Don't he make my Red States Blue!

[techweenie]

What a difference a few months make!

County polling results from this week:

[Moses]

Bush is a big goverment evangelical politician.

He is no conservative. Many honorable conservatives have abandoned Bush. The fact that there is any red left on the map is a surprise.

In many ways, I'm pretty conservative. I find Bush to be a complete embarrasment. It will take decades to recover from his "leadership." I was disgusted by Clinton and his casual corruption, but we were far better off with him in the white house.

[Superman]

Once again, I'm following Moses.

We're all "fiscal conservatives" and I have yet to find an American that feels we do not have a responsibility to take care of those in our community far less fortunate than ourselves. Frankly, we're arguing like enemies fighting to the death when in reality, we all want the same things for our country. The stuff we disagree on is simple tactics, and we are not MILES apart. Inches or perhaps (on some issues) a few feet or so, but not far.

Dubya is way outside everyone's hopes for America. He was elected as a down-home fella. A regular guy like you and me. Give me a break. His world is so far divorced from the rest of us that he is completely, completely disconnected. Plus.....he's an IDIOT!!!!!! Or worse.

I'm hoping to see an entirely BLUE political map for the next ten or twenty years. It will take us far longer than that to mitigate the damage Dubya is causing, but I think he's probably given us that much breathing room single-handedly.

[928ram]

Source of the map??

[jyl]

Originally posted by Superman
I have yet to find an American that feels we do not have a responsibility to take care of those in our community far less fortunate than ourselves.

Oh, I think we have a few on this board.

[legion]

Originally posted by Superman
I have yet to find an American that feels we do not have a responsibility to take care of those in our community far less fortunate than ourselves.

I don't.

I have no responsibility for anyone else, nor do they have any responsibility to me.

I see most efforts to "help the less fortunate" as fruitless and counter-productive. I see it much like LubeMaster's thread on good students not living up to their potential. If someone always makes excuses for them and lets them slide, they will never have any motivation to do any better. The Robin Hood economics preached by some only breed dependency and high expectations for low effort.

It is one thing to help a family member or close friend in need. There you have a personal relationship and your influence can make a real difference. Depending on the government or even large charities for basic needs reduces the motivation to do for yourself.

"Helping the unfortunate" has increased the number of unfortunate. What it really comes down to is the belief by some that they should force everyone to drag the dead weight in society collectively.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Superman
Once again, I'm following Moses.

We're all "fiscal conservatives" and I have yet to find an American that feels we do not have a responsibility to take care of those in our community far less fortunate than ourselves. Frankly, we're arguing like enemies fighting to the death when in reality, we all want the same things for our country. The stuff we disagree on is simple tactics, and we are not MILES apart. Inches or perhaps (on some issues) a few feet or so, but not far.

Dubya is way outside everyone's hopes for America. He was elected as a down-home fella. A regular guy like you and me. Give me a break. His world is so far divorced from the rest of us that he is completely, completely disconnected. Plus.....he's an IDIOT!!!!!! Or worse.

I'm hoping to see an entirely BLUE political map for the next ten or twenty years. It will take us far longer than that to mitigate the damage Dubya is causing, but I think he's probably given us that much breathing room single-handedly.

It's really unfortunate that you don't see that the welfare state is just one half of the warfare state; and that you cannot have one without the other. As long as you support the welfare state, we will have the warfare state.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moses
Bush is a big goverment evangelical politician.

He is no conservative. Many honorable conservatives have abandoned Bush. The fact that there is any red left on the map is a surprise.

In many ways, I'm pretty conservative. I find Bush to be a complete embarrasment. It will take decades to recover from his "leadership." I was disgusted by Clinton and his casual corruption, but we were far better off with him in the white house.

All true, and sad really. Sadder still is the fact that Clinton, unlike Bush, really had the capability to be a much better president than he was.

[Moneyguy1]

LEGION..

Even Christ said "The poor we will always have with us".

And Scrooge said: "Are there not workhouses? Are their not prisons?"

Granted, some common sense must be used when "helping the unfortunate". Lumping everyone including the lazy is counterproductive. However, there are those with mental problems, birth defects, illnesses that might be willing to work but annot. Do we leave them on the curb to be collected with the rest of the garbage? ANd how about children?

My friend, you want to see civil unrest? eliminate help to everyone and watch the carnage. You best build a moat around that castle of yours and arm yourself to the teeth. Just turn to the French Revolution, the Russian revolution and the unrest in many eastern European and Middle East countries for examples of what poverty and hunger allow to seethe just under the surface.

Like Moses and others, I am a fiscal conservative. It would be nice to see some of that conservativism at the federal level, but the government is too damn busy trying to be all things to all people to be bothered with the really important issues that are tearing us apart. Our federal government is an embarassment; self serving, vain, more interested in their own welfare than that of the country.

There will always be a need for assistance to the less fortunate. It just has to be tempered with some common sense which in Washington is an uncommon commodity.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
LEGION..

Even Christ said "The poor we will always have with us".

And Scrooge said: "Are there not workhouses? Are their not prisons?"

Granted, some common sense must be used when "helping the unfortunate". Lumping everyone including the lazy is counterproductive. However, there are those with mental problems, birth defects, illnesses that might be willing to work but annot. Do we leave them on the curb to be collected with the rest of the garbage? ANd how about children?

