The best discripton between Conservatives and Liberals
 

The Difference between Conservatives and Liberals

A rather gentle explanation of the difference in thinking between people with
opposite outlooks.

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others
her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal
ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government
programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a
feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated
in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for
years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the
rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth
and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in
school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him
know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very
difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go
out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a
boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her
time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she
never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college
for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times
she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and
ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a
2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair
and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back,
"That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my
grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done
next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative
side of the fence."

Not a good analogy at all.

You might have an analogy for someone who wants pure Communism but not for a "liberal".

Au contraire mon ami... A liberal believes in government action to achieve equal opportunity for people. Ergo Obama's call for the re-distribution of wealth and the attack on anyone making $250,000 or above.

Whereas conservatives believe in prsonal responsibility, limited governement and a free enterprise system where people can be free to seek their goals.

Due to the liberal movement beginning in the late 1060's we have progressed to a generation of trophy kids who are disengaged from the realities of life and have this entitlement mentality

I fear that you are right! but I certainly hope that you are wrong...:sad:

There are a lot of good kids out there. However we have for far too long let kids believe that winning was not important and despite effort or lack therof everyone was entitled to a trophy irrespective of talent or effort. It is one factor IMHO that led to dumbing down in schools. My heart will always bleed for the disadvantage but I don't believe that gifted students should be ignored as these are the kids most likely to make the major advances in science, etc.

We know from experiences that life is not fair and all the attempts at equalizing life lessons isn't going to work . Some day we all have to face the pied piper. Just look at the number of parents coddling their kids right up to and including college..GEEEZ

"Due to the liberal movement beginning in the late 1060's we have progressed to a generation of trophy kids who are disengaged from the realities of life and have this entitlement mentality."

Are you seriously saying that this began with the Norman Conquest of England in 1066?

I see this as a teaching moment for me.
Please explain.

I thought is was pretty good.

My poor kids got two highly competitive parents. You can imagine the conversation when one of them would bring home a "participation" ribbon...lol! Maybe our qwerks will pay off for them in the long run after all!

Whereas conservatives believe in prsonal responsibility, limited governement and a free enterprise system where people can be free to seek their goals.

This is the part that always confuses me about conservatives, especially the "limited government" concept. It seems to me that conservatives want the government out of anything that has to do with their making money, but right in there about social things they do not like. For example, the most personal and private events of a person's life...THAT's where they want the government to come right on in. Freedom of choice.....conservatives want to tell half the population what they can or can not do with their own bodies. It is a woman's personal responsibility to make that decision. Gay marriage...again, a very personal thing, and once again...conservatives want the government to legislate morality. I just don't get it....No liberal I know fits the distinction you make.

No one is "attacking" those who make over $250,000...the issue is equity in PAYING TAXES, no redistributing wealth. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes based on my income.

I guess there is way too much stereotyping going on in this labeling and name calling. This response is specific to the issues in the post....

None of us can agree on what or who to tax nor can we agree on what to spend the tax money on. I would just like to see this great nation bring in one dollar per year more than is spent in a year.

What exactly is one's "fair share"? Would that be a specific percentage across the board? That would seem like the fair way to do it.
Legislate morality on gays? How do conservatives do that? It is legal to be gay, and this conservative will not stop them from that lifestyle. However, marriage is an institution of the church, and as such is defined as the union of a man and a woman.
Conservative want to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? I think not! If you mean put illegal drugs into themselves-liberals are against that too. If you mean abortion- someone with the name ladydoc would imply scientifically educated enough to know that the unborn is not part of a woman's body.

There's a difference between the analogy - which is 'mandating' an equal OUTCOME and what, to me, is a 'reasonable' liberal's stance of equal OPPORTUNITY.

I, for one, am FOR the latter and VERY AGAINST the former.

Having said that, I don't believe that we CAN, for example, let industry polic itself. We did that and ended up with ungodly pollution in the 1960s. I remember seeing all that smog in the air when I was younger. When I moved to NH in 1974, the Merrimack River was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Now there are fish in it. I much prefer having a government that (albeit inefficiently and not consistently) stands against the kind of filth we used to accept.

amen!!

Now you are reduced to attacking my name? Well, KATZ, do you use a litter box?

Marriage is most certainly an institution of the state. If you need a license to get married, it is a state function. Laws of inheritance are controlled by the state, not the church. And can you try to remember not everyone goes to a church?

I am not going to bother addressing the fetus is not part of a woman's body nonsense because I refuse to get into another "discussion" with you about freedom of choice.

this redistribution nonsense must stop. Why is it when we cut taxes of the wealthiest no one yells redistribution is no good. If we just let the Bush tax cuts die will some of you be yelling about this redistribution stuff? Incomes in America have always changed as have the tax rates on people. I just can't believe that the wealthiest 1% and the super corporations have convinced some of you that any change in taxes is not American.

Well said. I am disappointed that the powers that be did not let the Bush tax cuts die. You make a good point about when the wealthest start whining.

If conservatives are so strict about being anti-gay marriage, why not just call it a civil union with all the benefits of marriage being included? I am sure the uber-conservatives would find fault with that, too.

As for legislating what a woman can do with their own body (and a fetus IS part of the woman's body until birth), it is ridiculous. As Dennis Miller (conservative) said - he is against abortion personally but believes it is up to each woman to decide for herself. Good words from a conservative.

I do not want to start a discussion on abortion with anyone so do not reply about that.

Is it OK if I say I agree with what you said?:agree:

I have absolutely no problem with civil unions...in fact I would wholeheartedly support them...with all the benefits of marriage included too! Why shouldn't I? People should be free to do with their lives,loves, and bodies as they deem fit.

As far as a fetus being part of a woman's body,...just saying it doesn't make it so. I am amazed at the educated people who refuse to accept certain facts, because those fact go against their agenda.

Well yea:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Ladydoc: katz response echo's mine but she did it better.

The problem with increased taxes as I see it is it create more problems (period) Increasing taxes is like a homeowner determining the best way to meet his debt is to go to the ATM. I am not so interested in the question as to fair or unfair because that debate has been ongoing since the beginning of time. I am more interested in reductions in spending.

The Greeks embraced homosexuality but even they recognized gay marraige as a problem. Enough said.

Rubicon,

What problem would you have with gays and lesbians having civil unions with all the rights of marriage - except it would be done in a non-religious place? It would be very similar to a man and woman being married in a court setting but would not be called marriage.

Michelle Bachmann stated that since 47% of Americans pay no income tax, they should be forced to pay some tax. She did not want to increase tax on the very wealthy but would force everyone to pay "their fair share" and those are her words from the Republican debate last Saturday. Tax the poor and lower-middle classes more and not the wealthy. Now, that makes real social justice.

The irony is that billionaires such as the Koch Brothers have spent millions (which could go to taxes to help us out of the budget imbalance) to promote politicians who will not raise their taxes, and organizatons such as grover norquist's, which will intimidate politicians into signing an agreement not to raise taxes. Tens of millions of conservatives have been convinced by big-money interests that raising taxes on wealthy individuals would be in their best interest, which could not be further from the truth. Clinton era tax rates, which produced our last budget surpluses, were cut in the highest brackets by Bush, which began, among other factors, our downhill slide. Conservatives have bought into a lie, perpetrated by those who stand the most to gain by low upper-bracket tax rates, and huge tax credits and deductions. Meanwhile the vast majority of us suffer while the wealthy enjoy historic wealth, much of which may be deserved, but the disparity is astounding.

These millionaire senators "enjoyed historic wealth" and "the disparity was astounding" between them and the rest of us long before the Bush tax cuts came along.

And you'll not be able to convince me that the "lofty", "magnanimous" Democrats in this list do not take advantage of nor use the "low upper-bracket tax rates, and huge tax credits and deductions". They milk the tax breaks and loopholes just as any thinking person would.

Senate millionaires (2003)

John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico: $7,981,015
Bob Graham, D-Florida: $7,691,052
Richard Shelby, R-Alabama: $7,085,012
Gordon Smith, R-Oregon: $6,429,011
Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island: $6,296,010
Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska: $6,267,028
Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee: $4,823,018
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: $4,308,093
Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota: $3,974,037
Ben Campbell, R-Colorado: $3,165,007
Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska: $2,963,013
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: $2,955,037
James Talent, R-Missouri: $2,843,031
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania: $2,045,016
Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire: $1,916,026
John McCain, R-Arizona: $1,838,010
James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma: $1,570,043
John Warner, R-Virginia: $1,545,039
Kay Bailey Hutchison, R - Texas: $1,513,046
Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky: $1,511,017
Harry Reid, D-Nevada: $1,500,040
Sam Brownback, R-Kansas: $1,491,018
Thomas Carper, D-Delaware: $1,482,017
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: $1,417,013
Maria Cantwell, D-Washington: $1,264,999
Barbara Boxer, D-California: $1,172,003
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: $1,086,023
Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana: $1,080,014
Bill Nelson, D-Florida: $1,073,014
Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: $1,016,024

*These figures are base estimates provided by senators on their financial disclosure forms.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...tors.finances/

A conservative is a person who just sits and thinks, mostly sits.

You are absolutely right about the Greeks...the men had no problem with homosexuality and often preferred it. The problem with marriage had to do with producing heirs and transfer of property to progeny. Had nothing to do with morality...

Civil unions are OK...as long as the partner gets the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

I agree with cutting spending, but I also just read in the paper today about what the house came up with. Decrease payroll social security taxes. Great...good for you and terrible for your kids...there will soon be a shortage of funds, so putting even less in is a fine idea.
Cut medicare payments 27% to doctors. Swell....if you think you get little time with your doctor now, just wait until he or she needs to increase the number they see a day to ofset the decrease in reimbursement. Or even try finding a doc who will take medicare.
All this concern about what federal employees make...another swell idea..just as long as the house and senate include themselves in that definition of federal employees and take the same cuts or lack or increases. They are federal employees as far as I am concerned. All of this from republicans...so very interesting.

Also just heard that the house threw out the above. At least they have some hint of an idea. But in that report they also said that the house majority leaders said NO COMPROMISE. That is a wonderful way to get a concensus that might actually help us.

As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to.

Yesterday there was article in our paper (surprised the heck out of me that it got published) saying that a long term study of abortions effects on the mental health of women were NOT due to abortion, but due to the unwanted pregnancy. Another conclusion was that those women who had abortions and had mental health problems afterwards are the women who had mental health issues before the pregnancy/abortion. That makes sense.....past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I have not read the actual study, so I have no idea of the methodology invovled.

But the best story of all was the one this morning saying that the decorated trees that were actioned off made Special Olympics over $5000.

Well, I need to go bake some cookies for the cookie exchange. Anyone for mint chocolate chip cookies?

Like I implied before...never met anyone in my 38 years in the medical field that called themself "doc" and believed such fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."
Maybe it's true what they say- people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one!

This is proof positive that you are disconnected from planet earth and have smoked too much of the wrong thing.
Truly the biggest line of BS I have read on this forum since being a member.

Like what? Tell me in what way this is so!

Wow! Proof that aliens have landed.

"fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."


Katz's statement has me somewhat confused. She is saying that it is fiction to believe that a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Or is she saying it is fiction to believe a fetus is part of a woman's body.

A simple knowledge of biology knows that it is the woman's body where a fetus is formed and grows. If you do not have that woman's body, you cannot have a fetus - except for the petri dish conceptions and medical machines, etc. Of course, it is part of the woman's body.

An outrageous view, and a false premise. A baby is a distinct human being apart from his or her mother. Human beings shouldn't be discriminated against based on where they reside. A person's body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of the body.

An unborn baby's genetic code differs ENTIRELY with the mother's. It is not part of the woman's body. The fetus merely resides in the mother's womb.
The baby is a unique individual being and is not a physical part or organ of the mother.

THEREFORE, THE MOTHER'S "RIGHT" TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY ENDS AT THE EDGE OF THE WOMB. A mothers has the right to control the food she chooses to put into her body but she does not have the right to kill another distinct human life in her womb.

HUMAN BIOLOGY FACTS ARE NOT AN ABORTIONIST'S FRIEND.

A Greek and an Italian
 

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 429114) You are absolutely right about the Greeks...the men had no problem with homosexuality and often preferred it. The problem with marriage had to do with producing heirs and transfer of property to progeny. Had nothing to do with morality... Civil unions are OK...as long as the partner gets the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.

LadyDoc your response as respect the Greeks triggered a story I heard long ago. Being of Italian extraction I must admit a bias but will confuse the issue and me by stating my ancestors geographical origins were original Greek. Now I am confused...

Anyway an Italian and Greek were arguing. The Greek said "Well we built the Parthenon and the Threatre and Temple of Apollo. And the Italian said "Well we built the Colosseum and invented the Roman Arch"

The Greek said "Well we had great men like Aristole and Socrates." and the Italian replied "Well we had great men like Leonardo Da Vinci and Galileo."

The Greek very frustrated at this point quickly blurted out "Well we invited sex." And the Italian with a quick smile and quick wit said, "Yes but we invited it with women ."

Hi buggyone, see my post #32. To answer your question to acknowledge civil unions is to accept that lifestyle. When my daughter came from college with her boyfriend they slept in separate rooms because I personally don't believe in pre-martial sex. I am not naive nor am I a prude but my wife and I met at 13 and promised to wait until we were married. If we could commit to such a promise then I would not expect anything less from my children. Having said that I understand the mores had changed since we were kids. However, sacriface and restraint are not out of date. The wait that my wife and I endured was well worth it because it strengthened our releationship made it real and lasting.

When it comes to increasing taxes my response is to resist because the more money congress gets the more they spend. Let's face it thre 1% willalways be able to dodge the tax man and those increase commitments by congress that were suppose to be fu ded by the 1% will always fall back on us.

LOL....that is a good one...I will have to print that out and memorize it!!!

She is saying that a fetus is NOT part of a woman's body and says this because she thinks that this negates the position that a woman should have control of her own body. Interesting, no?

A baby (fetus) is categorically not part of a woman's body, but a complete and distinct and separate human being with a disparate genetic code.

Biologically speaking, when you destroy a fetus you are killing a distinct human life. You are not amputating, by definition.

A fetus merely resides in a woman's womb? Never have I heard it phrased it that way - and it is ludicrous to think that.

I was going to write a lengthy piece on why it is ludicrous to think that a fetus merely resides in a woman's womb but is not part of the woman's body - but no amount of sane reasoning would change the mind of someone whose mind is set in stone.

It is good for you to have your thoughts be so passionate. I applaud you for that.

There is more to your story.
After the college TAKES her 1 point of GDP to have a "balanced approach",
she tells her father that she is no longer going to work hard, is going to start partying and getting drunk, will end up pregnant on welfare..
Why NOT? no matter what she does she ends with a GPA of 3.0 after the "balanced approach" by the liberal college.
Soon everyone gets a 3.0 but knows nothing, produces nothing, productivity drops, and Atlas Shrugged. That is what happens to every socialistic, Maxist country in history.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
The reward goes to those who reduce their ability and increase their need.
JJ

A woman, a man, a child, a baby...fill in the blank. They should all have control over their own bodies! My statements negate nothing regarding this mindset!

Why so negative? If you could write a lengthy piece defending your position, why not do it? You have very little confidence in your ability to persuade or present the truth that you seem to know. If it is true and rational why are you unwilling to share with others on the forum.