NationStates Jolt Archive

The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program. In their eyes, there isn't a single problem that can't be solved with more government intervention. If the first try doesn't work, it's underfunded and underregulated. Add more.

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?

You know what really bugs me? Broad, sweeping generalizations.

The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program. In their eyes, there isn't a single problem that can't be solved with more government intervention. If the first try doesn't work, it's underfunded and underregulated. Add more.

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?

Of course an extraneous duplicative layer of government services such as faith based initiatives doesn't apply. :/

Of course an extraneous duplicative layer of government services such as faith based initiatives doesn't apply. :/
Did I say that I like Conservative politics? That's another whole issue. They never met a moral problem they couldn't legislate into oblivion.

You know what really bugs me? Broad, sweeping generalizations.
But don't those broad generalizations give you more to work with when you make that feckless attempt to justify more government?

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?
my answer, as a liberal, is that lie shouldn't be that way - it needn't be unequal and unfair. we're idealists at heart, while most conservatives would appear to be more realist. liberals choose the government as their means of changing the world - for the better (in their eyes) - as it is both seemingly the method that works best, and the system that is supposedly the most unbiased. if corporations were given the liberal's mandate of changing the world, they would both require compensation (pay) for their troubles - the government doesn't - and would arguably be more suspect to greed and corruption than government civil servants. the reason why we stick to the government is because we believe that there is no other viable option.

thats imo anyway.

One of the things that I don't care for about the libs is that they think with their emotions, not always with their heads. Sort of like women, so I guess it is appropriate to call most male libs 'girlie men'!

Did I say that I like Conservative politics? That's another whole issue. They never met a moral problem they couldn't legislate into oblivion.

No but you came out swinging against liberalism though this big governemnt problem isn't really about lib vs. con stuff. :)

With a relatively simple syllogism you just called President Bush a liberal - something most Americans would not agree fits the definition to the man.

1. President Bush funds churches.
2. Churches are funded by President Bush to solve social problems.
3. Only Liberals solve social problems by funding.
---------------------------
President Bush is a liberal.

I'm saying we're going after number 3 ;)

And, as was rightly pointed out - bloated government spending is a problem for both major political parties in America.

Lately, the Republicans are the party of bigger government - they seem to be the "both guns and butter" party, hence the largest deficits in America's history.

The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program. In their eyes, there isn't a single problem that can't be solved with more government intervention. If the first try doesn't work, it's underfunded and underregulated. Add more.

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?

So are you saying if something doesn't work at first you should give up? And actually, I don't see why virtually every social problem can't be solved with government help. If we live in a society where everything is run by money, then enough money will accomplish anything. Liberal governments don't claim to be able to solve every problem, but they can certainly make improvements. Anyway, no-one actually expects every program to put an end to every problem it is set up to work on. The only thing that matters is that you make progress, which you can't have when it take a 'oh, sod it' attitude like you seem to have.

With a relatively simple syllogism you just called President Bush a liberal - something most Americans would not agree fits the definition to the man.

1. President Bush funds churches.
2. Churches are funded by President Bush to solve social problems.
3. Only Liberals solve social problems by funding.
---------------------------
President Bush is a liberal.

I'm saying we're going after number 3 ;)
Wrong on #3. It's not true statement. If it only were...

And it seems to me that the way GWB donates to charity with his own money is his business.

And it seems to me that the way GWB donates to charity with his own money is his business.

Actually, Bush legalized funding faith-based initiatives with government money. And then he cut his tax rate (for the wealthy), so essentially, he is giving other people's money to churches, and is trying to make sure that even less of it is his own!

But don't those broad generalizations give you more to work with when you make that feckless attempt to justify more government?

Perhaps you missed my point. Not every "liberal" agrees on every matter.

Because as politicans, they use the tools they control to try to solve the problems they percive?
What did you expect? "Theres too much homeless these days so I as Democrat am personally going to construct a shelter". That would just lead to a large amount of collasping buildings.

If Bush gives a local charity government funding, does it become a government program? I would argue no. Government oversight makes something a government program. First Baptist Soup Kitchen or St. Christopher's homeless shelter do not operate under government guidelines. ;)

Actually, Bush legalized funding faith-based initiatives with government money. And then he cut his tax rate (for the wealthy), so essentially, he is giving other people's money to churches, and is trying to make sure that even less of it is his own!\
I realize that. I thought about putting a :) on the end, but then I thought the statement stood on it's own.

So are you saying if something doesn't work at first you should give up? And actually, I don't see why virtually every social problem can't be solved with government help. If we live in a society where everything is run by money, then enough money will accomplish anything. Liberal governments don't claim to be able to solve every problem, but they can certainly make improvements. Anyway, no-one actually expects every program to put an end to every problem it is set up to work on. The only thing that matters is that you make progress, which you can't have when it take a 'oh, sod it' attitude like you seem to have.
I had a good answer typed in and then Jolt went TU on me. My objection is to the idea that even though more money hasn't solved the problem over the last x many increases, we just need to increase it some more. This time it will be okay. Education spending is a prime example.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go fix the TV. Our new dog chewed through the coax and I can't watch Fox in order to find out what to say next.:)

I had a good answer typed in and then Jolt went TU on me. My objection is to the idea that even though more money hasn't solved the problem over the last x many increases, we just need to increase it some more. This time it will be okay. Education spending is a prime example.

Both liberals and conservatives agree with you. I dont know of any politician of either side that believes that simply increasing the amount of money you spend on anything will fix it. This may be true of a few programs that are underfunded, but most of the time when you hear a politician of either side asking for an increase in funding for X program it is accompanied by a plan for how that money will be used to make the program better. Its easy for you to sound right if you make up an obviously incorrect point of view and assign it to the group of people you want to demean, but the fact remains neither liberals nor conservatives believe in that idea you assigned to liberals.

I had a good answer typed in and then Jolt went TU on me. My objection is to the idea that even though more money hasn't solved the problem over the last x many increases, we just need to increase it some more. This time it will be okay. Education spending is a prime example.

I find it funny to see the Conservative movement in America blast all funding increases on "Liberal Democrats". If you actually look at the budget, most of the money that is spent in the US is championed by the Conserative Right (Huge Defense increases, War in Iraq, Drug Benefit). Additionally, it is the Conservatives who don't want to raise revenue to pay for it! Raising costs, cutting tax revenues, and then blaming the Liberals for welfare spending that takes up a small fraction of the budget just makes no sense. I guess common sense doesn't matter if you have "moral values".

I had a good answer typed in and then Jolt went TU on me. My objection is to the idea that even though more money hasn't solved the problem over the last x many increases, we just need to increase it some more. This time it will be okay. Education spending is a prime example.

No, it hasn't solved the problem, but it would have been worse if no money had been put in. If you have an alternative to gradually putting more and more money I'm sure the governments of the world would love to hear it.

If Bush gives a local charity government funding, does it become a government program? I would argue no. Government oversight makes something a government program. First Baptist Soup Kitchen or St. Christopher's homeless shelter do not operate under government guidelines. ;)


They do if they receive federal tax dollars from the faith based initiatives program.

This complaint is one of the main reasons that many church leaders actually opposed Bush's Faith Based Initiative - since they knew that as soon as money was involved that some degree of regulation would be too to protect the principle by which the money was given.

So while there is a wall between church and state, the wall protects both sides from the other. Tearing down the wall as Bush, Rehnquist, Scalia, etc. etc. seek to do will intermingle more than just common federal funds for churches - it will also put the federal government in the business of monitoring churches for use of those federal funds.

What Really Bugs Me About Liberials Is...
The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program.

3. Only Liberals solve social problems by funding.

Wrong on #3. It's not true statement. If it only were...


It never ceases to amaze me that people will argue against the very premise that they, themselves, started a thread by saying.

If Bush gives a local charity government funding, does it become a government program? I would argue no. Government oversight makes something a government program. First Baptist Soup Kitchen or St. Christopher's homeless shelter do not operate under government guidelines. ;)

Actually, there is a contradiction here in terms of US policy. Right now we annually refuse to pay our dues to the United Nations, because the UN provides money to independant centers conducting family counseling for women in foreign countries that may include educating them about abortion. The conservative right believes that paying our dues, and thus supporting this, implicitly provides official US government support for the practice of abortion. Yet funding domestic faith based programs apparently does not provide implicit support for religion?

The problem with liberals is that they are afraid to take their ideas to their logical conclusion and stop supporting capitalism altogether. They are afraid to admit that capitalism itself is unjust.

But don't those broad generalizations give you more to work with when you make that feckless attempt to justify more government?
I'm liking this! Sdaeriji points out that you're making a generalization, so he's instantly one of those terribly evil liberals!

It never ceases to amaze me that people will argue against the very premise that they, themselves, started a thread by saying.
Wrong again. I said liberals... You said "Only liberals... Big difference there. Draw the Venn diagram.

The problem with liberals is that they are afraid to take their ideas to their logical conclusion and stop supporting capitalism altogether. They are afraid to admit that capitalism itself is unjust.

I think most liberals would scrap capitalism the minute we come up with something better. Capitalism is efficient, which is why we need it at the moment. The minute we don't need it, I'm all for scrapping it.

No, it hasn't solved the problem, but it would have been worse if no money had been put in. If you have an alternative to gradually putting more and more money I'm sure the governments of the world would love to hear it.
There is an alternative in the education problem. It's called vouchers. And most liberals don't even want to try, even in a limited manner, to test it out.

Wrong again. I said liberals... You said "Only liberals... Big difference there. Draw the Venn diagram.

No, you seem to misunderstand your own point.

If you say "You know what bothers me about liberals is X" and then proceed on that fashion, you have excluded "non-liberals" from the statement by assumption.

You're the one who made that assumption when you said that. Had you really meant to say "what bothers me about bloated government spending was X" then you wouldn't have been making a statement that ONLY liberals engage in that particular behavior.

What you have done is a rhetorical fallacy - leading the discussion one direction with your statement, then backtracking when the fallacy of your statement has been shown to you.

In fact, what you really wanted to do is prance around bashing liberals and the topic of discussion you provided was something you thought most people would tacitly agree with - that being that liberals are the only people who spend money on social programs.

Since there are board members too savvy to gift you that social lie, you've been called out.

Now, perhaps you'd like to retract the statement by which you started this entire thread in the first place ? That is, after all, the only appropriate thing for you to do.

Perhaps you missed my point. Not every "liberal" agrees on every matter.
No, I understand. I think enough do agree on the idea that government solves problems, that it's a pretty fair generalization. Besides, it's just so darn hard to write a title when it has to include the whole list of disqualifiers. Maybe I should just footnote it and put the fine print in a sticky.

There is an alternative in the education problem. It's called vouchers. And most liberals don't even want to try, even in a limited manner, to test it out.

Vouchers? I don't believe I've heard of this plan. I assume you mean something different to book vouchers?

Actually, there is a contradiction here in terms of US policy. Right now we annually refuse to pay our dues to the United Nations, because the UN provides money to independant centers conducting family counseling for women in foreign countries that may include educating them about abortion. The conservative right believes that paying our dues, and thus supporting this, implicitly provides official US government support for the practice of abortion. Yet funding domestic faith based programs apparently does not provide implicit support for religion?

The complaint about government, versus private, programs is that they become ineffective and mired in bureaucracy. Local programs don't have nearly so much bureaucracy. When those organizations are in the business of feeding the hungry or providing the homeless a safe place to sleep, they can apply for government aid. Bush has allowed funding to Jewish, Muslim and various Christian concerns.. the problem is not that Bush is funding religion, but that, as an earlier poster said, those religious volunteers will be restricted in their speech or activites, or otherwise held hostage by dependence on aid. This is for the courts to decide, when and if it should occur that an individual oversteps their charity capacity and begins making a specifically religious mission of the aid in question.

There is an alternative in the education problem. It's called vouchers. And most liberals don't even want to try, even in a limited manner, to test it out.

Actually, vouchers have been tried for the past decade by the Democratic state of NJ. Mixed results. Basically, exactly what was predicted would happen has happened, those who could afford private school anyway saved money, those who couldn't, still couldn't.

It kind of explains the different view that Liberals and Conservatives have on capitalism. Conservatives say, "Capitalism is a competitive system, so the most capable do the best, Hooray!". Liberals say, "Capitalism is a competitive system, which in reality means that the people on the top stay on top, and the people on bottom stay on the bottom. Maybe we should at least make the bottom not suck so bad."

Vouchers? I don't believe I've heard of this plan. I assume you mean something different to book vouchers?

Vouchers = stipends to students which allow them to choose their school, rather than being forced into a failing public school geographically. Essentially, forcing schools to answer to the students by giving them the option of leaving if the education is inadequate.

Vouchers? I don't believe I've heard of this plan. I assume you mean something different to book vouchers?
Sorry, I made the bad assumption that I was addressing a US audience. Vouchers are a scheme where the government will provide money to a family to spend at a school of their choice. The school accepts the voucher as full or partial payment and redeems it through the government.

My main argument in favor is that competition will cause all schools to improve. There are many counter arguments as I'm sure you will soon see. Most of them have to do with "fairness".

The complaint about government, versus private, programs is that they become ineffective and mired in bureaucracy. Local programs don't have nearly so much bureaucracy. When those organizations are in the business of feeding the hungry or providing the homeless a safe place to sleep, they can apply for government aid. Bush has allowed funding to Jewish, Muslim and various Christian concerns...

It is a problem though when on one hand the gov't is saying "less oversight and bureaucracy is good! Only good will come out of it!", and on the other hand is saying, "but if we suspect that that organization develops any ties to potential terrorists we will shut them down and arrest everyone who donated to their wicked cause!". Their is no consistency to this message.

...
Welcome to NS. I see you got a new computer for your birthday.

You know what really bugs me? Broad, sweeping generalizations.
mmmm yeh

Sorry, I made the bad assumption that I was addressing a US audience. Vouchers are a scheme where the government will provide money to a family to spend at a school of their choice. The school accepts the voucher as full or partial payment and redeems it through the government.

My main argument in favor is that competition will cause all schools to improve. There are many counter arguments as I'm sure you will soon see. Most of them have to do with "fairness".

It's an interesting idea, but I don't know that schools benefit from competition. In my experience, schools that are doing badly get less people going there, so they carry on doing badly, so even less people go there...

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?

I suppose we might as well quit wasting money on medical research, then, since people are always going to get ill with somethng

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?

Way do go to justify apathy and indifference.

-snip- ...
A post like that warrants almost definitely a ban by the M0ds

One of the things that I don't care for about the libs is that they think with their emotions, not always with their heads. Sort of like women, so I guess it is appropriate to call most male libs 'girlie men'!
LMAO TEH FUNNEH TELL ME MORE CONSERFATIVE JOKES LOLOLOLOLMAOOLOLOL!!!!111one@

*mega snip* ...

Annnnndd...yooooouuu'rrrre...DELETED!

What BUGs me.....

You don't say.

What fascinating conversation you make. However did I manage to live without your revelations?

I feel all our lives have been enriched by your comments. Thank you for your contribution.


Now- bugger off.

No, I understand. I think enough do agree on the idea that government solves problems, that it's a pretty fair generalization. Besides, it's just so darn hard to write a title when it has to include the whole list of disqualifiers. Maybe I should just footnote it and put the fine print in a sticky.

I think that perhaps most Liberals do agree that government can and does solve problems. I am somewhat confused if you do not agree with this. If government is not an institution designed to solve collective problems, what do you suggest it is here for?

I think that perhaps most Liberals do agree that government can and does solve problems. I am somewhat confused if you do not agree with this. If government is not an institution designed to solve collective problems, what do you suggest it is here for?
To maintain order and make sure the collective fabric of society does not rip apart at the seams. Not to nitpick and make sure every thread is where it is supposed to be - let people figure that out for themselves.

To maintain order and make sure the collective fabric of society does not rip apart at the seams. Not to nitpick and make sure every thread is where it is supposed to be - let people figure that out for themselves.

I guess that the real contention here is that many people here feel that society IS ripped apart at the seems and that the role of (American) government is to bring it together. The mechanism of capitalism tends to, if unregulated, create rips in society as the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer. I believe that what conseratives complain about is the liberal attempt to provide the poor with a sustainable life. Its funny that anti-welfare conservatives are headed by charity-minded christians isn't it!

Did I say that I like Conservative politics?
Your other posts on this forum surely make it look like you do.

What BUGs me..... BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! BUGS! I HATE BUGS! THEY DRIVE ME CRAZY! I WAS CRAZY ONCE. THEY MADE ME SIT IN THE CORNER OF A CIRCULAR ROOM! THAT BUGS ME! ...
You f*cking rule!

No, you seem to misunderstand your own point.

If you say "You know what bothers me about liberals is X" and then proceed on that fashion, you have excluded "non-liberals" from the statement by assumption.

You're the one who made that assumption when you said that. Had you really meant to say "what bothers me about bloated government spending was X" then you wouldn't have been making a statement that ONLY liberals engage in that particular behavior.

What you have done is a rhetorical fallacy - leading the discussion one direction with your statement, then backtracking when the fallacy of your statement has been shown to you.

In fact, what you really wanted to do is prance around bashing liberals and the topic of discussion you provided was something you thought most people would tacitly agree with - that being that liberals are the only people who spend money on social programs.

Since there are board members too savvy to gift you that social lie, you've been called out.

Now, perhaps you'd like to retract the statement by which you started this entire thread in the first place ? That is, after all, the only appropriate thing for you to do.
So, if I posted a thread titled "Christians believe in a Creator", that would really mean that I argue only Christians believe in a creator? It seems to me that you are reading an awful lot into a title that ends in an ellipsis. Actually, I think you need to find some new glasses, because you are still trying to put words on paper for me. I don't find any mention that ONLY liberals will solve problems with government spending. Show me.

I think that perhaps most Liberals do agree that government can and does solve problems. I am somewhat confused if you do not agree with this. If government is not an institution designed to solve collective problems, what do you suggest it is here for?
The government can "solve" a limited set of "problems". These mostly consist of how to defend the population against force and fraud. There are some other things that the government is good at, like building roads, but they usually put so many strings on the effort that it isn't worth it. Social engineering is one area that the government should stay away from. We should throw out any elected or appointed bum that thinks otherwise. Let me clarify who I mean by 'any'. That means any in the common form.

So, if I posted a thread titled "Christians believe in a Creator", that would really mean that I argue only Christians believe in a creator? It seems to me that you are reading an awful lot into a title that ends in an ellipsis. Actually, I think you need to find some new glasses, because you are still trying to put words on paper for me. I don't find any mention that ONLY liberals will solve problems with government spending. Show me.

Okay.

First of all you use an analogy that "Christians believe in a Creator" has the same meaning context that "What Really Bugs Me About Liberials Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program."

These two statements do not have analogous contextual meanings. This is the important thing about using common vernacular, and context to decipher the logic behind people's arguments. Unfortunately this is a necessary skill in today's world because public language is not restricted to simple logical statements.

If you were to restructure your second statement in a similar contextual way to say "What really bugs me about Christians is the way they always believe in a Creator" then you would have a much closer analagous statement.

The operant phrase for the contextual meaning here is "bugs me about". This gives a meaning that holds the group out as a representative of the behavior of X to Y, and implies ONLY this group to hold X to Y - hence it being the subject of your emotional utterance.

Now you didn't say ONLY, you implied ONLY. It is quite possible for your statement to also be logically consistent with other statements of similar construction such as:

"What Really Bugs Me About Conservatives Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program."

"What Really Bugs Me About Leopards Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program."

"What Really Bugs Me About people with blue eyes Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program."

These statements, though, given your post topic, have no meaning.

In the context of a political discussion about American politics the habit is to discuss two different political positions: liberal and conservative.