My friend, you want to see civil unrest? eliminate help to everyone and watch the carnage. You best build a moat around that castle of yours and arm yourself to the teeth. Just turn to the French Revolution, the Russian revolution and the unrest in many eastern European and Middle East countries for examples of what poverty and hunger allow to seethe just under the surface.

Like Moses and others, I am a fiscal conservative. It would be nice to see some of that conservativism at the federal level, but the government is too damn busy trying to be all things to all people to be bothered with the really important issues that are tearing us apart. Our federal government is an embarassment; self serving, vain, more interested in their own welfare than that of the country.

There will always be a need for assistance to the less fortunate. It just has to be tempered with some common sense which in Washington is an uncommon commodity.

Government welfare is obtained via violence, so there is no method by which it can be made legitimate.

Also, while there might be violence if welfare were eliminated tomorrow; we know there was a time when there was no federal welfare, and very little state welfare; so the condition has existed and worked very well.

Comparing America, which essentially is a classless society, with Britain and europe in which certain persons were guaranteed an income from the state and others were prevented from earning an income by class is wrong in my opinion.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
LEGION..

Even Christ said "The poor we will always have with us".

And Scrooge said: "Are there not workhouses? Are their not prisons?"

Granted, some common sense must be used when "helping the unfortunate". Lumping everyone including the lazy is counterproductive. However, there are those with mental problems, birth defects, illnesses that might be willing to work but annot. Do we leave them on the curb to be collected with the rest of the garbage? ANd how about children?

Well, there's the crux of the argument. Some famous jurist once said 'better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.'

The same argument applied to "helping the unfortunate" has us on the left focusing on the good done for the genetically and socially disadvantaged and has those on the right focusing on the few scumbags who exploit the system.

[legion]

Bob, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I despise large, faceless charity (be it from the government or private). It doesn't help anyone.

I help people individually and face-to-face. I'm also not afraid to withhold help when it will either do no good or what the person really needs is to learn some lessons the hard way.

[Jim Richards]

somewhere in all this is the fading refrain "compassionate conservative."

[nostatic]

the big tent looks a little smaller...

[Moneyguy1]

Legion:

We agree that there is just too large a number on the dole, but tossing out the baby with the bathwater isn't an answer either. I help family members and friends, and they are fortunante I am here to do so. But, there are others I do not know that would really need the help.

How can I find them?

How can they find me?

Through well run local private organizations that see more of "Life on the Streets" than I will ever see.

I choose carefully, and so far have not been disappointed, even volunteering time as well as treasure.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by legion
Bob, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I despise large, faceless charity (be it from the government or private). It doesn't help anyone.

There is one tremendous difference between the two. Government charity, aka welfare, is money taken at gun point while private charity is money given voluntarily.

That's what make private charity legitimate and government charity illegitimate.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

And if somebody had given Stephen Hawking a rod and reel instead of fish?

[nostatic]

he would have invented "fishing line theory"

24lb test I think...

[Jeff Higgins]

Tech (quite possibly for the first time ever) is absolutely right. Conservatives see the lazy sumbags that take advantage of the system and are less able to see those it helps that need and deserve the help. Liberals see those who are truly, through no fault of their own, in need, but conversely fail to acknowledge the rampant waste, corruption, undeserving taking advantage. Both side's views are simplistic, and fail to get to the crux of the problem.

Pat nails it right on the head on this one. Government mandated charity is a very bad idea. I find it interesting to note that liberals are comfortable with being forced by law to give to support others; that tells me a great deal about their views of themselves and their fellow men. They do not believe charity can exist at an effective level unless some one (the gubmint) puts a gun to everyone's heads. They are happy to have big government handle such affairs for them.

Conservatives are not. We prefer to take care of our charitible giving on a far more local, or personal level. We are comfortable doing that, and tend to belong to organizations that provide a means through which to donate. Churches, lodges, civic groups, etc., all have a history of giving in their communities. They attract a conservative membership as a rule, so that membership tends to get better exposure to alternative means for giving outside of those mandated by government. They see it can be done in the absence of government involvement, and that insight leads them to question government involvement in many things best left to the private sector.

So in the end, Supe is right. We have gone over this before; both sides want the same thing. The dissagreement starts in how to achieve it. Liberals want government to do it all; conservatives want government to stay out of it.

In my own opinion, as a conservative, I believe government has long since gotten too big. I vote conservative in the hopes of electing people that will agree with me on that, and work to reduce the size of government. It hasn't worked. Ever since the early promise of Gingrich's little conservative coup, and now especially through one and a half terms of "conservatives" having unchallenged power, government has in fact been growing. At a record pace. Our elected conservative leaders have ignored our mandate and have failed us misserably. Now where do I (we) turn?

I find the liberal platform on moral and social issue to be unnacceptable. Couple that with a promise to expand government at an even faster rate than the conservatives, and where am I to turn? Government is far too intrusive as it is. How many of us are truly comfortable with its size today? There is not an aspect of my life it does not touch. That is inherently wrong. I have been led down the garden path, believing conservative leadership would work to correct that. They quite obviously will not, so now what? I don't like either side anymore.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by 928ram
Source of the map??

Did you get an answer to this question?