Why do you think it's so terrible to be a bleeding heart liberal?

Originally posted by Carseller4


People should be able to pursue happiness, whether it come from the sexuality, religion or anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. But no special rights like polygamy, gay marriage, beastiality.

I do not believe in polygamy! I do not believe in bestiality...but I have seen the damage done by gays not having equal rights. My much older sister was with the same woman for 20 some odd years and when she lay dying, my sister was not even allowed to see her! After twenty years of a loving relationship! It was heart breaking, it's not right and it's not fair! Gay couples hurt no one, their being allowed to marry do not effect my relationship with my husband in any way....how could it? they are doing what they have always done, living their lives together, only it would be legal, which it seems to me, all those screaming religious fanatics would like.

I still don't feel that the rich should breaks that the poor don't.....just because you don't become extremely rich, most certainly does not mean you haven't busted your ass all your life is as hard as someone that is wealthy!

Quite simply it's not the idea, but rather the course of action that bothers most people.

Conservatives can actually be compassionate too, despite what Bush claims to be. To answer your question, some people of limited vision need and enemy, or target, for their energy. Many do nothing positive about changing the world, only bitch and shoot venom. I believe it's because they CAN'T really change anything, and that scares them, but that's just my idea.

It's the same on both sides. No one likes a rabid liberal worse than a rabid conservative, and vise versa.

Jesus said that the poor would be exalted and redeemed and the rich being selfish and therefore would have a hard time getting into heaven. This is true. (It's true that Jesus said this, not that it actually happens this way)

One of the big problems I see conservatives having with liberalism is that they feel that they work very hard for their money, and they think everyone should. Conservatives feel that liberals want to take their money in the form of taxes in order to prop up the poor, who just don't work hard enough and make poor life choices.

And they stick to that story.

I know a lot more poor people who do work hard for their money than dont, but I can understand the sentiment behind not wanting to give money to someone who will just continue to waste it by making more babies they can't afford, and possibly making life choices that will ensure that they will never stand on their own legs. There are people who do this.

I'm not a fan of social welfare programs for those who have no intention of taking responsibility for themselves or their offspring, but I do think there should be safeguards in place for those who meet bad fortune. It is the least we can do is help each other in times of need in a neighborly, brotherly way.

Unfortunately, I really feel that American society has reached the point that it actually condones irresponsibility. Our media presses the people to constantly loaf, purchase comfort items compulsively and unnecessarily, and to repeat often.

That whole bit about teaching a man to fish is a nice analogy, but when 90% of the fish are owned by ten percent of the population, then how does that work? We will teach you to fish, but you have to pay us to fish in our pond. Yeah that sounds fair. Let me put it this way, capitalism is a great system, it really is, IF YOU HAVE CAPITAL, otherwise feudalism is alive and well in America. The industrial revolution was a revolution, make no mistake. The industrialists seized power in this country. You can bicker and argue about who is liberal, who is conservative, who is rich or who is gay, but the fact is there is only one real power in this country and that is the capitalists. Case in point, when was the last time you bought your senator a steak dinner and contributed thousands of dollars to their political campaign? Are your interests being represented? By either party? Do you think the lack of a true independent canidate is a cooincidence? I don't buy into the two party system, but the conservative agenda seems to be developing into something which I find disturbingly parallel to the facist regimes and the erosion of civil liberties and the consolidation of the media is of great concern regardless of your political affiliations.

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by Carseller4


People should be able to pursue happiness, whether it come from the sexuality, religion or anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. But no special rights like polygamy, gay marriage, beastiality.

I do not believe in polygamy! I do not believe in bestiality...but I have seen the damage done by gays not having equal rights. My much older sister was with the same woman for 20 some odd years and when she lay dying, my sister was not even allowed to see her! After twenty years of a loving relationship! It was heart breaking, it's not right and it's not fair! Gay couples hurt no one, their being allowed to marry do not effect my relationship with my husband in any way....how could it? they are doing what they have always done, living their lives together, only it would be legal, which it seems to me, all those screaming religious fanatics would like.

I still don't feel that the rich should breaks that the poor don't.....just because you don't become extremely rich, most certainly does not mean you haven't busted your ass all your life is as hard as someone that is wealthy!

Your sisters situation could be handled by civil unions. Which I don't think many conservatives have a problem with. Marriage has rules. You can't marry your pet, you can't marry someone underage, you can't marry multiple people, you can't marry your relatives, and you can't marry someone of the same gender.

I feel everyone should be taxed at the same rate, 10% on income over $50,000, no exemptions. Social Security should be optional, government should have no business "saving" money for me for retirement if I feel I could do a better job myself. If this happened rich and poor would be able to keep more of THEIR own money.

liberalism to me means

Treehuggers - (animals before man - I believe in stewardship)

Wealth Redistribution

The Fine art of building a dependant voter base- give them free # at other expense

Weak on Defense - rather spend on social giveaways

Anti-Death Penalty

Pro-Abortion

tax and spend economics

Inhibit business from profit making


anti-capitalism (Actually I do not think true liberals can support capitalism)

Sometimes no belief in a Creator.


Are these bad?

IMHO yes.

I agree with DeltaChaos on the welfare thing! I get sick of paying for other peoples laziness! I see it all the time! My granddaughter's mother, my son has custody, was having her rent paid, had food stamps, a guy living with her giving her money, and was stripping under the table...I didn't like the idea that I busted my butt every day of my life so she could sit on hers! however I do believe there needs to be something for hard times....many. many years ago, I found myself with no job, an abusive husband, small children, in a life or death situation and needed to get out, I collected welfare for three month till I could get on my feet, but... There needs to be limits set!

I always enjoy reading your posts, even though (or perhaps because) we are often at opposite sides. I appreciate the thought you put into your words, and wish I was as careful with words, too.

I view myself as a conservative.

When I hear the term "bleeding-heart liberal," what I imagine is someone who is so interested in their cause, that they are unconcerned with how others, especially the working class, are effected.

People who are outraged if old-growth forest is cut down, but could care less if people in lumber towns are out of work, or that homes become too expensive for young families due to the price of plywood.

People who complain about "unfair profits to oil companies," but who won't let any new refineries be built---lack of refining and storage capacity is what is driving the cost up, not oil company profit margins.

People who are more concerned with pollution than the suffering of poverty.

People who, if someone commits a crime, blame society for oppressing the defendant, rather than blaming the perpetrator who pulled the trigger and shot some guy working in a convenience store in the same neighborhood.

People who feel that I owe them love and affection. TOLERANCE means putting up with people you don't like. It does Not trying to love people you disagree with. Liberals preach "tolerance," when they really mean affirmation.

Do I dissapprove of gays? Yes. And I also dissapprove of ugly people, too. But I don't throw rocks at them, and I would stop to help if their car broke down. I would defend their constitutional rights if I were sitting on a jury in judgment of them. But I don't like them. and you can't make me. I tell you what. I'll love and affirm them for being gay on the day they love and affirm me for being a Christian. And I will try to keep them from being mistreated, even when they try to force me to affirm them.

************

The fact is, I was a leftist when I was younger. What I discovered was that on the college campus, the Left leadership was itself composed of wealth. The leaders were all going to school on grandad's trust fund. they had a car that Aunt Hazel had given them. They could afford to shop at whole foods, instead of roadside fruit stands. Their politics was merely a pose, a way to look cool and try to get laid.

I borrowed money to go to college, and worked my way through in factories and on farms. I read my way through about five volumes of Marx's "Kapital" one summer while building corralls and loading chutes for cattle. My wages were spent by summer's end, while my one-time boss still uses that equipment to this day. But I realized that unless he had been motivated to build the equipment, I would have been jobless. He was motivated by the fear that he would go out of business if he did not modernize.

What I discovered is that the most important freedom in America is one that is never mentioned. The most important freedom is the freedom to fail.

People don't start a business because they want to work 80 hours a week. They start a business so that eventually they won't have to work at all. They stay up late and work weekends because they are afraid of failure, not because they are simply restless or something.

So yes, feeding the poor is a good thing. Helping the downtrodden is noble. But the hungry have to have a stake in their own future; they have to have the chance to fail. If you cannot fail, then you also cannot succeed.

Is it humane to operate a welfare program, if you are condemning the recipients to a lifetime of indolence?

Is it fair if you don't reward excellence?

Is it fair if you don't penalize laziness?

Is it fair if your "compassion" makes people less likely and able to fend for themselves?

Government money in all it's forms is the economic equivalent of heroin. Once a person starts taking it, he is less able to work, less able to compete, and finally less able to differentiate heaven from hell.

Just look at what government money has done to American agriculture. Look at what government money has done to General Dynamics. That company used to make refrigerators and furnaces. Now all they can do is fill government contracts. Look at Haliburton. Or Brown & Root. Those were all competitive companies once. But like heroin addicts, they can no longer survive without their connection.

And government money does the same thing to individuals, too. Whether it's student loans or flood insurance, government money makes people dependent and increases their dependency continually.

******************

With all of that said, yes, I am a Christian. Much as that displeases many readers here. I donate a tenth of my net income to the church, which uses a tenth of it to fund outreach, particularly feeding newly arrived illegal aliens at the border. Although I dissapprove of their presence, I recognize their humanity, and would do the same in their shoes (the ones who have em, anyway.) I am also organizing an ESL program at the church.

I donate three hours a week of my time off from work at the local outreach center, providing food from the community pantry to people who are down on their luck. And since we don't take goverment money, we are free to turn away people who are stoned, people who are wanted by the cops, and people who are on our books as "takers." Unlike the government, we strive to avoid helping the parasites.

One saturday a month, I also deliver old bakery items to retirees living in govt. housing.

Funny thing is, all of the volunteers at the food pantry are conservative as hell. Ex cops, small businessmen. a truckdriver. local preachers and priests. Manager of the local supermarket. A multimillionaire farmer. All of them "so-called" Christians. T

he only potsmokers and goths present are the kids who are doing "community service" time for probation.

Originally posted by LadyV
I agree with DeltaChaos on the welfare thing! I get sick of paying for other peoples laziness! I see it all the time! My granddaughter's mother, my son has custody, was having her rent paid, had food stamps, a guy living with her giving her money, and was stripping under the table...I didn't like the idea that I busted my butt every day of my life so she could sit on hers! however I do believe there needs to be something for hard times....many. many years ago, I found myself with no job, an abusive husband, small children, in a life or death situation and needed to get out, I collected welfare for three month till I could get on my feet, but... There needs to be limits set!

Well we agree on this, there must be a safety net by all means but the abuse is rampant and those who need it cant get it.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I always enjoy reading your posts, even though (or perhaps because) we are often at opposite sides. I appreciate the thought you put into your words, and wish I was as careful with words, too.

I view myself as a conservative.


he only potsmokers and goths present are the kids who are doing "community service" time for probation.

You have my VERY FIRST way above vote! OUTSTANDING POST!

Thank you for taking the time to write this. It has warmed my heart!

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft


And I also dissapprove of ugly people

ReallY!? How can you disa[[rove of people that are born unattractive?

Is it humane to operate a welfare program, if you are condemning the recipients to a lifetime of indolence?

There are time when peopl need a helping hand

Is it fair if you don't reward excellence?

Absolutely not! I beleive 100% in rewarding hard work.....

Is it fair if you don't penalize laziness?

Just because someone isn't wealthy doesn't mean they haven't worked just as hard as those that became wealthy. Just because someone may not have as much money doesn't mean they are not honest, law abiding, hard workers.....I don't think you should get extra cuts for being wealthy. That's not penalizing them for having money....it's being fair.....it's not the governments job to hand out extra money because you worked hard....the poor work hard too, that makes no sense to me.....there are many situations that effect a person's life and the lot in it. My parents were very wealthy, my sisters and brothers, wealthy....I'm the black sheep....I live a pretty good life but I'm not wealthy, the reason for that are varied and too persona to go into here...but I have worked just as hard, and a lot harder than they have.

Is it fair if your "compassion" makes people less likely and able to fend for themselves?

I never said naything about enabling....just a helping hand when needed

he only potsmokers and goths present are the kids who are doing "community service" time for probation.

So what are you saying here exactly? I know plenty of non-Christians that do a lot of charity work, I help when I can and I also sponsor children.....and we see pot smokers and goths too.....they're everywhere...

And just exactly what is wrong with pot smokers? How about I hate you because your a coffee drinker? Or cram you into a category for being a flouride user? Let's not go draggin pot smokers into some abysmal 'goth' stereotype here. For one thing, drug use is widespread through all classes and societies, period. You can't categorize any particular group with any particular drug with the exception of geographical limitations to the distribution of that drug. If you want to start labeling with drug use, we can go that route, but be prepared to hear names like Bush and Barry Seal in my subsequent rebuttals.

Originally posted by twitchy
And just exactly what is wrong with pot smokers? How about I hate you because your a coffee drinker? Or cram you into a category for being a flouride user? Let's not go draggin pot smokers into some abysmal 'goth' stereotype here. For one thing, drug use is widespread through all classes and societies, period.

You are exactly right...but what we were discussing here, had to do with potsmokers who obviously get in trouble and are doing community service time....not clumping all pot smokers into one...

Originally posted by LadyV

Just because someone isn't wealthy doesn't mean they haven't worked just as hard as those that became wealthy. Just because someone may not have as much money doesn't mean they are not honest, law abiding, hard workers.....I don't think you should get extra cuts for being wealthy. That's not penalizing them for having money....it's being fair.....it's not the governments job to hand out extra money because you worked hard....

Hmm. You seem to think that being conservative somehow means I am "pro-rich," or that I don't believe poor people work hard.

I have not said these things at all.

As a matter of fact, I have been poor most of my life, and have only begun to acquire wealth in the past 4 years.

Do you think conservative = rich ???????

If that were true, Bush would never have been elected in the first place, unless 49% of the voters are "rich."

I think your view of conservative ideology seems from your post to be pretty seriously stereotyped. You think only millionaires are conservative, I guess. Do you think all working-class people are liberals? They're not. Go have breakfast in a truckstop or a diner, and find out who those folks plan to vote for. . .

*****

A bit later, you wrote:

.....it's not the governments job to hand out extra money because you worked hard....

Personally, I don't think it is the government's job to "hand out extra money" at all. The money isn't theirs to hand out.

My point about the alternative types is this:

many posters on this site imply that only liberals are capable of doing good and charitable deeds. I am saying that my experience, which has been considerable, does not bear this out.

In the 8 years I have been volunteering at the food pantry, most of the customers have been immigrants, migrant labor, women getting a divorce, and people trying to end their addictions.

Most of the helpers have been either retirees or people whose children are grown. They are also people of faith. In all honesty, I've never met a wiccan (to my knowledge) doing that sort of work. If they were, it wasn't part of their public identity.

Lady V,

The biggest problem that I have with most "bleeding heart liberals" is that they are generous to a fault with other people's money. They also seem to be of a mindset that it would be good if the rest of humanity follwed their rules, but the rules don't apply to themselves. If you talk to young people (college age) who think we are destroying the environment with our cars, they are very unwilling to give up their own car, but think it would be a wonderful idea if everyone else gave up their cars.

If you look at the NEA, they are so far to the left it is scary. In the interest of "fairness" education has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and that is just wrong. We are turning out people who are incapapable of independent thought and rely on pictures at cash registers because they can't read and lack critical thinking skills. It might be "fair", but is it right? 30 years ago there were divisions in school for people who needed extra help, people who were advanced, etc and we need to go back to that. I am not saying that people who can't perform should be denied education, but if they can't perform academically they can be given training in vo-tech. It isn't fair to punish those who can perform and achieve because there are a few who are less capable.

About welfare programs: I agree that everyone needs a hand from time to time, however there MUST be limits to it. Help also should come from those who are willing to help and not forced on the rest who don't want to help. I so give money to charities and donate my time (I do help when I can), but it makes me mad as heck if the electric company tacks on 5 extra dollars to help pay for electricity for someone who can't pay their bill. It would be different if they let you check a box to do this, but it is wrong to make it mandatory like some companies now do.

The biggest problem that I have with our current welfare system (other than abuse of it) is that it enables people to stay on it and offers no reward to become self-reliant. We are now seeing generations of welfare families and they have no incentive to be anything else. The Democrats seem to be the biggest proponants of entitlement programs, and I do not see this getting any better. Question for minorities: Isn't the dependence on entitlement programs actually a form of slavery in and of itself? I personally do not want to be dependent on the government for my well being. They do well enough screwing everything else up, so why do I want them to screw my life up as well?

For the record I have voted Dem in the past, so this isn't coming from some hard core Bushie or anything like that, but these are some things that have bothered me increasingly over the years.


My opinion and 4 bucks will buy you a Latte from Starbucks.

Gardenia


[edit on 21-10-2004 by Gardenia]

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Gardenia]

Personally, I don't think it is the government's job to "hand out extra money" at all. The money isn't theirs to hand out.

I agree here

In all honesty, I've never met a wiccan (to my knowledge) doing that sort of work. If they were, it wasn't part of their public identity.

If you think about it, does this surprise you? I do know some Wiccans who are rather, um, flamboyent but most I know are very quiet. You would never know they were Wiccans unless they came right out and told you. You also have to understand that Wiccans do not try to "convert" like other religions do (you are lead to seek the Lord/Lady or not) so you won't exactly see them waving signs and announcing their religion (unless you go back to the flamboyent ones, lol).

Coming out of the broom closet is another thread but we won't go there this morning

You might be suprised at who is serving beside you

Gardenia

[edit on 21-10-2004 by Gardenia]

I also wanted to say that everyone needs help from time to time, but I don't see anything wrong with imposing requirements for said help. Personally, I think that anyone who is receiving any form of public assistance should be required to "work" for it. I understand that it causes problems for people with small children, but there are lots of ways people can contribute.

Would you be in favor of requiring recipients to perform 15 hours of community service a week doing something like: volunteering in literacy programs, performing crossing guard duties at their neighborhood school, offering respite care for hospice, or the like? I think people would not be quite as hostile to the idea of offering assistance if there was some type of service/work requirement that went along with it.

JMO

Gardenia

I would like to echo what many here have said so well.

I believe all people should be treated equally but ratial quotas for businesses, and preferental contracts for minority owned businesses are not equal treatment.

I object to cable TV for penetentiary inmates. Why can't they read?

I object to sueing gunmakers because some people commit crimes with guns instead of prosecuting those who mis use them.

I object to being told that I have to pay for those who are unwillng to pay for themselves.

I object to my money gong to fund artists who I have no interest in.

I object to being told that I can not spank my chldren when they misbehave becuase it is "abuse"

I am a compassionate person I help those I can, and those I see helping themselves. When I walk down the street I ignore those homeless people begging with a cup and buy a newspaper from the homeless people selling them. The first wants me to improve his life the second is doing it himself.

I object to the idea that minorities are less capable than whites, and that therefore the government has to ensure they get hired. The truth is in todays competitive market you cant afford not to hire a qualfied employee regardless of your prejudice. If you do you will go out of business.

I object to the idea that becuase I work 60-80 hour weeks, and make good money as a result that I must pay more than the guy who works 40 or not at all.

I reject the notion that all people have the right to a high paying job, or that a smart man and a dumb man should have the same opportunities. I reject the idea that we have to reduce the standards for female firefighters to make the FD more equal. A male has to be able to carry a 200lb deadweight dummy down 2 flights of stairs a woman has only to lift a 100lb dummy. As a 210lb man who used to live on the 8th floor this scares me. If the only firefighter to reach me is a woman I am dead. Equal opportunity means just that. And if we give women a lower standard what about small men? Is a 5'3" man who weighs 120 lbs not being discriminated against by the male standard? Should we not reduce the requirements for him as well?

In the end its about personal responsibility. The government can not make your life better, they can only reduce others life to bring it down to your level.

There seems to be a more or less agreement here by both liberals and conservatives that government assistance programs should in fact have "means testing" in one form or another - its nice to see common ground between us.

Too bad the politicians could'nt let go of the vote buying power our money seems to give them. Anytime "means testing" has been proposed there is a hue and cry from congress and senate of unfairness and racial bigotry or some such nonsense. These actions by politicians are one of the things that keeps us divided into distinct camps. Hmmmm why would they want to do that? - Answer; Class warfare ensures them re-election.

We're living in a society that puts profit and personal wealth before peoples or the earths well being.
We are conditions to think personnal gain at whatever cost is the answer to a happy and safe life.
Anybody that doesn't buy into that rhetoric "must be crazy".
Anybody that would rather heal than destroy "must be crazy".
Terms like "bleeding heart liberal" are spread by those who gain to prosper from alienating such people, the profit mongers, the capatilists.
Because "bleeding heart liberals" are a threat to their agenda of power and control.
They don't care about the Earth or it's population only what they can profit from it.
Should people stop caring for the earth etc because someone else calls you names? Of course not.
Why are people so scared of being labeled something someone else thinks is bad?
Don't buy into THEIR psycho bable propagandized terminology, only the rich and powerfull benefit from it.
The rest of us have our lives sucked dry as we label and judge each other in a vicious cycle of carrot chasing.
Call me what you want it wont change my views one iota.

The prob with majority rule is when the population is lazy and kept in the dark the majority really doesn't know what's good for it.
When you have majority rule by a centralised government it's no better than a dictatorship.
Putting people on the outside by labeling them "bleeding heart" or whatever is no less than sencorship.