It's not that conservatives have no sympathy for the poor. It is that so many of them are poor due to their own actions. Not necessarily foolishness but the state they find themselves in in terms of needing government assistance is very often a result of their actions.

People like me support having a safety net.  What we don't support are calls to extend it even further. And we tend to resent the ingratitude we receive.  I've stated a few times (it's tax season).  My tax in 2003 came out to be in the six figure range. I don't expect to receive thank you notes. But at the same time, I get weary of people who aren't paying into the system telling ME how I'm greedy when it's people like me who are realistically paying the bills. 

And so often we see people not only spit upon those who, as a practical matter, are the most giving to the system of all, but not really doing anything to better their conditions.

One person on JoeUser bravely admitted she was receiving public assistance. But she's trying to better her condition by going to school. At least she acknowledges that government assistance is, essentially charity. On the other hand, you have people on this very site who are either currently on the dole or have in the past who take the attitude that they've earned it and that people like me should do even more to help them because they're unwilling/unable to help themselves.

But more than all of that is the quiet suspicion by conservatives that there is nothing moral at all about the left's desire to "champion" the (as you say) "dumbasses". That in reality, the left is merely trying to create their own power base of those who are hopelessy dependent on the system.

Consider this little fact: There are 6 very active female posters on this site. You know who they are. The 3 conservatives are people who have faced adversity but are married and if they have children thad those children while being married.  The 3 left of center females are presently receiving government aid. Two of the three had children out of wedlock. Despite this, I have concluded that all 3 are GOOD people. All 3 have faced adversity and reacted to it in different ways. But at the same time, 2 of the 3, from their own words, pretty clearly put themselves in the situation they're in. That doesn't make them bad people. It doesn't make them "losers". But it doesn't make them noble either.

So let's cut the whole moral brigade crap shall we? The ones supporting more government aid tend to be people who receive them.  The ones against more government aid tend to be people who haven't received them.  Self-interest seems to be at work to a certain extent. I'm against more aid not just because I would have to pay yet more. But because I believe too much "help" disempowers people and makes them dependents of the system.

And as you learned, the hard way today, the conservatives have had just as much, if not more, adversity to face than the other side.

I get so tired of left-wingers trying to paint conservatives as incompassionate monsters as if their side is somehow more moralistic because they support confiscating mroe money from the producers of society to hand over to those who are not currently producing for society.

I am not suggesting either side is better than the other. Far from it. But spare us your moral indignation. Particularly after your article in which you implied Karmagirl somehow had never had to face adverisity when in fact she's faced more than any of the "victims" you've felt necessary to speak up for.

But I will say this, the title of your article is apt.

But let me give you just an example of rank hypocricy in Steveandalous's article:

Even though the people of California and elsewhere have passed laws expressly stating that marriage is between a man and a woman, liberals don't try to change the law, they just ignore it (Mayor of San Francisco for instance). At least conservatives try to use the established framework to enact changes. Liberals just shrug off the law as if they are too good for it.

What liberals have shown, time and time again is that they have little respect for democracy. Instead, they tend to use judges and lawsuits to get their way bypassing the electorate entirely. Roe vs. Wade is a prime example. Liberals didn't like the fact that mere voters could decide whether abortion was legal or not. So they sued and got their way because a panel of appointed judges decided decided for the rest of us (I'm pro-choice btw but I would like to have abortion laws and other laws decided by our elected officials, it's called Democracy).

Al Gore, your "great man" was nothing of the sort. He tried to sue his way to President. He lost Florida fair and square by the rules that were on the books. Yea, it was a close race but he lost based on the law of the land. So he sued. And sued. And eventually it made its way to the Supreme Court and lost. The Supreme Court is the final word. What other option did Gore have? Declare civil war?  I would probably have done the same thing Gore did if roles had been reversed. But there was nothing great invovled at any step of the way. In this case, the panel of judges didn't go the left's way.

As for Roe v Wade it was simply a logical offshoot of the rage of the time of women’s lib — so they sowed their oats, not a big deal, why can’t the right get over it? And you should get over the government assistance gals — so what if they don’t pass the nobility test? You still admit, they, though annoying, aren’t bad people and are unaware that they are “disempowered.”

You are tired of left wingers, and I’m tired of right wingers, both of whom are guilty of confiscatory procedures. Peace.