Dealing with conservative types

Post Reply New Topic

They bring up silly ideas such as abortion rights because it's such a divisive and emotional issue. If people aren't bothered to take an interest on one side or the other, then the politicians are only representing themselves and the lobbyists that support their campaigns.

Stoek. A lot if people "work against their own self interest". I vote to have my own taxes raised. We can't dismiss it all as horsesh**, because its really a matter of who is less full of horsesh**.

Come again? I'm not sure what you mean?


Regardless what you vote for federally it is rather irrelevant in the states atleast.

Just because you vote for someone, does not mean they have any intention of doing anything for you.

There is no choice, you either vote for me, or you vote for my buddy, it's a zero choice situation.


Its amazingly simple to the objective observer, what happens of course is your logic gets trapped with emotion.

They are able to spout some ideology, and than have nothing to gain from following it.

It's intricate how the "community" works, but it ultimately comes back to a philosophy that gets individually applied to each situation. It could be the pizza shop who sponsors a local baseball team instead of government subsidized little league. Figuratively speaking, if I buy a slice of pizza I support my neighbor's kids team. Neighborhood watch.... people donating their time. And the church doesn't just help the church. Religious organizations donate their time and money through their neighborhoods and surrounding community. On a larger scale, if conservatives pay taxes, they want the money going back into their community. So it's it not NO government involvement, it's a spectrum of how much involvement. I'm sure every conservative has different ideas of how government should help us out. But yeah, I know when I grew up, there was a big thing when property tax revenue started getting spread around to different parts of the city. No longer would people's property taxes go towards funding the local school that your kids go to, and that you bought the house in the first place so your kid could go there, but now revenue was being spread out, going into pool and getting redistributed. This would be a conservative no no.
I could go on and on, but, maybe a better way to simplify it would be that conservatives would more likely support the idea of private industry taking care of the people. Let private businesses supply jobs, let us keep our tax money, and let us invest in our communities. It's all generally speaking, cause again, there's gonna be a spectrum of opinions on different issues...

2012.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... eparedness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _Year_2012

It basically allows for indefinite detention of Americans without trial. Theoretically, it also extends the provision of Bil Clinton's EO 12919 that permits the government to use American citizens as forced labor in a time of crisis.

As per Wikipedia: "The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times[42] and other news organizations." As you can see, it is not just conservatives who opposed it. Many left leaning organizations were also up in arms against it, and I believe the ACLU is the one working to bring it before the Supreme Court at this time. For me, it was one of the main reasons I supported the candidacy of Ron Paul, as I felt he was the only candidate who had a strong enough stance on civil liberties and was not afraid to act on it.

Wouldn't this thread be more appropriate for PPR?

Actually, in a wierd way your brother is kind of technically right. My post isn't about the AS issue at all though.

When something bad happens to someone, even bad luck like being in the wrong place and wrong time, they technically could have avoided it by not being there, etc. I'm not talking about a disease or disorder that is not preventable, I'm talking about other things. Someone couldn't have avoided being born blind or developing bone cancer or something. You can't avoid any of the ASD's either because you are born with them.

I was hit by a drunk driver in 1987. I had gone to get some Popeyes chicken for supper and he hit me. I was not at fault, he came out of my blind spot and suddenly turned across four lanes of traffic, hitting me. There was no way I could have seen him. Now, techinally, I could have avoided it by not going to get the chicken. However, there were no more than normal risks in taking the trip so I wasn't being careless in going, so I bear no responsibility for needing to avoid the situation.

Another example would be if I were to get mugged walking late at night in a bad part of town because my car broke down and I'm going to the payphone to call a wrecker. (Remember pay phones?) I wouldn't be responsible for the muggers actions, but my two options were 1) sit in the car and wait and hope a cop comes by, meanwhile being a target for muggers etc, or 2) walk a block to the payphone I can see from my car, call 911 and wait on the phone for a cop to get there then call the wrecker and wait there with the cop meanwhile being a target for a mugger for a shorter period of time. Both options have their pros and cons. However, I could have avoided the situation altogether by not driving in that part of town late at night. If it's on my way to or from work and my car is in good condition, I have no real reason to think it's any more dangerous than driving through other parts of town and it's a neccessary risk to get to and from work. However, if I'm half drunk and going to the beer store myself, then I have taken a risk I didn't need to take and I bear some of the responsibility for allowing myself to be in the situation that it happened in, while not responsible for the mugging itself.

In other words, the amount of responsibility we bear for what happened to us depends on the amount of risk in the situation and the neccessity of being in it to begin with. We usually have some idea that a situation is risky, but it usually turns out ok.

I smoke cigarettes. I tan. Cancer runs in my family a whole lot. Everybody in my family that I know of thats dead died from cancer except my great grandfather and he died falling down our front porch steps drunk when I was about 3 or 4. I know that I am prone to cancer and that smoking and tanning increase my risks. I also know that not getting a colonoscopy or a mammogram increases the risks of me dying of cancer even if I didn't smoke or tan. So, you could say that I brought the lung or skin cancer on myself (if I get it) by intentionally taking those risks that I was aware of, or that I died from color or breast cancer by neglecting a needed screening, but I would bear more responsibility for the former than the latter.

So yes, we are responsible for ourselves and the situations we allow ourselves to be in, although many are beyond our control. I will touch on the AS thing now that I think about it too, because I just thought of something.

If a person with AS who has moderate difficulties doesn't put forth the effort to overcome them to some extent, or only tries once or twice then gives up, he is responsible somewhat for his situation of not working/having a relationship/degree, etc because while there is no guarantee that he would have been able to overcome the difficulties had he tried, it is guaranteed that he won't overcome them if he doesn't try or gives up before exhausting all of his options.

I'm not saying "Well, I did this, you can too you just won't try". Not at all. I'm saying that I did this and you may or may not be able to do it, but without pushing yourself beyond your limits and comfort zone you won't ever be able to do it, so your refusal/fear/whatever to do that is part of the reason you can't achieve what you want, and you do bear some of the responsibility, even if you would never have been able to do it had you pushed yourself beyond your limit. I say that last part because sometimes when we push ourselves beyond our limits, we discover hidden strengths we have, which while they may not help achieve the goal you were originally working on, they may have shown you another goal or helped you achieve something else.

My grandmother used to tell me whenever I would try and fail and say I can't, " 'Can't' never could do nothing!" While grammatically incorrect, it is true.

You know, while we're on a broader trajectory or thread of conservatism...I have occasionally wondered, if you were to take a survey of the people in the USA who are firm Democrats and those who are firm Republicans (in equal numbers), asking them "to what extent do you believe the Aspergers diagnosis is real? - I'm guessing a much greater number of Republicans would respond to the effect of "it's a fake disorder, it's just an excuse" compared to Democrats. Who tend to be more enlightened and open-minded about these issues. I'm not American but at times I've been fascinated by the different leanings and differences of viewpoints that their two parties and their membership tend to have.

First of all, we have more than two parties. Unfortunately, the two major parties do not really present much of a choice. They are more alike than different. Most of the people I know who seem to be best at making up their own mind instead of letting issues be dictated to them are often either independent voters or they are supporters of their choice of third parties.

As far as whether Republicans would generally claim Asperger's is real or fake, I have no idea how you jump to your conclusion. I suspect that any difference between those of either major party would be relatively insignificant. The one time I actually saw a discussion of autism on a board that is mostly either Republican or Libertarian, one member of the board made the often made claim that it is the result of vaccinations. While several objected to the notion that vaccinations have anything to do with it, nobody on the board tried to argue or even suggest that it is all bogus.

Also, I live in one of the most Republican counties in the United States. I think that the last time that the Democrats even bothered to hold a primary was in the early or mid 1990s. In my precinct in the 2008 general election, Obama received only one vote. And I've never encountered anyone in the county or in my precinct who has ever indicated that they view Aspergers or Autism to be any kind of a fake diagnosis.

In other words, I think your guess is most likely nonsnse.

Yes! I agree with that 100%. And it's the reason why I blame most people who are losing their homes for their own actions placing them in that spot, and not feeling sorry for them. It was wrong to buy a house out-of-budget; counting on the idea that it could be refinanced over & over. Using credit cards for groceries, and leasing cars, buying toys on time payments, etc etc. The people who did that, were feeding an angry lion, and when there was a hiccup in the plan, the lion ate them.

The moral of the story of the foreclosure crisis, is that when buying a house, plan for the worst, and hope for the best. Plan that you might get sick, lose a job, a hurricane or earthquake comes, or that the house values might crash for economic reasons. Those things happen sometimes! If you're prepared, you'll survive.

The same principles are why rich people get richer... They don't invest more than they can "afford" to lose, and they never spend as much as they bring in. This principle will work perfectly whether you're the shoe shine boy at the airport, or a real estate development mogul.

Charles

No it's not. I get to buy stuff like cars, houses without taking out loans. I paid off my school with one check. It's not because I'm smart or cool or pragmatic, I'm really none of those things. If you have money, you don't need to pay interest on things. The more money you have, the more tax lawyers you can afford, the more taxes you can dodge, etc.

Branch managers at banks always come introduce themselves because I'm of more value to them. It's flattering but it's not because they respect me. It's because they can use large sums if money to make more money with little risk. It's bullsh**.

When did it become unamerican to help people? If you take a bullet for someone in a war you're a hero. If you want to help poor people, you're a dirty communist?