The Philosophy of a True Conservative, Today

A problem is presented... today
Then, 6 of the 7 the next replies by Dwellars include the word "sorry"

But the true conservative responds in post #2:

"This is not a "just world".
"Don't rely on the meds alone - rely on yourself, and try to wean yourself off the meds."
"you should have learned a few of these, along with your meds."
"Tell yourself not to accept being depressed and morose, and act like you're happy, anyway."
"Adapt and overcome, and don't depend on others to make it easy for you"
"Good luck in your pursuits!"

In 7 words, the philosophy of the true conservative, today: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

"pull yourself up by your bootstraps."

I was thinking the same thing. It totally relates to the 47% crap.

I was angry earlier but I wanted to say what I wanted to say to Ibby and felt that "pull yourself up" conservative could kiss my ass.

But you guys made me think of it again. It's that conservative imagined superiority: whatever is wrong with you (if the same isn't wrong with me) it's all your fault.

Now, go talk yourself out of your cancer and your broken leg, you lazy bass tard.

Then I also figured Adak was going to present himself as somewhat of a medical professional too, so he'll have something else to know everything about once Romney is defeated.

It's not "superiority", it's FREEDOM. It's LIBERTY. You can't have freedom or liberty, without also taking responsibility - or do you want the gov't to take that from you, as well?

Of course, you need doctors when you're sick - but when you're in the prime years of your life, you should also be able to work through your anxieties and depression, at least somewhat, without relying on a daily dose of meds.

You expect her to go through her life drugged every day, even though she can't afford it? That doesn't sound like a winning plan to me.

Taking care of your life, is like growing a garden:

*YOU have to prepare the ground, not a bureaucrat from Washington

*YOU have to plant the seeds

*YOU have to water and pull out the weeds, and keep the pests away.

YOU - not a federal bureaucrat, have to take care of your garden, and YOU should have the food it produces - not the gov't.

You probably believe this is an insane idea, but for most people, it's common sense. And it's VERY efficient. Central control from the gov't will

NEVER

grow a garden as well as you can.

Do you believe saying "sorry" will fix the woman's problems? Because I don't THINK so.

Do you believe the world is "fair and just"? Are you a child?

Do you believe Ibby has learned NOTHING, about dealing with her problem?

You have suggested NOTHING to help Ibby solve her problem.

Don't you think a person should be encouraged to try and solve their own problems?

Your common sense gets so lonely waiting for you. ;)

What if you are a federal bureaucrat? The biggest and nicest garden in my neighborhood is maintained by a federal bureaucrat. It's amazing how bountiful it is. I've talked at length with him about his tricks, and applied some of them to my own garden.

Wow.

Well thanks, but I tend my own garden (omg what a trite analogy) and all this waxing ineloquent has little to do with this reality you pretend to espouse. I know, right? That I have my own good job, and take care of my own life...and that I STILL have the audacity to believe that as a society it shouldn't be "i got mine now you get yours" is mind-boggling, isn't it? However, I know that I am not an exception to the rule.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything of the kind. You grab onto talking points that don't actually exist in the post you are 'responding' to.

I say this with the sense of inner self that makes me realize I am lesser, that I do want to be just like you, that you have the answers...or at least the general idea of what the answers should be...and I and my god are completely envious of your insight.

Oh, and I'm The Great Sarcastic.

I do wonder where my like-minded fellows are when you post such an abberration, such an over the top conglomeration of disrespectful bullshit, in response to my comment?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

God, Infi, give us time to respond eh?

Most posters appear to be taking Adak to task one way or another.

pblllttttt... :p:

Aw come on...let me pout for a second, will you? ;)

I woke up in the middle of the night and read that post and it's been running through my head ever since. (Between my dreams of losing my job and being stuck on some road that never ends...)

Besides, I wanted to draw attention to my witty response. Those get lost amongst pages of wax. ;)

Ha! Fairy Nuff

@Adek
Have I misquoted you ?
Is my summary incorrect ?
But of course life is fair and just. How else does one explain their life-situation ?
For example: I chose my parents wisely. They are rich. Therefore, I deserve to be rich.
From this, it follows: Just suck it up, and fix yourself.

I think I am just following your line of reasoning.

I see your sense of sarcasm has found it's way home, at least.

America is the land of opportunity, not the land of "fair and just" (and where might one view such a fantasy?).

When YOU are the gardener, YOU plant, YOU water, YOU weed, YOU take care of pests, YOU harvest the produce.

The guy down the block may give you tips, but it's YOU who will have to do the work - not a gov't employee - and it's YOU who should have the majority of the benefit from your work - not the gov't.

There's NOTHING wrong with people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps - seizing legal opportunities when they see them. People do that all the time - this IS the land of opportunity, after all

This is a big selling point for America, around the world, and has been, for over 200 years: America, land of opportunity.

For the record, I decided on a Coventry stance awhile back. Dude's a troll and obviously has more time than I have energy. Please don't let my silence make you think I somehow support his foolishness.

Oh no, really i don't. I tried coventry because i agree with you vis a vis troll. But you know i can't help myself in that situation. :)

I didn't really think i was being universally ignored, i was mostly being an attention ho. :lol:

Why you want to trust YOURSELF, as much as possible, in any emergency.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...d-molinaro.cnn

"We're going to die!"

Gov't and other emergency agencies are helpful, but in any emergency, they can easily - SO EASILY - be overwhelmed, and unable to help you.

Be Prepared, and try to be as self reliant as possible.

I don't see anybody suggesting that people should take no precautions and rely solely on government agencies to keep them safe. But sometimes an individual's efforts are not enough, in which case I don;t think it's unreasonable to expect government agencies to do their jobs. As indeed it appears they have been doing.

Nobody is advising people to do nothing to be prepared for an emergency, but I can assure you, most people do NOT prepare for an emergency. ANY emergency.

Actually, the Mormons are pretty good about this. They have a church revelation that they should keep a year's supply of food, in case of emergency. As you might guess, they take it seriously, and slowly build up to it.

Talk to your neighbors and ask them "In case of an emergency where you lost power & cell phones, how would you hear the news?", "What is your plan to heat your home, if you lost all power in the Winter? etc.

They hem and haw, and have very few answers: "I'd heat my home (a 4 bedroom 2 story house), with candles."

"How many candles do you have?"

"Let's see - two!" (points to two skinny dining room table candles, good for about 4 hours) :rolleyes:

"We expect people might be hurt, do you have any first aid supplies?"

"Sure" - shows you a band-aid box :rolleyes:

And the more you dig, the more you know they're woefully prepared for even the slightest emergency.

There's a REAL difference between someone not advising people to not be prepared, and people FIRED up, and saying "Let's BE Prepared!!". World of difference.

(I'll now retire from my soapbox - I used to work in emergency preparedness and response. I do get onto my soapbox about it from time to time.)

The bureaucrats are alive and well, in NYC:

*They require 3 people in each car going over a bridge, so all the Smart Cars that only fit two people but get fantastic MPG, are not allowed into the island.

*One of the biggest problems in NYC is with the damaged electrical system, from all the seawater getting into everything.

Crews from all over the country, have arrived in NYC, to help out, along with some C-130's full of big electrical power equipment, to help rebuild the sub stations that blew up when they were shorted out.

BUT - any NON-UNION crew that shows up - or any UNION crew whose union is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO, is being sent home. They're not allowed to work in NYC - even in an emergency! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Of course, my absolutely favorite true story about Unions is the one where the firefighters QUIT fighting the structure fire, because it was now time for them to start their strike!

Followed closely by the firefighters refusing to put out the house fire on the Mayor's home, because he wouldn't give them a raise in recent negotiations with their union.

If you don't live in a "Right to Work" state, your freedom to choose a job, has been stolen. Followed of course, by the Union removing donations from your paycheck, for their political payoffs - whether you approve it or not.

That's not true, by federal law those donations have to be designated in writing by you and separate from normal dues.
Coercion is another matter, however.

