[simoneaugie]

I wondered what you guys thought of this. It was sent to me by a staunch republican.


Becoming Republican
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'
Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

[simoneaugie]

It's a bit long but why haven't you political gurus chimed in.
I want to know how this feels, thinks out to a "politically correct" mind. My mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss.

[NeedKarma]

My mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss.

No it isn't - you're trying for that "personal responsibility" angle on liberal vs conservative whilst trying to make the republican angle look good and making the liberal angle look foolish. It's been tried before.

[simoneaugie]

Actually, the message was sent around and came up in conversation. I didn't know what to think as my mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss. I don't give a rat's a$$ who does what in the political world. I do enjoy understanding the gist of a conversation that is going on.

So, no, NeedKarma, I was not trying to make anyone's angle seem anything. Just wanted some thoughts from those who have an angle. Sorry you misunderstood.

[NeedKarma]

Actually, the message was sent around and came up in conversation. I didn't know what to think as my mind is in the land of ignorance and bliss. I don't give a rat's a$$ who does what in the political world. I do enjoy understanding the gist of a conversation that is going on.

So, no, NeedKarma, I was not trying to make anyone's angle seem anything. Just wanted some thoughts from those who have an angle. Sorry you misunderstood.

No I didn't misunderstand. Yesterday you also posted:https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1166566

The US government is busy giving our money to those who have not earned it.

So I believe that you knew what you posted here and are playing the innocent card... not well though.
Alos you believe that Obama is some kind of anti-christ so you seem to actually give a rat's a$$.

[ordinaryguy]

What I think of it is that portraying all government spending as nothing more than stealing from the (worthy) rich to give to the (unworthy) poor is inaccurate and dishonest. There are many MANY kinds of investment that contribute immensely to the common good, but that private enterprise will not and cannot undertake, for example: legal infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, military forces, communication infrastructure, public education, police protection, to name just a few.

What it really comes down to is whether you believe in society and community as a shared endeavor, or whether you just want to grab all you can and screw everybody else.
YOYO (You're On Your Own) vs. WITT (We're In This Together)

[George_1950]

You won't get any criticism from the lib/fascists because this is exactly what they believe. I think it quite a nice anecdote. The problem is that after eight years of 'compassionate conservatism', there may not be many Republicans left.

[ordinaryguy]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith

[George_1950]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith

Otherwise, how do you know what is important?

[progunr]

I liked it!

Very similar to one of my posts about the little girl and the homeless man.

Boy did the libs get bitter and angry over that one.

The truth seems to be very painful for some to hear, and accept.

[simoneaugie]

NK, Perhaps I did play the innocent, not too well. I have great respect for your keen intelect and was hurt when you turned that brilliance on me and found me wanting.

However, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. It's just something I heard. Don't care if he isn't or is. Politics is something I have pointedly ignored for the past 30+ years and learning about it now, finally, seemed like a good idea. But heated debates surrounding something I'm just learning about is disconcerting. Reading about it seems to delve into the same pattern of bickering.

I just want to hear what people think, want to hear you thinking. Getting my ideas dissected is a disapointment. My only agenda is to learn, then maybe, I'll vote.

[George_1950]

Well, Simone, what you want to know about politics, more than anything else? And, I don't mean who or what to vote for? What is your numero uno question?

[simoneaugie]

1. During the time(s) when you feel that America was working at its best, what type of politics were instrumental in its functionality? Could those politics be effective today?

2. How did the behavior and attitudes of the population as a whole support America working at its best in your opinion?

[George_1950]

1. During the time(s) when you feel that America was working at its best, what type of politics were instrumental in its functionality? Could those politics be effective today?

Can we agree that America is somewhat unique in that the founders established a federal government that was 'hands off', for the most part? Of course, states were allowed to do many things regulating intrastate relationships (marriage, contracts, land ownership, criminal code, contracts, etc.). In a word, the U.S. was so large and the people so free that 'laissez faire' became the order of the day. See the definition: "Laissez-faire (pronunciation: French, [lɛsefɛʁ] (help·info); English, ˌleɪseɪˈfɛər (help·info)) is a French phrase literally meaning "Let do." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for 19th-century capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was the economic system before the Progressive Era[2] and the Keynesian revolution.[3] It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production are best allowed a minimal of economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond what is necessary to maintain individual liberty, peace, security, and property rights.[4]" Laissez-faire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I suppose you will have to refine the definition of "best", but there's no question that since WWII there has been an explosion of wealth and technology that benefits everyone; remember hearing about 'trickle down'?

[George_1950]

...2. How did the behavior and attitudes of the population as a whole support America working at its best in your opinion?

Generally, people do not need or require a 'nanny' government. They do not need mandates from the capitols of the states or Washington, DC. America has provided a home-base for individualism: "In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should protect the liberty of individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the liberties of others. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving individuals to pursue their own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the whole society. The term has also been used to describe "individual initiative" and "freedom of the individual." This theory is described well by "laissez faire," which means in French "let [the people] do" [for themselves what they know how to do]." Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have never lived in a pure state of 'laissez-faire' or 'individualism'. But over time these concepts have waned, and never so much as during the New Deal and the Great Society. All is not lost, however, because I agree with George W. Bush that all people hunger for freedom in their lives; the difference between Americans and Iraqis is that we have a heritage based upon individual freedom, not pervasive government intervention in our daily lives. Neil Boortz has a lot to say about this in a recent article: "It's all about you, your wants and needs. Look for the politician who promises to transfer the most wealth from the achievers to you ... and that's the politician who gets your vote." boortz.com: Nealz Nuze January 02, 2008

[frangipanis]

What I think of it is that portraying all government spending as nothing more than stealing from the (worthy) rich to give to the (unworthy) poor is inaccurate and dishonest. There are many MANY kinds of investment that contribute immensely to the common good, but that private enterprise will not and cannot undertake, for example: legal infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, military forces, communication infrastructure, public education, police protection, to name just a few.

What it really comes down to is whether you believe in society and community as a shared endeavor, or whether you just want to grab all you can and screw everybody else.
YOYO (You're On Your Own) vs. WITT (We're In This Together)

I agree. It conflates two separate issues. One is to do with personal achievement and reward based on merit, the other is about the sort of world we want to live in. It's a cute juxtaposition of ideas, but that's about all. Oh, it's politically loaded too :)

[linnealand]

Once upon a time, there was an old man and a little girl. One day the old man found a sandwich. He knew that the little girl was very hungry, but because he was one who found the sandwich, he thought it would be wrong to give any of it to her. "this will teach her," he said, and he ate the sandwich himself. Then the little girl died.

Do you think this is a story that accurately portrays conservative republicans? It's just like yours.

You posted a very stupid story with a very stupid message. I am genuinely surprised that other posters could even feign support of it. Simon, I'm glad NK caught you lying.

Simon:"However, I do not believe Obama is the Antichrist. It's just something I heard. Dont care if he isn't or is."

I just wanted to make sure I got this last quote right. Let's take a moment to let it shine like a pretty star. Now we know what kind of a nut-job you really are.

[frangipanis]

Hi linnealand, you've put forward so many thoughtful words in other posts that I'm surprised we're so far apart in our approach on this one. This is how I see it:

We all have different levels of experience and knowledge to bring to a topic as well as different mind-sets, and we each go about arguing our point of view differently, with our own inherent strengths and weaknesses. Within a democracy, there ought to be room for everyone.

As far as I'm concerned, regardless of whether someone agrees with me or not or has an agenda I'm not aware of (I avoid party politics), I would rather give someone the benefit of a doubt and prefer to give my opinion without resorting to name calling or belittling. Since few of us are hard-nosed politicians, it might also happen that by giving my opinion in a non-confrontational way a more open discussion can take place that we can all possibly benefit from.

It would be boring if everyone held my point of view and I don't expect it to happen too often. And I'll admit that sometimes a good shake-up is what's needed - it just isn't my usual way of doing things.

[frangipanis]

Generally, people do not need or require a 'nanny' government. They do not need mandates from the capitols of the states or Washington, DC. America has provided a home-base for individualism: "In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should protect the liberty of individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the liberties of others. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving individuals to pursue their own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the whole society. The term has also been used to describe "individual initiative" and "freedom of the individual." This theory is described well by "laissez faire," which means in French "let [the people] do" [for themselves what they know how to do]." Individualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have never lived in a pure state of 'laissez-faire' or 'individualism'. But over time these concepts have waned, and never so much as during the New Deal and the Great Society. All is not lost, however, because I agree with George W. Bush that all people hunger for freedom in their lives; the difference between Americans and Iraqis is that we have a heritage based upon individual freedom, not pervasive government intervention in our daily lives. Neil Boortz has a lot to say about this in a recent article: "It's all about you, your wants and needs. Look for the politician who promises to transfer the most wealth from the achievers to you ... and that's the politician who gets your vote." boortz.com: Nealz Nuze January 02, 2008

That was interesting until you muddled the ideal of individual freedom and non-government intervention with the fate of the Iraqi people, George.

[George_1950]

once upon a time, there was an old man and a little girl. one day the old man found a sandwich. he knew that the little girl was very hungry, but because he was one who found the sandwich, he thought it would be wrong to give any of it to her. "this will teach her," he said, and he ate the sandwich himself. then the little girl died.

do you think this is a story that accurately portrays conservative republicans? it's just like yours.

you posted a very stupid story with a very stupid message. i am genuinely surprised that other posters could even feign support of it. simon, i'm glad NK caught you lying.
.

A principle can be effectively illustrated by the use of parables (A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson) and allegories (An allegory is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal). See Wikipedia. The message of this post is one you must not agree with, but it is certainly not stupid. It points out 'hypocrisy', "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." In the 2008 U.S. election, the voters will be choosing whether to elect the hypocrite's exemplar, Obama, to president of the USA.