This thread might be dead soon, but I had to come back. Since Al is apparently too dense to realize that one word can have multiple meanings, I figured I'd enlighten.
Many words have many meanings. Sometimes one word can mean several different things that are closely related, or not related at all... but still are defined in that one word. Let's use an example... how about "Pride"? The definition of Pride:
a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc. (This is what Al is apparently stuck on. Maybe he has issues with this himself).
Other definitions of Pride:
pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself (this is the definition that BobMKE originally used the word pride for, and that I continued with).
Other definitions of Pride:
1. mettle in a horse.
2. a group of lions.
3. sexual desire, esp. in a female animal.
See Al, it's called using context clues. If someone "takes pride in" or uses the idiom "pride and joy", it is not a boastful sin of overly high self-esteem insisting on self-entitlement. It's finding satisfaction in what you do or what you have. I know that socialism hates that concept, and that is why you insisted it was such a bad thing, but it's not. Believe it or not, there are people who are better at a job than someone else... and it's usually the one who takes pride in his job that is the better one. Do they deserve to be compensated more? Sure as Hades they do.
Wow, wally... I was just blown away by your care and conscience. Your level of care is apparently unprecedented. Truly wonderful to hear someone like you...
None of us should have pride in our work. It's a horrible thing to want to do the best you can in your line of work, no matter what it is. We should all hate what we do and do the bare minimum to get by (but still get paid the same). No one should love their job. It's sinful to do so. I hate it when I go somewhere and see a cashier who is cheerful and willing to help me out and be friendly when I am checking out. I much prefer them to glare at me and not say a word to me. After all, it's my fault for imposing on them and making them actually have to work while doing their job. I feel horrible when I do that.
I read all these posts a little bit ago and was going to come in and say what you just said. I never took, for your earlier comment, that you said one is better than the other or has more value than the other.
I currently work two jobs. One for an insurance company doing a job most people wouldn't understand no matter how I explained it... and the other job is working at a chain restaurant. I'm an assistant manager there, but I've been a fry cook as well. I understand that both jobs are important to the company at that moment... however, if I walk away from the fries cause I'm tired of it or feel disrespected, well, any one in that store can come over and do my job and no one would notice I quit, other than to say "that was rude." If I walk away from my job in the insurance company, they will get backed up with the work not being done and have to spend months training someone else on how to do what I was doing. I get compansated justly at each task. I was neither a better, nor worse person for doing any job. However, my skill set is different for each job. That is what (I believe) Scotty was also implying, as well as how valuable to society their job was.
Hambone: "Some on here complain about passing a huge debt on to our grandchildren.
Isn't that what we do by not paying our own way."
People not wanting to pay their own is the reason we have so many "social welfare" programs that cause higher national debt/taxes.
I know what point you were trying to make, but I am making the point that because so many don't want to pay their own way, they are passing it on to us, the tax payers to pay theirs for them. And causing our grandchildren to come into this world already in debt...
hambone and blackwater:
I don't think I agree with either of you very much, but cheers to your last posts. WAY too much is spent on campaigning and advertising, and lobbying contributes way too much to the corruption of politics. I would support your dreams.
Trickle-down economics is corporate welfare.
Trickle-up economics is social welfare.
Both are a form of socialism I would rather not see.
Get rid of the tax code. Switch to fairtax, so everyone is taxed on what they spend, not what they make. That way, everyone has more to spend their money on. The more you spend, the more money the government makes.
In addition, if you want to run a business, you have to pay "taxes" in the form of business licenses depending on where you sale.
Stop government over-spending.
Everyone is happy.
Four people killed and thirteen injured and all you can do is criticize them for being a church group? Religion or lack thereof makes a difference to the secular in the sudden unexpected death of anyone, especially young children? You are a disgrace. At least take a second to offer condolences to the families of the victims rather than berating them for having different beliefs than you. lkeith is an athiest, but can still offer a kindness and a constructive comment, even though her beliefs differ greatly from the victims. You are dispicable. (sorry to use you in that lkeith, and I don't want my comment to sound like "even an athiest can have a heart" cause I don't mean it that way. I in no way think that "Christians" are the epitomy of kindness and athiests or other religions wish evil on all. I just wanted to make a point that I hope comes across the way I intend it; that religion should not diminish the sadness of loss in this way).
Our hearts (for those of us that have them) go out to the families. This is sad. As was said earlier, it is preventable, but no less sad.
Whatever: "the party needs to move past the simple 'NO' to the 'No, but here's what'"
That's the truth. I'd like to see both parties try it when their in that situation.
Al, your original statment (with my parenthetical additions): "What's not okay is the degree to which Conservatives (no qualifier, generalizing all Conservatives into one lump sum) love each other, and in how much they (referring to the above generalization of Conservatives) detest and disregard those (qualifying everyone else) who are not as Conservative as they may be."
The simple word "some" after "which" before "conservatives" would have made the sentence much less general.
I'm sure you didn't intend to lump ALL Conservatives into that group. You're not that foolish, I'm sure. As the end of your sentence could have reinforced qualifiers had they been in the beginning of your sentence. Therefore Musicman's response, therefore my response. Just semantics.
As I said, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just clarifying that generalization.
Al: While I don't necessarily disagree with your posts at 8:30 and 9:36, I do disagree with your generalization of Conservatives. What Musicman said was fair to what you said. If you classify all conservatives that way, liberals can be put in the same boat as well. It's like saying that all Tennesseeans are backwoods hicks, or all Muslims are full of hate and violence.
There are plenty of detestable conservatives out there that fit the mold you offered, but there are just as many liberals who do as well.
And while true, the Repub party is very popular with the word "NO" right now, that's practically always true for whichever party does not hold the power. The Dems become the party of "NO" when it is their turn in the back seat. It's all politics and games... that is what I detest and disagree with.