Question for the Obama Haters

[forlife]

I don’t think conservatives necessarily lack empathy. Sometimes they support policies that lack empathy though.

For example:

Assuming that everyone can as easily be successful in life as they are, rather than empathizing with differences in racial background, financial resources, education, etc.

Stereotyping and granting second class citizens to gays, without understanding and respecting the differences in how people are wired.

Supporting the prosecution of a war in a foreign country in the name of spreading democracy, without empathizing with the families of people killed in that war, dismissing the bloodshed as “collateral damage”.

I think liberals can sometimes lack empathy too, or can target their empathy at one group at the expense of another. For example, empathizing with a woman’s right to choose even late term abortions, while denigrating the child as “less than human” and not worthy of the same rights.

[forlife]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Not wanting to see babies sucked into a garbage disposal is empathetic. Not wanting government theft and social engineering is empathetic. The opposite is not.

Here’s a good profile of the sociopath:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
[/quote]

Seeing the lack of empathy in others while ignoring the lack of empathy in yourself could also fit your definition of sociopath.

I still think your definition is extreme. Most people lack empathy in some way, but that doesn’t make us all sociopaths.

[katzenjammer]

Check this dude out. Makes a better case against Obama in ten minutes than the entire McCain campaign in 21 months.

“Evaporative Economics” - hilarious!

1 More B4 11 04

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t think conservatives necessarily lack empathy. Sometimes they support policies that lack empathy though.

For example:

Assuming that everyone can as easily be successful in life as they are, rather than empathizing with differences in racial background, financial resources, education, etc.

Stereotyping and granting second class citizens to gays, without understanding and respecting the differences in how people are wired.

Supporting the prosecution of a war in a foreign country in the name of spreading democracy, without empathizing with the families of people killed in that war, dismissing the bloodshed as “collateral damage”.

I think liberals can sometimes lack empathy too, or can target their empathy at one group at the expense of another. For example, empathizing with a woman’s right to choose even late term abortions, while denigrating the child as “less than human” and not worthy of the same rights.[/quote]

I think you miss that when one person is successful, it’s good for everybody. In the end it’s a question of whether you want to take personal responsibility for yourself, or have the government try to take care for that for you.

Where is the second class citizen law. I don’t recall homophobia being a conservative platform. If you are talking about marriage, you are confusing republican and conservative. government intervention to regulate who can and can’t marry is decidedly a liberal position in my book.

I would also argue that conservative ideology is inherently isolationist. You also forget all the torture and bloodshed that was occurring in that country before we were there not to mention the great humanitarian efforts, building schools, hospitals, ect.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Not wanting to see babies sucked into a garbage disposal is empathetic. Not wanting government theft and social engineering is empathetic. The opposite is not.

Here’s a good profile of the sociopath:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Seeing the lack of empathy in others while ignoring the lack of empathy in yourself could also fit your definition of sociopath.

I still think your definition is extreme. Most people lack empathy in some way, but that doesn’t make us all sociopaths.[/quote]

Why don’t we just continue to go around in circles for 50 posts or so like on the gay marriage thread? That’ll be a great use of of our time, and you can use the opportunity to share your feelings with us.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]forlife wrote:

Assuming that everyone can as easily be successful in life as they are, rather than empathizing with differences in racial background, financial resources, education, etc.

[/quote]

Well, see, there’s a difference between empathy and sympathy.

I can empathize with someone, and understand how difficult it can be to make one’s way, without wanting to smother them with sympathy; say, for example, in the form of government welfare - which, ultimately, is destructive not only of that person’s initiative, self worth and dignity, but also of families.

Conservatives I know believe in taking care of each other and helping each other out - in real communities. Indeed, this might be a good definition of a community: a place where people are mutually dependent.

But take that mutual caring away - say through a federal program - and you destroy the community. And the people who make up that community.

It’s liberal policies that are, in fact, the policy’s exhibiting a very poor level of respect and caring for the less fortunate.

[skaz05]

Hey yall. Ah aint votin’ fer Obama cuz heeez a muzlim terist. And heez black and ah hates me a black muzlim terist.

Ah wuz havin’ sex with mah sister lasst nite and she sayud dat she aint votin fer Obama cuz heez ah black muzlim terist and he aint a muhrican.

