American Clarity Add us on facebook:

22. March 2009

Of Conservatives and dogs: combating stupid bumperstickers

Filed under: philosophy,politics — admin @ 16:43

Regardless of whether one believes that addressing bumper sticker slogans is a stupid venture or not, many of the token sayings expressed contain popular conceptions that many people actually believe. Earlier this week, this writer was fortunate enough to cross a run-down mess with many slogans, but chiefly one that read “Liberals treat dogs like people. Conservatives treat people like dogs.” This seems to be a trend in Seattle-ite thought, so it’s worth delving into.

Do conservatives really treat people like dogs?

If this statement were meant to be figurative, the owner of the car was trying to imply that conservatives treat people poorly, which is something that’s been generously and falsely implied by Leftist media outlets for generations. Because of negative portrayal, conservatives appear upon first thought to be greedy Wall-Street bankers, hoarding money for themselves while voting to lower their own taxes and reducing social services so that the poor can stay poor and suffer. Fortunately for the Right, this “rich, evil guy” portrayal couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Aside from the fact that liberals are noted by the non-partisan PEW Research Center as being wealthier in larger numbers than conservatives and generally having more college degrees (since they’ve been processed through an unabashedly biased educational system), it turns out that Christian conservatives give 30% more money to charity and are 23% more likely to volunteer than the average liberal according to major studies done on charitable donations (disregarding fluke accidents like Bill Gates, a rarity amongst the liberal masses)(1)(2)(3)(4). Whoops, bumper-sticker slogan people… looks like you forgot to read.

Of course, if conservatives are being labeled as cruel for having higher social standards and not being universally accepting of morally bankrupt behavior, then this would also be a major mislabeling. If everyone kept conservative social standards, no child would be left without a father except for cases of death, AIDS wouldn’t be something we’d have to deal with, charities would be running with full bank reserves, nobody would question whether a Black doctor’s degree was given because of an affirmative action handout, the drug war wouldn’t exist (which would make our prisons empty), and 90% of the gangs in the US wouldn’t exist because the gangsters—as well as the murder and rape they bring—would have been deported to the countries with which they maintain legal citizenship (5)(6). Would this be cruelty? And furthermore, as this writer has mentioned a thousand times, was morality ever meant for those who believed in it?

Now, if one were to take the literal stance regarding the bumper sticker—meaning that conservatives actually treat people like canines—then this stance could also be easily refuted. Consider for a moment a major philosophical difference between Left and Right: that the Left believes poverty creates evil, and the Right believes that evil creates poverty.

If one were to consider that liberals believe that

1) ghettos and the crime they perpetuate are caused by concentrated poverty (as fundamentally implemented in the liberal Section 8 housing program, in which recipients of welfare money are removed from poor neighborhoods and placed into other neighborhoods which then become rape and murder-ridden(7)) and

2) many of the social ills we face can be corrected through education in a public school setting,

then what the Left is actually trying to say is that people are products of their environment, and those safeguarding the public through governmental offices are responsible for training people not to rape and murder, because rape is caused by a lack of material wealth and a lack of proper training.  This the human equivalent of the “poopy park scenario,” in which a dog poops in your park and you blame the owner for the poop, not the dog.  

Obama’s “Promise Neighborhoods” program is a perfect example of this, because it proposed flooding the twenty worst neighborhoods in the country with tons of money to revitalize educational programs, suggesting that if only we’d thrown enough money into a poor neighborhood and given people proper training, things would improve (8). This stance has been used in defense of ghetto inhabitants since the Left found out they could get votes by throwing money at the them, and will continue to be used until either Christ comes back or Islam gets rid of the liberals who love to import Muslims.

Hilariously absent in the Left’s explanation of evil is that once poor people become rich, one would then assume that they would cease to become evil since their material needs have been met. Unfortunately, another major slogan of the Left is that corporate America is also evil and responsible for the rest of our problems, which doesn’t make any sense because rich people have all their material needs satisfied. So this means that rich people are evil because they’re evil, and poor people are evil because rich people won’t let them be rich. Ha ha!

In stark contrast, Conservatives believe that poverty and crime are caused by an individual’s choices, namely those made through human intellect and free will, also known as the polar opposite of what dogs do. If you don’t want to raise your children, if you don’t want to work hard, if you don’t want to follow the law to make money, if you can’t keep your pants on, if you don’t want to go to school, then this will end in poverty and crime, and it’s all because you—the reasoning human being—decided to not make the right choices. If giving people the chance to assume dignity and allowing them to suffer the consequences of poor choices is treating people like dogs, then you must be a liberal.

In short, the way the bumper-sticker should have read is “Please neuter me, I think I am a dog.”

Until next time,



1) The PEW Research Center picks Red and Blue apart

2) The Washington Post says colleges lean further to the left than originally thought

3) ABC News: Who gives and who doesn’t?

4) Policy Review: religious affiliation and charitable giving

5) Stats on nationality of gang members, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (page 3)

6) Gangs behind 80% of ALL US crime

7) The Section 8 housing program spreads murder and rape across America

8) The Promise Neighborhood programs

1 Comment

  1. Further.
    Clarify the dog in the park(simplify)I didn’t get it. Thanks, Dennis

    Comment by Dennis — 23. March 2009 @ 14:22

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress