I, too, believe everyone should support themselves. I believe the opportunity for a job with a living wage should be available for everyone who will fill it. I believe that citizens should have priority over illegal aliens who will work for nothing.

I too believe the family unit is absolutely crucial to the welfare of the people and the welfare of the country. Anything which contributes to the downfall of the family is detrimental to the community in general.

Our society, however, provides nothing to help heal a damaged family. There being no jobs, a poor man decides to deal drugs. He’s ratted out, goes to jail under mandated terms, and now the head of the household is missing. A young mother tries to exert control, and gangs have more allure. The key is no jobs, The money with was touted to go into job creation when into speculating in hedge funds.

I don’t know that liberals believe the family is the nation. This liberal believes, though, that the nation is a community, a group of people with common interests and common obligations. A group of people who owe something to each other, and that it’s not the job, duty or privilege of the mega-wealthy to exploit the poor.

As far as my “hate”, I pity the person who doesn’t hate a political philosophy which deprives children of their needs in favor of enriching an already wealthy person. A person who doesn’t hate someone with 50 million RTEs stashed away and won’t feed a starving child.

You can say it’s fiscal responsibility to let ‘em starve. You can say we can’t feed ‘em all so we won’t feed any of them. TB can glory in his childish beliefs about war, poverty, and government. And I’m going to hate the effects of that.

One last comment. About family values, fiscal responsibility and so on, compare Conservative statements with what Conservatives actually do. Preach God, talk to God, go start wars while lying their asses off about doing so. Preach Jesus, love Jesus, worship Jesus, and set up Abu Ghraib.

What is to not hate? What kind of a person wouldn’t hate? And on the flip side, what kind of a person would be proud of that.

Over the top? Yes, in the sense that I passed up on polite to describe accurately what is going on. Yes in the sense that I punched through the polite veneers which allow normal discourse and expose the reality hiding back there.

Am I doing any good? Nope. I make people uncomfortable, reasonable people are uncomfortable around what they consider to be irrational emotions. I don’t blame them. And yet there are some situations which cannot and should not be treated as if they are half-normal, some situations which are so outlandish that people should know they outrage others. And there should always be people to be outraged.

I want to be liked. I have craved that all my life. And somewhere along the line I learned that what I perceive as my integrity is worth more than being liked. When I am demonstrated to have been wrong, I will admit it. A matter of integrity. Those who can never admit to being wrong no matter how egregious the mistake lack a basic building block of a human being, integrity. Look at die-hard conservatives attitudes toward torture, GWB lying and so on and tell me there is something honorable about those people.

And then tell me one should not be afraid because they are loose upon the land, and then be angry about that.

My brush was too broad, my colors strayed past the lines. I did a great job coloring those at whom I was aiming, and yet there was “collateral damage”. I wish there hadn’t been, and yet Conservatives regard “collateral damage”, even in the absense of primary damage, as quite acceptable.

There is a caveat, though, and that’s that it can get pretty rough between him and me. I don’t think you can expect to jump into a dog fight and be treated in a manner contrary to the prevailing context at that time in that place.

You post several times trying to define your “belief” in a logical, appropriate manner, one which lets you enable and be co-dependent, enjoy the values of marriage and family while exempting yourself from those obligations. All of which is fine, seems to tug, bend and stretch the concept so it can excuse what may be inappropriate behaviors. That’s a bit amusing to watch again.

In short you’re responding to a series of posts about Conservative attitudes with a “yeah, but me, but me, here’s what I do, ain’t it great, enabling is now compassion and I”m real compassionate and by the way Bowser is like my brother-in-law, just a dry drunk. And he’s a dry drunk because he thinks a child’s soul is more important than another zero in a relatively rich man’s bank account. Bowser is proposing there is something more to life than selfishness, and is he ever screwed up! Look at me, I’m not selfish, I dedicate myself to my family, I enable, I exemplify family values, and Bowser is sick because he would devote resources to taking care of the weak and the helpless.

I think that’s sick. No matter how many times you try to define and redefine and explain and describe your behavior and thoughts, no matter how many layers of paint, plaster, gilt and stucco you try to cover it with, no matter how many retractions and explanations you find it necessary to go through.

I believe that people are more important that a rich man’s wealth. To me.

Great post Rob!!

I’m not going to debate you point for point because it would be pointless. You will never deviate from your concrete notions of a conservative.

But I will say conservatives do everything they can to support themselves without assistance. They feel that everyone should do everything possible to do the same.

They also realize that not everyone is created equal in intelligence, drive, and physical capabilities. All but the most unimaginable Ebenezers among the persuasion would not see the need to extend a helping hand where it‘s needed.

Conservatives believe that the family unit should be the safety net- again maintaining personal responsibility within the family.

Liberals believe that the government is the family of the nation. Progressive ideas lead to the minimalization of the patriarch. Today the man can be replaced without effort by alimony and child support and is easily substituted by any walking dildo with a wallet. The substitution often pales in comparison to what can be achieved by real people in committed relationships. The shortfalls must be made up for by the ‘national family‘.

I’m proud to be a fiscal conservative and will never apologize for it. And I don’t take kindly to your vitriolic rants. As old and wise as you think you are, I‘d have thought you would have learned a thing or two about judgment and tolerance.

Hate on Bowser, hate on…..

He has said that he resents paying the taxes that fights the wars he advocates. Nothing there about which to argue.

He has said that he would only contribute to the welfare of others at gunpoint. A given.

He has said that his “stuff” is more important to him than healthcare for children. I didn’t make it up.

He said that compassion is only compassion if it doesn’t cost anything. Is that a far cry from saying Mother Teresa’s life is worthless? Did he intend to sound that way. Of course not. Is that what he has said, Yes, he just doesn’t want to be cast in that light.

Is the life lived for “stuff” at the expense of other people worth living? I don’t think so, and TB does. He condemns Unions and their benefits, and yet readily accepts those same benefits. Is there something wrong there?

Where am I over the top? I’m willing to accept that on occasion, without feedback I can get too excited and too judgmental. I can create a reality in my own head which is accurate as far as it goes but doesn’t include huge chunks of relevant material.

TB has described himself as a greedy, selfish person who does not care about other people if it would cost him anything. Someone who promotes war against innocent people and does not care if they are killed, maimed, imprisoned or simply beat. That’s not me describing him, that’s him describing him.

I’d be delighted to be shown I was wrong in any substantive manner. And I didn’t make it up.

I have been mean, abusive, hostile and certainly inappropriate many, many times on these boards, and regret that. I do not regret clarifying a person’s views in a way which highlight the effects and may be less than flattering to them. Tough. I won’t let anyone deprive a child of health care and still sound noble, charitable, generous, etc. They aren’t.

On the off chance you are responding to the Jody exchange, I thought I was muted. If someone fires a .22 across your nose and they get a .380 back that’s life. Both missed, even though there’s a mutual knowledge the shot can be closer next time.

If you will let me know where I was over the top with TB, where I misunderstood him, where my extrapolations weren’t consistent with his history, I’ll back off and apologize and do so sincerely. I do not like thinking there are people with those qualities.

And thanks for the sincere point of view which is different than mind. I need that, and usually those are more correct than mine.

Arf

It’s ugly, as a matter of fact. We’ll just have to agree to agree and leave it at that.

It’s about the gun.

Thanks for reinforcing that.