A fascinating character, for sure.

 

Lee Atwater - Wikipedia

 

He was the James Carville of todays democrat party . For the good and bad .

All for not rushing into change withought having the sense to slow down, analyze, think, ponder, and decide what's best. I will never apologize for standing for my religion ( take note, while not forcing it with threat of death on anyone) and wanting government and legislation out of my daily life. Truth is we are no longer free. Slaves to the elites and the crushing weight of a political system gone awray.

 

As you know, a lot of that is because todays "liberalism" is based on

"feelings" and not rational, sensible and well thought out ideas that are both logical and doable.

As you know, a lot of that is because todays "liberalism" is based on

"feelings" and not rational, sensible and well thought out ideas that are both logical and doable.

 

I think that's why the term " bleeding heart liberals" was coined.

As you know, a lot of that is because todays "liberalism" is based on

"feelings" and not rational, sensible and well thought out ideas that are both logical and doable.

 

I hate to play the "durr, you too" thing but that pretty much describes the campaign of Donald Trump. :lol2:

Edited December 1, 20169 yr by Habib

Liberals seem to have more money than conservatives

I hate to play the "durr, you too thing" but that pretty much describes the campaign of Donald Trump. :lol2:

 

No doubt Trump played upon how many people "felt" about the direction of the country the past 8 years...feelings many would say that are based on fact. I mean, feelings can be rooted in fact, or they can be rooted in perception. However, Trump has yet to actually govern so we will have to see.

 

"Feelings" can also be very genuine, with a genuine want to help someone/people in need. However, when you govern with "feelings" you can drive a country into trillions of dollars in debt. Most everyone would like to do something for poor working single mothers who struggle with child care...but you just can't say "lets make a program and throw X billion of dollars into it" without first coming up with different ideas of how to solve the problem that both helps and is fiscally responsible. It would be great if we had billions of dollars laying around that we could use to fund all sorts of stuff, but unfortunately that society doesn't exist. Unfortunately most liberals, and even more and more conservatives today (though usually to a lessor extent) govern as if we have found the end of the rainbow with the endless pot of gold attached to it and we never have to worry about it. That just cannot continue.

As you know, a lot of that is because todays "liberalism" is based on

"feelings" and not rational, sensible and well thought out ideas that are both logical and doable.

 

I don't think it is feelings at all. It has to do with valuing people over money. You govern people not money, that is a huge difference.

 

 

I see it as conservatives value money more and liberals value people more. Nothing to do with feelings.

I don't think it is feelings at all. It has to do with valuing people over money. You govern people not money, that is a huge difference.

 

 

I see it as conservatives value money more and liberals value people more. Nothing to do with feelings.

 

Read my post #21 just above yours for an example. It doesn't matter how much you value people, one HAS to be responsible with what's there.

 

I feel bad for all the kids who won't have anything under the Christmas tree this year...and luckily I will be able to help some little kid(s) somewhere have a Christmas. BUT, I can't go write a check for $50,000 to help all the kids in a 3 county area have a good Christmas, it's just not fiscally possible NOR responsible on my part to do that. Yet, this is how, in my view and of course on a much much grander scale, many on the left side of the government operate. Heck, I don't think that's even arguable.

I don't think it is feelings at all. It has to do with valuing people over money. You govern people not money, that is a huge difference.

 

 

I see it as conservatives value money more and liberals value people more. Nothing to do with feelings.

 

I would argue if you don't value money then in the end you don't value people. The greatest example of this for me is the Global warming industry. I can agree man has some affect on the enviroment to some degree. To what degree is still disputed. But the problem with liberal policy on this issue is all their answers or policies surronding it affect poor or middle class jobs in negative way. Rich white liberals on the coast just don't get how some of their enviromental policy negatively impacts poor and middle class workers, killing jobs. While the intention of making policy of saving the enviroment sounds great and had good intentions. At the end of the day all most Americans care about is putting food on their plate.

 

So I end with again if you don't care about money you don't really care about people.

The ironic thing is modern liberals aren't actually liberals in the classical definition. I'm more liberal than almost every democrat on the planet.

I've always found this quite humorous.

I don't think it is feelings at all. It has to do with valuing people over money. You govern people not money, that is a huge difference.

 

 

I see it as conservatives value money more and liberals value people more. Nothing to do with feelings.

 

 

By properly managing through reduced spending and taxation reform the average person will see they get to keep more their own money. With tax reform businesses, big and small, will have more money to invest in new jobs. They may even be able to keep prices down, since taxes are just passed on to the consumer. Tax reform may help to keep businesses from leaving the country, as the cost of doing business is reduced. Proper management of money leads to increased profits that help investors to improve their retirement programs. Yes, money management is important at all levels, whether it be personal, business or government.

Read my post #21 just above yours for an example. It doesn't matter how much you value people, one HAS to be responsible with what's there.

 

I feel bad for all the kids who won't have anything under the Christmas tree this year...and luckily I will be able to help some little kid(s) somewhere have a Christmas. BUT, I can't go write a check for $50,000 to help all the kids in a 3 county area have a good Christmas, it's just not fiscally possible NOR responsible on my part to do that. Yet, this is how, in my view and of course on a much much grander scale, many on the left side of the government operate. Heck, I don't think that's even arguable.

 

Well, the most important question is, Will you be coming home for the holidays and treat me to Pigs R Us again? :lol2:

The danger of any person overly embrassing a label is this. When you look at an issue do you decide how you believe or you do you belive as your 'label' says you should believe?

 

Labels and label-embrassing is ruining independant, invidual, free thought and action.

 

 

From a conservative-leaning, libertarian-friendly, occational liberal-thinking, registered Republican, former registered-Democrat, never-a-communist person.

I don't think it is feelings at all. It has to do with valuing people over money. You govern people not money, that is a huge difference.

 

 

I see it as conservatives value money more and liberals value people more. Nothing to do with feelings.

 

I'll always remember our 9th grade class election. By then, we had already begun forming political beliefs.

 

Only "young Democrats" ran for class president. Only "young Republicans" ran for class treasurer.

I would argue if you don't value money then in the end you don't value people. The greatest example of this for me is the Global warming industry. I can agree man has some affect on the enviroment to some degree. To what degree is still disputed. But the problem with liberal policy on this issue is all their answers or policies surronding it affect poor or middle class jobs in negative way. Rich white liberals on the coast just don't get how some of their enviromental policy negatively impacts poor and middle class workers, killing jobs.

 

Rich white liberals on the coast are worried about drowning.

 

Okay, just a bit hyperbolic.