Y'know what you 'murrican jackasses need to realize is that there is a world outside your own ingrown belly-buttons.

Get a grip and get with the rest of the world. Either that or we will just have to kick it for you.

Of course, Jan, as a pinko liberal you give the usual commie line.

Of course, I will be inclined to look at all the Democrat interest groups seeking to milk at the public teat. Every schmuck is ready to sell out essential freedoms for short term gains. They don't care about the rights of the producers, or what the various kinds of costs of these programs will do to the whole economy. No, they want theirs NOW.

Rather than looking at long term interests of the country, it's a short grab for the AARP to get their hands on the money with more benefits.

Not that Republican congressmen don't go for a nice refreshing dip in the public till, but it's what Democrats and liberals LIVE for.

It is liberals who are most obviously care not about the bigger picture, but want a cut now- by any means necessary.

It is certainly the Democrats who live on merchandising hate and fear. Their main stock in trade is to come along with lies to scare voters like that the Republicans are going to take away their Social Security checks and such. Consider the wicked NAACP ads on black radio in 2000, all but accusing Bush of helping chain the poor black guy up to the back of the pickup.

Then come and tell me that the right wingers are just big meanies who don't see the greater good.

Your "solution" with blankets and Enya sound like something for a pinko pussy whining about their "safety net" rather than something for a tough minded conservative.

It is liberals who are most obviously care not about the bigger picture, but want a cut now- by any means necessary.

this is THE biggest load of crap you've posted this year...and it's also the same tired old "liberal tax&spend" cliche that some conservatives have waved around for years.

republicans like to dip into the till just as much as dems...they just make it seem like there causes are more worthwhile.

the 'defense' budget for instance is just chock full of crap that has nothing to do with defending the nation and everything to do with getting jobs for reps and senators' districts.

i had a great conversation once with a guy who was bitching about government expansion. he just hated his tax dollars being misappropriated. this same guy worked for one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

apparently, government expansion is just fine when it provides you a paycheck.

there's more than a little hipocracy on both sides of this 'debate'. if we don't get beyond the cliched responses, we wont' ever figure any of this out.

you'll have to excuse me now, i must go and attend the liberal, pussy, pinko, commie whiner club. we're working on plans to set up a legal defense fund for gay, welfare cheats.

oh ya, happy fricken' new year.

Gee Mark, you're seeming a little pissy. However, you do have a good point to some extent- though perhaps we should distinguish between "conservatives" as Jan was writing about versus Republicans or Republican contributors. As I mentioned previously, Republican politicians are at this juncture just as bad as damned Democrats. You're absolutely right.

Talking about conservative versus liberal mindsets as Jan was, however, there are a lot of conservatives who don't have their hands in the public till, and don't want to.

Conservative voters are more typically motivated by some idea of what they think is right to protect and preserve the country, versus liberal Democrat interest groups looking for their cut.

Al, you irreverent slut.

The study does call into question the stereotype that liberals are the wimpy sissies ("pinko liberal," "pinko pussy whining") and that conservatives are all "tough minded." If you are able to act for the greater good without fear and insecurity about your own well-being, then that is a sign of strength--not sissy weakness. This is the heroic mindset--courage and selflessness. Check out Star Wars, Beowulf, Platoon, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan (Spock said it well: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"), The Lord of the Rings, The Bible, The Matrix, Red Dawn (I know you have seen this one). This mindset is one that we are told over and over by our cultures to employ. Selflessness is to be celebrated--not railed against. You imply that the usual commie line is to be interested in the well-being of all instead of just your own well being? Aren't you confusing commies with Jesus? Buddha? Al Franken?

As for that pinko label, I'm a radical revolutionary who is plotting to overthrow the Microsquish empire: "Give us free." More than anything, I wanted to call attention to the me-first attitude that we see in conservatives--both conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats. You are right that Democrats have made advertisements to scare the people into voting in their own self-interest, just as the Republicans have. I think that Clinton was sometimes a conservative corporate sellout, but he wasn't as bad as our current president (I didn’t vote for Gore, and I didn’t vote for Bush—guess who I voted for). Both parties have self-interested sell-outs: corporate stooges (corpocrats or corpublicans). I believe that corporate dominance of our country is counter to its democratic foundations (so did Thomas Jefferson). Too many people are lining up to get a little piece of the corporate leftovers while damning the majority of us to corporate servitude (see my blog about the similarities between Soviet communism and American corporatocracy).

Conservative voters are more typically motivated by some idea of what they think is right to protect and preserve the country, versus liberal Democrat interest groups looking for their cut.

You really believe this?

It seems to me that conservatives care more about their own self-interest, not less, than those on the Left. I know some far Right people would be quite happy if the country dissolved altogether. (As would some far, far Leftists. Extremists eventually intersect.)

"People who vote against social programs tend to be conservative in their political views. But why is it that some people become so self interested and insecure?"

I'm not insecure (that I can tell) I don't think that I am overly self interested. I give regularly to my church, volunteer to help in church and community projects, give to charities.
I don't vote for life-long social policies because I don't believe that they are the 'best course of action' for the country. I don't believe that 'life-long' welfare helps anybody out of poverty. It creates 'life-long' poverty. Instead, I believe that you should have a safety net, provided for a specified amount of time so that you can take some inititive and get some schooling and start or change careers to something that the market will bear.

I do belive in school vouchers, I think that is the only way that inner city poor kids will be able compete for a good education. There is too much 'pull' from the Teachers Unions for it not to be a 'conflict of interest' in the Democratic Party. Let competition into the picture and the curriculum will change for the better. It isn't a lack of $$$, it is just that with the union backing being so strong and it being so difficult to fire a government employee there isn't enough accountability for teachers.

Just because I believe in a different path to obtain the same goals, I don't see how this makes me insecure. As for the "they are willing to vote selfishly, oppress others, and push narrow dogma on the larger population."
The same could be said for the people that don't want to work a 9 to 5, would rather stay home and be paid for not working... they might be voting selfishly also.

But I guess that since this is coming from a Liberal that only Conservatives can be selfish, and oppressive....

yeah, right...

You see Debbie, there's just no way you could have come to those conclusions through logic and experience. Thank goodness we have leftist academics willing to plumb the depths of our dark, conservative hearts (or whatever Grinchian facsimile we have) to let us know just how we got to be so mean.

I don't line up exactly liberal, either. I think that welfare reform was a long time coming, and more changes are needed. My only issue is that some measures need to be taken to ensure that the children are taken care of--they are truly innocents.

How about national health insurance? That seems to be "for the good of everybody" thinking. Social security? We need it. VA hospitals (not really a social program)? They suck, and we need to treat our soldiers, wounded and unwounded better than we do. Church organized charity and assistance programs are examples of non-secular social programs (Debbie, is it that you prefer such programs operate through churches instead of the government? If so, why?). The Salvation Army would be a good example.

But please don't tell me that there isn't a me-first mindset out there in a lot of voters: both Democrat and Republican. It is something to be minimized and shunned, and I was hoping to have some sort of impact with at least a few readers.

I shred the voucher idea in my new post, School Vouchers Suck.

I also dismissed the big business model for education: Education, Globalization and the Big Business Model.

Also, please try to come up with some more examples of conservative political ideas that show an interest in the welfare of all of the people. But please don't come with tax breaks for the rich and trickle-down theory.

Good post, Dirt. I will follow up on at least one of your entries at one of my blogs.