to do that. You can google all of this, if you do not like the link I provide it is there on their tax statements and it is now public record.

Archived-Articles: Obama's Charity Problem

 

[Maple]

Think UHC. Extrapolate UHC.

"[T]rying to measure a life of poverty as a collection of stuff isn't really going to come close to measuring that same life as a whole life."

Category: But we knew this already, why does it now matter?

Note my new category of thought, I have always wondered what goes into making a person of conscience and what goes into making a conservative? So the piece below struck me again as well, 'I already knew that.' But a Fox conservative talking head learning something still is worth a thought, if only to say why did she not know that before she knew that. How is it we know anything.

'Falling into the empathy gap'

"Fox, of course, would be the very same news network that endorsed a comparison between birth control and "pedicures," so this is no small change of heart on Kelly's part. The Family and Medical Leave Act, under which she received her post-birth benefits, was introduced by a Democratic representative, approved almost entirely by Democratic legislators (with Republicans voting almost entirely against it*), and signed into law by a Democratic president - and Kelly, believe it or not, doesn't think the bill is liberal enough. As tempting as it is, though, just to deride her for lacking the sort of minimal empathy that we expect from children, I want to add a little bit of a wrinkle to Savage's analysis."

Rust Belt Philosophy: Falling into the empathy gap

I just hate to break your bubble, but it is a long known fact, Republicans by far give more to charity than do Democrats. Democrats like to raise everyone else's taxes to give to the poor, they have very difficult time splitting with their own cash to do that. You can google all of this, if you do not like the link I provide it is there on their tax statements and it is now public record.

Archived-Articles: Obama's Charity Problem

As a tipoff on how the comparison goes, remember that Obama's youngest half-brother lives in wretched poverty in a 65-sqare-foot shack in Nairobi. Like many liberals, the president cares deeply for the poor; so long as the poor are helped with taxpayer money. Even without any trickle-down assistance from his older brother, George Obama nevertheless proudly adorns his dilapidated hovel with a front-page newspaper photo of his wealthy relative who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (but I digress).


According to their tax returns [notes Coulter], in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this ‘giving back' stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.


Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

 

[edjax1952]

In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first. I will not swallow it or try to. I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner. But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent. Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.

That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.

First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate. But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.

Second, some will hold up court rulings as evidence of the rightness and virtue of this or that law or policy, but ignore or shrug it off when the sins of past courts are pointed out as evidence that the courts, too, can get things wrong.

Our less enlightened brethren sanctimoniously demand that the GOP is unempatheic, unsympathetic, and opposed everything that is good and virtuous while ignoring or blowing off all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, some others will say that nothing good ever came out of the liberal point of view which can be proved to be just as wrong.

And those of us watching this drama play out day after day wonder if it is possible to have a serious give and take discussion without accusing or blaming somebody or demanding that the discussion become another flame thread?

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Even if I concede the idea that USSR did not have socialism as a government. I still maintain that socialism was not the intent of the founding fathers, has not been the intent of the general population of the US. And was not the intent of the federal government until the liberal progressive movement began in the early 20th centry. Now we have had about 70-80 years since that idea became part of the 'American way' and look where we are at. I believe with every breath I take that every peice of socialist oriented legislation passed in Congess takes us one more step toward disaster and possible doom. By socialist legislation, I mean legislation designed to 'help' somebody get something they did not have through federal dictate.

The federal government should;
1.defend our borders from foriegn intrusion
2.provide an infrastructure to promote productivity
3.provide a basic set of laws for the citizens to prevent chaos
All other activities should be considered outside the realm of federal government.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Debs is rolling in his grave.

 

[Bfgrn]

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Even if I concede the idea that USSR did not have socialism as a government. I still maintain that socialism was not the intent of the founding fathers, has not been the intent of the general population of the US. And was not the intent of the federal government until the liberal progressive movement began in the early 20th centry. Now we have had about 70-80 years since that idea became part of the 'American way' and look where we are at. I believe with every breath I take that every peice of socialist oriented legislation passed in Congess takes us one more step toward disaster and possible doom. By socialist legislation, I mean legislation designed to 'help' somebody get something they did not have through federal dictate.

The federal government should;
1.defend our borders from foriegn intrusion
2.provide an infrastructure to promote productivity
3.provide a basic set of laws for the citizens to prevent chaos
All other activities should be considered outside the realm of federal government.

edjax1952, I don't know if the 1952 in your name has any significance, but it CAN'T be the year you were born. No one born in that era could possibly be oblivious to the drastic catastrophic changes in America brought about by a conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan.

Social programs like Medicare are the very BEST of what America SHOULD do for We, the People. You mention our founding fathers, but dismiss the quotes I provided by Jefferson. And you forget in the 'government' they created We, the People ARE the government.

Old age is not a reversible condition. When people retire, and move out of the way for younger people to fill jobs, they retire on a lower income. Medicare lifted millions of elderly Americans from the most likely to live in poverty and go without medical insurance to among the least likely group of citizens to live below the poverty line or suffer without medical care.

Only the strong survive is the law of the jungle. It is not a civil society and it is NOT the nation our founders envisioned. I suggest you take a course in civics.

Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[edjax1952]

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Even if I concede the idea that USSR did not have socialism as a government. I still maintain that socialism was not the intent of the founding fathers, has not been the intent of the general population of the US. And was not the intent of the federal government until the liberal progressive movement began in the early 20th centry. Now we have had about 70-80 years since that idea became part of the 'American way' and look where we are at. I believe with every breath I take that every peice of socialist oriented legislation passed in Congess takes us one more step toward disaster and possible doom. By socialist legislation, I mean legislation designed to 'help' somebody get something they did not have through federal dictate.

The federal government should;
1.defend our borders from foriegn intrusion
2.provide an infrastructure to promote productivity
3.provide a basic set of laws for the citizens to prevent chaos
All other activities should be considered outside the realm of federal government.

edjax1952, I don't know if the 1952 in your name has any significance, but it CAN'T be the year you were born. No one born in that era could possibly be oblivious to the drastic catastrophic changes in America brought about by a conservative era that began with Nixon and Reagan.

Social programs like Medicare are the very BEST of what America SHOULD do for We, the People. You mention our founding fathers, but dismiss the quotes I provided by Jefferson. And you forget in the 'government' they created We, the People ARE the government.

Old age is not a reversible condition. When people retire, and move out of the way for younger people to fill jobs, they retire on a lower income. Medicare lifted millions of elderly Americans from the most likely to live in poverty and go without medical insurance to among the least likely group of citizens to live below the poverty line or suffer without medical care.

Only the strong survive is the law of the jungle. It is not a civil society and it is NOT the nation our founders envisioned. I suggest you take a course in civics.

Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

I will not keep repeating myself just because you do not believe what I say. Just look for me at the polls next voting day. And as for all those 'downtrodden people' I have been talking to some of them they have a message for you. here is the message:

Us rednecks are gittin a little tarred of bein cornered up intuh a special pen by all you guys that think that we aint smart enuf to know what’s good and what aint an we kaint make any difrence anyway about what you do so we decided dat, since we know how to put a chek box on one dem voten papers, we gonna load up ar pick-ups next time we git to vote an get-er –done. And there’s a lot of us! Ya might not think we are smart enuff to make a good dicision. Well the way we got it is a good decision for us mite not be a good dicision fer you so too bad about that.

 

[Foxfyre]

In order to choke on it I must try to swallow it first. I will not swallow it or try to. I give people the right to pass laws in a lawfull manner. But I do not have to agree with them or tolerate their ligitimacy in our culture by standing aside and remaining silent. Socialism did not work for the USSR and it will not work in America.

That is indicative of the unintended hypocrisy in these forum discussions.

First, every culture and time has its plusses and minuses, its virtues and sins, its commendable attributes and those nobody would now tolerate. But there are those who will point to the worst of those past cultures as evidence that nothing good came out of them or, worse, as evidence of the way things and people are now.

Second, some will hold up court rulings as evidence of the rightness and virtue of this or that law or policy, but ignore or shrug it off when the sins of past courts are pointed out as evidence that the courts, too, can get things wrong.

