• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Conservatives Believe In Personal Responsibility Only When It Suits Them?

Do Conservatives Believe In Personal Responsibility Only When It Suits Them?


  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
Recently two NYPD Officers were killed by a crazy person. Based on how conservatives are blaming Al Sharpton and Mayor de Blasio but not the actual killer I'm gonna have to say yes.

I haven't seen evidence that they are blaming Sharpton and deBlasio for the murders- just for setting up (and encouraging) the cultural conditions for this type of thing to happen in, which does seem to be the case.
 
When have I ever defended Sharpton on here? In the case of Michael Brown I blamed his family for being crappy parents and raising a criminal.

I never said you defended him. Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh?
 
Because unlike you he believes in personal responsibility.

You know nothing about me, but that never stops a lib from making **** up. :roll:
 
Recently two NYPD Officers were killed by a crazy person. Based on how conservatives are blaming Al Sharpton and Mayor de Blasio but not the actual killer I'm gonna have to say yes.

Can you quote any statement from anyone identifying as conservative, to the effect that the actual killer is not responsible for his actions?
 
Yes, but oddly enough the same bunch arguing that Sharpton should take responsibility for inflammatory statements (which he should), don't argue that hate mongers on right wing talk radio should take responsibility for inflammatory statements when they could inspire some nut job to commit violence as well.

What statements can you cite from “hate mongers on right wing talk radio” inciting hatred and violence in any manner comparable to what certain prominent individuals on the wrong, such as Sharpton, have been doing?
 
What statements can you cite from “hate mongers on right wing talk radio” inciting hatred and violence in any manner comparable to what certain prominent individuals on the wrong, such as Sharpton, have been doing?

Oh for crying out loud. A Klansman uses less inflammatory language about blacks than a guy like Mark Levin uses about liberals.
 
Brown is one thing, but in the case of Eric Garner just about everyone to the left of the Klan questioned the police tactics.

To be fair, I and people like me questioned the government/city council crackdown and orders to police to strictly enforce against illegal cigarette sales that led to this unfortunate incident. If governments and city councils weren't so dependent on nickel and diming average citizens to constantly feed their hunger to spend, the Garner incident would likely have not happened. But I and people like me do not fault police for what appeared to be a lawful arrest and for what Garner escalated into his own death.
 
Recently two NYPD Officers were killed by a crazy person. Based on how conservatives are blaming Al Sharpton and Mayor de Blasio but not the actual killer I'm gonna have to say yes.
Well THAT was certainly a well thought out evidence based hypothesis.

I just posted this on another thread and it occurs to me that it could very well likely be the masthead for damn near every thread on every site like this one.
hypocrite.jpg
 
Recently two NYPD Officers were killed by a crazy person. Based on how conservatives are blaming Al Sharpton and Mayor de Blasio but not the actual killer I'm gonna have to say yes.

A dumb poll.
 
With all due respect, comment from people like Sharpton, de Blasio, Holder and Obama encourage the idea that black youth are not personally responsible for the behaviors which lead to incidents like Garner and Brown. They instead put that blame on the police. Maybe if they encouraged a little personal responsibility in the lives of the people they're talking to we'd see less crap like this.
Obama has advocated personal responsibility in the Black community. Perhaps you were so busy screaming to see his birth certificate to hear him mention it?
 
Loaded bait question at best. Since you cannot even get liberals and conservatives to agree on what "personal responsibility" is, there is zero expectation you can get them to agree on how to apply the concept.

The cons mean that personal responsibility means - no welfare, no unemployment checks, no unions, no free education.

But it's all God's will, so you're not responsible anyway.
 
To be fair, I and people like me questioned the government/city council crackdown and orders to police to strictly enforce against illegal cigarette sales that led to this unfortunate incident. If governments and city councils weren't so dependent on nickel and diming average citizens to constantly feed their hunger to spend, the Garner incident would likely have not happened. But I and people like me do not fault police for what appeared to be a lawful arrest and for what Garner escalated into his own death.

The man was choked to death by a police officer while being arrested for selling singles out of a pack of cigarettes. Mind you, that choke hold they are not even supposed to use. Yet you don't fault the police on that one?
 
The cons mean that personal responsibility means - no welfare, no unemployment checks, no unions, no free education.

But it's all God's will, so you're not responsible anyway.

