• 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!

McConnell Video Touts GOP: ‘We Are The Party Of Compassion’

True or False?

  • Total voters
    22
I noticed the GOPs compassion for the effects of the sequestor didn't kick in until it effected the GOP congressmen personally.

The GOP doesn't have a soul so how could they have compassion?
 
Moot said:
I noticed the GOPs compassion for the effects of the sequestor didn't kick in until it effected the GOP congressmen personally.

The GOP doesn't have a soul so how could they have compassion?
Click to expand...

They have compassion for the very rich.
 
Many can be considered compassionate conservatives. However, the Tea Party has declared war on that, and some of the base have labeled Bush-style compassionate conservatism as "too liberal." Myself, I was more aligned with that style of conservatism than most other styles.
 
Last edited:
People should stop using the word "compassionate" when talking about government.
 
Henrin said:
People should honestly stop using the word "compassionate" when talking about government.
Click to expand...

This is the part where the libertarian tries to convince us that government is neutral or an oppressive force, and no more.
 
And they said a turd couldn't be polished. lol
 
Fiddytree said:
This is the part where the libertarian tries to convince us that government is neutral or an oppressive force, and no more.
Click to expand...

This is where the people realize the governments only tool is force. You don't have to like the truth for it to be the truth.
 
Fiddytree said:
Many can be considered compassionate conservatives. However, the Tea Party has declared war on that, and some of the base have labeled Bush-style compassionate conservatism as "too liberal." Myself, I was more aligned with that style of conservatism than most other styles.
Click to expand...


And those Tea Partiers themselves are more likely to actually give of their own money, time, effort, and even blood. I would count that as more worthy of the title "compassionate" than the willingness to give others money, time, etc.
 
cpwill said:
And those Tea Partiers themselves are more likely to actually give of their own money, time, effort, and even blood. I would count that as more worthy of the title "compassionate" than the willingness to give others money, time, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but to those that receive services, that hardly does any good and only harms them.
 
cpwill said:
And those Tea Partiers themselves are more likely to actually give of their own money, time, effort, and even blood. I would count that as more worthy of the title "compassionate" than the willingness to give others money, time, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you're McConnell's target audience. Those who want to hear good things about the Republican party.
 
Moot said:
I noticed the GOPs compassion for the effects of the sequestor didn't kick in until it effected the GOP congressmen personally.

The GOP doesn't have a soul so how could they have compassion?
Click to expand...

You mean because they did not yield to liberal extortion they are are evil people, dontcha? Obama is the one who said he would not accept any legislation to avoid sequester that did not involve raising taxes so the GOP did not let themselves be blackmailed. No more; no less.
 
Compassion means different things to different people. To many, compassion means coddling, crippling, and providing cradle to the grave services because life isnt fair. To some of us...thats not compassion...its about the worst thing you can do to people and it creates not just a life of dependency but generations of dependency. To others...compassion means providing a means to achieve success, having high expectations, promotion of personal responsibility, creating areas of opportunity, and yes, a hand up to those willing to work to achieve success. Compassion extends to those that cannot through no fault of their own provide for their own needs. If anyone thinks they are getting 'compassion' from the federal government, you are sadly mistaken. You dont have to look very far into our current state of social dysfunction to see just how government 'compassion' has 'helped' people.
 
VanceMack said:
Compassion means different things to different people. To many, compassion means coddling, crippling, and providing cradle to the grave services because life isnt fair. To some of us...thats not compassion...its about the worst thing you can do to people and it creates not just a life of dependency but generations of dependency. To others...compassion means providing a means to achieve success, having high expectations, promotion of personal responsibility, creating areas of opportunity, and yes, a hand up to those willing to work to achieve success. Compassion extends to those that cannot through no fault of their own provide for their own needs.



If anyone thinks they are getting 'compassion' from the federal government, you are sadly mistaken. You dont have to look very far into our current state of social dysfunction to see just how government 'compassion' has 'helped' people.
Click to expand...


I spaced these out to suggest that the former statement contradicts the latter.
 
Fiddytree said:
I spaced these out to suggest that the former statement contradicts the latter.
Click to expand...
Hamfisted response perhaps. Point being...there ARE those that simply cannot provide for themselves or their families through no fault of their own. There are people we should ALWAYS take care of. That support should NOT come from the federal government...rather from private, local, and state.
 
VanceMack said:
Hamfisted response perhaps. Point being...there ARE those that simply cannot provide for themselves or their families through no fault of their own. There are people we should ALWAYS take care of. That support should NOT come from the federal government...rather from private, local, and state.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of services that are mix funded through federal and state funds, but the latter cannot take the whole thing, and couldn't be trusted to do that either. Private is a mixed bag in comparison with those two, where frequently, there is hardly any private groups that care enough or believe they have enough incentive to push funds through to do such matters.

Perhaps my awareness of this is completely different, but at the state level you just end up with the same argument you're making, minus the parts about the federal government. It always comes down to "other people's money," especially for those populations that fall under that category of "through no fault of their own." Then under such an argument, once that realization comes through to them that it won't work well, a good chunk of the time I get the response "tough ****."
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
There's plenty of services that are mix funded through federal and state funds, but the latter cannot take the whole thing, and couldn't be trusted to do that either. Private is a mixed bag in comparison with those two, where frequently, there is hardly any private groups that care enough or believe they have enough incentive to push funds through to do such matters.

Perhaps my awareness of this is completely different, but at the state level you just end up with the same argument you're making, minus the parts about the federal government. It always comes down to "other people's money," especially for those populations that fall under that category of "through no fault of their own." Then under such an argument, once that realization comes through to them that it won't work well, a good chunk of the time I get the response "tough ****."
Click to expand...
Nah. Eliminate the federal involvement and gut layers of bureaucracy. Allow the states to address their own needs and tax their citizens accordingly. Much more likely to actually be responsible for the product (and maybe just maybe have people actually engaged to help) and not just bury the cost of social programs in the trillions of dollars of annual debt so that it becomes some other generations problem.
 
VanceMack said:
Nah. Eliminate the federal involvement and gut layers of bureaucracy. Allow the states to address their own needs and tax their citizens accordingly. Much more likely to actually be responsible for the product (and maybe just maybe have people actually engaged to help) and not just bury the cost of social programs in the trillions of dollars of annual debt so that it becomes some other generations problem.
Click to expand...

I couldn't imagine North Dakota providing adequate SSI, could you? Vocational Rehabilitation?
 
Fiddytree said:
I couldn't imagine North Dakota providing adequate SSI, could you? Vocational Rehabilitation?
Click to expand...
Social Security is an enmeshed federal program. Theoretically it is a pay as you go system and since people are prone to move to many different states over the course of their lifetimes it is the one and only social program that should stay at the fed. It should have some serious revisions in my opinion, but still.

As for the rest of their social programs...yes...North Dakota should be every bit as much on the hook for its own citizens as should California.
 
VanceMack said:
Social Security is an enmeshed federal program. Theoretically it is a pay as you go system and since people are prone to move to many different states over the course of their lifetimes it is the one and only social program that should stay at the fed. It should have some serious revisions in my opinion, but still.

As for the rest of their social programs...yes...North Dakota should be every bit as much on the hook for its own citizens as should California.
Click to expand...

But what I am trying to tell you is that we have to fight like crazy to just get federal law enforced, getting state services funded or created. I wouldn't in my wildest dreams trust the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom