When talking with liberals, have you ever felt like they spoke a foreign language? Or maybe that you were on FM and they were stuck on AM?
From the Pennington County Democrat blog and an interview with Jack Billion, here's a look at what the Left calls "family values:"
What kind of discussion would you like to see happen?
I’d like to see us talk about a return to real family values. The ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party has taken a dominant role in South Dakota and we’ve moved away from that. Real family values mean promoting good wages and good jobs. Real family values mean solid educational opportunities for our children, starting with preschool education? we are one of 12 states without a preschool program, and moving into a well-funded K-12 program. To me, access to health care and health insurance for the 90,000 South Dakotans who are uninsured is something I look at as a family value, and we need talk about these things.
It's like they said to themselves, "To have a hope of winning, we have to look like we have some family values. But we don't have any. But look: we do have all this big-government stuff! Here, let's slap a "Family Values" label on the big-government stuff and hope the public believes it."
Newsflash for the reality-impaired: a socialist grab-bag doesn't equal family values. Hint for liberals, since you probably haven't seen family values in your political neighborhood for decades: family values are values which promote, protect and honor the family, such as not killing your children in the womb, not allowing a couple of homosexuals to call what they're doing "marriage," promoting parental authority in and out of schools, teaching children good moral values, not taxing families into mediocrity while pretending you care about families...you know, stuff like that.
And they wonder why values voters won't elect them...
3 comments:
Wow, Bob, you caught us.
Us liberals thought we were being super tricky, thinking we could get away with promoting things like jobs and health care. Good thing you saved the day and blew the whistle.
Without you and like-minded conservatives, we might actually have tried promoting things like health care for all families, or real jobs with real wages that ensure families' financial well-being. We might value and protect the rights of all families in South Dakota, and nationwide. We might even think about letting women opt out of bearing rapists' children. Silly us.
I'm really glad you're taking us back to "familiy values": intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance.
Conservatives just don't get it. My $600 monthly retirement social security doesn't go as far as it did during the Clinton administration. Every 2 weeks when I get groceries they have increased in price, cab farfe has went up all due to gas prices. I expect my rent to go up for the same reason. As near as I can figure out Bobby must be independantly wealthy because as much as he appears on CCK he can't possibly be working and I know he isn't old enough to be retired.
Yes, Joanie, I'm rolling in the dough. Filthy rich. Never worked a day in my life. I just love keeping poor people poor!
Actually, I work for a living; always have and probably always will. And I'm a long, long way from rich (you can tell by the house I live in and the vehicle I drive). But I'm not a socialist sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of me, either. I don't want somebody else to subsidize my lifestyle. I'd rather work for what I have. It's sad that this is such an alien value to you. (From your comment, is that who most of the regulars on CCK are: rich people and people who don't work?)
Everyone has equal opportunity to create as much or as little prosperity as they would like in America. Bad decisions (like substance abuse, gambling, marrying a pinhead, or simple financial irresponsibility) or tradeoffs (deciding not to start your own company because you don't want to work 80 or more hours a week, or not getting a higher education because what you enjoy doing doesn't require it or doesn't pay that well) can result in less income, but again, those are choices we make.
Envy and greed aren't sins that only rich people commit. If a poor man looks at something someone else has, thinks he has a right to something he hasn't earned, schemes to get some of that other man's things (even if he tries to get his government to do his stealing for him), that's greed and envy.
Marxism is the philosophy that says people should subsidize other people. It removes the initiative to excel and the consequences for being a slouch. I can understand why so many on the Left like the idea--it's certainly a lot easier than working hard, not to mention more pleasant than taking responsibility for bad or low-value decisions.
But it isn't the American way. And it isn't even the Christian way. The American way, which was based on Biblical examples of hard work and a recognition that man is a fallen creature who will naturally seek the path of least resistance, was to provide an opportunity but not a hammock. The Bible (and the American way) says help people who are in need, but don't do for them what they could and should be doing for themselves. Marxism (socialism) says other people should pay for the things you want.
What system is better: Marxism or the American way?
Post a Comment