That's not accurate at all. Cons see no problem with welfare for the truly needy, or unemployment, or unions even where needed. Conservatives have a problem with promotion of welfare in a seemingly unlimited supply and quantity, see a problem with unions where they are used as political fund raising machines instead of actually protecting workers. The progressive view of using any organization to promote more dependency on hand outs is a problem - there is middle ground where reasonable people can agree on the use and administration of all types of welfare as long as there is a job at the end of the use and not simply more welfare bribes for democratic votes.
 
Obama has advocated personal responsibility in the Black community. Perhaps you were so busy screaming to see his birth certificate to hear him mention it?
What Obama does is configure his remarks according to the audience he targets.
If he's talking to a broad-range audience he'll say "blah blah blah" but "yadda yadda yadda" to make sure he's got it all covered.
If he's talking to a "special" group he'll say things like "we can't get to single payer right away".
So there's no telling what he told Sharpton during any of his WH visits.
 
The man was choked to death by a police officer while being arrested for selling singles out of a pack of cigarettes. Mind you, that choke hold they are not even supposed to use. Yet you don't fault the police on that one?

You'd be surprised at how many YouTube videos I watched yesterday involving police brutality, and how many officers took people down, and held them by their necks while other officers either jumped on the person or flogged them into submission with their clubs.

I did some looking around to see if I could find out how many citizens died at the hands of police officers, but according to links, congress in 2004 ordered the FBI not to gather statistics on that, instead, easily found were stats on how many officers died in the line of duty, weird huh?

I believe the USA Today reported that around 400 citizens lost their lives in 2014 so far, at the hands of police officers. It also stated that police brutality is up, and on the rise over the past two decades.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/
 
That's not accurate at all. Cons see no problem with welfare for the truly needy, or unemployment, or unions even where needed. Conservatives have a problem with promotion of welfare in a seemingly unlimited supply and quantity, see a problem with unions where they are used as political fund raising machines instead of actually protecting workers. The progressive view of using any organization to promote more dependency on hand outs is a problem - there is middle ground where reasonable people can agree on the use and administration of all types of welfare as long as there is a job at the end of the use and not simply more welfare bribes for democratic votes.

The cons are the ones that made my list; not me.
 
The man was choked to death by a police officer while being arrested for selling singles out of a pack of cigarettes. Mind you, that choke hold they are not even supposed to use. Yet you don't fault the police on that one?

Did you read the autopsy report ?

Thom Paine
 
The man was choked to death by a police officer while being arrested for selling singles out of a pack of cigarettes. Mind you, that choke hold they are not even supposed to use. Yet you don't fault the police on that one?

1. The man was not choked to death. The coroner's report does not support your contention.

2. The man resisted arrest. Considering his size in comparison to the officers, what would you have the officers do to enforce the arrest? How else would you incapacitate an individual of this size who will not give in to the arresting authority given to police officers?

3. The man had been arrested several times before. If I'm not mistaken, he had over 20 charges - most minor - so he should have some understanding of how the law works. Is it not possible, perhaps likely, that Garner resisted arrest previously or at least was uncooperative and it was Garner who escalated the incident this time?

4. If the officer is found to have used a procedure that was illegal or against police department rules, I expect him to be held to account by police conduct reviews and appropriately disciplined and perhaps removed from the force if that is deemed appropriate. I expect no less of the officer to submit to the legal process as I do Garner. The officer went through the grand jury process and now will be subject to the police department's protocol.

The sooner everyone understands and appreciates that rights of individuals can and may often be overridden by the authority vested in law enforcement officers the sooner these types of incidents will cease. This nonsense about shouting "I have rights" and resisting arrest just gets some people an untimely death. Exert your rights where they can be honored and enforced - in a court of law.
 
The premise of this thread is utterly laughable and pathetic. If you want to know what a lib is up to, pay attention to what he accuses others of. :wink:
 
Obama has advocated personal responsibility in the Black community. Perhaps you were so busy screaming to see his birth certificate to hear him mention it?

Advocating for personal responsibility involves more than simply paying lip service to the issue. Here's Obama's speech on Ferguson - Remarks by the President After Announcement of the Decision by the Grand Jury in Ferguson, Missouri | The White House

Basically, it says "we know that cops prey on black communities but please don't throw bottles". That's a long damned way from talking about personal responsibility.

Here is Obama's speech about Trayvon Martin - Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin | The White House

The crux of this speech is that "yeah, statistics show that black kids get in more trouble but that's because the justice system is racist". Again, nothing about personal responsibility.

Here's Obama's statement on the 2 cops that got assassinated - Statement by the President | The White House

Not even 100 words and, again, no statement about personal responsibility.


Barack Obama and his "social justice" agenda can kiss my ass.
 
No, but then again you're thinking that the people in the Republican Party are conservatives and they're not. They're largely neo-cons, which are closer to liberals than to conservatives.
 
1. The man was not choked to death. The coroner's report does not support your contention.

2. The man resisted arrest. Considering his size in comparison to the officers, what would you have the officers do to enforce the arrest? How else would you incapacitate an individual of this size who will not give in to the arresting authority given to police officers?

3. The man had been arrested several times before. If I'm not mistaken, he had over 20 charges - most minor - so he should have some understanding of how the law works. Is it not possible, perhaps likely, that Garner resisted arrest previously or at least was uncooperative and it was Garner who escalated the incident this time?

4. If the officer is found to have used a procedure that was illegal or against police department rules, I expect him to be held to account by police conduct reviews and appropriately disciplined and perhaps removed from the force if that is deemed appropriate. I expect no less of the officer to submit to the legal process as I do Garner. The officer went through the grand jury process and now will be subject to the police department's protocol.

The sooner everyone understands and appreciates that rights of individuals can and may often be overridden by the authority vested in law enforcement officers the sooner these types of incidents will cease. This nonsense about shouting "I have rights" and resisting arrest just gets some people an untimely death. Exert your rights where they can be honored and enforced - in a court of law.

1- that's not so clear... had he not gone through that ordeal, he more than likely would have been alive.

2- cops often say that when beating on someone, or put a person in a hold where they cannot possibly be cuffed, and then use that inability to move to claim that the person is resisting.

3- this one you have at least a bit of a point... If you've been arrested that many times you should have some familiarity with the routine. However, that does not change that anything short of dropping prone with your hands behind your back can be called resisting... and even then.

4- he may not be criminally guilty of murder, however, civilly culpable is a different question.
 
1- that's not so clear... had he not gone through that ordeal, he more than likely would have been alive.

Had he not been breaking the law in the first place, he more than likely would have been alive. Personal responsibility anyone?

2- cops often say that when beating on someone, or put a person in a hold where they cannot possibly be cuffed, and then use that inability to move to claim that the person is resisting.

Nobody would have had to put the cuffs on him if he hadn't been breaking the law. Personal responsibility.

3- this one you have at least a bit of a point... If you've been arrested that many times you should have some familiarity with the routine. However, that does not change that anything short of dropping prone with your hands behind your back can be called resisting... and even then.

Whose fault is it that they've been arrested many times? Oh wait, he was a CRIMINAL! :roll:

4- he may not be criminally guilty of murder, however, civilly culpable is a different question.

That's just a liberal move to put people in double jeopardy. When you can't get it through the criminal courts, go for a civil trial where the burden of proof is much lower.
 
Loaded bait question at best. Since you cannot even get liberals and conservatives to agree on what "personal responsibility" is, there is zero expectation you can get them to agree on how to apply the concept.

What is loaded about the question? Either you believe one's actions are his own responsibility or not.
 
1. The man was not choked to death. The coroner's report does not support your contention.

2. The man resisted arrest. Considering his size in comparison to the officers, what would you have the officers do to enforce the arrest? How else would you incapacitate an individual of this size who will not give in to the arresting authority given to police officers?

3. The man had been arrested several times before. If I'm not mistaken, he had over 20 charges - most minor - so he should have some understanding of how the law works. Is it not possible, perhaps likely, that Garner resisted arrest previously or at least was uncooperative and it was Garner who escalated the incident this time?

4. If the officer is found to have used a procedure that was illegal or against police department rules, I expect him to be held to account by police conduct reviews and appropriately disciplined and perhaps removed from the force if that is deemed appropriate. I expect no less of the officer to submit to the legal process as I do Garner. The officer went through the grand jury process and now will be subject to the police department's protocol.

The sooner everyone understands and appreciates that rights of individuals can and may often be overridden by the authority vested in law enforcement officers the sooner these types of incidents will cease. This nonsense about shouting "I have rights" and resisting arrest just gets some people an untimely death. Exert your rights where they can be honored and enforced - in a court of law.

Why do you want the case presented everywhere but a court of law?
 
Back
Top Bottom