So, by inference when you say "What Really Bugs Me About Liberials Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program." you mean that Liberals, and not Conservatives behave in this manner. Since Liberals and not Conservatives has the habit of having the same truth value as ONLY Liberals, I translated your statement for you to show you the fallacy of your argument.

So, again, if you'd like to retract your original statement, we can shake hands and be friends and move on to more interesting topics. If you'd like to persist in saying "What Really Bugs Me About Liberials Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program" has no contextual meaning assuming "only liberals" then we'll have to part friends as I consider you a disingenuous board troll.

Originally Posted by Myrmidonisia
Did I say that I like Conservative politics?Your other posts on this forum surely make it look like you do.

I figure I fund enough of the government programs I dislike to have a say in how they're run. If support of a capitalistic society that believes in personal responsibility over government intervention is Conservative, then color me Conservative.

People who generalize people into specific groups based on ideas percived like:

"Only Christians believe in a Creator."-I'm a Buddhist and I believe in a creator although my belief in a creator is non-gender and is a loving and caring.

"Only conservative Republicans believe in small government."-Right now Bush is creating a larger government, is increasing the deficeits and is bankrupting America. I as a Green believe in 1) Decentralizing the gov. 2) reducing our debt. 3) Providing enough for all people to be equal.

"If Jesus was alive today he would be a Republican or support them."-"It's easier for a camel to go thru a needle than a rich man to enter heaven." Unfortunatly most of the people who believe this are not really Christian. We have peverted Christianity into a religion for the selfish, greedy and hateful. True Christianity is about goodness, forgiveness, love, charity and kindness. Remeber the golden rule: "Do unter others as you would have done unto thee". Also-"Those without sin cast the first stone."

If we truly and I mean truly created a society base on "Basic Goodness" we wouldn't need to have any government. We would all live in harmony a mixture of all peoples and all religions but until then we do need to have some form of fairness.

The government can "solve" a limited set of "problems". These mostly consist of how to defend the population against force and fraud. There are some other things that the government is good at, like building roads, but they usually put so many strings on the effort that it isn't worth it. Social engineering is one area that the government should stay away from. We should throw out any elected or appointed bum that thinks otherwise. Let me clarify who I mean by 'any'. That means any in the common form.

The people that you describe as "liberals" (that as far as you're concerned seem to be anyone apart from the American rightwing, which is pretty damn non interventionist in comparison with Europe) generally believe that the state, or society, has a responsibility to the whole nation to not only protect it against "fraud" and "force", but also again poverty, illhealth and generally negative states of mind. Conservatives like the idea that if you're a thief, it's because you want to be and it's your fault. What they don't seem to grasp is that because society gains from the success of its population, it also needs to ensure its general wellbeing. Therefore, of course government intervention can solve everything. Your entire debate is based around a poltical idea. What you really should have said is something like "I don't like Liberals [and not Liberials - what the hell are they?] is that they think differently to me". It would have been far more honest.

As a communist, I find it hard to believe that the government is not inherintly better than private enterprise in doing everything. The capitalist society is so pathetically inefficient its comical. It encourages under-production (to make prices and therefore profit rise) and so about 30% of a Capitalist society is destined to live in povert because, even though there is the machinery and manpower, the government doesn't like the workforce to produce enough. Apart from that, all private enterprise has profit as a part of the cost of the goods/sevices. And so, since the wages of all the population who produce something and the cost of the materials going into making it only add up to about half of what the product is actually worth, the workforce is constantly underpaid. How stupid that the workforce can let it go on like this - it makes no sense.

The solution? Government production of every single thing including consumer goods. Every single able bodied male or female would work for the good of the nation in producing worthwhile things or services, and so there would be an abundance of "things". Everyone could have enough and nobody would be in poverty. And so, the population wouldnt have to work for more than about 20 years. The goods would cost at least half the price because no profit would be made. Does that bug you? The fact that left wingers always make more sense than righters? Really, this whole discussion is immature and pathetic with you making stupid generalisations about things that you don't understand. When will conservatives realise that people are not born equal, that some are more attractive, intelligent, strong, but most importantly, wealthy. Therefore the government should even it out.

I figure I fund enough of the government programs I dislike to have a say in how they're run. If support of a capitalistic society that believes in personal responsibility over government intervention is Conservative, then color me Conservative.

What a priveleged life you must have had. Why is it always the rich and powerful who say things like this (or those that have been endocrinated by the rich and powerful)? Answer me this: should personal responsibility be the cure for poverty? How about people who take "personal responsibility" to work all their life for MacDonalds (or any other low skilled job) but get paid virtually nothing because MacDonalds just can't bear to lose some of their billions of dollars of profit to actually give their employees a fair wage? Is it the fault of them not taking personal responsiblity that they weren't born intelligent or that their parents didn't give a shit if they worked hard in school or not? You conservative are so naive.

Please specify "American Liberals" There's apparently a huge difference of interpretation of what a liberal is. I encountered that when i visited the US. What's considered a liberal over there is considered a social democrat over here.

The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program. In their eyes, there isn't a single problem that can't be solved with more government intervention. If the first try doesn't work, it's underfunded and underregulated. Add more.

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?
I don't know, why can't conservatives recognize that not everyone shares the same values as they do and stop trying to make government programs and laws to make everyone believe how they do?

my answer, as a liberal, is that lie shouldn't be that way - it needn't be unequal and unfair. we're idealists at heart, while most conservatives would appear to be more realist. liberals choose the government as their means of changing the world - for the better (in their eyes) - as it is both seemingly the method that works best, and the system that is supposedly the most unbiased. if corporations were given the liberal's mandate of changing the world, they would both require compensation (pay) for their troubles - the government doesn't - and would arguably be more suspect to greed and corruption than government civil servants. the reason why we stick to the government is because we believe that there is no other viable option.

thats imo anyway.

This is an interesting event though which i have found to be true between liberals and concervatives.. LIberals dream of the world in an idealistic manner, but see people and organizations througha realistis eyes.. so government is corrupt, coroprations are facist, rich people are fountains of endless greed, and everyone is out to get the poor guy. While concervatives see the world in a realistis terms, but think of people idealistically. So Corporations are out there to do generally good things for their consumer bases, governments do what is best for their nations, Rich people make hugh contributions to those in need and people are generally good not evil..

This is why liberals choose governments, because they can control it... conservatives think people at heart are decent, so they dont require "control" so privitzation is sufficent, if not preferable (more efficent)

I think that perhaps most Liberals do agree that government can and does solve problems. I am somewhat confused if you do not agree with this. If government is not an institution designed to solve collective problems, what do you suggest it is here for?

government is only here to provide security so that we have the freedom to live without fear.. and this should always be its primary mandate.. everything else should be a secondary concern...

This is primarly why in times of crisis or threat, civil liberties take a back seat to security concerns.

You know what really bugs me? Broad, sweeping generalizations.
You bastard! I was going to say that. :p :D

And I HATE being called a liberal. *shudder*

This is an interesting event though which i have found to be true between liberals and concervatives.. LIberals dream of the world in an idealistic manner, but see people and organizations througha realistis eyes.. so government is corrupt, coroprations are facist, rich people are fountains of endless greed, and everyone is out to get the poor guy. While concervatives see the world in a realistis terms, but think of people idealistically. So Corporations are out there to do generally good things for their consumer bases, governments do what is best for their nations, Rich people make hugh contributions to those in need and people are generally good not evil..

This is why liberals choose governments, because they can control it... conservatives think people at heart are decent, so they dont require "control" so privitzation is sufficent, if not preferable (more efficent)
interesting. that's pretty much my thoughts on the matter - as a liberal, i do see the world in a realist light, but idealistically yearn for something better. the more conservative friends of mine (i have few left - i have slowly converted them all :D ) definatley see people - and certainly corporations - as essentially good and honest, and don't really understand the need for change.

I figure I fund enough of the government programs I dislike to have a say in how they're run. If support of a capitalistic society that believes in personal responsibility over government intervention is Conservative, then color me Conservative.
In that case you are actually Libertarian/classic liberal.

The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program. In their eyes, there isn't a single problem that can't be solved with more government intervention.
Yup. And you what? IT WORKS.

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?
With that kind of attitude we'd still have slavery. After all, life is unfair, people are unequal, so shut the f*ck up and get back to work, maggot.

Anyone who thinks liberals would spend more money than Bush is obviously completely ignorant of everything that's happened in the past four years.

Does noone realize that Bush has approved every single spending Bill Congress has presented him with?

Every single last one!

No president has ever done that before! In reality, Bush is effectively the biggest advocate of spending and "big government" in all of US history.

The way they always try to solve social problems with another government program. In their eyes, there isn't a single problem that can't be solved with more government intervention. If the first try doesn't work, it's underfunded and underregulated. Add more.

Why can't they admit life is unfair, people are unequal, and leave it at that?

Agreed. That government is best which governs least.

Okay.
...
In the context of a political discussion about American politics the habit is to discuss two different political positions: liberal and conservative.

So, by inference when you say "What Really Bugs Me About Liberials Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program." you mean that Liberals, and not Conservatives behave in this manner. Since Liberals and not Conservatives has the habit of having the same truth value as ONLY Liberals, I translated your statement for you to show you the fallacy of your argument.

So, again, if you'd like to retract your original statement, we can shake hands and be friends and move on to more interesting topics. If you'd like to persist in saying "What Really Bugs Me About Liberials Is the way they always try to solve social problems with another government program" has no contextual meaning assuming "only liberals" then we'll have to part friends as I consider you a disingenuous board troll.
I've spent an exhaustive ten or fifteen minutes looking at the Stevens guide that is linked to a sticky. Where does it say you can infer anything about my intentions when I make a statement? Maybe that's not the be-all-end-all guide to debate, but that's what we have to work with. I really think your putting me on and that everyone should have a laugh at my expense.

Agreed. That government is best which governs least.

so obviosly anarchy is best.which creates dictatorships.
damnit,clearly the least governing system is bad(it quickly leads to the most.)

You bastard! I was going to say that. :p :D

And I HATE being called a liberal. *shudder*

I consider myself a Libertarian green socialist. or maybe more a Social democrat. Anyone thinks that only liberals increase government must be crazy. Anyways our society is slowly turning to dust we are going back to the dark ages.

I've spent an exhaustive ten or fifteen minutes looking at the Stevens guide that is linked to a sticky. Where does it say you can infer anything about my intentions when I make a statement? Maybe that's not the be-all-end-all guide to debate, but that's what we have to work with. I really think your putting me on and that everyone should have a laugh at my expense.
You are berating some one for inferring something when your entire argument is an inferment of the nature of ALL liberals?

This is an interesting event though which i have found to be true between liberals and concervatives.. LIberals dream of the world in an idealistic manner, but see people and organizations througha realistis eyes.. so government is corrupt, coroprations are facist, rich people are fountains of endless greed, and everyone is out to get the poor guy. While concervatives see the world in a realistis terms, but think of people idealistically. So Corporations are out there to do generally good things for their consumer bases, governments do what is best for their nations, Rich people make hugh contributions to those in need and people are generally good not evil..

This is why liberals choose governments, because they can control it... conservatives think people at heart are decent, so they dont require "control" so privitzation is sufficent, if not preferable (more efficent)

And yet conservatives seek to promote isolationist cultural values through government regulation. By your definition conservatives would be in favor of gay marriage. Indeed by a strict interpretation conservative philosophy should be in favor of gay marriage because the government has no right to tell them that they can't and in favor of legalizing marijuana because the Federal government has no business intervening in state affairs.

Conservatives themselves however don't believe either of those things because deep down they see people in the worst terms. They think that gays are undertaking a concerted effort to bring down WASP society and that if drugs were legalized then the country would collapse in an intoxicated orgy of sex, violence, and death in the streets. The only people who they see in favorable terms are other conservatives and those institutions that they identify as conservative. Churches, corporations, the military, and the police. They see other organizations like the government, media, and special interest groups as irredeemably evil unless they are self-proclaimed conservative versions of such institutions.