Our less enlightened brethren sanctimoniously demand that the GOP is unempatheic, unsympathetic, and opposed everything that is good and virtuous while ignoring or blowing off all the evidence to the contrary. Likewise, some others will say that nothing good ever came out of the liberal point of view which can be proved to be just as wrong.

And those of us watching this drama play out day after day wonder if it is possible to have a serious give and take discussion without accusing or blaming somebody or demanding that the discussion become another flame thread?

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

If you're going to quote Marx, at least keep it in the proper context. Yes, Marx said in the "Communist Manifesto" that "Democracy is the road to socialism." But if you continue his argument, socialism was the next step on the way to communism. And one of Marx's other famous quotations: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property"

Of course communism was never tried because governments being the way they are, once those in government acquire power, it is extremely rare that they voluntarily give it up. Marx did not think to deal with that in his Manifesto.

And the more power the government has, the less freedom the people will have. Lenin was an avid student and great admirer of Marx's theories. But he too was cvorrupted by power and never got around to moving from totalitarianism to communism. And he was no modern American conservative as the conservatives of America are in no way in favor of a more powerful federal government and certainly not a dictatorship or totalitarian authority.

It is that fact that the Founders of this country, classical liberals aka modern American conservatives all, did understand and they put their lives and fortune on the line to give us a Republic in which the government would secure the rights of the people and then the people would govern themselves. They intended the Federal government to have absolutely no power other than that.

The OP suggested that conservatives have no empathy? Where is the liberal empathy for those who desire more freedom, opportunity, options, choices, ability to innovate? Where is the liberal empathy for the true motives of those who want to put more and more power in the hands of those in the federal government?

 

[manu1959]

"In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

so would ike want govt to pay for health care or no?

 

[freedombecki]

Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists.

The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln&#8203; approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865. The 13th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The 14th Amendment

Text of the 14th Amendment

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

The 15th Amendment

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1870 during Reconstruction. Along with the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment, it is one of the three Reconstruction amendments.
Text of the 15th Amendment

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section. 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Admission of Wyoming to the Union gave Wyoming women the right to vote.
Date Admitted to the Union:

July 10, 1890 - Wyoming was the 44th state.


The 19th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on August 18, 1920. This amendment gave women the right to vote.

Text of the 19th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957

Text is here.

After it was proposed to Congress by Republican President Eisenhower, Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond set the longest 1-man filibuster in history of 24 hours and 18 minutes. The bill passed the House with a vote of 270 to 97 and the Senate 60 to 15. President Eisenhower&#8203; signed it on 9 September 1957. Senator John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The Democrats in power have removed this online document from the national archives about Republican President Eisenhower's role in desegregating the Little Rock Schools in 1954. All you get is a blank page. They have also excised all information on Republican activities from Wikipedia due to their extremism which is thoroughly Disgusting:

Civil Rights: The Little Rock School Integration Crisis. On May 17, 1954 ... A Moderate Among Extremists: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the School Desegregation Crisis by James C ...
www.eisenhower.archives.gov/Research/Digital_Documents/&#8203;LittleRock/&#8203;littlerockdocuments.html


​

Republican opponents have systematically removed all references to Republican accomplishments. They did more, I've been on this for several hours it seems, because headers leading into pages about Eisenhower omit Eisenhower's and Republicans entirely disappear when you get there on the first several pages of internet findings. The Democrats have excised Republican activities from the internet except where Republicans control the content. That is most evil in my humble opinion. They want to take credit for everything my party did, so they're doing it in extremely underhanded and diabolical, lying ways oft referred to as "errors of omission".

Sandy Berger was the first Democrat to get caught messing with the National Archives.. for those who are new to the net and don't know. He was convicted and fined $50,000 among other things.

Bfgrn, I didn't see your response to this post.

What say you?

Yea, in the 19th century, two principal groups stood opposed to human bondage - liberals and Christian abolitionists. Lincoln was a liberal.

HOW do you connect the 19th amendment to Republicans and/or conservatives?

Proposal and ratification
A flurry of activity began in 1910 and 1911 with surprise successes in Washington and California. Over the next few years, most western states passed legislation or voter referenda enacting full or partial suffrage for women. These successes were linked to the 1912 election, which saw the rise of the Progressive and Socialist parties, as well as the election of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Not until 1914 was the constitutional amendment again considered by the Senate, where it was again rejected.

