yes, that is true, it isnt that they do not have opportunity. they are crazy. in new york they have government and private charities trying to help people off the street, they won't come, they are crazy. the system has not failed them. liberal policies would not help them. they refuse help. he would get nothing done unless he had an army of socialists in congress with him. i understand that compromise is necessary on occasion. but that doesnt make it an inherent virtue. sometimes it is a weakness. compromise is good when the person has bad ideas, but bad when they have good ideas. in and of itself it is not a positive. the free market makes people rich enough to give to charity. bill gates is a great example. the government tried to bring him down for being a monopolist, now he is probabaly the greatest single human in the world in terms of solving problems like disease and poverty and such. you are at about the age where you should read ayn rand. ignore most of what she says, but pay attention the the parts where talks about lowering standards of the whole for the benefit of the few. correct. his point is valid, you were basically claiming that liberals and conservatives have different goals and neither is right or wrong. they actually have the same goals, they just have different strategies, one good and one terrible. because the conservative opposes directly giving government funds to the poor, doesnt mean he doesnt care for the poor as much as the liberal, the opposite is true. it should be noted that when i use the term "conservative" i mean the "classical liberal", the small government freedom guy who really isnt what republicans are right now.
Sometimes, but there are plenty of people that want help & can't get it. The point is that you would only rather a politician that sticks to his values so long as those values are similar to yours. If they were the opposite of yours, you would prefer that they be willing to compromise. I can't recall if I specified, but what I meant was that the ability to compromise was a virtue. There are degrees of compromise. I really don't care if I have to give a little to get what I want done. Perhaps Liberals don't trust people to be charitable enough on their own or to be charitable in the way that they believe would best benefit the poor. This is stupid. I don't even agree with the side of the argument that I'm trying to show you. I'm just trying to show you that there are differing opinions on the matter because there is no absolute answer. I made no such claim, nor did I imply it. I believe that the conservatives are right about this issue. Thus, as far as my opinion is concerned there is a right & wrong, but that doesn't make it a universal truth. While the conservative mindset ultimately will raise the quality of life for the whole, that doesn't mean that the reasoning is to help the poor. Quite honestly, most conservatives don't care about the poor as much as the Liberals. It just so happens that their policies end up having a better effect on them than the Liberals' (because they care more about feeling good about what they do than actually making a difference).
A cop-out non-response. Is that all you got? Anything you disagree with is meaningless to you. It ain't meaningless to me--you just don't like it. In Russia they call it toughski schitski.
This is not fine, it is ridiculous. You are actually maintaining that it is better to stand for an untenable position resulting in failure, than to be pragmatic and take a moderate stand that will suceed. Typical extremist. You are going to follow George Bush right over the cliff with the rest of the Republicans. Yes, and no Libertarian candidatehas ever been elected president, nor will one ever be elected. Uncompromising stands are doomed to failure.
Likewise now have another brew on me!:thumb: You are the one who said liberals don't want people to starve or have a place to sleep not I. What an idiotic statement!:yelwink2:
Proof? Evidence? There are certainly lazy bums out there, but they do not account for the bulk of the poor. Most of the poor in America are working poor. But the export of good-paying blue-collar manufacturing jobs overseas have left many Americans unable to achieve the American Dream despite being willing to work hard. Struggling to survive in low-paying jobs, they live so close to the edge of poverty that a minor obstacle, such as a car breakdown or a temporary illness, can lead to a downward financial spiral that can prove impossible to reverse. You are wearing blinders, possibly based on not being very experienced, yet. I know elderly people who worked all their lives and are now living on a fixed retirement income and are too poor to pay for all their modest needs. I have an ex-girlfriend my age who was making $90K as a pharmaceutical salesman before a car accident left her crippled and she's now living on disability insurance at $19K and unable to pay for all her medical bills, a car note, and a house note. I have an aunt who is a widow living on social security. She was a hard-working farm wife, but they only made ends meet and not enough to build a nest egg. Then my uncle died and the income stopped, so she's now living in poverty and only the help from the relatives keeps her from being homeless. A guy I went to high school with worked 20 years in a mill that closed last year because the company outsourced the work overseas. Finding another industrial job is difficult for anyone these days, and damn near impossible if you're over 50. He can't pay his bills, much less send his kids to college. He's now working a minimum wage job as a stocker at Wal-Mart, trying not to spend his retirement savings and still looking for that manufactuing job. They had to get food stamps this year and never expected or deserved to be poor. But he'll be happy to whip your ass if you try to tell him he's stupid and lazy.
i can't, i cannot put an empathy meter on people. it is my impression that empathy is a constant and doesnt vary much amongst conservative and liberals. everyone wants the poor to have it better. but i do think cparso said it well when he pointed out: (liberals) "they care more about feeling good about what they do than actually making a difference" i dunno, i would think you would have supported paul's refusal to sign on with any plan to increase spending. you always whinge about debt. better to not be part of that problem eh? any word which means itself, its opposite, and points in between, is meaningless. sometimes the mainstream moderates are moderate, except when they arent. if agnosticism, an extreme position in america, where everyone believes, is moderate, then what isnt? cparso thinks his campaign finance proposals are moderate. i think a 5% income tax is moderate. the word that means everything means nothing.
Not homeless. They do have a high rate of mental illness, and we should provide help for them. I meant the fit and able people on welfare, trailer park folk, etc. The mentally ill and the very old have an excuse. Sorry, I should've defined who I was referring to first.
