Conservatives...

[Rune]

Is there an "aristocracy" in the United States ?
Is there an "aristocracy" in China ???
Was there an "aristocracy" in the USSR?
Is there on an "aristocracy" in Russia ?
How about the UK, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc....

Is the "aristocracy" the same as the "elitists"....?

You mean here? You are a moron.

 

[NOVA]

Dixie on Conservatives. Msg #15
“Conservatives believe in the power of individuals, and through the free market of ideas, and with capitalist initiatives, ANY person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth.”

Damn Yankee on Conservatives. Msg #26
“Here's how conservatives define themselves:
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;”

I’d like to thank both Dixie and Damn Yankee for such concise and valuable information.

Let’s take a closer look at those two comments.

1. If any person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth that implies those whom do not obtain prosperity and wealth are at fault.

Take a closer look...? you're as ass.....that statement is not even close to being true...its complete nonsense....

2. when (government) takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both. Considering the government’s only way to help people is to obtain “help” from certain individuals in order to give to other individuals the implication is that helping people is destructive.

And that again is illogical logic at its craziest....not even a liberal imbecile would buy that convoluted bullshit...the statement does not mention "the needy"....you added that little tidbit to mis-represent the true meaning of what the author was saying....

Those sentiments (reasons) lie at the heart of why Liberals and Conservatives can not agree on policy changes regarding pensions, medical care, etc. How can changes to programs designed to help the needy be discussed when one group believes that not only is helping destructive but it is the fault of the needy for requiring help?

That is why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare without much Conservative input as what is the point of negotiating with someone who is against the very idea being negotiated? What is the point of discussing entitlement programs with people who are against any form of entitlement programs? Why would one expect those folks to offer a viable solution when they are against any viable solution?

.

 

[NOVA]

You mean here? You are a moron.

What you fail to realize, being the stupid asshole you are, is that a question is not a statement, nor an opinion, nor a declaration of any kind.....
its a question.....

LEARN PINHEAD...for your own good....
ques·tion (kw

s

ch

n)n.1. a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.


I guess you're not really a liar...just extremely stupid.....

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Right off the bat, you begin your supposition with a totally incorrect premise. The Constitution certainly WAS NOT written to "empower federal government" ...it just wasn't! Period! Some would argue, it was intended to do the exact opposite, to empower THE PEOPLE over the government. To any extent it gave any power at all to a central federal government, it was strictly limited to the bare necessities and essentials, and the power was carefully enumerated. Through the years, different factions have come into power, and altered the interpretations, changed the dynamics, and rewritten the laws concerning the limited government our founding fathers established. You mention the "commerce clause" and this is a prime example of how misinterpretation of the founding intent, has permeated its way into our thinking. Now, the commerce clause is routinely used as the justification for all kinds of unconstitutional power grabbing by the federal government.

pardon me, I used some incorrect wording. The constitution simply prescribes certain powers to the federal government. I shouldn't have used 'empower'. my bad

 

[Minister of Truth]

It think Yurt just hit on the fact that some rhetoric is highly interchangeable around here. What really is the difference between a Ken Thread and this one (ignoring the obvious lack of cartoons, of course)? The same could be said of some posters on the right.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Liberals prefer to get shot at in the streets.

Usually while on their knees pleading and telling the invading army that they support their cause.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie on Conservatives. Msg #15
“Conservatives believe in the power of individuals, and through the free market of ideas, and with capitalist initiatives, ANY person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth.”

Damn Yankee on Conservatives. Msg #26
“Here's how conservatives define themselves:
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;”

I’d like to thank both Dixie and Damn Yankee for such concise and valuable information.

Let’s take a closer look at those two comments.

1. If any person has the capacity for prosperity and wealth that implies those whom do not obtain prosperity and wealth are at fault.

Essentially, they are at fault. Everyone in America has the same opportunity to be successful. I can cite numerous examples of people who have come to this country with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, and they became uber-successful. Now, how would that be possible, if the opportunity to be successful was not available to those who have very little? Of course, someone who has the proclivity tor become a victim, to blame their woes on society, to make excuses for why they can't possibly make it... those people are generally not going to ever be successful, they don't have what it takes to become successful, and it doesn't matter how much opportunity is presented to them. Who's "fault" is that, if not the individual?

2. when (government) takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both. Considering the government’s only way to help people is to obtain “help” from certain individuals in order to give to other individuals the implication is that helping people is destructive.

Those sentiments (reasons) lie at the heart of why Liberals and Conservatives can not agree on policy changes regarding pensions, medical care, etc. How can changes to programs designed to help the needy be discussed when one group believes that not only is helping destructive but it is the fault of the needy for requiring help?

You only THINK you are helping people by stealing from one group to give to another. In actuality, it promotes a dependent class, it fosters the attitude of victimization in the very individuals who are seeking an excuse for not becoming successful. It enables the problem to grow, while we chase some utopian vision of something that will never be. How much money or dope can you give an addict to make him get off drugs and clean up his life? How much money or booze can you give an alcoholic to make him stop drinking? How much welfare can you give someone who has no motivation to succeed, to make them want to be successful? What YOU see as "helping" people is in actuality, HARMING them! Now... that is not to say that we can't be benevolent or offer some level of emergency aid for people who truly find themselves in a distressful situation, but that is a far cry from what we have currently grown for ourselves, which is a class of dependents who don't feel they have to do anything except wait for their government check, because they are 'entitled' to something they didn't earn. Even your stupid idiotic notions regarding health care, are cloaked in this line of insane thinking... that we can provide medical care for FREE to people, it doesn't cost anyone anything, in fact, we're going to SAVE money! You can't seem to comprehend, NOTHING IS FREE, EVER! No matter what you think, no matter how much you hope and dream... it just isn't that way in the reality of the world we live in. Things cost money, services cost money, and someone has to pay for that at some point.

 

[Rune]

What you fail to realize, being the stupid asshole you are, is that a question is not a statement, nor an opinion, nor a declaration of any kind.....
its a question.....

LEARN PINHEAD...for your own good....
ques·tion (kw

s

ch

n)n.1. a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.


I guess you're not really a liar...just extremely stupid.....

Thanks for admitting I am not a liar.
What did the quotes you used around the word aristocracy indicate?
Are you really trying to say you were not implying anything?

 

[cawacko]

Usually while on their knees pleading and telling the invading army that they support their cause.

Actually in this case I was thinking more along the lines of not on the battlefield but in America's cities.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually in this case I was thinking more along the lines of not on the battlefield but in America's cities.

Conservative support of an aristocracy and worship of wealth goes hand & hand with disdain and contempt for the poor.

Thanks for the verification.

 

[cawacko]

Conservative support of an aristocracy and worship of wealth goes hand & hand with disdain and contempt for the poor.

Thanks for the verification.

Actually that had nothing to do with disdain and comptempt for the poor. I was stating a fact. Do more liberals or conservatives do drive-by shootings and murders?

And with all due respect please save me your holier than thou 'I care' bullshit. I spent a good part of my life living in Oakland and have a handful of friends that live in the worst parts of the City in section 8 housing. They would laugh when I came over and joke they hadn't seen a white person in their neighborhood in months. I don't make friends based on wealth, race or political beliefs and I don't need to be lectured on what I supposedly care about by a man who barely understands the definition of the terms he is using.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Conservative support of an aristocracy and worship of wealth goes hand & hand with disdain and contempt for the poor.

Thanks for the verification.

Again, you are misusing the term "aristocracy" and applying your own interpretive meaning. It's no different than me saying liberals support Fascism.

No one on the right that I am aware of, has "disdain or contempt" for poor people. Conservatives believe that's what is so remarkable about our free market capitalist system, even the poor can attain wealth. Our "poor" people live like kings compared to the poor in other countries. The average "poor" person in America, has a color TV, a car, and air conditioning. What you perceive as "disdain and contempt" is actually an effort to restore personal accountability and responsibility. Instead of looking at a poor person and seeing someone who is hopeless because they are somehow 'inferior' to others, we see people as individuals, capable of whatever they set their minds to, without limit. Liberals are the ones with contempt and prejudice... you see a poor person as someone who is incapable of helping themselves, a victim of society, who can't help their own situation because they are inferior, so you feel the need to help them... with other people's money!

 

[NOVA]

Conservative support of an aristocracy and worship of wealth goes hand & hand with disdain and contempt for the poor.

Thanks for the verification.

Then by the same application of logic, liberal/Democrat support for redistributing wealth goes hand in hand with communism and socialism in place of freedom and liberty.....

And thank you for the verification.

 

[apple0154]

And that again is illogical logic at its craziest....not even a liberal imbecile would buy that convoluted bullshit...the statement does not mention "the needy"....you added that little tidbit to mis-represent the true meaning of what the author was saying.....

So what is the meaning of this statement? "That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;”

Take from one man to bestow on another. Since when are entitlement programs taking from one man and giving to another UNLESS the other is in need? The person being bestowed welfare or unemployment or medical care is receiving help because they are in need.

It neither impinges on the integrity of the second nor the moral autonomy of either. As for diminishing the incentive of the first that applies only to the greedy and selfish.

How in hell does feeding the hungry interfere with ones moral autonomy?

What a jack-ass!

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually that had nothing to do with disdain and comptempt for the poor. I was stating a fact. Do more liberals or conservatives do drive-by shootings and murders?

And with all due respect please save me your holier than thou 'I care' bullshit. I spent a good part of my life living in Oakland and have a handful of friends that live in the worst parts of the City in section 8 housing. They would laugh when I came over and joke they hadn't seen a white person in their neighborhood in months. I don't make friends based on wealth, race or political beliefs and I don't need to be lectured on what I supposedly care about by a man who barely understands the definition of the terms he is using.

Are you claiming more people who commit drive by shootings and murders are 'liberals'? How fucking ignorant are you?

 

[cawacko]

Are you claiming more people who commit drive by shootings and murders are 'liberals'? How fucking ignorant are you?

Would you like to tell me where I am wrong? The large majority of drive-by shootings are done by black and hispanic folk. We know blacks vote 90% - 95% Democrat and Hispanics vote about 2/3rds Democrat. Are you going to claim they are not liberals now?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are you claiming more people who commit drive by shootings and murders are 'liberals'? How fucking ignorant are you?

I don't have any links or know of any studies on this, but I'd be willing to bet the statistics lean toward liberals more. Is there something you have, other than your idiot opinion, to suggest otherwise?

 

[charver]

Would you like to tell me where I am wrong? The large majority of drive-by shootings are done by black and hispanic folk. We know blacks vote 90% - 95% Democrat and Hispanics vote about 2/3rds Democrat. Are you going to claim they are not liberals now?

I'm just guessing here, but i would have thought gang-bangers would probably be more concerned with everyday gang bidness rather than reminding each other to take their democratic responsibilities seriously by registering to vote and stopping off by the polling place in between smacking up their bitches and that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Conservative support of an aristocracy and worship of wealth goes hand & hand with disdain and contempt for the poor.

Thanks for the verification.

wow. you'll take any meaning out of anything you want to and spin it in to your own little reality, won't you?

 

[cawacko]

I'm just guessing here, but i would have thought gang-bangers would probably be more concerned with everyday gang bidness rather than reminding each other to take their democratic responsibilities seriously by registering to vote and stopping off by the polling place in between smacking up their bitches and that.

Believe it or not bangers are a lot more civil minded these days. 'I'm about to pop a cap in your ass, right after I go downtown and vote'.