re: - Those who are getting more out of the welfare system than they are putting in can certainly be "liberal" without any empathy for anyone else, simply because they have themselves to worry about. They don't even have to show one bit of gratitude, especially if they feel so bitter about their circumstances that they think society owes them a favor.
See, you have no empathy.
re: - Those who aren't getting any welfare benefits, but either can't afford to be generous and charitable or choose not to be, can certainly be "liberal" without any empathy. All they have to do is point to someone richer than themselves and say they have to pay their "fair share."
See, you have no empathy.
re: - Of course, the morally depraved will obviously be liberal if they get something out of liberal social policies. A convicted felon would obviously support a lighter punishment for his or her crimes, while people who thrive in the sex industry (both the "suppliers" and the "customers") would obviously support efforts to get those pesky religious righties off of their backs.
See, you have no empathy.
re: - Finally, there are those I'd call the "utopia architects." These are the people whose feelings about "the way things should be" tower above all other concerns, including common empathy for their fellow man. Usually, these people are not very charitable themselves, preferring to try and shape society and government into their view of an ideal world so that, in a sense, there would be no need for charity. Some extreme examples would be Stalin, Mao, Castro, and other leftist revolutionaries, but more modern day examples, IMO, would be George Soros, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry.
Where do you get this stuff, dime novels? Can we connect the names? Does John Kerry = Stalin, Mao or Castro?
John |
