Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
And the path to prosperity is a blue state. Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/op...y-is-blue.html
You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor people and the poor know that. Consequently, the poor vote for the liberal candidate. |
"Look at that "grand experiment" in Kansas"
As I said, not every red state is a utopia. I don't know anyone moving to Kansas. I know a LOT of people moving from CT to the Carolinas, GA, TN, FL, and TX.
"the path to prosperity is a blue state"
That statement is a demonstrably false joke. Say it as many times as you like, post that absurd article as many times as you like. The facts spit in the face of that premise. Look at CT, RI, Mass, IL, Michigan, etc. CT has had unchecked liberalism for 40 years. And we are on the edge of bankruptcy, despite having high incomes (and our high incomes have zip to do with liberalism, and everything to do with proximity to Manhattan).
"You fail to understand that the poor live in big cities for a variety of reasons. "
A better statement would be "the non-poor flee the cities for a variety of reasons". And many of those reasons, are a direct result of liberalism. Liberalism makes it impossibly expensive to live in a city, so people who aren't poor, leave.
You are proving my point, not rejecting it. There is a reason why anyone who isn't poor, flees the city.
And the state of CT isn't one city. It is a state. A state with tons of money. But unable to pay its bails, and a state with insanely high taxes. A state that workers are fleeing. Again, liberalism.
You can't make that wrong, and you can't admit that I have a point. That puts you in a real pickle.
"conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor "
You and I have discussed this, it it also a pathetic, demonstrably false, joke of a statement. We discussed the study "who Really Cares", published in the same New York Times that you cited, which shows that conservatives are actually a bit more charitable, than liberals.
You have seen this study. we have discussed it. Yet you still say "conservatives have no sympathy or empathy for poor ". Again, you spout the same crap, despite evidence to the contrary. Again, you cannot admit that you are wrong.
Why does the Catholic Church give so much help to the poor? Mother Theresa was just made a saint last week, for her lifelong dedication to the poor. Would you say she has no empathy for the poor? Or are you going to suggest that she (a devout Catholic, rabidly anti-abortion) is a liberal?
You couldn't have done more to perpetuate the liberal stereotype. Rely on inane statements (like 'conservatives have no empathy for the poor') and ignore all facts to the contrary.
Liberals have just done swell in CT, and in Hartford especially. Those policies show all kinds of empathy for the poor. Instead of asking if there's ANYTHING to be gained by adopting conservative principles, you bash conservatives, and keep dumping already-failed liberalism on the poor, knowing that it will only make things worse. If that's a sign of empathy, sorry, I don't see it.
You just got clobbered.