compassionate conservatism
- Thread starter ryan_velo.
- Start date
It means being forced to got to church for aid (Bush's "faith based initiative") as opposed to going to Human Servicesryan_velo. said:Does any body besides me see the irony in compassionate conservatism
. One must accept Jesus to accept aid This idea, being advocated by the State Nice going, King George. Justice's Scalia & Thomas aren't helping matters.http://slate.msn.com/id/2114258/
"compassionate conservatism " belongs in the joke section.
When I was grossly underemployed I offered to help a congressman out with my time. He insulted me and told me to get some skills. The republicans are not compassionate. They blame the victime. Don't have a good paying job it is your fault for not haveing the right skills. I graduated in the top 10% of my high school class and the top 25% of my college class.
I have skills but did not want to relocate geographly. I am a bad speller and dyslexic but that does not mean that I don't have skills.
That republican messed up because now I spend my time telling the truth about the uncaring republicans.
I am pro life but unlike the republicans I care about the quality of life that is already here as well as the unborn.
When I was grossly underemployed I offered to help a congressman out with my time. He insulted me and told me to get some skills. The republicans are not compassionate. They blame the victime. Don't have a good paying job it is your fault for not haveing the right skills. I graduated in the top 10% of my high school class and the top 25% of my college class.
I have skills but did not want to relocate geographly. I am a bad speller and dyslexic but that does not mean that I don't have skills.
That republican messed up because now I spend my time telling the truth about the uncaring republicans.
I am pro life but unlike the republicans I care about the quality of life that is already here as well as the unborn.
This statement is simply one of the most brilliant I have read- I long to be "grossly unemployed"
LottomagicZ4941 said:
This map is ranks the states on the basis of generosity, 1 being the most and 50 being the least.
Notice a trend?
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
Notice a trend?
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004
Is that a ranking from 1-50Weisse Luft said:
If so, it is inversely proportional to the states w/ the lowest incidence of divorce, which is by the way indicative of "moral-values" . It is widely known that people w/ a guilty conscience (Cheney/Bush voter's) give more in hopes of refilling their karma-bank Here's a state by state analysis of another "revealing" phenomenon:Lowest incidence of divorce
1 Massachusetts 14,530 2.4
2 Connecticut 9,095 2.8
3 New Jersey 23,899 3.0
4 Rhode Island 3,231 3.2
Ect...
Texas was down at "36" w/ the rest of the duped, blue-collar, red (bible-belt) states. I feel sorry for those people allowing themselves to be duped by Cheney/Bush Inc. for political gain on non-issue's such as gay weddings & flag burnings. I'm speaking from the standpoint of an honorably discharged, former active-duty veteran, something Bush can't claim. He & Rummy have so blurred the line between active duty & guard that the only difference is how they are treated upon return to the states. Additionally, recruitment #'s were down for the Marines (1st time in over 10 yrs. mind you) for some odd reason
Could it be the War, which really isn't a war because Bush declared it over some time ago, that was predicated on lies & 1/2 truths. There, I'm done, for now. 
This all deals with statistics. It tells you nothing. This is the average per capital spending on charities. It does not tell you the Mean or the Mode. IF I am in a room with 100 people and we each make 30,000 a year and Bill Gates and Warren Buffet walk in the room the average income for the room is over $10,000,000.Weisse Luft said:
All that the chart means is you have states with small population with a few large donors.
Take the same data and rank in terms of most given.
California New York Texas Florida Illinois New Jersey Pennsylvania Georgia Michigan Ohio North Carolina
Notice a trend?
Compassionate Conservatism &
WMD, Al-Qaieda Links?
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050311/horsey.gif
WMD, Al-Qaieda Links?
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050311/horsey.gif
Hey peabody, kinda hard to get divorced if you can't get married...Weren't these states trying to force "gay marriage" down everyones throat??? So, if Ken can't marry Biff then they can't get divorced thus lower divorce rate...Notice a trend?davidmc said:Is that a ranking from 1-50
Lowest incidence of divorce
1 Massachusetts 14,530 2.4
2 Connecticut 9,095 2.8
3 New Jersey 23,899 3.0
4 Rhode Island 3,231 3.2
Ect...
The only irony is that liberals see compassion as giving everyone a handout that only temporarily sustains, rather than help in the long term. I think everyone is responsible for what they do, good or bad. I realize that not everything is within one's control, as I have also been "grossly underemployed" due to no fault of my own; it's called sh*t happens. When I was, I had to deal with it, which I did. I had to move to start a new job, and while I wish I didn't have to, that's life. I think people get what they work for and deserve, and unfortunately some people deserve nothing but the worst (they especially don't deserve any of my hard-earned tax money). If believing in personal responsibility and accountability means being a conservative, than I am. (To further clarify, I think the government taxes too much, spends my $$ way too easily, and many politicians of every party and philosophy are anything but role models.
The perception of Conservatism over here is, more or less, linked to Margaret Thatcher. It's kind of suicide to express any idea she might not have been so bad.
Her crimes are various and I confess I disagreed with her overall political philosophy, especially the ridiculous idea that there is no such thing as the State, just the individual.
However, I do recall reading one thing she said that made good sense. Thatcher reckoned that if you could successfully build a strong, prosperous economy, social reform and aid to the poor would follow on as a consequence of material success.
The area where I now reside was definitely a lot more prosperous under Thatcher than it is now under Blair. We had far more heavy industry and manufacturing (despite the fact Thatcher hurt manufacturing in some areas).
But I think the main point is we had free education under Thatcher and it's kind of ironic that a so-called rich man's party as the Conservatives should have enabled working-class folks to be able to go to uni and study.
Now I grant you that Thatcher screwed up big time over the poll tax and she really hurt the mining industry, plus failed the working classes on worker rights and minimum wage e.t.c.. There came a point when enough was enough.
But to look at the full picture, I believe Thatcher would never have gone as far as Blair and New Labour by charging students fees to study at uni and taking away the state grant. And I think she really helped bring about the end of the Cold War by encouraging the U.S. to negotiate with Gorbachev.
Her crimes are various and I confess I disagreed with her overall political philosophy, especially the ridiculous idea that there is no such thing as the State, just the individual.
However, I do recall reading one thing she said that made good sense. Thatcher reckoned that if you could successfully build a strong, prosperous economy, social reform and aid to the poor would follow on as a consequence of material success.
The area where I now reside was definitely a lot more prosperous under Thatcher than it is now under Blair. We had far more heavy industry and manufacturing (despite the fact Thatcher hurt manufacturing in some areas).
But I think the main point is we had free education under Thatcher and it's kind of ironic that a so-called rich man's party as the Conservatives should have enabled working-class folks to be able to go to uni and study.
Now I grant you that Thatcher screwed up big time over the poll tax and she really hurt the mining industry, plus failed the working classes on worker rights and minimum wage e.t.c.. There came a point when enough was enough.
But to look at the full picture, I believe Thatcher would never have gone as far as Blair and New Labour by charging students fees to study at uni and taking away the state grant. And I think she really helped bring about the end of the Cold War by encouraging the U.S. to negotiate with Gorbachev.
ryan_velo. said:Does any body besides me see the irony in compassionate conservatism
Another trash post. She wrecked British industry because she thought the unions were all communists. Remember her henchman Tebbitt. No jobs in your area? get on yer bike and find one. I don't remember the West Midlands being unaffected by this Industrial carnage. You are completely mad. Odd, because I thought that Thatchers government brought in some sort of means testing procedure regarding University Education.Carrera said:
Just go back to your stone seat Socrates and have a few straight Ouzo's with Plato. BTW I have a degree, but not in Ancient ****, it's in Polymer Technology, and we sit on plastic chairs. You don't get your butt frozen while having a drink. How's your piles?
I lived in this area for some years, to be honest, and my view is it has gone downhill since the eighties. Without a doubt.
The problem with the Tories was they failed to throw enough money at the working classes by improving worker rights and endorsing a minimum wage. Blair, on the other hand followed Europe's lead and opted for a minimum wage.
So, the Tories cobbled up in these areas.
Having said that, this particular area was pretty loaded under Thatcher. There was a hell of a lot of heavy industry and mass production. But above all, I know many working-class students who had a real cushy number studying under Thatcher, with all the money you got for expenses.
I mean, myself, I got close to 3 thousand a year as a grant under Thatcher, plus housing costs. Students today under Blair get a fat zilch but Labour Party supporters just won't entertain the idea Blair sold them short.
I've always believed in free education but you don't get that with New Labour. No, Senor! I feel a touch sorry for students today with their debts.
The truth is loads of working class folk got very rich under Thatcher. My brother got a job in this area during the Thatcher years and purchased a plush car which he bought outright within a few short months. Yet today there are loads of people on the breadline and much of the industry has vanished to be replaced by services.
Thatcher was a bit hardline but she wasn't quite that bad as people paint her out to be.
The problem with the Tories was they failed to throw enough money at the working classes by improving worker rights and endorsing a minimum wage. Blair, on the other hand followed Europe's lead and opted for a minimum wage.
So, the Tories cobbled up in these areas.
Having said that, this particular area was pretty loaded under Thatcher. There was a hell of a lot of heavy industry and mass production. But above all, I know many working-class students who had a real cushy number studying under Thatcher, with all the money you got for expenses.
I mean, myself, I got close to 3 thousand a year as a grant under Thatcher, plus housing costs. Students today under Blair get a fat zilch but Labour Party supporters just won't entertain the idea Blair sold them short.
I've always believed in free education but you don't get that with New Labour. No, Senor! I feel a touch sorry for students today with their debts.
The truth is loads of working class folk got very rich under Thatcher. My brother got a job in this area during the Thatcher years and purchased a plush car which he bought outright within a few short months. Yet today there are loads of people on the breadline and much of the industry has vanished to be replaced by services.
Thatcher was a bit hardline but she wasn't quite that bad as people paint her out to be.
FredC said:
Your stuff is rubbish, you are just an old anarchic misfit who has no place in a practical modern society, and never have been able to adjust. Now you envy your brother for getting off his **** in a practical way. Offers please for crappy old history books down at the Car Boot sale on Sunday.Carrera said:
Mr. ghostpedal, pray tell, have you seen Senor Bush's budget (if you want to call it that)ghostpedal said:
. I'll tell you one thing, it aint' conservative. He's doing his level best to spend as much nonexistent money as he can while raining tax-cuts down on the wealthy. How admirable He's doing one of two things w/ your tax $ a) giving it back to the wealthy or b) siphoning it off to the mil.indust. complex. Under Bush's tax plan, Warren Buffet's secretary will pay a larger portion of her salary to taxes than buffet will. He wants to tax salaries & lower the taxes on dividend's (if you don't know what those are, they are things that poor people DON'T have) Does that seem right to you. If you think the main concern's of the Fascist's, errr...I mean Compassionate Conservatives are social & not financial then consider yourself "hood-winked". Herr Rove has suceeded. You might want to rethink you're position.