On January 12, 1915, a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for women's suffrage was brought before the House of Representatives, but was defeated by a vote of 204 to 174. Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote.

There was considerable desire among politicians of both parties to have the proposal made part of the Constitution before the 1920 general elections, so the President called a special session of the Congress so the proposal would be brought before the House again. On May 21, 1919, it passed the House, 42 votes more than necessary being obtained. On June 4, 1919, it was brought before the Senate and, after a long discussion, it was passed with 56 ayes and 25 nays. Within a few days, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan ratified the amendment, their legislatures being in session. Other states followed suit at a regular pace, until the amendment had been ratified by 35 of the necessary 36 state legislatures. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee narrowly approved the Nineteenth Amendment, with 50 of 99 members of the Tennessee House of Representatives voting yes. This provided the final ratification necessary to enact the amendment.

I just furnished you proof of Republican caring for the human rights of slaves. We proposed antislavery steps, won a Presidential election which caused Democrats in the South to secede from the Union. You are woefully in error if you think the Republicans had nothing to do with women's suffrage so I'm going to share this link with you on the 19th Amendment that outlines and shows Republican women defending womens' suffrage and rights:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0zXymkXykE&feature=player_embedded"]RNC Celebrates the 91st Anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment - YouTube[/ame]

​

 

[Trajan]

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.

versus what? the pretend empathy the left likes to warp themselves up in, the smarmy superior attitude etc. as exemplified by your won quote? ask your average African American how much 'empathy' the left has for him or her, then go check the stats....empathy? oh sure........ better lives? Not so much, but hey, they're an empathetic bunch, just ask them....

 

[OODA_Loop]

With vilification the empathetic spirit wanes.

 

[freedombecki]

so would ike want govt to pay for health care or no?

President Eisenhower is dead, but they say he was in high dudgeon at the people who were trying to prevent the integration of a student into a school, which influenced the wording of the Civil Rights acto of 1957. Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which passed. When Senator Kennedy became President Kennedy, he did not favor Civil Rights until his Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson told him in late 1962 how important it was to get all those votes by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He finally decided the extra votes the Democrats would get from blacks was more than the anti-civil rights Democrats of the day who were still harrassing black voters in Mississippi and other places where they could get away with it.

It's like the guy who opposed God all his life but saw the light a few minutes before he passed away and for the first time in his adult life, said a prayer regretting his errors and meanness and wrongs to other people.

So Kennedy signed on to the Bill's passage through somebody else who he hired on as Vice President to keep his political rival the hell out of his way, buddy.

 

[Bfgrn]

You could have posted the preceding posts to give clarity to the statement.

Socialism was never tried in the USSR. It was a communist country.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

If you're going to quote Marx, at least keep it in the proper context. Yes, Marx said in the "Communist Manifesto" that "Democracy is the road to socialism." But if you continue his argument, socialism was the next step on the way to communism. And one of Marx's other famous quotations: "The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property"

Of course communism was never tried because governments being the way they are, once those in government acquire power, it is extremely rare that they voluntarily give it up. Marx did not think to deal with that in his Manifesto.

And the more power the government has, the less freedom the people will have. Lenin was an avid student and great admirer of Marx's theories. But he too was cvorrupted by power and never got around to moving from totalitarianism to communism. And he was no modern American conservative as the conservatives of America are in no way in favor of a more powerful federal government and certainly not a dictatorship or totalitarian authority.

It is that fact that the Founders of this country, classical liberals aka modern American conservatives all, did understand and they put their lives and fortune on the line to give us a Republic in which the government would secure the rights of the people and then the people would govern themselves. They intended the Federal government to have absolutely no power other than that.

The OP suggested that conservatives have no empathy? Where is the liberal empathy for those who desire more freedom, opportunity, options, choices, ability to innovate? Where is the liberal empathy for the true motives of those who want to put more and more power in the hands of those in the federal government?

Do you folks on the right believe the only threat we need to guard against comes from government? The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.


A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.


Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents



Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke