If Republicans are the "party of personal responsibility"...

Post Reply New Topic

Then why are they always blaming their problems on
-feminists
-immigrants
-gay people
-Muslims
-poor people on welfare
-basically everyone except the rich white straight Christian males who make up most of the party's constituents?

I can't be the only one who sees the contradiction here...

Nope, you're not he only one who sees the contradiction. The GOP just won't go after those rich white guys, or even those poor white guys who are persuaded to vote against their best interest, as no one would vote Republican again, let alone donate to them.

It's the "thier best interest" thingy that separates liberals from conservatives. Each side is convinced they have it all figured out.

Republicans, as a rule, are united by the belief that government shouldn't provide excessive support to people, and that people should deal with their own problems. That doesn't mean they think all your problems are your own doing

There's no inherent contradiction between "feminists are a problem" and "we shouldn't support single mothers".

The contradiction is in providing subsidies to businesses but not to individuals.

So there are people who believe the government should provide excessive support to people? If something is excessive, by definition, it shouldn't be done. Otherwise, it wouldn't be excessive.

Getting people to vote for so called "Right To Work" laws, which is all about prohibiting organized labor, meaning lower wages and less or no benefits, certainly is against their interests. Getting people to oppose taxes for schools certainly is against the interests of their children - and the future in general. Getting people in coal country to vote against mine safety regulations is absolutely against their interests. The left might not have it all figured out, but those things I mentioned, plus tons of others, certainly ARE against people's best interest, and it makes absolutely no sense that they should allow themselves to be led by the nose against them.

It might also be about the fact that being forcibly stopped from working or fulfilling other responsibilities, by people who don't give a crap about the consequences it will entail for you---not for them, obviously---sucks.

This isn't 50 years ago. We're in a very competitive market and having unions quibbling over nickels and dimes while protecting the jobs of slackers that need to be weeded out doesn't cut it.
Besides, most of those low paying jobs are only to be used as a stepping stone to better ones. You're not supposed to make a career out of flipping burgers.


Maybe if the taxes that already go to the school system were used wisely and they would weed out all those levels of pork barrel bureaucracy between the tax dollars and the student we could actually do well with less tax dollars going to K12 education. Yes, school really is about the students, not the bureaucrats.

I'll let the people in coal country decide what's best for them. There's safety for the purpose of actual safety and then there's BS safety as an excuse for workers to f**k off.
I've seen it before.


To reiterate, each side is convinced they have it all figured out.
Notice I didnt say it's all the left's fault and the right is always right or anything like that.
It's not going to get any better from me and there's plenty of room to be worse.

As a matter of fact, unions have been undercut constantly, and with that there has been a decrease in wages and benefits.
And no, flipping burgers isn't a career. But I seem to remember several economists telling us how it was such a good thing how we were switching over to a service economy. Well, the good wages just didn't switch over with them.

^^^
And I should add: the reason why people in coal country vote against safety laws is because the coal industry threatens to leave them all unemployed unless they vote against those protections. What are human lives anyway, especially if they're just poor people, when big business can save a little money here and there.

Already discussed.


[sarcasm]Well, we can’t build factories because that might hurt the environment and lord knows displacing some jackrabbits or cutting down trees is much worse than joblessness. [/sarcasm]


Yeah but we’ve got MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) and that’s a federal government agency. Surely you of all people put more faith in an agency of the federal government than a bunch of union guys, most of which probably vote republican.

If they discovered coal near where you live and mining it was going to be a union operation, would you go to work as a coal miner?

No coal mines, but over in north Idaho, and in the next state over, Montana, there is mining of other stuff. As it's dangerous work, I'd never want to be employed by them. And especially since Idaho is today a right to work state, the wages, benefits, and safety standards their predecessors had gained are becoming a thing of the past. Also, that mining in Montana has created an ecological disaster, endangering those jackrabbits.

I said if...

No, no... see, they're the party of everyone else taking personal responsibility. Once you figure that out, it makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Ah, it does finally make sense! Like when they can bash gays and deny gays marriage, but then get caught soliciting other guys.

Told you!