12-01-2013 04:09 PM
70 123
tools
  1. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I understand conservatism very, very well. I was a conservative for 15 years. My opinions changed as I got older, more educated, and less selfish. There is a reason that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be a conservative. Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com High IQ = Liberal, Atheist, Monogamous Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? €” The American Magazine
    I went the opposite way when i realized that all the "help" for the poor actually hurts them and society as a whole. The math nor the psychology works out. I was a product of our liberal public education system. Then i went to college, got a degree, and went out into the real world. Eye opening experience. My local mission work has pushed me even farther. I have seen the boot that is the welfare system holding people down. I have also seen those that could choose to not take assistance and do anyway.

    The fact that I don't envy those that have more than i do has helped as well. I never could fit in with the hate breeding liberal crowd...
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-27-2013 10:44 AM
  2. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Arrogant or not, its backed up by study after study.
    Actually it's more commonplace for people to grow conservative with age rather than liberal. No, I don't have links to studies. It just seems to be a true cliche about aging.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    11-27-2013 11:07 AM
  3. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Arrogant or not, its backed up by study after study.
    The people that sit in classrooms their whole lives and never do any real work are also more likely to feel that they don't deserve their salary. Thus liberal views...

    And, while i generally don't put much stock in sociological studies, studies done by liberal universities and organizations that gain to benefit from the outcome of such studies, even if only to feed their own smug arrogance, have even less credit.

    And you yourself cited "cultural differences" as a reason for minorities not scoring well on standardized tests. The you use a study that cites standardized test scores to prove that liberals are smarter. You are all over the road sweetheart.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-27-2013 11:11 AM
  4. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    But it's true that liberal ideas are rarely challenged in schools. If you're raised liberal you won't see a different pov in college. There's a lot of bias at universities.

    Here's a good hypothetical for you which is a metaphor of liberal versus conservative wisdom.

    An adult man becomes a drug addict. His good liberal mom says, come home dear. He does, and steals from her constantly to buy more drugs. She becomes miserable and his life is nothing but a waste and he never gets better. That's the effect of liberal compassion.

    The man in identical straits hears from his conservative mom. She says, stay where you are, I'm coming to get you. She picks him up, drops him at the rehab clinic, and says I'll see you when you're well, dear.

    Which mom did the right thing? (If you have to think about it, there's no point even trying to debate anything here.)

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-27-2013 11:14 AM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's been a few years, but some time ago,a study came out saying conservatives are more generous than liberals when looking at charitable giving. What made it notable was the study's author was a liberal himself and was hoping to prove the liberal stance that they are the more compassionate political class, but the numbers bared out otherwise. Can't remember the guy's name, though.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-27-2013 11:17 AM
  6. JRDroid's Avatar
    I went the opposite way when i realized that all the "help" for the poor actually hurts them and society as a whole. The math nor the psychology works out. I was a product of our liberal public education system. Then i went to college, got a degree, and went out into the real world. Eye opening experience. My local mission work has pushed me even farther. I have seen the boot that is the welfare system holding people down. I have also seen those that could choose to not take assistance and do anyway.

    The fact that I don't envy those that have more than i do has helped as well. I never could fit in with the hate breeding liberal crowd...
    I had pretty much the opposite experience. I was a conservative, the product of a religious upbringing. When I got into the real world, I, slowly at first but ever more rapidly, became more liberal. I honestly think extermism in either direction is bad. The things I don't understand in conservatism are things like not supporting public health care. As I said earlier, we are the only fully industiralized nation with a democratically elected government that doesn't view health care as a basic human right.
    11-27-2013 11:18 AM
  7. JRDroid's Avatar
    The people that sit in classrooms their whole lives and never do any real work are also more likely to feel that they don't deserve their salary. Thus liberal views...

    And, while i generally don't put much stock in sociological studies, studies done by liberal universities and organizations that gain to benefit from the outcome of such studies, even if only to feed their own smug arrogance, have even less credit.

    And you yourself cited "cultural differences" as a reason for minorities not scoring well on standardized tests. The you use a study that cites standardized test scores to prove that liberals are smarter. You are all over the road sweetheart.
    Standardized test are not perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't use them at all. They can provide useful information even if they are not 100% accurate.

    Also, and very off topic, why sweatheart? First off, I'm a guy (not to say you can't call a guy a sweetheart, but normally it is used for women). And second. just why?
    11-27-2013 11:22 AM
  8. JRDroid's Avatar
    But it's true that liberal ideas are rarely challenged in schools. If you're raised liberal you won't see a different pov in college. There's a lot of bias at universities.

    Here's a good hypothetical for you which is a metaphor of liberal versus conservative wisdom.

    An adult man becomes a drug addict. His good liberal mom says, come home dear. He does, and steals from her constantly to buy more drugs. She becomes miserable and his life is nothing but a waste and he never gets better. That's the effect of liberal compassion.

    The man in identical straits hears from his conservative mom. She says, stay where you are, I'm coming to get you. She picks him up, drops him at the rehab clinic, and says I'll see you when you're well, dear.

    Which mom did the right thing? (If you have to think about it, there's no point even trying to debate anything here.)

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    I do not see how the second mom is at all analagous to the conservative point of view.
    11-27-2013 11:24 AM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Standardized test are not perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't use them at all. They can provide useful information even if they are not 100% accurate.

    Also, and very off topic, why sweatheart? First off, I'm a guy (not to say you can't call a guy a sweetheart, but normally it is used for women). And second. just why?
    because internet
    11-27-2013 11:25 AM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I do not see how the second mom is at all analagous to the conservative point of view.
    Liberals would rather feed the problem and create dependence than face the hard facts and facilitate the solution.
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-27-2013 11:32 AM
  11. JRDroid's Avatar
    because internet
    Good enough for me
    Liberals would rather feed the problem and create dependence than face the hard facts and facilitate the solution.
    Which is why I think extremism in either direction is bad. You need moderation of the two oposing sides to get at an effective solution. Unfortunately, both moderate and compromise have become dirty words in Washington.
    11-27-2013 11:40 AM
  12. llamabreath's Avatar
    Also, and very off topic, why sweatheart? First off, I'm a guy (not to say you can't call a guy a sweetheart, but normally it is used for women). And second. just why?
    lol lol
    11-27-2013 11:43 AM
  13. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Liberals would rather feed the problem and create dependence than face the hard facts and facilitate the solution.
    ^^^This.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-27-2013 11:50 AM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's been a few years, but some time ago,a study came out saying conservatives are more generous than liberals when looking at charitable giving. What made it notable was the study's author was a liberal himself and was hoping to prove the liberal stance that they are the more compassionate political class, but the numbers bared out otherwise. Can't remember the guy's name, though.
    Found the study, but this report claimed the author was registered independent and guess I was mistaken on that part.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

    As I said earlier, we are the only fully industiralized nation with a democratically elected government that doesn't view health care as a basic human right.
    We're the only country to do a lot of things. Ever hear the phrase, "the great American experiment?" But to repeat something I said in the thread about rights in general, rights are something that can be granted without taking away rights from others. Let's take healthcare as a right. Not simply access, but provided as is what is usually implied when this comes up. That potentially takes rights from two people to provide for one. First you need the doctors and hospitals and such. There's no way around it. If none were around, the government would have to force people into that profession or pay just enough to entice them. Chances are, the government would try to entice them with money vs a gun, meaning they are still slaves to the right of healthcare without even knowing it.

    The other group is everyone else in the country being robbed even more of their right to do what they want with their income to provide said funding to pay the healthcare industry so you can be treated. On top of that, you now add in waste and inefficiencies inherent in government ran projects, and you see prices/taxes rise and innovations stifled. Also consider that even the best ran healthcare system in the world can't help you if you're the proverbial fat lazy slob that does nothing but sit around the house eating bon-bon's all day. Healthcare starts at home, making it a personal responsibility. Lastly, as I've said in other threads in the past, we have needs more important than a healthcare system, like food and shelter. By your logic should, those should be made rights first, but you don't see many people clamoring for those.

    I do not see how the second mom is at all analagous to the conservative point of view.
    The second mom actually did something to help the son better himself instead of simply funding the habit (by choice or by theft, it doesn't really matter).
    mrsmumbles likes this.
    11-27-2013 12:09 PM
  15. bobbob1016's Avatar
    While I realize that 99% of the politicians out there are cut from the same cloth; the Republicans (imo) seem to try to offer more in less government (laissez faire) than Democrats (more control over YOU, by way of deceitful means).

    Why wouldn't you prefer freedom over government control? For instance; why PENALIZE people that would rather be self-reliant than depend on government?
    Focusing on the last line a bit, "freedom over government control". I'd say that's a false premise. It's either corporate control or government control in your case. I still don't like that wording though. For instance, no government in the middle, it would be impossible for someone to compete with all these companies. Remember when Intel wanted to only allow approved apps to run on their CPUs? Basically taxing all developers? AMD would likely have to follow for the revenue stream. There isn't another Windows compatible CPU architecture that would people could vote for with their wallet. Can you or I make our own CPU with a reasonable amount of investment? Even assuming we could, it wouldn't be x86 compatible for patents, and we wouldn't gain any users.

    Same with Cell Carriers. If it weren't for the government saying "You guys need competition and since we gave you a cut in taxes to make these, and prices are still ridiculous, you have to allow third parties to use the lines." we'd still have long distance, and all that non-sense.

    I see the government now-a-days as someone to compete with giant companies. If I don't go to Walmart out of spite because they wanted to pay their Mexican (I think it was Mexico) employees in Wacky Walmart Dollars, will that cause them detriment? I need someone I can vote with with my brain, as voting with my wallet only harms mom-and-pops not huge chains chains.

    Let us consider the case of a hypothetical person. This person grows up, becomes an adult, and says "I don't wish to be taxed. I didn't vote for taxation, and I refuse to be bound by laws for which I did not vote nor to which I gave my consent."

    How would you folks respond to such a person? Assume that beyond being willing to discuss the matter, they were also willing to acceed to whatever means was required to protect and defend their position.
    (assuming Hypothetical is a male for easier pronouns)
    That isn't possible. Has he been to a traffic light? Has he ever gotten anything in the mail? Has he had any benefits from the Cops arresting a criminal in his area? That was consent. Also, isn't some self-reliance "life is tough"? Wouldn't paying those taxes be that toughness? Otherwise I see it as whining, as everyone else pays them.
    11-27-2013 12:18 PM
  16. JRDroid's Avatar
    Found the study, but this report claimed the author was registered independent and guess I was mistaken on that part.

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers



    We're the only country to do a lot of things. Ever hear the phrase, "the great American experiment?" But to repeat something I said in the thread about rights in general, rights are something that can be granted without taking away rights from others. Let's take healthcare as a right. Not simply access, but provided as is what is usually implied when this comes up. That potentially takes rights from two people to provide for one. First you need the doctors and hospitals and such. There's no way around it. If none were around, the government would have to force people into that profession or pay just enough to entice them. Chances are, the government would try to entice them with money vs a gun, meaning they are still slaves to the right of healthcare without even knowing it.

    The other group is everyone else in the country being robbed even more of their right to do what they want with their income to provide said funding to pay the healthcare industry so you can be treated. On top of that, you now add in waste and inefficiencies inherent in government ran projects, and you see prices/taxes rise and innovations stifled. Also consider that even the best ran healthcare system in the world can't help you if you're the proverbial fat lazy slob that does nothing but sit around the house eating bon-bon's all day. Healthcare starts at home, making it a personal responsibility. Lastly, as I've said in other threads in the past, we have needs more important than a healthcare system, like food and shelter. By your logic should, those should be made rights first, but you don't see many people clamoring for those.


    The second mom actually did something to help the son better himself instead of simply funding the habit (by choice or by theft, it doesn't really matter).
    1. I'm going to try and say this in the least insulting way possible, because it is not meant as an insult, but an honest statement of my thoughts. I honestly cannot understand someone who thinks it is okay to deny someone life saving health care because they do not want higher taxes. I am not rich but I'm not poor either (my income falls in what is considered by economists to be the low end of middle class), but I would have no qualms about my taxes going up if it means someone who has to work at McDonalds to support their family can have access to affordable, quality health care. I understand the debate and how people can have differing opinions on most political debates, but not this one. Also, there are lots of places we could take funding from, like our bloated, needlessly large military budget, so we could offset a huge percentage of the cost of healthcare.

    2. Again, this is an honest question. What do you think conservatives are doing to help people who have problems they cannot deal with on their own (like the second mom in your story)?
    Fairclough likes this.
    11-27-2013 07:12 PM
  17. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    It was my story, not Mooncatt's.

    Life saving care is never denied as far as I can tell. They will stabilize a patient and then transfer them to a municipal hospital if they can. If that's too risky they'll keep someone at a private hospital for the duration of care.

    Same for non life threatening emergencies, such as eye trauma (I went through that).

    It was a mess but it taught me never to be without insurance.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-27-2013 08:08 PM
  18. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Also, in practically every city rehab is basically free. Anywhere there is a municipal hospital they'll take admit you to the psych ward for rehab (or whatever).

