patrick.net

mikey says

“A conservative is a man who has plenty of money and don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t always have plenty of money.”
Will Rogers
“Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they’ve stolen.”
Mort Sahl

These statements, and the actual quoting of them, are quite telling regarding regarding liberal mentality.

Given the false assumption/premise that Conservatives are "rich" and Liberals are not, the second statement would be more accurate if it said: Liberals feel that Conservatives are unworthy of the possessions that they stole from Liberals.

The first statement is pretty interesting, given that it assumes either that Liberals do not have money, or that Liberals who have a lot of money believe that they shouldn't continue to have a lot of money, but does this actually bear out in reality?

Which is it? Conservatives are "rich" or conservatives are uneducated, lower-class rednecks? (Or maybe they spread across the spectrum much like liberals?). If the first statement were true, then why is one of the more current liberal arguments, including by the President himself, that conservative protesters are protesting against their own interests and they should "thank" the government for passing laws giving them more?

In reality, conservatives, at all income levels, are more likely to contribute (and contribute more) to charities/non-profits, than liberals. But since they don't like the government telling them exactly how to do it, they, along with anyone who may actually not be a conservative but is involved in the Tea Party movement for various reasons, are greedy people who deserve to be referred to by derogatory, homophobic names by open-minded, all-embracing liberals, who are of course, against "hateful" things...

Paralithodes says

In reality, conservatives, at all income levels, are more likely to contribute (and contribute more) to charities/non-profits, than liberals. But since they don’t like the government telling them exactly how to do it, they, along with anyone who may actually not be a conservative but is involved in the Tea Party movement for various reasons, are greedy people who deserve to be referred to by derogatory, homophobic names by open-minded, all-embracing liberals, who are of course, against “hateful” things…

Will we ever get past libs vs. conservative stereotypes here? It hasn't worked in the past - and detracts from any actual message the writer wants us to understand. Some people here say stuff with which I disagree - some say stuff with which I agree. It crosses political lines, by the way.

Tea parties are full of people who are angry about taxes, restrictive laws, etc. There are some crazy people who get all the press - and they are sponsored and represented by Faux news. They're being manipulated for a story in order for creeps like sean hannity to sell more books, get more popular, and spout half truths at best.

There's nothing wrong with protest, with standing up for what you believe in. But these people have been told who there enemy is and are being spoon fed their talking points. It's unfortunate, but it happens. However, they blame everything on Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi when in reality this train has been on the same track for years. They're being manipulated by media spin doctors.

Laura Bush just came out with a book claiming that George is a victim of the press (he flew over Katrinaland because he didn't want to stop traffic - where is she on the "heckuva job, Brownie" comment and the political appointment of him in the first place - or that he was fired and given a lucrative consulting position even though his direct orders contributed to many people's pain?). She calls Reid & Pelosi "graceless," funny coming from a woman married to a man whose command of the english language was laughable. She also spoke out about an accident she was in where she ran a stop sign when she was 17 years old. From an excerpt in the NY Times, she:

"...concedes that she and her friend were chatting when she ran the stop sign. But she also suggests a host of factors beyond her control played a role — the pitch-black road, an unusually dangerous intersection, the small size of the stop sign, and the car the victim was driving."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28laura.html?src=mv)

Yes, folks, in part she blames the fact that she killed a person because of the car he drove. She drove a huge-ass car, was well aware that the country road wasn't well-lit, the intersection didn't have the best of design (consistent with many country roads), and was talking with her friend rather than paying attention in spite of the conditions - but it's the fault of the corvair he drove.

And she has the gall to call others "graceless?"

This wealthy, priveleged woman who never had to work a day in her life, without a clue shouldn't have a forum for her ghost-writer to feed us such crap. But she does, and will be championed by faux news and her claims about her husband being a victim will become the darling of faux news. It should be labled as fiction, but it won't be.

The enquirer provides more truthful reporting that this.

(elliemae hops off her soapbox now)

elliemae says

Yes, folks, in part she blames the fact that she killed a person because of the car he drove. She drove a huge-ass car, was well aware that the country road wasn’t well-lit, the intersection didn’t have the best of design (consistent with many country roads), and was talking with her friend rather than paying attention in spite of the conditions - but it’s the fault of the corvair he drove.

You forgot the part about the stop sign being too small...

Liberal politicans invitations resonate with some peoples longings to get something for nothing, to live off of someones labor. The unwary and unconcerned citizen who feels needy for any reason, who remains ignorant or unconcerned of the economic implications of the welfare state and who retains a childlike disregard of the property rights of others takes the political bait just as naturally as an infant accepts his mommy's tit.

Of course, that type of response is entirely appropriate for an infant. But it is not appropriate for a responsible adult in a free society. But then again, who says liberals are responsible, or give a sh*t about a free society.

Honest Abe says

But then again, who says liberals are responsible, or give a sh*t about a free society.

Many, many people. Just not you.

"Eligibility for aid under TANF, as under AFDC, ends when the youngest child turns 18. Families with children under 18 years of age are UNAFFECTED BY THE IMPOSITION OF TIME LIMITS." [National Bureau of Economic Research].

"Besides, expectations that a mature citizen will take care of himself and not coerce others into that duty are consistent with the basic principal of FREEDOM. That no one is born into a world with a legally enforceable obligation to take care of persons other than his own offspring. In other words, citizenship in a free society should not entail a legal duty of care of others. It is tyranny that a statutory mandate requires you to adopt one or more persons deemed "deserving" by government officials." [The Structure of Liberty, Justice and the Rule of Law, Randy Barnett]

Conservatives donate far more than liberals to charitable causes. Liberals therefore do not put their money where there mouth is. Liberals want you to put YOUR money where THEIR mouth is. In spite of constant propaganda about the importance of "giving" to the poor, liberal politics undermines genuine charity at individual and community levels first by usurping their care taking activities through "centralized" welfare programs, and second by sending a message that discourages individual and local community charity... "Don't worry, big government is here to help you". As a direct result liberal government thus enslaves precisely the people they claim to "serve", thereby insuring future votes, for liberals, to keep the gravy train going.

And only Conservatives go to church and only Conservatives are real Christians.

Conservatives own God!

HA, how do you figure that Conservatives give more than Liberals?

Leigh says

HA, how do you figure that Conservatives give more than Liberals?

Leigh,

I think that you're forgetting a greater point here. Abe is conservative, and therefore donates more than liberals do to charitable causes. He also pays more in taxes because he's conservative and makes more money than you & I do, lowly little medical workers. However, he's paying more toward our salaries than stupid, lazy, shiftless welfare recipient liberals who are sitting on their couches eating bonbons and watcing soaps, Jerry Springer, Oprah & Dr. Phil all day. We should embrace altruistic conservatives - maybe even send them thank you cards.

I do have a question: if going to church makes you a Christian, does going to the garage make you a car?

Elliemae,

Does HAbe mean that donations to The Heritage Foundation, the NRA, The Tea Party Patriots, the Family Research Council, the RNC, and the Westboro Baptist Church count as "charitable giving?" Perhaps HAbe means that we Liberals who give to Mercy Corps, Heifer International, and UNICEF etc. or that we Jews who give to Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger don't count since this isn't considered as "charitable giving" because he doesn't consider these to be "real" charitable organizations.

If going to church makes you a Christian and going to the garage makes you a car, then does attending Gay Pride make you gay and proud?

Of course attending Gay Pride makes you both gay & proud. What a silly question. If it's just called "Pride," you are proud but you're probably not sure why. But for some reason, it reminds me of a story that a gay friend once told me about how he came out to his mother:

He was having a relationship with a priest - and his mother saw the two of them standing fairly close to each other. He figured it was time (he was in his 20's) to tell her he was gay, so he sat her down and said, "there's something I have to tell you..." and she started bawling. He went on to tell her that he was gay, and she looked relieved. She finally said, "I thought you were gonna tell me you were Catholic!"

It amazes me when church-going conservatives like to point out publicly and proudly how they think they are more giving to charity. I thought the point of charity was helping people, not bragging about it.

I agree. I think that, when they say that conservatives donate more than liberals, but they're donating to causes that champion their beliefs. I'd be more impressed if they were to give their money into a blind trust account and the money was spread out amongst different organizations that actually helped people.

It also amazes me when celebrities set up foundations and crow about it on their tv shows, making it all about them.

I also have people call and ask advice from me professionally - on my own time - and then not understand when I tell them that they can call me at work, or pay me. I prefer to donate my time on my own schedule. I donate my time when I wish - and the same with my money. I also don't brag about it (nor would I discuss it in a poll - which is where the "conservatives donate more..." issue eminates from, I suspect.

elliemae says

Of course attending Gay Pride makes you both gay & proud. What a silly question. If it’s just called “Pride,” you are proud but you’re probably not sure why. But for some reason, it reminds me of a story that a gay friend once told me about how he came out to his mother:
He was having a relationship with a priest - and his mother saw the two of them standing fairly close to each other. He figured it was time (he was in his 20’s) to tell her he was gay, so he sat her down and said, “there’s something I have to tell you…” and she started bawling. He went on to tell her that he was gay, and she looked relieved. She finally said, “I thought you were gonna tell me you were Catholic!”

omg, my sides hurt from laughing. thank you:O)

btw, my name is Leigh, it's been 20 years since my last mass...

and as far I know my three altar boy brothers were not molested.

Honest Abe says

Hahaha, another schizophrenic post by a liberal. Quote ” When people call me on my time, I tell them to call me at work, or pay me. I prefer to donate my time on my own schedule. I donate my time when I wish - and the same with my money”.
Looks to me like you subscribe to the “EVIL PROFIT MOTIVE” after all, you UGLY CAPITALIST PIG. Furthermore, you shout one thing yet do the exact opposite. Thats clearly brain damage.

We all have to take time off sometime. I have no problem with my ethical and moral structure, as I'm sure you wouldn't if you had one.

Lifetime cap on welfare is still 5 years

That doesn't include state and local welfare payments which can extend well beyond the 5 year federal limit.. which I'll bet has loopholes.

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

Yes, folks, in part she blames the fact that she killed a person because of the car he drove. She drove a huge-ass car, was well aware that the country road wasn’t well-lit, the intersection didn’t have the best of design (consistent with many country roads), and was talking with her friend rather than paying attention in spite of the conditions - but it’s the fault of the corvair he drove.

You forgot the part about the stop sign being too small…

...now that was silly of her. I thought the standard size stop sign would be enough for all but maybe Laura is on to something here. We can save millions of lives by increasing the size of the stop sign from 3 feet in diameter to 10 feet. LOL

ZippyDDoodah says

Lifetime cap on welfare is still 5 years

That doesn’t include state and local welfare payments which can extend well beyond the 5 year federal limit.. which I’ll bet has loopholes.

This is from 2002 but the site has a link to current stats though not as detailed.

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html

States have broad flexibility in designing time-limit policies, in large part because the federal time limit does not apply to state-funded benefits. Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. However, nearly half the national welfare caseload is in states that either have no time limit (2 states) or a time limit that reduces or modifies benefits when the limit is reached (8 states and the District of Columbia).