The Conservative Cat

Republicans DON'T have an interest in the poor...

An interest in keeping them down...

An interest in increasing their number through wild government expansion...

An interest in using them as a pretext to pillage everyone else in the process...

Thanks for letting me vent Ferdinand!

How exactly do Republicans use the poor as a pretext to pillage people?

I should think the opposite...

He's saying Republicans don't have an interest in keeping them down, they don't have an interest in increasing their number, and so forth.

Essentially, he is comparing the results of the welfare state (keeping them down, pillaging the populace) to its motivation (concern for the poor). Progressives seem to be completely unaware that conservatives feel this way, which is part of the problem in fostering communication.

(Oh my God! "Fostering communication"?? I'm starting to sound like Jimmy Carter. Memo to self: check to see if the bowl of tuna fish I stole from the Interloper has any drugs in it.)

I've given you some links dealing with Rush and O'Reilly at the PBU site. Go check 'em out.

And way to go, suggesting that all liberals would not give money to the poor. I do it frequently; more often, I buy them some food. I thought you didn't want people making sweeping generalizations? Or did you mean just liberals?

You are applying something called the Closed World Assumption to what I say, assigning as much meaning to what I don't say as to what I do say. You can't do that if you intend to have a real dialogue here.

There is a real difference in the way liberals and conservatives approach problems. You believe in government power and we don't. If you honestly think individual charitable works are the solution to poverty, then you have no basis for disagreeing with me. You and I both know that's not the case.

If you have any desire to understand the conservative movement, you have to start from this basic difference of approach, which goes all the way back to Godwin and Smith. Tom Sowell discusses it in depth in his book Conflict of Visions, which is a must-read for everybody, in my never-to-be-humble opinion.

Your last paragraph in the comment above is 'right on'. There are fundamental differences of approach between the liberals & conservatives & dialogue will be hard without this understanding. Glad to have been introduced to this site, I plan to return!

But real debate is so hard.
If you mostly agree with someone, there is a lot of understanding between you and it is easy to debate with them (even if the difference are small). I've seen a lot of blogs in this pattern where the writer and nearly all the readers agree (example ;-) ). If the differences are large, I think it takes a lot of time to understand where they are coming from enough to have a real debate*. As a result, real debate among individuals of very different opinions seems a rare thing.

*A debate between individuals with open minds where minds could actually be changed.

I agree completely with Lars' comment above. Seldom do folks with very different opinions debate at all. We are so polarized and there are so many outlets of information it is too easy to ignore and attack everything that is not in your sphere of beliefs. I do it, most of us do it...

Okay, Bruce downloaded The Chemist's post on the Progressive Blog Alliance. The link he gives for Rush Limbaugh is http://info-pollution.com/strawop.htm. If you go there, you'll read a story about a phone call between Limbaugh and an environmentalist. Rush wins the exchange. I guess the author's point is that if the environmentalist were smarter, Rush would have lost. Unfortunately, in order to make the example into a straw man, you have to conclude that the environmentalist is being held up as a representative of the entire movement. I don't think amybody believes that.

It is very easy to pick a stupid opponent. Just talk to anyone who doesn't make their living arguing about politics. There is no chance they'll be able to think as fast as you do. Bruce's wife can make him look stupid on religion, while nobody in their right mind ever tries to argue with Peg-Eye Nate about how to play video games.

Conversely, in written communication of the sort we do here, it's much easier to keep the conversation going. You potentially have multiple days to think up a response, and there is a world of information at your fingertips. Even so, back when he was running the Future Dead White Males web site, Bruce continually ended up on the losing end because he can't control his temper. That's why I'm in charge instead of him.