Not true at all.

C'mon Ibby! Accept just ONE fact, for a change:

The IBEW is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, btw. An AFL-CIO affiliated Union.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/11/..._river_default

You DO KNOW that you can't work in a state controlled by the unions, without joining the union.

Only in a "right to work" state, can a non-union tradesman work, legally. Most states back East, are NOT "right to work" states. You join the union, or you don't work in ANY trade job.

which was followed, in the SAME PARAGRAPH, by:

because they were not needed

RIGHT! See there's the "<======== don't look here - look over here ======>", redirection.

They WEREN'T stopped from working in Seaside Heights, because they weren't Unionized. Seaside already had all the crews it needed!

They WERE stopped from working in Virginia, because they weren't Unionized. They would have been stopped anywhere in New Jersey, New York, or Virgina - because emergency or not, you can't work in those states in any trade, unless you are in the Union.

Period.

Period?

My good friend is an electrician in Arlington VA, and he's not in a union. He's a Republican. It would go against his core beliefs.

You don't know what you are talking about.

glatt, glatt... I know I've said many times that electrons are free, but there is only a finite amount of time to pile up so many of them that you can erect an unassailable bulwark of factual evidence that can withstand the power of Adak's imagination. He's made up his mind. He knows stuff. He hasn't checked the details, but he knows what he knows. He doesn't acknowledge the same rules of evidence, the same differentiation of causation and correlation, the same logic as the rest of us.

You are talking English to him, what the hell do you expect?

New York, that's Long Island New York. Where the Huntsville crews are "working today". How do you explain the Huntsville's crew's work in Long Island New York?

got another question Adak... states controlled by unions, that sounds like binders full of women, inarticulately stateds, I'm sure... but let's say new york *is* "controlled by unions", how, exactly, are you suggesting the unions are controlling the state? Perhaps they've been the beneficiaries of some favorable legislation? You're all about following the law, I remember you saying about Romney's tax payment strategy saying that he was just following the law, and that's all you needed. What about these unions who are controlling the state by law? Are you upset that people are following the law? I thought you liked laws.

Or is the control of the state by the unions exerted and enforced by some other ... extra legal means? Where is your smoking gun for this?

People really have to slow down and get all the facts before they jump on the blame-game bandwagon.

Snopes on Hurricane Sandy and unions

"No out-of-state crews, union or non-union, that are coming to help...will be turned away. We are welcoming whatever help comes in, union or non-union, to assist with the recovery." Kevin Roberts, spokesman for Chris Christie.

No, Stormie, other people, like Adak, need to hurry the hell up and join us here in the real world.

Adak.

I have listened to a great deal of what your ideas about the labels "conservative" and "liberal". I have not heard anything that can not be distilled down to "conservative is good and liberal is bad". You've turned them into synonyms. Ha ha! that was a conservative joke! Oh, no, don't eat that, it tastes liberal. Yes Santa, I have been a conservative boy this year. Liberal dog, LIBERAL DOG!

I totally get your point, how you use these terms. You occasionally have given some examples of an action, and when you like it, you call it conservative. When you don't, you call it liberal. Insofar as I, and everyone, really, wants good and not bad, what's the difference? None. You extend these examples sometimes to government policies, and once again, the ones you like are labeled conservative and the ones you oppose you label liberal. Never mind the contradictions. You're less concerned about actual policies than you are with making sure that the ones that you deem good get the coveted "conservative" label. That's peachy, you go right on with your bad self.

However, I have no desire for my government to display the kinds of policies you support. I am especially irked by the inconsistencies. I like government. I realize that our government is made up of people, not just faceless despicable bureaucrats. I realize that our government does good. I also realize that being people, that there are things that could be improved, and that some people do bad. That's not a conservative or liberal thing, though.

I don't think you're final authority on what "conservative" means, I think you're just one guy, hung up on a couple terms, who uses them as shortcuts to conclusions to help you make sense of the world. I'm heartened by this for two reasons. One, your one vote is only as strong as my one vote. Two, while there are conservative ideals that are worth supporting, as well as liberal ones, you are not the decider in chief. I'll continue to evaluate the ideas on their merits and not on whether or not they appeal to you. I wish you well, but I'm not optimistic about your prospects for success in a complex, nuanced world with such a simplistic set of tools.

I'm liberal if by "liberal" you infer "wants liberty". I'm in favor of a National Health Service, just not the POS we have now. I'm in favor of gay rights - because whose sons and daughters ARE those gays and lesbians, if not ours? Same with racial/ethnic/religious freedoms and equal opportunity.

Frankly, although I know where racism stems from, but if you take a wider view, isn't it just an artificial construct based on *nothing*?
That's the way I see it. It's rational, and especially here, aren't we based on the precept of inalienable rights - including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

You can't reconcile that with slavery or racism of any kind.

I'm pro abortion IF the woman was raped, her life is endangered, or the woman wants an early term abortion. It's late term abortions that I can't tolerate.

So, it isn't "Liberal" that is bad at all. That's just the term everyone knows. The real bad guy is "statists"! That's where the state has you totally dependent on it, and controls every aspect of your life, right down to your wallet - which it regularly empties, to pay for itself.

Imagine how it is in a stateist country:

*You work half or more of your life - just to pay your taxes
*The state tells you how many children you can have
*and what kind of job you can work at
*and what kind of car you can drive
*and what your wages will be
*and everything you do you need a license, certificate, bureaucratic approval of some sort or other - and each little approval you need, requires another payment.

Which is pretty close to what we have today, imo. Imagine - we pay for the streets to be built, and resurfaced and cleaned. But now, that's not enough - we need to pay AGAIN, so we can PARK on the street, we already paid for! :mad:

Unions are another roadblock to liberty:

*what jobs you can take
*what states you can work in
*what work you can specifically do, and what work you must not do
*of course, they want their dues
*and will tell you when to go on strike - you have a vote, but the union leaders make the decisions, not you.

All of these restrictions on your liberty can only be enforced or supported by the state, and that requires a very large system of gov't, which is VERY expensive to maintain. You pay dearly for a very intrusive gov't, that destroys your liberties, and makes us more and more dependent on that gov't. The more dependent you become, the less freedom you shall have.

I plead somewhat guilty to this, but there isn't a better term for it. The liberals in this country have planted their actions so firmly into this kind of straight jacket political philosophy and laws.

I don't think you're final authority on what "conservative" means, I think you're just one guy, hung up on a couple terms, who uses them as shortcuts to conclusions to help you make sense of the world. I'm heartened by this for two reasons. One, your one vote is only as strong as my one vote. Two, while there are conservative ideals that are worth supporting, as well as liberal ones, you are not the decider in chief. I'll continue to evaluate the ideas on their merits and not on whether or not they appeal to you. I wish you well, but I'm not optimistic about your prospects for success in a complex, nuanced world with such a simplistic set of tools.[/quote]

I never claimed to be either a final word, or an authority, on the subject.

There is however, a real beauty to a pragmatic conservative (should I call it independent libertarian?) philosophy. One where YOU take more control of your life, instead of the gov't, and you also take more responsibility for it.

We need to seriously stay away from the Japanese fish market syndrome. You want to buy a fish, but you can't buy it from the fisherman, oh no! You can't get it second hand from the wholesaler, or third hand from the retail fish market, either.

Because the fish is sold maybe 10 to 20 times at the wholesale level, before it ever leaves the wholesale fish market. By the time you get a chance to buy the fish, it will cost 20x -100x what it would cost, if it was sold just once or twice.

Conservatism, is efficient, and pragmatic. Gov't is the back up player, not the starting quarterback on the team. You are the quarterback of your life. You are free to choose.

I'll post up links to the excellent videos that Milton Freeman made on the subject. He does call himself a liberal, because in his day, liberals were more for liberty, and less for big gov't stateism.

Freeman is a Nobel prize winning economist, but he's able to communicate the ideas of using our freedom, in a very down to earth way - never over your head.