Welcome to Gaia! ::

An article from two years ago that I was linked to today by Kate/lymelady talks about how Conservatives are happier than Liberals. I mean, literally, studies have shown that Conservatives, whether their party is in power or not, are happier than Liberals. And it explores why. Now, one reason could be that religious people, and married couples, are more likely to be Conservative, and also more likely to be happy. But I think these all, being religious, being Conservative, and even being happily married, are related to their personality more than affecting their personality, if that makes any sense. They look at happiness differently, and that's why they are Conservative, that's why they stay married, and that's why they are happy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202012.html

The most important part of this article, I think, is in the middle there, and he doesn't expound on it as much as I'd like; Democrats look at happiness as a goal. We want people to be happy. We want to make them happy by giving them money if they can't/won't/aren't making money right now, and can't take care of themselves. Socialism and communism are the same way; Everyone deserves to be happy, the government should take care of everyone, the government should make everyone happy!

But there's a reason the Declaration of Independence calls it the -pursuit- of happiness. It doesn't say that man has the unalienable right to happiness, it says that man has the unalienable right to the -pursuit- of happiness. And, in regards to the economy and money, this is how Republicans, Conservatives, look at it. Happiness isn't just the destination, it's the trip. When you work towards happiness, there's a satisfaction. There's a certain happiness to know you're working for what you're getting.

As opposed to the people who get welfare and just want more.

See, when you don't have to work for your happiness, there's always something better. If you just give people welfare, they come to expect it, and they complain that you aren't giving them enough. Even though it's free! They didn't do anything to deserve it, they won't have to do anything to pay it back! Yet they want more. It's like the proverb of giving a man a fish, except, if you give a man a fish every day for a year, he'll come to expect it. If you then try to teach him how to fish, he'll say, "Why bother? You're already giving me fish every day. But actually, I'm still hungry, and see, I've got this wife, and these two kids... They want fishes too."

That's why Republicans, and other fiscal Conservatives, are against welfare, in it's current state, and other socialist policies. Not because we hate poor people. But because a) We earned our money, and we don't see why it should be taken away for perfectly able people, and b) You're spoiling the people who come to expect welfare, and teach their kids that it's okay to rely on welfare.

Wow, Divine, you have this pessimism thing down. You believe that conservatives are self-centered, because if you're right, you knew it, and if you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.

Kudos, come join us!

XD Touche.

And by "help" you mean "bomb".

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran....

But no. This is why it's hard to believe you don't believe that "conservatives don't care about the bad things in the world, only their happiness," quip. Are you willfully ignoring the humanitarian things that are going on, or do they not justify the war? Because one way you're ignorant, the other way you've got an informed opinion and you disagree on a philosophical level, which is cool, but then no one will waste time trying to bring you up to speed.

Liberation is always a front. We stepped in in the last stages of the war. We also had our fair share of dealings with the Nazis, on an economic and business level.

Iraq chose Saddam, amirite?

There are plenty of charities from both liberal and conservatives. I think the feeling of liberals on Iraq was basically "We set up Saddam in the first place, and what we really have to gain are business contracts." And the idea of a few people taking all the money for themselves sounds a lot like something else.

What have liberals done? It's more like, what haven't conservatives done. I feel that you're looking at this the wrong way- Most of the problems are caused by our own past actions. By doing no harm now, we will not be harmed later.

I am not a liberal, but I agree with them on the war issue, and on a few other things. Like how I agree with conservatives on a few things.

But you can say the same for liberal CEO's. There are many of those, and yeah, benefiting from this war too. But the majority, hell, MOST of conservatives who support the things Andy mentioned are not CEOs at all (I wish I was though), or anywhere near it, and are personally not benefiting from the war at all.

And to say "And by help you mean bomb," because of a few greedy CEOs out of millions of people, some of whom have lost family members in this war? To negate all of them with a negative stereotype? The fact that you believe it enough to do that is amusing to me.

It's both. It's the way conservatives SHOW their care- instead of by actively trying to seek out peace, often it's to bomb something or kill someone.

Caring is good. Doing things is good. Doing too much, or something negative, is bad.

So, being involved with Iraq isn't necessarily a bad thing. Until we kill off their government and set up a dictator, only to realize a few decades later that he's insane and end up bombing them anyway. See how "Being involved" doesn't always mean "dropping a bomb"? It's HOW the conservatives often end up doing things that is an issue for me.