Biggest difference between liberals and conservatives in two sentences or less.

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

44 minutes ago, peenie said:

Interesting...just based on talking to older people in my family, they said that their neighborhoods were safe and people were happy (1950's and before) and everyone that wanted a job had one.

Before the politicians shipped all the jobs away

[Fireballer 2,382]

20 hours ago, peenie said:

 forced to live in neighborhoods where the school systems were poorer and could not compete with neighboring wealthier white segreated schools. The children in these environments could not learn what other children learn despite all the efforts of the parents

Peenie, Id like to know your opinion on Dunbar High School in DC.  Admittedly, I had never heard of it until the other day.  Sadly, little seems to be told about the history of an institution that many should be very proud of.  If it could be done in the 50s, why not today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar_High_School_(Washington,_D.C.)

 

 

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

Liberals- no matter how wrong they are, they stay banded together

Conservatives- no matter how correct they are, never can stay unified

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

Just now, avoiding injuries said:

Liberals- no matter how wrong they are, they stay banded together

Conservatives- no matter how correct they are, never can stay unified

Liberalism is an ideology, like a religion. 
Conservatives, while actually more religious, are not dogmatic about their views. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

1 hour ago, peenie said:

Interesting...just based on talking to older people in my family, they said that their neighborhoods were safe and people were happy (1950's and before) and everyone that wanted a job had one.

Exactly, things didn't start getting bad for black people until they aligned themselves with the Democrat party.

[Mookz 1,287]

Liberal chicks are repulsed by me. 

Conservative chicks are disgusted by me. 

[Boots11234 107]

Liberals are poosays

Conservatives get poosay

[tubby_mcgee 686]

7 hours ago, peenie said:

I think redlining and loss of manufacturing jobs is what caused the issues with black neighborhoods.

 

I have coached kids K-12 for the past 17 years.

The ones that struggle...and that us coaches KNOW will struggle... are those without Dads in the home.

After hours, coaches talk amongst  themselves/ourselves and we talk about who is gonna be in juvi by age 18 and jail by age 22.   And we do this when they are in about 4th grade.  That's when you can start to tell. 

Are there those that deviate from the norm? Yes. Sort of like the grandma who smoked 4 packs a day for 80 years and lived to be 100 vs the marathon runner who died of a heart attack at age 31. 

But kids from fatherless homes.... odds are sooooooo soooooo stacked against them. They end up turning to drugs and or crime.

So, is there any particular groups out there with a higher number of fatherless homes than other groups?

Anyone?

[jerryskids 5,206]

I think that this school discussion is a great encapsulation of the differences between the two.  Conservatives support the individual child -- if a kid or his family wants to send them to a better school (charter, out of boundary, private using vouchers) then we support it.  It doesn't help everyone but it helps some, primarily those who want help.  It is not a quick inner city fix though.  Liberals on the other hand want that fix, want "no child left behind," say it is unfair if some kids get out and others don't.  It is a great example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, and in their model (which we've done for most of the past 50 years) nothing ever improves. 

[listen2me 23 1,542]

18 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

It starts at home.

Eliminate Government benefits for those who are able to work. This will incentivize ghetto women to not get knocked up by a man who will leave the child fatherless. The two-parent family setting can help the child grow up to not be an assholle to teachers.

This.  Inner city women choose and like guys who have been in and out of jail, have no job, are obviously selfish/not father material.  

Why is that someone else's problem?  Choose wiser.  Dont have kids you cant take care of.  Oh right the more kids they pop out the more of my tax dollars they get.  They dont care about their children.  What an amazing system that is.

[peenie 1,690]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2020 at 5:38 AM, listen2me 23 said:

This.  Inner city women choose and like guys who have been in and out of jail, have no job, are obviously selfish/not father material.  

Why is that someone else's problem?  Choose wiser.  Dont have kids you cant take care of.  Oh right the more kids they pop out the more of my tax dollars they get.  They dont care about their children.  What an amazing system that is.

How do you know what inner city women like? I think that is your imagination. I was a single mother and the father of my child was not in and out of jail and he had a job and I was not a teenager. He just shirked his responsibilities, unfortunately. However, thanks to the government, I was able to get the child support from him that I needed through garnishment of his wages.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,646]

8 minutes ago, peenie said:

How do you know what inner city women like? I think that is your imagination. I was a single mother and the father of my child was not in and out of jail and he had a job and I was not a teenager. He just shirked his responsibilities, unfortunately. However, thanks to the government, I was able to get the child support from him that I needed through garnishment of his wages.

Conservatives are all for men paying child support. The difference is they want him to be able to get a job to do it. 

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

9 minutes ago, peenie said:

How do you know what inner city women like? I think that is your imagination. I was a single mother and the father of my child was not in and out of jail and he had a job and I was not a teenager. He just shirked his responsibilities, unfortunately. However, thanks to the government, I was able to get the child support from him that I needed through garnishment of his wages.

You know there are a ton of chicks out there who find the "bad boy" thing attractive. It makes no sense. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, did our female ancestors benefit by procreating with the least likely males to take on any responsibility? 

[listen2me 23 1,542]

5 hours ago, peenie said:

How do you know what inner city women like? I think that is your imagination. I was a single mother and the father of my child was not in and out of jail and he had a job and I was not a teenager. He just shirked his responsibilities, unfortunately. However, thanks to the government, I was able to get the child support from him that I needed through garnishment of his wages.

I dont.  But with the fatherless rates among poor inner city folks I can take a wild guess.  

Obviously not every single instance.  Lets not be goofy.  

[Masshole 642]

Not 2 sentences, but it's an interesting question.    What, at their core, is the difference between conservatives and liberals?  

At it's core it's about the belief or disbelief in the perfectabilty of humankind.    This is not entirely my invention/opinion.   I did a lot of reading/research about the topic and below is the short-hand summary of what I discovered that I think made the most sense.  I am not saying I have this all right and it's the only answer, but I thought this explains a lot:

Liberals believe that given the right inputs and direction humankind is perfectable and we can reach nirvana.   Where people operate out of concern for the community and the well-being of their fellow humans.   It is, therefore, government's role to adjust the inputs and directions until we reach the right mix that then we will be able to drive society towards nirvana.  

Conservatives believe that humans are imperfect/flawed and will always be regardless of gov't or societal inputs and direction.   As such there will always be "good" and "bad" people, no matter what you do.   Due to the inevitability of imperfect/flawed people there is an immutable need for establishment of inalienable rights that cannot be changed or abridged by the whims of humankind (that could be swayed or overtaken by the "bad" elements of their society).    And because of imperfect/flawed people it is in the governed people's best interest to limit the size and scope of government.    The smaller the gov't the smaller the negative impact it can have on people's lives.  Large gov't is more likely to be overtaken and controlled by imperfect/flawed people.    And if humankind isn't perfectable then significant and overarching attempts at adjusting societal inputs and direction are largely a waste of time and money that are destined for failure.    Best to keep gov't efforts small, local, and attainable. 

I firmly believe that there is a large percentage of the population that are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.    Hence I am a conservative.     

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

3 minutes ago, Masshole said:

Not 2 sentences, but it's an interesting question.    What, at their core, is the difference between conservatives and liberals?  

At it's core it's about the belief or disbelief in the perfectabilty of humankind.    This is not entirely my invention/opinion.   I did a lot of reading/research about the topic and below is the short-hand summary of what I discovered that I think made the most sense.  I am not saying I have this all right and it's the only answer, but I thought this explains a lot:

Liberals believe that given the right inputs and direction humankind is perfectable and we can reach nirvana.   Where people operate out of concern for the community and the well-being of their fellow humans.   It is, therefore, government's role to adjust the inputs and directions until we reach the right mix that then we will be able to drive society towards nirvana.  

Conservatives believe that humans are imperfect/flawed and will always be regardless of gov't or societal inputs and direction.   As such there will always be "good" and "bad" people, no matter what you do.   Due to the inevitability of imperfect/flawed people there is an immutable need for establishment of inalienable rights that cannot be changed or abridged by the whims of humankind (that could be swayed or overtaken by the "bad" elements of their society).    And because of imperfect/flawed people it is in the governed people's best interest to limit the size and scope of government.    The smaller the gov't the smaller the negative impact it can have on people's lives.  Large gov't is more likely to be overtaken and controlled by imperfect/flawed people.    And if humankind isn't perfectable then significant and overarching attempts at adjusting societal inputs and direction are largely a waste of time and money that are destined for failure.    Best to keep gov't efforts small, local, and attainable. 

I firmly believe that there is a large percentage of the population that are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.    Hence I am a conservative.     

Pretty much it.

[peenie 1,690]

2 hours ago, Masshole said:

I firmly believe that there is a large percentage of the population that are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.    Hence I am a conservative.     

Lol!!