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-27-2013 08:11 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    1. I'm going to try and say this in the least insulting way possible, because it is not meant as an insult, but an honest statement of my thoughts. I honestly cannot understand someone who thinks it is okay to deny someone life saving health care because they do not want higher taxes. I am not rich but I'm not poor either (my income falls in what is considered by economists to be the low end of middle class), but I would have no qualms about my taxes going up if it means someone who has to work at McDonalds to support their family can have access to affordable, quality health care. I understand the debate and how people can have differing opinions on most political debates, but not this one. Also, there are lots of places we could take funding from, like our bloated, needlessly large military budget, so we could offset a huge percentage of the cost of healthcare.

    2. Again, this is an honest question. What do you think conservatives are doing to help people who have problems they cannot deal with on their own (like the second mom in your story)?
    No offence taken, for starters.

    But expanding on what I said about a right to healthcare infringing on the rights of others, let's look at the other side of the equation. If that were in place, what does the recipients of the healthcare owe in return? For normal rights, nothing, as it takes nothing from anyone else. Since others would be forced at the end of the government's gun to pay for, and/or provide it, would the recipient

    -be required to maintain a certain physical fitness level
    -follow a government approved diet
    -give up any habit deemed "bad", like smoking and drinking
    -be required to self pay for treatments of conditions caused by lifestyle choices

    ? After all, if I'm paying for someone's healthcare, I'm going to expect them to do what it takes to minimize my costs. And that leads me to this... If said person can't afford proper insurance and healthcare on their wages, we should expect them to

    -give up in home cable, satellite, internet, et al
    -don't go to movies, restaurants, theme parks, vacations, etc.
    -sell the nice cars and get a cheap one (maybe two depending on family structure) that's easily paid for
    -get a second or third job
    -give up any other paid for entertainment

    Should we not? Again, with me paying for something so vastly important as someone else's healthcare, it's an insult to me when they spend on less/unimportant material things instead of doing all they can to provide their own. Now, if you agree with the terms I laid out, then perhaps we can have a more honest debate. The big problem is the U.S. government won't ask for any greater responsibility from the recipient. They just hand the money out.

    On to point two, if I were in the mom's place... well dad lol, I'd pretty much do something like that. If I could afford it,I may even pay for the counseling myself. Or in any case, I'd help fund the treatment and be a part of the help if I could, but I wouldn't simply hand him the money and expect him to go through on his own. I'm by no means opposed to financially helping if I can, but I'm going to make sure my money goes to causes and treatments that follow my ideals. If it's not something I have the ability to pay for, I'd cook them dinner if they're hungry and offer any advice I can, but make it known that I can't help them if they won't help themselves first.
    11-27-2013 08:21 PM
  20. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Yeah, I don't have a problem with some taxes allocated to public hospitals. They will try to bill the patient. Some patients pay about $10/month forever. It may never pay off the whole bill but at least it's some responsibility on the part of the recipient of care.

    No one is denied emergency or crisis care if they seek it. I'd rather tax dollars go towards rehab facilities than have more addicts resorting to crime to feed their habit or more expensive care down the road.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-27-2013 08:44 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    Wow.

    The American view of government free health care is hilarious.

    From Australia.


    We find it hilarious, even out rednecks (we call bogans) the view Americans take on the costs of a free health care system is ridiculous. I have not heard one Australian say the idea of it in America is a bad idea. Not one.

    If you can boost the economy by going to war, surely you can boost the economy by treating your own citizens, erecting hospitals. Oh when you have a healthy population they can live and work longer. Actually most universal systems are cheaper than what your government pays per capita on health care, let alone with individual costs.

    No our doctors are not living rough.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    11-28-2013 07:02 AM
  22. msndrstood's Avatar
    Gay marriage: I could see the argument. Religious and moral reasons aside, there is a LOT logistical consequences that go along with legalizing gay marriage on a national level that the activists always ignore. That is the real reason it has not happened yet. States have rights too.

    Women's rights? How? Not making tax payers pay for women's birth control? lol

    Affirmative action is nothing other than reverse discrimination. Companies should be able to hire the BEST employees without having to worry about ethnicity or "numbers". Isn't that what the civil rights movement was about? EQUAL rights. Not privileged rights.

    Entitlements: Not really relevant unless you are so liberal that you think that the wealthy completely supporting the finances of those under them is a "right"

    Obama Born Somewhere Else: Has nothing to do with the conversation or rights.