Ah sez dat if you aint a muhrican, you kin git owt da knutree!

Ahz gunna go have sex with mah sister agin, den ah gunna go drank me sum pabst bloo ribbin beer.

[SteelyD]

And here you have it:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html

Obama’s New Attack on Those Who Don’t Want Higher Taxes: �??Selfishness�??

[i]“The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich,” Obama said in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That�??s the America dream, that�??s the American way, that�??s terrific.

"The point is, though, that – and it�??s not just charity, it�??s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class – it�??s that when we actually make sure that everybody�??s got a shot �?? when young people can all go to college, when everybody�??s got decent health care, when everybody�??s got a little more money at the end of the month �?? then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That�??s what happened in the 1990s, that�??s what we need to restore. And that�??s what I�??m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don�??t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”[/i]

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think you miss that when one person is successful, it’s good for everybody.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Sometimes the success comes at the expense of others. Also, saying it is “good for everybody” ignores that it might be even “better for everybody” if the person didn’t have so much wealth and power.

In the end it’s a question of whether you want to take personal responsibility for yourself, or have the government try to take care for that for you.[

That is a black and white maxim, and ignores that sometimes people will thrive if given a little help to get started. I don’t believe in handouts to people that won’t help themselves, but I do believe in giving people a hand up.

government intervention to regulate who can and can’t marry is decidedly a liberal position in my book.

Good point, but ironically republicans tend to be more liberal than democrats in promoting state/federal government regulation of marriage and other privileges based on sexual orientation.

I would also argue that conservative ideology is inherently isolationist. You also forget all the torture and bloodshed that was occurring in that country before we were there not to mention the great humanitarian efforts, building schools, hospitals, ect.

I wasn’t just referring to the Iraq war, but on your point I guess I would call it selective empathy.

[forlife]

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Why don’t we just continue to go around in circles for 50 posts or so like on the gay marriage thread? That’ll be a great use of of our time, and you can use the opportunity to share your feelings with us. [/quote]

Why don’t you address the other points in my posts instead of cherry picking the one point about gay marriage?

[forlife]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Conservatives I know believe in taking care of each other and helping each other out - in real communities. Indeed, this might be a good definition of a community: a place where people are mutually dependent.
[/quote]

They may believe in taking care of each other, but it is more rare to see them taking care of people that don’t belong to their “tribe”. Instead, I’ve seen a lot of posts in this thread denigrating others for not being as successful as they are.

Again, I’m not laying the blame wholly at the feet of conservatives. Liberals can lack empathy too.

My point was that labeling someone a sociopath because they lack empathy on a given political issue is a bit ridiculous.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Hey yall. Ah aint votin’ fer Obama cuz heeez a muzlim terist. And heez black and ah hates me a black muzlim terist.

Ah wuz havin’ sex with mah sister lasst nite and she sayud dat she aint votin fer Obama cuz heez ah black muzlim terist and he aint a muhrican.

Ah sez dat if you aint a muhrican, you kin git owt da knutree!

Ahz gunna go have sex with mah sister agin, den ah gunna go drank me sum pabst bloo ribbin beer.[/quote]

This was well done. Well written. You should use this voice in more posts.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:

Assuming that everyone can as easily be successful in life as they are, rather than empathizing with differences in racial background, financial resources, education, etc.

Well, see, there’s a difference between empathy and sympathy.

I can empathize with someone, and understand how difficult it can be to make one’s way, without wanting to smother them with sympathy; say, for example, in the form of government welfare - which, ultimately, is destructive not only of that person’s initiative, self worth and dignity, but also of families.

Conservatives I know believe in taking care of each other and helping each other out - in real communities. Indeed, this might be a good definition of a community: a place where people are mutually dependent. [/quote]

Interesting definition. I’m a large proponent of strengthening communities, CSOs, etc. This is one of the reasons I thought it was so alarming when some mainstream conservatives were degrading “community service” at their convention. Communities should be strengthened in this country. “Together we stand” and all that.

[quote]
But take that mutual caring away - say through a federal program - and you destroy the community. And the people who make up that community.[/quote]

Could you elaborate on your perceived link between government programs and taking away mutal caring? I’m not sure I’m following.

[quote]
It’s liberal policies that are, in fact, the policy’s exhibiting a very poor level of respect and caring for the less fortunate.[/quote]

If you’re trying to argue that policies should strengthen rather than weaken communities, I agree completely. I’m not quite sure which “liberal policies” you’re talking about though. Could you give some examples?

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
<<<< It’s liberal policies that are, in fact, the policy’s exhibiting a very poor level of respect and caring for the less fortunate.

If you’re trying to argue that policies should strengthen rather than weaken communities, I agree completely. I’m not quite sure which “liberal policies” you’re talking about though. Could you give some examples?
[/quote]

“Policies” or “programs” never strengthen anything or anyone except the dependence of their alleged beneficiaries on the elitist overlords who dispense them.

Our cities are being overrun by feral children devoid of family structure because the Obama’s of the world have relieved parents of their responsibilities by providing them with other people’s money to keep them alive and dependent.

They have been convinced that somebody other than themselves is unjustly responsible for their woes and hence responsible for solving them.

The fact that this glaring undeniable fact is not almost universally recognized by the citizens of this rotting country is absolutely mystifying.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:

Assuming that everyone can as easily be successful in life as they are, rather than empathizing with differences in racial background, financial resources, education, etc.

Well, see, there’s a difference between empathy and sympathy.

I can empathize with someone, and understand how difficult it can be to make one’s way, without wanting to smother them with sympathy; say, for example, in the form of government welfare - which, ultimately, is destructive not only of that person’s initiative, self worth and dignity, but also of families.

Conservatives I know believe in taking care of each other and helping each other out - in real communities. Indeed, this might be a good definition of a community: a place where people are mutually dependent.

Interesting definition. I’m a large proponent of strengthening communities, CSOs, etc. This is one of the reasons I thought it was so alarming when some mainstream conservatives were degrading “community service” at their convention. Communities should be strengthened in this country. “Together we stand” and all that.[/quote]

Well, from my point of view, communities are something that happen naturally: you cannot artificially create or encourage or facilitate communities.

And no, I am NOT talking about “community service.” Communities have existed for eons without “community organizers.” We do not need more of them. We need less of them.

In this country, from the beginning their were mutual aid societies, guild organizations, etc. that were generated by the spontaneous efforts of many people looking out for one another. The last gasp of many of those organizations came during the New Deal.

I’ll say it again: if you take away the need for the community by providing external “aid” - in the form of welfare, housing assistance, what have you - you take away the need for the local, spontaneously organized communities that naturally arise among people who are left to organize themselves without governmental interference.

I think one of the most fraudulent metaphors going is that somehow the “nation” is a family or community. The nation is not a community. There is, to my way of thinking, something fascist about thinking that the nation is so.

But take that mutual caring away - say through a federal program - and you destroy the community. And the people who make up that community.

Could you elaborate on your perceived link between government programs and taking away mutal caring? I’m not sure I’m following.

Well, think about Scrooge: what did he say? Something along the lines of…“why should I give to the poor, or donate, or what have you - are there no workhouses, etc…”

Once the government steps in to take care of my neighbor, I am absolved of feeling any moral obligation (voluntarily, of course) to help him or her. Because someone else will do so. So we are all on our own.

Obama is right that we now live in a nation where we are “all on our own,” more or less - but, ironically, this is caused by community organizers, federal intervention, etc.

It’s liberal policies that are, in fact, the policy’s exhibiting a very poor level of respect and caring for the less fortunate.

If you’re trying to argue that policies should strengthen rather than weaken communities, I agree completely. I’m not quite sure which “liberal policies” you’re talking about though. Could you give some examples?

We cannot deliberately strengthen communities in any other way except to keep “the state” out of them and let them thrive. That is part of what was so great about our country: thriving communities coexisting in a single nation.

Finally, as long as we’re on the topic, to my way of thinking, community extends to the unborn and the dead.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:

Assuming that everyone can as easily be successful in life as they are, rather than empathizing with differences in racial background, financial resources, education, etc.

Well, see, there’s a difference between empathy and sympathy.

I can empathize with someone, and understand how difficult it can be to make one’s way, without wanting to smother them with sympathy; say, for example, in the form of government welfare - which, ultimately, is destructive not only of that person’s initiative, self worth and dignity, but also of families.

Conservatives I know believe in taking care of each other and helping each other out - in real communities. Indeed, this might be a good definition of a community: a place where people are mutually dependent.

Interesting definition. I’m a large proponent of strengthening communities, CSOs, etc. This is one of the reasons I thought it was so alarming when some mainstream conservatives were degrading “community service” at their convention. Communities should be strengthened in this country. “Together we stand” and all that.

Well, from my point of view, communities are something that happen naturally: you cannot artificially create or encourage or facilitate communities.

And no, I am NOT talking about “community service.” Communities have existed for eons without “community organizers.” We do not need more of them. We need less of them.

In this country, from the beginning their were mutual aid societies, guild organizations, etc. that were generated by the spontaneous efforts of many people looking out for one another. The last gasp of many of those organizations came during the New Deal.

I’ll say it again: if you take away the need for the community by providing external “aid” - in the form of welfare, housing assistance, what have you - you take away the need for the local, spontaneously organized communities that naturally arise among people who are left to organize themselves without governmental interference.

I think one of the most fraudulent metaphors going is that somehow the “nation” is a family or community. The nation is not a community. There is, to my way of thinking, something fascist about thinking that the nation is so.

But take that mutual caring away - say through a federal program - and you destroy the community. And the people who make up that community.

Could you elaborate on your perceived link between government programs and taking away mutal caring? I’m not sure I’m following.

Well, think about Scrooge: what did he say? Something along the lines of…“why should I give to the poor, or donate, or what have you - are there no workhouses, etc…”

Once the government steps in to take care of my neighbor, I am absolved of feeling any moral obligation (voluntarily, of course) to help him or her. Because someone else will do so. So we are all on our own. Obama is right that we now live in a nation where we are “all on our own,” more or less - but, ironically, this is caused by community organizers, federal intervention, etc.

It’s liberal policies that are, in fact, the policy’s exhibiting a very poor level of respect and caring for the less fortunate.

If you’re trying to argue that policies should strengthen rather than weaken communities, I agree completely. I’m not quite sure which “liberal policies” you’re talking about though. Could you give some examples?

We cannot deliberately strengthen communities in any other way except to keep “the state” out of them and let them thrive. That is part of what was so great about our country: thriving communities coexisting in a single nation.

Finally, as long as we’re on the topic, to my way of thinking, community extends to the unborn and the dead.[/quote]

OUTSTANDING!!! Every word.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Our cities are being overrun by feral children devoid of family structure because the Obama’s of the world have relieved parents of their responsibilities by providing them with other people’s money to keep them alive and dependent.

They have been convinced that somebody other than themselves is unjustly responsible for their woes and hence responsible for solving them.

The fact that this glaring undeniable fact is not almost universally recognized by the citizens of this rotting country is absolutely mystifying.[/quote]

Why don’t otherwise intelligent people understand this?

[katzenjammer]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Our cities are being overrun by feral children devoid of family structure because the Obama’s of the world have relieved parents of their responsibilities by providing them with other people’s money to keep them alive and dependent. They have been convinced that somebody other than themselves is unjustly responsible for their woes and hence responsible for solving them.

The fact that this glaring undeniable fact is not almost universally recognized by the citizens of this rotting country is absolutely mystifying.

Why don’t otherwise intelligent people understand this?[/quote]

I’ve been wondering that for a long time.

Sometimes I think it’s that people confuse “good intentions” with desirable results.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Our cities are being overrun by feral children devoid of family structure because the Obama’s of the world have relieved parents of their responsibilities by providing them with other people’s money to keep them alive and dependent.

They have been convinced that somebody other than themselves is unjustly responsible for their woes and hence responsible for solving them.

The fact that this glaring undeniable fact is not almost universally recognized by the citizens of this rotting country is absolutely mystifying.

Why don’t otherwise intelligent people understand this?

I’ve been wondering that for a long time.

Sometimes I think it’s that people confuse “good intentions” with desirable results. [/quote]

They’re not psychologically equipped to understand it. A good percentage of the population needs a big government Mommy to feel safe.

[Amused59]

I’m just kind of horrified that a comment made in passing qualified this candidate as a socialist. After two years on the campaign trail, countless interviews where he’s been terribly clear on his agenda,

so many people prefer to be scared by John Mc
Cain’s shrieking accusations or Obama being too far to the left, and his association with terrorist. Remember, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.