Something I have pondered about liberals and conservatives

[Jerk]

Liberals see the world as divided by the "haves and have-nots."

Conservatives see the world as "good vs evil."

What do you guys think? I think this is why it's difficult to argue with the other side and make them see your argument, because they "see" everything so completely different, that there is really no base of reality between the two that is shared.

[VeeJay]

I think much of your statement is based on the fact that many liberals do not see evil in the world for what it is, and many conservatives do not actually realize they are in the "have nots."

Bush has brought a lot of this into focus.

[Vaevictis]

IMO, the conservative camps and liberal camps are too broad to really pigeonhole this.

That said, in the framework you've selected, I would argue that the difference is that liberals are more inclined to see things as a continuum and conservatives are more inclined to see things as discrete.

For example, take the "good vs. evil" thing; liberals are more inclined to see the grey area. Conservatives have a tendency to make a snap judgment and stick to it.

(This is, of course, IMO)

[Jerk]

IMO, the conservative camps and liberal camps are too broad to really pigeonhole this.

That said, in the framework you've selected, I would argue that the difference is that liberals are more inclined to see things as a continuum and conservatives are more inclined to see things as discrete.

For example, take the "good vs. evil" thing; liberals are more inclined to see the grey area. Conservatives have a tendency to make a snap judgment and stick to it.

(This is, of course, IMO)

I'm going to drink another beer and pontificate about what you've just said. Wait, that made no sense.

[StoopTroup]

Never be to conservative when it comes to lube.

[JohnnyMack]

I think you're wrong.

[Harry Beanbag]

I think you're wrong.


Possibly. There is such a thing as too much lube.

[Rogue]

I like Jerk's oversimplification. About the best I've heard. I also think there's merit to Vaevictis' point about the gray areas. Seriously, and liberally.

[My Opinion Matters]

Liberals see the world as divided by the "haves and have-nots."

Conservatives see the world as "good vs evil."

What do you guys think? I think this is why it's difficult to argue with the other side and make them see your argument, because they "see" everything so completely different, that there is really no base of reality between the two that is shared.

I think that's a pretty good observation.

[King Crimson]

i'd agree that there is some logic to the the last of Jerk's paragraph....but I don't see the Dems or "liberals" for that matter as avatars of radical proponents of redistribution of wealth or class warfare as the "Obama and Hillary are socialists" group likes to claim. the Dems are a capitalist surplus party too. they just demagogue to the people like everyone else, just with different tropes. that's how party politics work.

i also think intelligent conservatism is more about the economy (these days) than sublimated religious/moral issues. the latter has been used as a tactic....to mobilize voters along issues like gay marriage and abortion.

JMO.

[85Sooner]

I see it as the liberals want to tell you how to live and will manipulate with your money.

real Conservatives believe in self efficacy

[SoonerAtKU]

While a true liberal would ideally want us all to work together and contribute to help our fellow man, a true conservative would want there to be an equal footing for everyone to succeed based on hard work and merit. I think it's safe to say that there are precious few of either of these types of people in politics or the world today.

[King Crimson]

I see it as the liberals want to tell you how to live and will manipulate with your money.

real Conservatives believe in self efficacy

that's the truth.

well, and the "liberals" won't even kill you but make you a slave to their gay sex pleasure-planet.

that's what they REALLY after.

[King Crimson]

While a true liberal would ideally want us all to work together and contribute to help our fellow man, a true conservative would want there to be an equal footing for everyone to succeed based on hard work and merit. I think it's safe to say that there are precious few of either of these types of people in politics or the world today.

well said.

edit: i take this back. i think the last sentence is well said.

true liberal is a human being, and individual subject based in egalitarianism, liberty...which has it's realization in the idea of the free market. autonomous, free to use his or her rational capacity to make a go of it. historically speaking, the "true conservatism" is an enemy of the "liberalizing" tendencies of the market up against the existing order. preserve things as they are. while i understand today's lingo is dif, you still see this strain of "conservatism" when it comes to violence on TV, media effects that detrimental to society, etc. video gaming make people violent and kids are sex perverts. you can talk about the free market all you want, but whatever. there is always some kind of legislation on "media effects" or a new "definitive study at Harvard" about the downfall of society.

if the latter were true, that conservatism was about "self-efficacy" then this kind of moral legislation would not occur. nor would protests about abortion. no truck is given to the "free market to decide" in which all TV would be porn and limits on personal freedoms are set in religious terms. or those of national security.

there are massive contradictions on both sides, until these are explored....we are stuck with the idiots WE elect.


truth is:

[Okla-homey]

at the risk of oversimplification, it can be distilled to this:

liberals: people need someone to take care of them and that person is government. This philosophy is especially attractive to unmarried mothers and the fatherless.

conservatives: I can take care of myself. Just stay out of my way.

[TUSooner]

I hate oversimplifications. They are excuses to stop thinking and learning. BUT... jerk's is pretty good, as oversimplifications go, because it IS really simple. (Fewer moving parts means fewer chances for a breakdown. :D )

Some characterizations tend to be tainted by value judgments.
For example:
A conservative might define conservatism as "self sufficiency" while a liberal might define it as "I got mine, so who cares about you?." Neither view is completely true or completely unsupported.

[King Crimson]

at the risk of oversimplification, it can be distilled to this:

liberals: people need someone to take care of them and that person is government. This philosophy is especially attractive to unmarried mothers and the fatherless.

conservatives: I can take care of myself. Just stay out of my way.


pretty objective distillation of the current ideology of terms...maybe we should "eradicate" the liberals too.

the only civil right that is important is the 2nd.

[SoonerAtKU]

I can take care of myself. Just stay out of my way.

You'd feel a hell of a lot differently if you actually couldn't take care of yourself, I'd imagine.

[yermom]

or was ghey or non-Christian

[My Opinion Matters]

at the risk of oversimplification

This is the only part you got right.

[Rogue]

This is the only part you got right.

Heh! :D

Sometimes Homey hangs around here to remind us that we're s'posed to get more conservative as we get older.

[Jerk]

pretty objective distillation of the current ideology of terms...maybe we should "eradicate" the liberals too.

the only civil right that is important is the 2nd.

Whoever feels threatened about being 'eradicated' should value and practice their second amendment rights. That's what it's there for; the right of self-preservation.

And it is pretty darned ignorant to say that conservatives think that only the 2nd is important.

That would be like me saying that liberals only think of the right of abortion as being important.

[King Crimson]

Whoever feels threatened about being 'eradicated' should value and practice their second amendment rights. That's what it's there for; the right of self-preservation.

And it is pretty darned ignorant to say that conservatives think that only the 2nd is important.

That would be like me saying that liberals only think of the right of abortion as being important.

that ain't what i'm saying hot rod. the effort you self-described "gun nuts" want to carry weapons was somehow lost in the surveillance language of the Patriot Act.

you pick and choose your civil rights that suits your pre-existing "political" beliefs. i'm talking about civil rights under the Bill of Rights, straight up.

Free Speech. #1.

[Jerk]

that ain't what i'm saying hot rod. the effort you self-described "gun nuts" want to carry weapons was somehow lost in the surveillance language of the Patriot Act.

you pick and choose your civil rights that suits your pre-existing "political" beliefs. i'm talking about civil rights under the Bill of Rights, straight up.

Free Speech. #1.

Ok.

edit - nevermind. This is pointless.

[Okla-homey]

You'd feel a hell of a lot differently if you actually couldn't take care of yourself, I'd imagine.

With all the respect in the world, you don't know me from Adam's housecat. I am the son of woman who raised all three of us in northwest Ardmore in the 1960's and 70's after my old man runnoft. I was present at her high school graduation because I was born when she was barely eighteen. And yes, there were nights we went to bed hungry and yes, our clothes came from "Gibson's Discount City" (Wal-mart precursor) and yes, my mom drove us around in a raggedy POS and we lived in a tiny rent house.

I was fortunate to be the first college graduate in our family, and my little sister and brother followed in turn. We did it with hard work, student loans and self-discipline. That, and my mom's prayers and encouragement. She could'nt provide any financial support. She did manage to scrape together fifteen dollars a week she sent me at college in a weekly letter so I could have a few hamburgers on the weekends. Mind you, this was late seventies, early eighties.

And you know what? Mom even got her piece of paper at Ardmore's Higher Ed Center after we all were through.

Now, if all four of us can escape poverty by applying ourselves and staying out of trouble, why in the name of all that's holy can't anyone on this Fruited Plain?

Mind you, I realize some people make imprudent choices in life that can bind them to poverty. I'm all for giving those people a mulligan if they are willing to work hard and put those shady ways behind them. In fact, I volunteer a fair amount of time each month among Tulsa's poor to help do precisely that.

However, if a person is only willing to chant "woe is me, I'm poor" and/or "the man is keeping me down" or "its just too hard to make ends meet, please help me Uncle Sam" while not hitting a lick to improve their lot, I for one don't want to see my government incentivize that kind of life.

That sort of stuff just welds those chains even tighter around the ankles of the most vulnerable sector of our society and is ultimately counterproductive.

Just sharing. And for the record, that's why I vote GOP.

[Rogue]

I'm getting old. And for the record, that's why I vote GOP. Fixed! :D

Homey, the 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' works fairly often. Unfortunately, it falls short quite a bit too. I think atKU was suggesting that if you were moderately handicapped or more disadvantaged your perspective might change from one that views social welfare from one of an incentive to lay around and be lazy to one that makes the difference between living in a van down by the river and living in a house where your kids won't be taken away. I've seen both sides and there are times when a "permanent disability windfall" is the worst thing that can happen to a man when it robs him of his identity and seals those chains permenently. I still don't know any right-thinking person that would choose to live on the pittance that is most welfare programs versus working if they really had the choice.

As for the mulligan...there is no science to being able to tell when an addict might actually stay sober or when an offender actually turns the corner into becoming a legal-living citizen. Where we have some perverse incentives is in the criminal justice system where many private businesses turn a profit by locking folks up instead of putting resources toward rehabilitation.

[mdklatt]

liberals: people need someone to take care of them and that person is government.

conservatives: I can take care of myself. Just stay out of my way.


Since we're making shallow, snap judgments how about this: Liberals look out for people who can't look out for themselves while conservatives only look out for themselves.

[StoopTroup]

Possibly. There is such a thing as too much lube.

Pics? :D :pop:

[StoopTroup]

When you wake up every morning...

Consevatitive or liberal...the government has been taking care of you for quite some time.

Even Wesley Snipes tried to cut them out of his life and now look at the mess he's in.

[mdklatt]

Consevatitive or liberal...the government has been taking care of you for quite some time.


[hairGel] THAT'S NOT TRUE

Unlike pansy liberals, conservatives know how to pave their own roads, and they get all their drugs from Mexico so they have no use for the FDA.

[Chuck Bao]

I don't know if this is apt or not. My humanities profressor in college said no, but I still think that conservatives are all about keeping the status quo and turning back the clock to some golden age. The liberals are all about achieving some yet undiscovered ideals. The political pendulum swings between whether things could possibly be better between repeating an uncertain past or an uncertain future.

[mdklatt]

I still think that conservatives are all about keeping the status quo and turning back the clock to some golden age. The liberals are all about achieving some yet undiscovered ideals. The political pendulum swings between whether things could possibly be better between repeating an uncertain past or an uncertain future.

FTW!

[SoonerAtKU]

Homey-History
You're absolutely right, and I wasn't making any statements about who you are, other than you seem like an able-bodied person with the mental faculties to maintain a job and (I'm sure) succeed at it. My statement was more designed to bring up the idea that there are disabled and otherwise infirm people out there who literally are not ABLE to take care of themselves, not through lack of effort or desire, but through other circumstances. And, thought I do indeed not know you personally, I do know that situation shapes perception and that you'd have a much harder time espousing the "just work harder" attitude if you weren't able to work harder, or at all.

I honestly didn't mean to personally step on toes. If it seemed that way, I apologize.

[Okla-homey]

You're absolutely right, and I wasn't making any statements about who you are, other than you seem like an able-bodied person with the mental faculties to maintain a job and (I'm sure) succeed at it. My statement was more designed to bring up the idea that there are disabled and otherwise infirm people out there who literally are not ABLE to take care of themselves, not through lack of effort or desire, but through other circumstances. And, thought I do indeed not know you personally, I do know that situation shapes perception and that you'd have a much harder time espousing the "just work harder" attitude if you weren't able to work harder, or at all.

I honestly didn't mean to personally step on toes. If it seemed that way, I apologize.

None taken. But I have a question. Do you know of anyone whose disabilities preclude them from improving their lot in life who have slipped through the existing societal safety-net? And if so, are there not already existing privately administered or state and/or federal programs under which they could recieve benefits if they were properly plugged-in? I haven't encountered any such folks myself. I have encountered folks who feign disability. Rather like the obese person who claims he or she "just can't lose weight" when there is no medical basis for such an assertion.

[Curly Bill]

at the risk of oversimplification, it can be distilled to this:

liberals: people need someone to take care of them and that person is government. This philosophy is especially attractive to unmarried mothers and the fatherless.

conservatives: I can take care of myself. Just stay out of my way.

Homey's right (as usual), end of discussion.

[SoonerAtKU]

Why yes, Homey. I have a cousin who is one of the most brilliant people I've been lucky enough to meet. She's a professor teaching literature, and is requested to give conferences all over the world on her areas of expertise.

She has Muscular Dystrophy and was supposed to die almost 15 years ago. Her medical insurance is refusing coverage based on this fact. She's working, but is now required to be on a ventilator 24-7 as her lungs lack the capacity to take in and expel air. You can imagine the expense required to keep her alive with everything that she needs. She cannot care for herself and cannot rely on our health care system to reliably do it for her. She and her husband are wasting away doing everything they can to get the care they need, but it likely won't be enough.

There's one.

I certainly respect that you've worked hard and made a good life for yourself. I can understand that your view consists of only "lazy vs. industrious", but that just isn't how the world works. You're old enough to know better, and you should stop constructing your arguments as if you don't. You know exactly what we're talking about and you refuse to discuss it. I'm out.

[Rogue]

You're old enough to know....

He's crusty too, don't forget CRUSTY. ;)

That reminds me, remember when we had an "oldsooner" on here that wrote great stories AND Homey sharing history lessons? Good times.

[JohnnyMack]

Why yes, Homey. I have a cousin who is one of the most brilliant people I've been lucky enough to meet. She's a professor teaching literature, and is requested to give conferences all over the world on her areas of expertise.

She has Muscular Dystrophy and was supposed to die almost 15 years ago. Her medical insurance is refusing coverage based on this fact. She's working, but is now required to be on a ventilator 24-7 as her lungs lack the capacity to take in and expel air. You can imagine the expense required to keep her alive with everything that she needs. She cannot care for herself and cannot rely on our health care system to reliably do it for her. She and her husband are wasting away doing everything they can to get the care they need, but it likely won't be enough.

There's one.

I certainly respect that you've worked hard and made a good life for yourself. I can understand that your view consists of only "lazy vs. industrious", but that just isn't how the world works. You're old enough to know better, and you should stop constructing your arguments as if you don't. You know exactly what we're talking about and you refuse to discuss it. I'm out.

He's gotta go black and white now, he's practicin' fer lawyerin'.

:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Liberals see the world as divided by the "haves and have-nots."

Conservatives see the world as "good vs evil."

What do you guys think? I think this is why it's difficult to argue with the other side and make them see your argument, because they "see" everything so completely different, that there is really no base of reality between the two that is shared.
I hate to admit it, but I think the current "conservative movement" thinks in terms of "Us vs. Them" wherein "Us" are good and hard working while "Them" are always evil and/or lazy.

The Libs I think see the world in terms of Haves and have-nots, but they view it as a problem to solve, which is isn't necessarily. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's just as it should be.

Either way, it DOES make it difficult to establish a dialogue.

That's just my 2 cents. :)

[OUstudent4life]

None taken. But I have a question. Do you know of anyone whose disabilities preclude them from improving their lot in life who have slipped through the existing societal safety-net? And if so, are there not already existing privately administered or state and/or federal programs under which they could recieve benefits if they were properly plugged-in?


Why yes, Homey. I have a cousin who is one of the most brilliant people I've been lucky enough to meet. She's a professor teaching literature, and is requested to give conferences all over the world on her areas of expertise....

This is why health care may become the decisive issue for this election. I see stories like this every day...granted, healthcare is kinda a broad "disability..." but it applies. You're sick, therefore disabled (or a kid, and therefore not a "productive" member of society ;)).

My 2 cents of examples (these are real, but generalities...does that make sense?)

1) The hispanic family, both parents working multiple minimum wage jobs, whose kids can't get healthcare because a) minimum wage jobs don't carry insurance, and b) since they're working hard enough to keep food on the table for a couple of kids, they make just above the amount to preclude their children from receiving health care in Oklahoma (so they show up in the ER for all their care, which costs the state more anyway).

This family is in direct comparison to the people in the next room over...the baby momma, who doesn't work, has had 3 children with 3 separate dads, and new dad and baby momma aren't married, so all her kids are covered.

2) (This one really freaks me out). You'd be shocked at how many times I've heard of a husband and wife getting a divorce so they can receive healthcare benefits.


But this is why I don't think you can classify conservatives or liberals into "good vs evil" or "have vs have-not" groupings. These problems cross those boundaries.

Personally, I think for most issues we fall into either a) the government will fix our problems, or b) the free market will fix our problems.

Of course, neither the government or the free market is really good at fixing anything, IMO ;) :).

[Frozen Sooner]

Another Horatio Alger pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-by-taking-out-loans-subsidized-through-a-federal-program-then-going-to-work-for-the-government success story.

[Sooner_Havok]

My $.02

Both sides want what is best for this country at heart. The donks don't want America to be conquered by some invading force, and the Limbaugh heads don't want to fight a war for generations.

Both groups see the finish line, but both see two different paths to get there. Look at it this way. Republicans believe in the "trickle down" affect. Give large companies tax breaks, and they then pass their savings on to the consumer. Democrats tend to follow the reverse. That is give the money to the consumer, and they will give what they can back to the corporations.

Both have their pitfalls, but neither side is willing to cede that point. Both groups see good and evil, and haves and have nots, but both see different ways of addressing the same problems. From the outside, it looks like Republicans only want the rich to get richer, and the Democrats want to redistribute wealth commie style, but to those in the parties, they think what they propose is the best way to help the most people. This whole "I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong" mentality that has developed is what is hurting our country. If everyone could just cede that their party doesn't have the monopoly on good ideas, we could start moving forward as a country.

[Harry Beanbag]

My $.02

Both sides want what is best for this country at heart. The donks don't want America to be conquered by some invading force, and the Limbaugh heads don't want to fight a war for generations.

Both groups see the finish line, but both see two different paths to get there. Look at it this way. Republicans believe in the "trickle down" affect. Give large companies tax breaks, and they then pass their savings on to the consumer. Democrats tend to follow the reverse. That is give the money to the consumer, and they will give what they can back to the corporations.

Both have their pitfalls, but neither side is willing to cede that point. Both groups see good and evil, and haves and have nots, but both see different ways of addressing the same problems. From the outside, it looks like Republicans only want the rich to get richer, and the Democrats want to redistribute wealth commie style, but to those in the parties, they think what they propose is the best way to help the most people. This whole "I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong" mentality that has developed is what is hurting our country. If everyone could just cede that their party doesn't have the monopoly on good ideas, we could start moving forward as a country.


That and term limits. The only thing our reps in DC truly care about is getting reelected.

[TopDawg]

I think this is why it's difficult to argue with the other side and make them see your argument, because they "see" everything so completely different, that there is really no base of reality between the two that is shared.

Good observation. And building off of that, I think too many people are either too lazy or too stubborn or (especially on the internet) too prideful to even TRY to see the other side. I know I've been in each of those camp more than once.

It's amazing how quickly a discussion can move forward when the participants are all willing to attempt to see where the other people are coming from.

[Sooner_Havok]

That and term limits. The only thing our reps in DC truly care about is getting reelected.

Yeah, pretty much. They only propose bills on the heels of a reelection campaign. Both parties pander to their bases during election cycles, and then when they get into office, they make sure not to do anything that might get them voted out next time.


Well, if I introduce this bill, I might lose a lot of those swing voters who put me over the top last time. I think this bill will do a lot of good for a lot of people, but if I get it passed, I might lose my seat. Well I can do more good in office than I can if I lose my office. Better not rock the boat.

Problem is you aren't doing any one any good unless you grow a pair and tackle the tough ****. You might lose your office, but if that bill you sacrificed your political life for winds up helping, the next time some forward thinking politician offers up a bill some people don't like, maybe those swing voters will think twice.

[Rogue]

I know I've been in each of those camp more than once.

It's amazing how quickly a discussion can move forward when the participants are all willing to attempt to see where the other people are coming from.


Cats and dogs living together, Ds and Rs passing the peace pipe on the South Oval, surely these are signs of the end of times.

[Scott D]

None taken. But I have a question. Do you know of anyone whose disabilities preclude them from improving their lot in life who have slipped through the existing societal safety-net? And if so, are there not already existing privately administered or state and/or federal programs under which they could recieve benefits if they were properly plugged-in? I haven't encountered any such folks myself. I have encountered folks who feign disability. Rather like the obese person who claims he or she "just can't lose weight" when there is no medical basis for such an assertion.

Homey, just accept that each case is on an individual basis and you'd be better off in this discussion.

[Scott D]

That and term limits. The only thing our reps in DC truly care about is getting reelected.

don't forget their votes of 'yes' on those all important bi-annual pay raises they get for wasting tax payer money in Congress.

[Harry Beanbag]

don't forget their votes of 'yes' on those all important bi-annual pay raises they get for wasting tax payer money in Congress.


Well, that's one of the perks of getting reelected I suppose. :)

[Sooner_Havok]

Well, that's one of the perks of getting reelected I suppose. :)

And here I thought you chose public service to serve the public, not to get rich. Guess those Lear jets and Eco-friendly homes don't come cheap these days huh?

[Harry Beanbag]

And here I thought you chose public service to serve the public, not to get rich. Guess those Lear jets and Eco-friendly homes don't come cheap these days huh?


Most of them are rich to begin with, hence the disconnect with the people. Those guys and gals have forgotten, or never knew, what it's like to be a regular dude or dudette out here just tryin' to live the dream. They have no idea and little care to figure out what their constituents really want or think is important so we end up getting treated like ignorant children while they give us lollipops to try and keep us quiet.

[OUstudent4life]

Problem is you aren't doing any one any good unless you grow a pair and tackle the tough ****. You might lose your office, but if that bill you sacrificed your political life for winds up helping, the next time some forward thinking politician offers up a bill some people don't like, maybe those swing voters will think twice.

I have always loved the David Boren class where he talks about the end of his run in Washington, after he announced he wouldn't be running again. He started voting his mind, looking deeper into each issue, and tried to decide what was a) best for the country and b) best for his constituents. These often contradicted. He'd vote, explain why he voted one way or another to the people back home, and his popularity went up.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If you're an average Joe don't be afraid of liberals. Their hearts bleed for you ;)

[Okla-homey]

Homey, just accept that each case is on an individual basis and you'd be better off in this discussion.

naaaw. I'm quite sure I'm on pretty firm ground. The thing is, government is incapable of meeting folks' every need. Moreover, its wasteful and counter-productive for government to try. Exhibit A: the general state of public education in this country. Which, BTW, purports to insure every child, regardless of his situation, gets a quality education.

[Okla-homey]

Another Horatio Alger pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-by-taking-out-loans-subsidized-through-a-federal-program-then-going-to-work-for-the-government success story.

Your point? More directly, who in America of at least average intelligence is denied the same opportunity? Oh and for the record, my little brother has a business and never worked for the gubmint. My little sis does work for the gubmint as a schoolteacher. Me? Yes, my paychecks were drawn on the gubmint, but I did what I did because it was fun and important. Finally, service as a member of the armed forces is not remotely akin to being a gubmint worker. There is a stark difference. Finally, we all three also paid those student loans back.

[Scott D]

naaaw. I'm quite sure I'm on pretty firm ground. The thing is, government is incapable of meeting folks' every need. Moreover, its wasteful and counter-productive for government to try. Exhibit A: the general state of public education in this country. Which, BTW, purports to insure every child, regardless of his situation, gets a quality education.

actually, I'm referring to your callously uninformed opinion regarding disabled individuals. Not how in some way or another 95% of the American population has suckled from the governmental teat.

[yermom]

Scott, they just aren't trying hard enough, i mean look at Anne Frank, she was deaf AND blind

[OklahomaRed]

The problem with the term "disabled individuals" is that you are labeling people. I've worked in the healthcare system for 20 years, and we run a free clinic that dispenses over 700 prescriptions per day for free. It's tax supported and privately supported. I could get rich if I could invent some type meter that actually measured if someone was truly in pain, or faking it. Problem is, you don't know. So my question to the liberals on this board is how much do you hand out? Where do you stop? How much do you take from the rich and give to the poor? I have seen it all. Tall, healthy, young, obviously able to take care of themselves standing in line for their free medicine, to the weak, frail, unable to walk, see, or even breath. True social programs are needed, but the able bodied who stand in line that are able to take care of themselves outnumber those who truly cannot. What tops it all is when the dude is standing there with a pack of Winstons in their front pocket and you just handed them about $300 worth of free drugs for the next 90 days. I agree, and it makes me hope that there is hope, when we can lay down our differences and attempt to fix the system. Our current lawmakers are not up to the task, and I doubt that they ever will be as long as their staying in office on the government tit comes up every 2 to 4 years. Term limits, campaign finance reform, and financial accountability laws have to come first before we can get anywhere.

[TopDawg]

So my question to the liberals on this board is how much do you hand out? Where do you stop? How much do you take from the rich and give to the poor?

Good questions that should certainly be addressed. Of course from the other side the questions are:

How many needy people do you deny? Where do you stop? How many truly needy people should suffer just to keep a few free-loaders from free-loading?

[Scott D]

Scott, they just aren't trying hard enough, i mean look at Anne Frank, she was deaf AND blind

I'm pretty sure that Anne Frank was Switzerland's problem ;)

[NormanPride]

This is what happens when the national government does too much. Stick to the basics and let the locals handle supporting their own.

[/SicEm] ;)

[OklahomaRed]

Good questions that should certainly be addressed. Of course from the other side the questions are:

How many needy people do you deny? Where do you stop? How many truly needy people should suffer just to keep a few free-loaders from free-loading?

Just from casual observation over a 20 year period, I think the numbers are a little higher that a "few". The problem is when you attempt to make rules and regulations to restrict access (conservative term), or to qualify the disabled (liberal term), you end up allowing people in who should not be in and keeping others out who should have qualified.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of how we try to structure these programs to take care of the needy, the US and the State still have to remember that the "bucket" that we are taking out of can only be dipped in to a finite amount. We need to set that amount and then structure the various programs the best we can to meet the needs.

Where the US gets into trouble is dipping into the "bucket" far too many times through social programs, military programs, and infrastructure needs. We need to run the government like a business. You spend what you make, and you do not overtax the citizens to meet those needs, you don't go into debt to meet those needs, and you don't just print more money to meet those needs. Through doing this we may have dug a hole we can't climb out of (aka current economical woes), and we don't keep passing our debt on to our kids and grandkids. Regardless of how deep the hole is we've dug, we have to start turning this train around or we are all going to be "sucking eggs". :D

[TopDawg]

The problem is when you attempt to make rules and regulations to restrict access (conservative term), or to qualify the disabled (liberal term), you end up allowing people in who should not be in and keeping others out who should have qualified.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of how we try to structure these programs to take care of the needy, the US and the State still have to remember that the "bucket" that we are taking out of can only be dipped in to a finite amount. We need to set that amount and then structure the various programs the best we can to meet the needs.

Totally agree. I'm just pointing out that there are equally important questions on the other side of the coin. I guess I just took issue with you saying that those questions were just for liberals when, in fact, they are for everybody. We all need to figure out our answers to the questions you posed, the questions I posed, and many other questions.

[NYC Poke]

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."

--P.J. O'Rourke

Another old saw: "A liberal is a conservative who's been accused of a crime. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

[mdklatt]

"Republicans are the party of bad ideas, and Democrats are the party of no ideas."

-Lewis Black

[SoonerProphet]

Finally, service as a member of the armed forces is not remotely akin to being a gubmint worker. There is a stark difference. Finally, we all three also paid those student loans back.

Oh really. How so?

[Frozen Sooner]

Your point? More directly, who in America of at least average intelligence is denied the same opportunity? Oh and for the record, my little brother has a business and never worked for the gubmint. My little sis does work for the gubmint as a schoolteacher. Me? Yes, my paychecks were drawn on the gubmint, but I did what I did because it was fun and important. Finally, service as a member of the armed forces is not remotely akin to being a gubmint worker. There is a stark difference. Finally, we all three also paid those student loans back.

My point?

My point is that you took government assistance in getting a student loan, whether you think so or not. There's no way in hell a lender makes those at anything resembling a decent interest rate without government guarantees.

My point is that the government program worked as it helped you and your family break a cycle of poverty.

My point is that if you drew a paycheck from the government, you were a government worker whether you choose to think so or not.

So I guess my point is that every bit of your success-which absolutely required you to work hard and I don't think anyone would deny that-is, in part, due to taxpayer-funded initiatives-yet somehow you manage to sneer at those who think that taxpayer-funded initiatives work.

Everyone hates government aid until they receive it. Then it's not aid, it's their rightful due.

[mdklatt]

Everyone hates government aid until they receive it. Then it's not aid, it's their rightful due.

See also: "stimulus payments".

[Scott D]

See also: "stimulus payments".

I prefer to think of that as "speculator bailouts"

[Okla-homey]

My point?

My point is that if you drew a paycheck from the government, you were a government worker whether you choose to think so or not.



Okay, I'll concede the George S. Brown student loan I got was a government benny. Althoiugh I'm reluctant to concede the Exchange Bank in Ardmore which wrote the checks wasn't getting something out of the deal.

I refuse to concede that military service is a government job. Sorry. The glove doesn't fit.

Military service is not "government work" nor is it "government aid." It stands alone as the most sacrificial act a citizen can perform short of dying or suffering bodily harm for his country. Moreover, it is the only "job" in which an "employee" may be ordered to perform under circumstances in which his death in so doing is a certainty. Not merely possible or even probable like the fire or police departments. A certainty. And there aren't any Workers Comp claims for a guy who gets "hurt on the job" either.

Nor is military service a "tax-payer funded initiative." And even if it were, it would be a helluva good deal for the taxpayers because the benefit derived by the taxpayer far outweighs the compensation a soldier receives. In fact, if it was about doing a job and getting paid to do it, there are an awful lot of gigs that pay better and require far less personal sacrifice.

[Frozen Sooner]

Really? Taxpayers don't pay for the military?

Tell me who does, then. Where does the revenue that DFAS disburses come from?

I never said that military service wasn't courageous. I never said that someone who's in the military is just hanging out collecting a check. I did say that someone who is a member of our armed forces is an employee of the United States Government. Sure, there's no Worker's Comp. Of course, if you're hurt or killed in the line of duty there's some financial benefits that accrue that could be likened to Worker's Comp, but you knew that. I'm not going to argue that the financial compensation for an injury or death in the line of duty is anywhere near what it should be, by the way.

As a matter of fact, I don't stigmatize working for the government. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever. I just think it's crazy that two of the most outspoken people against government programs I've ever encountered have spent the vast majority of their adult lives cashing paychecks that were signed by government employees for doing work that the federal government (and I agree) considers necessary.

Edit: And I'll tell you right now that the default and collection costs on student loans are so high that no, had the Bank of Ardmore not had government assurances that they'd take over the loan should it not perform then they would have lost money in the aggregate at whatever interest rate they charged you. Plus, said interest that you paid was likely an above-the-line tax deduction for you for several years-another government "handout."

[Frozen Sooner]

Just to clarify further:

Yes, someone who enlists in the military is likely doing it for very noble reasons, particularly in wartime. It's a very tough gig, and some of the best human beings I've ever met are people in uniform. My own personal hero (my grandfather) held a naval commission. I appreciate the sacrifices that people in uniform make a great deal.

[OklahomaRed]

The problem with government workers is that they have gotten a bad name. Postal worker, the perform a task, albiet for the goverment, that is necessary. I guess the arguement becomes how many of them are unecessary, and how many of them are absolutely necessary to ensure our safety, well being, and day to day functionality as a country. Getting paid for a task is different than getting paid to sit around and watch soap operas. :D

[Okla-homey]

Just to clarify further:

Yes, someone who enlists in the military is likely doing it for very noble reasons, particularly in wartime. It's a very tough gig, and some of the best human beings I've ever met are people in uniform. My own personal hero (my grandfather) held a naval commission. I appreciate the sacrifices that people in uniform make a great deal.

Sorry, its not a government job. Yes, the paychecks are drawn on the US Treasury, but jobs don't require you to submit to a justice system external to that of the rest of the population. It is a form of selfless service, much of which is not compensated in any way. But, I recognize you have to experience it to fully realize that fact and I'll ask you to trust me on that.

BTW, did those guys with Washington in the winter of 1775 (who received no pay and darn little subsistence in kind) still qualify as government workers in your book? Or were they just saps for getting themselves into that mess?

In contrast, take the State Department. Jut last year, those guys threatened outright to walk out if they were required to fill posts in SWA, especially Iraq. Government workers have that option. Military members don't.

[yermom]

that's a bit of semantics Homey. regardless of what costs or sacrifices, that's where the money comes from

[Frozen Sooner]

Homey, that's just a bad comparison. You're talking about comparing members of the most powerful standing armed forces to ever stride the planet with a group with no money and little equipment going against the mightiest empire of the day. Further, the United States maintains a standing army, navy, and air force-in direct contrast to the hastily-organized militias that were thrown together to oppose British rule.

The two just don't have any sort of congruency.

[Scott D]

next Homey will argue that the Revolutionary War was fought over money, when it was really fought over being second class citizens.

[Vaevictis]

So, I wonder: Are mercenaries not employees of the governments retaining them?

Because the only real difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary is allegiance, yes?

[Curly Bill]

As someone who was in the military, at no time did I or anyone I knew consider our jobs gubmint jobs, and I don't care where the money comes from. Gubmint jobs and military are not remotely close to being one and the same.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, that's just a bad comparison. You're talking about comparing members of the most powerful standing armed forces to ever stride the planet with a group with no money and little equipment going against the mightiest empire of the day. Further, the United States maintains a standing army, navy, and air force-in direct contrast to the hastily-organized militias that were thrown together to oppose British rule.

The two just don't have any sort of congruency.

Maybe not in your world. And yet, when shot, those kids serving contemporaneously still bleed. Even if on their third or fourth overseas deployment. And they still shed tears when they lose a comrade. Just like those guys in 1775.

It is absurd to somehow denigrate their service because they are fortunate to serve in a professional standing military that is the envy of the planet. Where do we draw the line? Do the guys we lost in the Phillippines in 1941 rate higher than the guys we lost in Europe near the end of WWII when Hitler was on the ropes? What about the guys we lost in VN? We sure overmatched Charlie, militarily speaking.

This is the closest I've ever come to a meltdown in over 16,000posts. Thus, I'm out, before I write something I'll regret later.

[Vaevictis]

As someone who was in the military, at no time did I or anyone I knew consider our jobs gubmint jobs, and I don't care where the money comes from. Gubmint jobs and military are not remotely close to being one and the same.

The fact is that Homey is correct in that military service is special.

The other fact is, if you draw a paycheck from someone in return for a service, you are their employee. That's pretty much the definition of the word.

To reduce military service to a "government job" is a disservice. It is far more than that. But to refuse to acknowledge that a professional soldier is an employee of his government is just silly.

[JohnnyMack]

I'll chime in here for fun.

After much deliberation I have decided that Military Service is not, I repeat not a "Government Job". It is paid for and administered by the U.S. Govt., but it is not the same thing as being employed as a receptionist at a VA hospital or a Postal mail sorter. Sorry, but it isn't.

And I'm a liberal, tree hugging, 'Merica hating, non-church goin' to scumbag and even I can delineate the two.

[Curly Bill]

The fact is that Homey is correct in that military service is special.

The other fact is, if you draw a paycheck from someone in return for a service, you are their employee. That's pretty much the definition of the word.

To reduce military service to a "government job" is a disservice. It is far more than that. But to refuse to acknowledge that a professional soldier is an employee of his government is just silly.

The way I see it if you're in the military you're working for the people of the United States, and the government itself can more or less kiss some ***.

[NYC Poke]

So, I wonder: Are mercenaries not employees of the governments retaining them?

Because the only real difference between a professional soldier and a mercenary is allegiance, yes?


Mercs are more like temps, only they type fewer words per minute. They're employees of Blackwater or whatever outfit hires them. Blackwater itself is a vendor of services to the U.S., not an employee.

[TopDawg]

I'd say Military Service is not a "government job," but it is a government job.

Similarly, there are some non-military government jobs that aren't "government jobs."

All clear?

[Pricetag]

I'd say Military Service is not a "government job," but it is a government job.

Similarly, there are some non-military government jobs that aren't "government jobs."

All clear?
I think I'm following you--it's the quotes, the running wild with lowest-common-denomenator stereotypes, that makes the difference, right?

[mdklatt]

I'd say Military Service is not a "government job," but it is a government job.

Similarly, there are some non-military government jobs that aren't "government jobs."

All clear?

Are there any non-government jobs that are "government jobs"?

[TopDawg]

I think I'm following you--it's the quotes, the running wild with lowest-common-denomenator stereotypes, that makes the difference, right?

Yup.


Are there any non-government jobs that are "government jobs"?

I actually had that in there originally, but took it out. So, yup.

[OUstudent4life]

Are there any non-government jobs that are "government jobs"?

the current presidency?

I keed, I keed. It was just sitting there, though. I had to take a chance.

;) ;) ;)

[mdklatt]

the current presidency?

I keed, I keed. It was just sitting there, though. I had to take a chance.

;) ;) ;)

That's a government job (in general, not just now) in the worst possible way. :mad:

[OUstudent4life]

maybe a non-governing job?

[Harry Beanbag]

I think some people on this board would do themselves good to put on the uniform so they actually know wtf they're talking about.

[Sooner_Havok]

Are there any non-government jobs that are "government jobs"?

banker

[mdklatt]

banker

No kidding. I think teachers have fewer days off.

:pop:

[Sooner_Havok]

No kidding. I think teachers have fewer days off.

:pop:

:D

[Frozen Sooner]

Maybe not in your world. And yet, when shot, those kids serving contemporaneously still bleed. Even if on their third or fourth overseas deployment. And they still shed tears when they lose a comrade. Just like those guys in 1775.

It is absurd to somehow denigrate their service because they are fortunate to serve in a professional standing military that is the envy of the planet. Where do we draw the line? Do the guys we lost in the Phillippines in 1941 rate higher than the guys we lost in Europe near the end of WWII when Hitler was on the ropes? What about the guys we lost in VN? We sure overmatched Charlie, militarily speaking.

This is the closest I've ever come to a meltdown in over 16,000posts. Thus, I'm out, before I write something I'll regret later.

Dude if you took anything I wrote as somehow derogatory to either current-day soldiers or the Valley Forgers, then I've done a poor job of expressing something, as it certainly wasn't meant so.

[Sooner_Havok]

Dude if you took anything I wrote as somehow derogatory to either current-day soldiers or the Valley Forgers, then I've done a poor job of expressing something, as it certainly wasn't meant so.

If it makes you feel any better, I meant to offend you with the banker remark. But only slightly:D

[mdklatt]

If it makes you feel any better, I meant to offend you with the banker remark. But only slightly:D

Ditto. :D

[soonerscuba]

Are there any non-government jobs that are "government jobs"?
Yes, there are companies that are funded entirely by the US government to produce materials, and some that the vast majority of business is the gubmint. There are people that work at NASA and the only difference between them and the guy next to them is who signs their paycheck.

[Sooner_Havok]

Yes, there are companies that are funded entirely by the US government to produce materials, and some that the vast majority of business is the gubmint. There are people that work at NASA and the only difference between them and the guy next to them is who signs their paycheck.

Corn Farmer!

What do I win?

[Jerk]

Guys,

I am very sorry for starting this thread.

It's the worst thing I've ever done at the S.O.

I hope you'll forgive me.

Every morning I log on and see that it's still here.

Can you please let it die?

Thanks.

Jerk

[JohnnyMack]

pfffttttt.......this isn't even close to the worse thing you've done. Don't sell yourself short!!!

[MR2-Sooner86]

Guys,

I am very sorry for starting this thread.

It's the worst thing I've ever done at the S.O.

I hope you'll forgive me.

Every morning I log on and see that it's still here.

Can you please let it die?

Thanks.

Jerk

Why are you sorry? You let the conservaties and liberals get into a fight with each other which is very :pop:

[Frozen Sooner]

Sometimes when we're trying to make a point we let the point get away with us.

It was not my intent at any time to denigrate the armed forces in any way, shape, or form.

Based on the responses to what I've said, I apparently have done so.

My deepest apologies for having caused distress.

That's my last word in this one.

[Rogue]

Froz,

I only speak for myself here. As a vet, nothing you said offended me. I didn't take offense.

As a gubmint employee now, neither you nor Homey offended me in the disagreement.

-Rogue

I happen to agree that military service is special and, ultimately, a gubmint job. I signed on after the 82nd deployed to Saudi Arabia. I signed on for the bonus of the GI Bill because that was my way out of Pocatello, ID and to get to OU. I did my work and took the trip to Iraq Round One. The gubmint paid me, and then upheld the gubmint end of the deal and helped my butt through school. I still worked, still took loans, and work at the VA now and try to give back every day.

I am one of the nerds that believe admirable folks work in public service every day. I start my day with a meeting full of retired US Armed Forces doctors, nurses, clerks, and administrators that could make a hell of a lot more (especially the docs) right across the street at the public hospital. I don't take offense when anyone sees me as a "gubmint worker." I'm as honored to do it now as I was in 1991.

[r5TPsooner]

I'll chime in here for fun.

After much deliberation I have decided that Military Service is not, I repeat not a "Government Job". It is paid for and administered by the U.S. Govt., but it is not the same thing as being employed as a receptionist at a VA hospital or a Postal mail sorter. Sorry, but it isn't.

And I'm a liberal, tree hugging, 'Merica hating, non-church goin' to scumbag and even I can delineate the two.

Really? You don't say.

[NYC Poke]

Guys,

I am very sorry for starting this thread.

It's the worst thing I've ever done at the S.O.

I hope you'll forgive me.

Every morning I log on and see that it's still here.

Can you please let it die?

Thanks.

Jerk


Not much else to do on a government job . . .

[Sooner in Tampa]

I think some people on this board would do themselves good to put on the uniform so they actually know wtf they're talking about.

AMEN

[TUSooner]

I have been in the military (USN) AND in civilian gubment service (Postal Svc and Judicial branch.) My career as a navy musician did not involve anything close to combat, but I guarantee you it was light years' distant from my civlian service. I knew I "could have" been sent anywhere, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason and I'd have no choice in the matter. ("You say you're a trombone player? Not anymore, we need you in the middle of the PAcific Ocean to run around on a busy carrier flight deck with lots of explosive stuff and screaming jets at ear level.") I've had to ride in airplanes that no sane person would ride in, in weather no sane man would fly in, and all for some rooty-toot-toots at a Reservist change of command ceremony. Some of my contemporaries died on a flight like that near Guam. Hardly combat, but a few things one would not ordinarily chose to do, even at the green age of 20. My CO could take my money, take my rank, or lock me up, on one man's word, without the due process civilians get. Now, if my ultra-cushy military gig was light-years away from civvy service, try to imagine all the people in the military service for whom the "could haves" did happen, and in a terrific way. So, with all due respect to those who have good intentions without experience, anybody who thinks military service is not profoundly different than civil gubment work: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That is all.

[stoopified]

I'm too liberal to care and too conservative to comment.

[Curly Bill]

I have been in the military (USN) AND in civilian gubment service (Postal Svc and Judicial branch.) My career as a navy musician did not involve anything close to combat, but I guarantee you it was light years' distant from my civlian service. I knew I "could have" been sent anywhere, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason and I'd have no choice in the matter. ("You say you're a trombone player? Not anymore, we need you in the middle of the PAcific Ocean to run around on a busy carrier flight deck with lots of explosive stuff and screaming jets at ear level.") I've had to ride in airplanes that no sane person would ride in, in weather no sane man would fly in, and all for some rooty-toot-toots at a Reservist change of command ceremony. Some of my contemporaries died on a flight like that near Guam. Hardly combat, but a few things one would not ordinarily chose to do, even at the green age of 20. My CO could take my money, take my rank, or lock me up, on one man's word, without the due process civilians get. Now, if my ultra-cushy military gig was light-years away from civvy service, try to imagine all the people in the military service for whom the "could haves" did happen, and in a terrific way. So, with all due respect to those who have good intentions without experience, anybody who thinks military service is not profoundly different than civil gubment work: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That is all.

What you said.

[yermom]

I have been in the military (USN) AND in civilian gubment service (Postal Svc and Judicial branch.) My career as a navy musician did not involve anything close to combat, but I guarantee you it was light years' distant from my civlian service. I knew I "could have" been sent anywhere, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason and I'd have no choice in the matter. ("You say you're a trombone player? Not anymore, we need you in the middle of the PAcific Ocean to run around on a busy carrier flight deck with lots of explosive stuff and screaming jets at ear level.") I've had to ride in airplanes that no sane person would ride in, in weather no sane man would fly in, and all for some rooty-toot-toots at a Reservist change of command ceremony. Some of my contemporaries died on a flight like that near Guam. Hardly combat, but a few things one would not ordinarily chose to do, even at the green age of 20. My CO could take my money, take my rank, or lock me up, on one man's word, without the due process civilians get. Now, if my ultra-cushy military gig was light-years away from civvy service, try to imagine all the people in the military service for whom the "could haves" did happen, and in a terrific way. So, with all due respect to those who have good intentions without experience, anybody who thinks military service is not profoundly different than civil gubment work: YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. That is all.

i think you are adding words to what was said. no one said that military service was not any different that any other government job, or that people that served in the military shouldn't be entitled to the government programs that they are given access to, just they they are

i don't think i need to have been in the military to make those statements...

[Sooner in Tampa]

i think you are adding words to what was said. no one said that military service was not any different that any other government job, or that people that served in the military shouldn't be entitled to the government programs that they are given access to, just they they are

i don't think i need to have been in the military to make those statements...
It is my perception (as well as a few other vets) that a comparison was being made between civilian government workers and military.

[mdklatt]

I never said that military service wasn't courageous. I never said that someone who's in the military is just hanging out collecting a check. I did say that someone who is a member of our armed forces is an employee of the United States Government.
...
As a matter of fact, I don't stigmatize working for the government. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever.


Since some people apparently didn't get the memo the first time.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

The point was that there is a similarity - they're both employed by the same 'employer'. Right?

I didn't see where anyone said the job/work/responsibility/sacrifice or anything like that was the same. Saying that is just stupid.

[TUSooner]

Well. Maybe I missed the point (It happens.)
SO.... what is the point? That military and civil service are the same? not the same? what's the diffference? who cares?
Somebody brought it up for SOME reason. If there's not some disagreement, why is it being discussed? If there's no point in agreeing or disagreeing then .... what? (Oh yeah, it's the INTERNET! :D )
I have no axe to grind, and you can attach whatever significance (or none) to what I'm saying. I'm just saying there is a profound difference that transcends the eagle on the paycheck . Maybe that's important, or not.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Jerk just wanted to start a thread to make people mad.

What a turd.

:mack:

[mdklatt]

Well. Maybe I missed the point (It happens.)
SO.... what is the point? That military and civil service are the same? not the same? what's the diffference? who cares?
Somebody brought it up for SOME reason.

This is the point, IMO:


I just think it's crazy that two of the most outspoken people against government programs I've ever encountered have spent the vast majority of their adult lives cashing paychecks that were signed by government employees for doing work that the federal government (and I agree) considers necessary.

We all benefit from government spending in innumerable ways whether or not we get a paycheck from it. There's quite a large segment of the population that likes to think that society is leeching off of them, when the reality is they're leeching off of people up the food chain the same as everyone else.

[TUSooner]

This is the point, IMO:
****
We all benefit from government spending in innumerable ways whether or not we get a paycheck from it. There's quite a large segment of the population that likes to think that society is leeching off of them, when the reality is they're leeching off of people up the food chain the same as everyone else.

Ah, so. Thank you.

I may have been guilty of that in the past, because I generally DO think gubment overdoes many things (like supporting a massive drug-enforcement appartus). At the same time, one of the things it's done is provide me with most of my adult work and income. I am not blind to the fact that government spending provides many benefits, including not just my livelihood but many more things than some hard-core conservatives or libertarians care to think about. I have seen Homey make that very same point right here on these hallowed pages.

I have always considered my public employment as a privilege and a duty, for the very reason that I AM so suspicious of many things the gubment does . I don't want to be "that guy" who's leeching off the public.

That said, the "leeching" comment would likely offend anybody who does a conscientious job for the public dollar, especially if they've done it in the military, which we all now should know is so profoundly different in terms of actual and potential sacrifice that it is illogical to link it with "leeching" in any fashion.

[mdklatt]

That said, the "leeching" comment would likely offend anybody who does a conscientious job for the public dollar, especially if they've done it in the military, which we all now should know is so profoundly different in terms of actual and potential sacrifice that it is illogical to link it with "leeching" in any fashion.


****, here we go again. That was not directed at government employees, military or otherwise.

A common attitude among conservatives is that they're modern-day Davy Crocketts who fend for themselves while liberals are nothing but helpless government dependents. Never mind that dirty Hollywood libz like Sean Penn or George Clooney probably pay more in taxes than everyone in this thread combined, so we are leeching off of them.

[Harry Beanbag]

The point was that there is a similarity - they're both employed by the same 'employer'. Right?

I didn't see where anyone said the job/work/responsibility/sacrifice or anything like that was the same.

In this thread? Maybe, but I'm not convinced it wasn't implied, and the implied denigration of the military has gone on around here for a long time. Maybe Homey, me, and others have finally grown weary of it.




Saying that is just stupid.

No doubt. Profoundly.

[Harry Beanbag]

We all benefit from government spending in innumerable ways whether or not we get a paycheck from it. There's quite a large segment of the population that likes to think that society is leeching off of them, when the reality is they're leeching off of people up the food chain the same as everyone else.


So collecting a military paycheck is benefiting from the government and causes you to forfeit your right to speak ill of the governents wasteful nanny-state programs?

[mdklatt]

So collecting a military paycheck is benefiting from the government and causes you to forfeit your right to speak ill of the governents wasteful nanny-state programs?

Yeah, that's not what I said. At all.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

The whole time I was reading the thread I never once thought that anyone was denigrating the military. Several went out of their way to make sure they expressed the opposite, I thought. Maybe it was a tricky to make certain points without doing that - I dunno.

I've never been in the military and I've never had any kind of gov't job so I don't feel the emotions some of you that have might feel when reading a thread like this. And if those emotions made you think you were being slighted I'm will to bet anyone that has posted here would say it wasn't the intention. If you read it again you could see both sides, probably.

I will say that as I was reading it I was thinking 'how can they say they're not both government jobs?'. Doesn't say they're the same job - or they're even comparable - but ultimately, they dang sure have the same boss.

Right?

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

'Dang sure'...I swear...

*shakes head*

[Scott D]

So collecting a military paycheck is benefiting from the government and causes you to forfeit your right to speak ill of the governents wasteful nanny-state programs?

you get back in teh sardine can ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

Yeah, that's not what I said. At all.


Sure it is. You just don't like the way I reworded it for clarification.

[mdklatt]

I've never been in the military and I've never had any kind of gov't job so I don't feel the emotions some of you that have might feel when reading a thread like this. And if those emotions made you think you were being slighted I'm will to bet anyone that has posted here would say it wasn't the intention.

The trouble all started when the military got compared to a government job. The people who view "government job" as an insult were insulted by this. So, in a way, by being insulted they're insulting government jobs. Or something.

**** it, just lock this puppy already.

[Harry Beanbag]

you get back in teh sardine can ;)


No ****ing way man. I did my six years, somebody else's turn now. :)

[Harry Beanbag]

The trouble all started when the military got compared to a government job. The people who view "government job" as an insult were insulted by this. So, in a way, by being insulted they're insulting government jobs. Or something.

**** it, just lock this puppy already.


Seriously, you've never heard of the government worker stereotype or the "good enough for government work" line?

Some of you guys sure do get defensive and try to play dumb and innocent when some of your views or perceptions are questioned.

[Scott D]

No ****ing way man. I did my six years, somebody else's turn now. :)

honestly, I think we should tie up sicem, and drop him off in bremerton. Making sure that someone happens to leave him at Kitsap :D

[mdklatt]

You just don't like the way I reworded it for clarification.

Because your rewording wasn't a clarification, it was wrong. I didn't say nobody has the right to complain about government spending, I said nobody has the right to act like they're not also part of the problem. We all suck at the government teat regardless of profession.

[Harry Beanbag]

honestly, I think we should tie up sicem, and drop him off in bremerton. Making sure that someone happens to leave him at Kitsap :D


We know he'd never be able to find his way home. :)

[mdklatt]

Seriously, you've never heard of the government worker stereotype or the "good enough for government work" line?


Yes, but apparently all of you missed where Mike Rich clearly stated that that's not at all what he meant. Which I quoted so that it could be read again. But which apparently got ignored again. Because some people are still upset about something that was never really said in the first place. And then you seem to think that I was insulting the military? For ****'s sake.

[Scott D]

We know he'd never be able to find his way home. :)

he might even become a man :)

[Harry Beanbag]

Because your rewording wasn't a clarification, it was wrong. I didn't say nobody has the right to complain about government spending, I said nobody has the right to act like they're not also part of the problem. We all suck at the government teat regardless of profession.


You're playing semantics here. If nobody can escape the boob, then aren't there certain degrees of suckage then? If a person has collected military paychecks (which apparently you think as some sort of government benefit) and gone to school on government loans (which they have paid back), I would say that's just about a bare minimum of nursing going on there. There are billions of dollars spent every year on programs that the normal average hard-working person could take offense to, and rightly so.

[JohnnyMack]

Yes, but apparently all of you missed where Mike Rich clearly stated that that's not at all what he meant. Which I quoted so that it could be read again. But which apparently got ignored again. Because some people are still upset about something that was never really said in the first place. And then you seem to think that I was insulting the military? For ****'s sake.

Why do you hate Audie Murphy?

[Harry Beanbag]

he might even become a man :)


Now you're just making **** up. :D

[Sooner_Havok]

Military paychecks are no more a benefit than a bakers paycheck is, they aren't benefits, they are paychecks. I have never heard someone say that they like the benefits at their job like health care, dental, and getting paid.

[Harry Beanbag]

Yes, but apparently all of you missed where Mike Rich clearly stated that that's not at all what he meant. Which I quoted so that it could be read again. But which apparently got ignored again. Because some people are still upset about something that was never really said in the first place. And then you seem to think that I was insulting the military? For ****'s sake.


I read Mike's post that you quoted for us neanderthals the first time. Thanks for the help though.

[mdklatt]

There are billions of dollars spent every year on programs that the normal average hard-working person could take offense to, and rightly so.

Fine, just so they acknowledge all the government spending that is being thrown their way. For example, does the $0.18/gallon we pay in gasoline taxes cover the expense of maintaining a military presence in the Persian Gulf for the past 40 years? It doesn't even pay for the highway budget. We are never going to reduce government spending in a meaningful way when each side is only willing to reduce the other side's government benefits.

Get it now?

[JohnnyMack]

I read Mike's post that you quoted for us neanderthals the first time. Thanks for the help though.

Talk about sensitive...

[Scott D]

Now you're just making **** up. :D

somehow we have to have hope for that generation ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

Fine, just so they acknowledge all the government spending that is being thrown their way. For example, does the $0.18/gallon we pay in gasoline taxes cover the expense of maintaining a military presence in the Persian Gulf for the past 40 years? It doesn't even pay for the highway budget. We are never going to reduce government spending in a meaningful way when each side is only willing to reduce the other side's government benefits.

Get it now?



Get what? That you think you're the one person on earth that has everything figured out down to the minutest of details?

[mdklatt]

I read Mike's post that you quoted for us neanderthals the first time.


Then please explain how you construed that as an attack on the military.



I never said that military service wasn't courageous. I never said that someone who's in the military is just hanging out collecting a check. I did say that someone who is a member of our armed forces is an employee of the United States Government.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

Yeah. Okay.

We're done now. This is going nowhere...more nowhere.