    Everyone has a right to be poor and hungry if they choose to be. The difference is that Conservatives want to create an environment that anyone can succeed in if they work hard and are smart. The liberals want an environment where the economy goes to crap because businesses and the "rich" cannot be successful because they are too busy paying for people that could support themselves(if they chose to) but don't because it is easier to just depend on the government. That way they have the majority of people dependent on the government and thus guaranteed votes.

    Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Give a man free healthcare, food stamps, welfare check, cell phone, and housing, and he will vote democrat forever.



    I hate both parties as well. The difference is The Dems try to get into my personal life more so than the GOP. To even imply that they dont is utter ignorance. I just want the government to stop using my money to destroy the economy and stay out of my personal life. Anything that I do that does not hurt someone else is of no concern to you or anyone else. If i want to have an army's worth of assault weapons in my house and buying 80 ounce big gulps while eating food without nutritional information on it and riding a bicycle without a helmet, I should be able to. And no government should be able to say anything about it.
    This is the basic difference between us. As a male, presumably white (I could be wrong) naturally you feel the GOP protects your rights (guns etc) while women feel the Dems protect their rights. Believe me, as a woman, the GOP can't wait to tell me what to do with my body. I don't think men have that problem with the Dems.

    That's the difference. It doesn't get more basic and personal than that. The rest is superficial noise.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    11-28-2013 08:14 AM
  23. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    Wow.

    The American view of government free health care is hilarious.

    From Australia.


    We find it hilarious, even out rednecks (we call bogans) the view Americans take on the costs of a free health care system is ridiculous. I have not heard one Australian say the idea of it in America is a bad idea. Not one.

    If you can boost the economy by going to war, surely you can boost the economy by treating your own citizens, erecting hospitals. Oh when you have a healthy population they can live and work longer. Actually most universal systems are cheaper than what your government pays per capita on health care, let alone with individual costs.

    No our doctors are not living rough.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    But you can't boost the economy going to war. When Bush got us into the latest wars it tanked the economy again and it's only gotten worse.

    The USA is different from other countries. We have a huge population and it's extremely diverse. But I think our numbers are one of the main reasons it's not really doable. If you want to say it can be if everyone's taxed that's what they're doing and insurance costs are being tripled. Can you pay $1800/month? That's why this is derailing. Plus government simply can't do it and reduce costs. Government reduced costs is an oxymoron.

    Every time I read one of your posts I hear your Australian accent in my head.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-28-2013 08:48 AM
  24. mrsmumbles's Avatar
    This is the basic difference between us. As a male, presumably white (I could be wrong) naturally you feel the GOP protects your rights (guns etc) while women feel the Dems protect their rights. Believe me, as a woman, the GOP can't wait to tell me what to do with my body. I don't think men have that problem with the Dems.

    That's the difference. It doesn't get more basic and personal than that. The rest is superficial noise.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    The whole "threat" to women's rights is a baseless scare tactic though. They're never going to turn back the clock on the status quo (I seriously doubt it anyway). Most people are moderates, but there's a strong Libertarian movement I think among the younger people which bodes well (or better than now) for the future, IMO. :beer::thumbup:

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    11-28-2013 08:53 AM
  25. msndrstood's Avatar
    The whole "threat" to women's rights is a baseless scare tactic though. They're never going to turn back the clock on the status quo (I seriously doubt it anyway). Most people are moderates, but there's a strong Libertarian movement I think among the younger people which bodes well (or better than now) for the future, IMO. :beer::thumbup:

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    If you don't think there is a threat, then you don't read what I read. It's going on across the country in red states. Every week there is another bill being introduced in state legislatures attempting to gut Roe v Wade, despite verbiage in the original decision that the right to an abortion cannot impeded nor undue hardship be forced upon the woman in pursuit of that right.
    Maybe you don't believe in reproductive rights, but I certainly do and they are indeed, under attack from the right. Men would NEVER let women deny them the right to do with they want with their bodies, NEVER. And that is the difference.

    I don't know that you firmly believe your argument that there is no 'threat' to woman's rights because you qualify it with the 'I seriously doubt it anyway'.

    What about birth control?

    I object to companies paying for Viagra, for men but not birth control for woman. After all, if God didn't want men to 'perform', they maybe he's trying to tell them something.


    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    11-28-2013 10:21 AM
70 123

Similar Threads

  1. Slot Machine [FREE][GAME]
    By Nicola Mantek in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-02-2013, 07:40 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 02:38 PM
  3. S4 on Black Friday @ BB or wait for S5?
    By zerrisk in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-20-2013, 01:43 PM
  4. Best Buy $50 Gift card / Phone Freedom program
    By gabbott in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2013, 05:43 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD