A daughter of a Republican family returned home from college for vacation. She had a talk with her dad one night and said that she is now a Democrat. Her Dad asked her how college was going.
"I'm working really hard and I'm getting A's and Bs. But my Social life has gone down the drain because I've been studying so much." said the daughter.
"How's your roommate doing"
"She's partying a lot and having lots of fun. She's getting Cs and Ds in her classes"
The Dad thinks for a bit and says, "I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to the school office and tell them that you would like to give some of your grade to your roommate so you can both average Bs and Cs. That way it will be fair."
The daughter is now appalled. "No way! I worked too hard for my grades!"
The Dad smiled and said "Welcome to the Republican party."
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Luckily the basic needs of living for the partier don't depend on her grades (obviously).
I'm also not so sure that comparing a shift worker at the local plant to a partying goof-off is in the best of taste, but there it is.
[ September 08, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Indeed.. it's not really the same... *ponders* Not all people who are poor are poor because they are goofing off, after all.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
You're missing the point of the story. It wasn't to imply that poor people are lazy or that goofing off always results in bad grades. The point of the story was that being forced to give something you work for to someone who won't work for it is a liberal idea.
I know that's rather blunt and generalized, but I'm not in the mood to be more detailed.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
So, why not just have the last three paragraphs?
quote:The Dad thinks for a bit and says, "I'll tell you what. Why don't you go to the school office and tell them that you would like to give some of your grade to your roommate so you can both average Bs and Cs. That way it will be fair."
The daughter is now appalled. "No way! I worked too hard for my grades!"
The Dad smiled and said "Welcome to the Republican party."
This way, it lacks punch. The drive to outrage is from the contrast between the two girls' lifestyles. Unfortunately, that's also where the general inaccuracy and smugness of the (inaccurate) comparison lies.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The daughters response: "No thanks Dad. See, I work hard for my A's and B's, but my roommate, the party girl, her father has all these A+'s from when he was in school. He's giving them to her so she can graduate ahead of me. No matter how hard I work, I'll never catch up to her, but you would like her. She's a Republican too."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Marlozhan, if that were the point of the story, then why go to the effort of telling us that the roommate is partying?
I don't think that this matches the conservative objection to welfare, etc.. The problem isn't "This is mine, and I don't want anybody to have any of it." The problem is "This is mine, and you don't have a right to force me to share it with anyone."
I'm all for helping those less fortunate. I'm against forcing you to help them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. One of the principal concepts behind assistance, in fact, is that wealth does not perfectly correspond to labor OR virtue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I heard a very similar story, except in this one, the roomate is a lesbian so the father and his daughter beat her up and the tie her to the back of a truck and drag her around until she dies. Then the father turns to his daughter and says "Welcome to the Republican party."
In the hope of ever having anything positive happen in American politics, could we not relying on idiotic stories to do our debating? Seriously, there are serious issues out there and important differences between the parties, but we're now engaged in a pointless debate about Vietnam, both candidates are just jockeying for demogougic advantage, and people are treating incredibly stupid stories like this as some sort of telling point.
Make your point. Here's what I stand for and what I will do. Here's why I think that it is better than what my opponent(s) stand for and are going to do. That's what we need and what is so sorely lacking.
This, this is just stupid. The lesson from this story is that some people have no proper sense of when they are shaming themselves.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: It wasn't to imply that poor people are lazy or that goofing off always results in bad grades. The point of the story was that being forced to give something you work for to someone who won't work for it is a liberal idea.
But see? That IS the point, then. That the haves are haves because they earned it, while the have-nots have not because they won't work.
How about a story where the girl gets good grades, like her father before her, because her grandfather studied a lot. She gets to go to parties; she doesn't sacrifice anything. Maybe twenty points are added to her grade because they were "invested" in an academic bank decades ago, and gain interest. Oh, and an A ranges from 110% to 120%, which makes it impossible for her roommate to get an A, but she can just miss getting a B if she works her tail off.
Of course, that's just as slanted the other way. And hey, it's not funny anymore . . .
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I believe our government is the representative of our society. Our society cannot let anyone go hungry or go without basic needs.
Sorry to get religocentric, but us LDS believe that during the Millenium, when Christ has returned and rules the earth, the Government (obviously a theocracy) will make sure that everyone's needs are filled. And everyone will be able to use their own talents, and not have to worry about if the career of their choice can support them or not, or how much it would cost them to be educated for the career of their choice.
Why can't we start that now? Why not try to move closer to that highest law now? Do you think it is righteous to comfortably wait for the great Millenium where everyone is suddenly perfect, saying "Oh well, we are too wicked for it, why even try."
My husband is lucky enough to be very talented in and enjoy working in a field that pays him pretty well. But we've both wondered why he should be making more than the very talented car mechanic, or carpenter, or the guy who is in his element doing the repetative things we all need him to do in a manufacturing plant, or the teacher, or the cop... the list goes on.
[ September 08, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom, what are you saing "Yep" to?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ha ha Icarus. I said it first, and wittier.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dang. Beaten to the point by a bunch of people who also put it better. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yes, you did. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Twice. I am on a roll today. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Amka -- I'm all for us doing that. I am against the government doing that.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
amka:
Funny thing is. I have this belief in "the true source." One of the things among others that he demands from us is a sacrifice one a month.
I believe it's time that we pushed for that to happen inside government. We can create the ideal society now! People are starving on the streets, being murdered -- but it will all stop if we just take some reasonable measures to appease "the true source"!
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
MPH,
I'm tired of pitting the government against the people. The US government, at least, is For the People, Of the People, and By the People. The government IS us, and we have far more control over it if we only bother to exercise it rather than sit on our behinds and complain about it.
If we, as a society, voted to equalize pay among jobs, then it wouldn't be the government doing it, but us doing it. The government would merely be the hand by which we did it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Amka --it's not just my strong distrust of the federal govenrment, although that is certainly there.
Just like I think it would be evil for me to try to force you to to equalize how much you pay others, I think it would be evil for the government to do the same.
As you said, the government is by the people. All of it's rights and authority comes from the people. People don't have the right to force others to help the poor, so neither does the government.
[ September 08, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
Then I suppose it was evil of us to force our ideals on Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, and Iraq.
Interesting the dichotomy there, yes? On both sides of the liberal-commie/conservative-capitalist pig fence.
[ September 08, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Very good point, and one that I was aware of as I was typing that post, although I must admit that I was thinking of the dichotomy with the idea of gay marriage.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:The point of the story was that being forced to give something you work for to someone who won't work for it is a liberal idea.
Liberal actually means freedom from oppression, rules, and government. Liberty. Libertarian. Etc...
[ September 08, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Actually, Libertarians are even more conservative than Republicans, just without the whole strong military issue.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be more "liberal" with social programs the way one would be liberal with the butter on your french toast (or freedom toast if you are a liberal Republican). In other words, they use a lot of them. Roots aren't everything.
[ September 08, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: IdemosthenesI ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
More conservative? How so? They are all about doing whatever you want as long as it doen't hurt anyone else. Sounds like hippies to me. Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
They are all about getting rid of the government almost entirely, allowing privatized everything. Basically applying capitalism as a form of government. Of course, I think that would be a disaster, as capitalism is simply economic anarchy.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
liberal -- government "cares." No weed for you, you little bugger! Get ya' booty into rehab, right now!
libertarian -- government, go **** yourself. Anyone want to do weed, 'tis their choice.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ahhh yes... *yearns for the good old feudal days of yore*
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
So how did liberty and liberal come to mean soft squishy government? Rush changing the language again?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
That is true. Law enforcement under a libertarian regime would be a lot more lax. However all services would also be privatized. That means the nation would be ruled by investment bankers. That also means that, since law enforcement is more lax, those investment bankers can hire their own "security forces." You wouldn't get nabbed for smoking weed, but just try to open a competing coffe shop without the Starbucks Squad jumping throug your windows dressed in riot gear.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Knowing my luck, I'd be a serf in the feudal days of yore.
In other words, a slave.
Even with the government doing incredible stupid things for me, I like this better.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yah... I can see that as a danger, IdemosthenesI.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Yeah, much as I hate getting pulled over by plice, I'd much rather have police than no police.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I think that many things the government does should be privatized, military and police are not part of that group.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I would like to add the combination of those two which is Intelligence, should not be done on a capitalistic basis. That is why I was shocked when Abu Graib stories came out talking about how the US Government has privatized much of their intelligence gathering.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
"This, this is just stupid. The lesson from this story is that some people have no proper sense of when they are shaming themselves." There's no point in being rude about it, Mr. Squirky.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)