RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure

RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomYngBlk -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/2/2010 2:16:19 PM)
Well where is the cut off? you said you don't want the gov't helping you out on food choices so you are cool with fast food eating places taking over school cafeterias and providing mcd's or taco bell? So much better if they can make a buck off it?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/2/2010 2:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Completely agreed Good. Now, here are some conclusions that I personally draw from these things that we are in agreement about: 1. Most liberals aren't liberals because they are evil, unpatriotic or wish to cause me and what I value harm. To the contrary, they truly and passionately believe that they can and should bring a better world to all of us. 2. Some liberals have decided that there are methods and means that are not moral to use, or should be used In extremis when it comes to accomplishing their goals. 3. Some people identify themselves as liberals, but just follow the crowd, without any real commitment to any of the ideas, and actions. 4. Some people espouse liberal ideas and causes but perhaps haven't really thought deeply about those ideas and causes. Sometimes, when exposed to other ideas, they may decide to embrace those liberal ideals more, or they may decide that those ideas and causes are defective, or incomplete. 5. Some people wish power, fame, wealthy etc, etc, etc and have decided that being "a liberal" is a great path, somehow, to those things. 6. Some people believe in the ideas and causes of liberalism to such an extent that they are willing to do any action, say any word, kill any person, destroy any society to see those ideas put into effect. 7. Some people have had bad/good experiences with a certain aspect of society, and this has caused them to adopt/reject a certain liberal point of view in one area, and they then decide to re-examine everything that they thought was "true". 8. Some people with liberal ideas believe in them with a furor that is religious in nature, divorced from facts and reality. These are the "true believers" and ideologues. 9. Some people just like to cause trouble, and have found that pushing buttons in the Politics and Religion forum is a great place for entertainment. 10. Some people are just kooks. 11. Some people are just .... (Read my sig line.) I'm sure that there are other categories that I've missed, because each individual has their own reasons, and sometimes a complex web of reasons, and aren't easily put into a box. Well, ya see .... the reverse of all those things are also true over here on the conservative side of the house as well. When I'm talking with a "liberal" (or a "conservative"), I can never be sure what category they are, nor whether or not they are in the same category today that they were yesterday, or what category that they may be in tomorrow. Because of this, I try to have a menu of reactions and actions when I "talk" to people in the forums. Some call me an insufferable, snarky asswipe. Some laugh at me. Others "listen" when I post. Others congratulate me from time to time. With some people, I have some pretty damn good conversations. I also weigh how and what others say - specifically people from the more leftward side of the political equation - and react differently depending on the circumstances. But I generally go into a conversation trying to keep an open mind, trying to remember their humanity, and trying to remember that I don't live in their heart. Do you think that is a good way to approach political conversations? Firm

PatrickG38 -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/2/2010 2:29:45 PM)
Almost, but not quite. I will respond in detail tomorrow as I am leaving work and have puppy class tonight.

PatrickG38 -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/2/2010 2:30:59 PM)
Of course, I do not want fast food companies in schools. I do not even want them in my neighboorhood.

Steponme73 -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/2/2010 5:57:50 PM)
Well let us hope that people in this country stop sitting idly bye. The group of fools we have elected in congress over the past 4 years have done nothing to preserve our freedom. However, by electing Obama president gun sales have gone through the roof. There is a reason for that. There are some people in this country who do not want to live in a Marxist society. Now if we can just wake up the rest of the nation we will be in good shape.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/2/2010 8:43:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 Almost, but not quite. I will respond in detail tomorrow as I am leaving work and have puppy class tonight. No problem. We all have "real lives" that intrude on our virtual worlds. [:)] Take your time. I look forward to reading your response. Firm

joether -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 12:11:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Steponme73 Well let us hope that people in this country stop sitting idly bye. The group of fools we have elected in congress over the past 4 years have done nothing to preserve our freedom. However, by electing Obama president gun sales have gone through the roof. There is a reason for that. There are some people in this country who do not want to live in a Marxist society. Now if we can just wake up the rest of the nation we will be in good shape. Or maybe, there is a segment of the population that is easy to frighten then all the other segments of society? If the 'fools' as you call them, have done nothing to preserve our freedoms over the past four years, then: A) Your right to vote would have been revoked. B) Your right to own a firearm removed. C) Your right to speak in any manner (most certainly including against the goverment), would be censored. D) Your right to be resonibly secure in your property against unwarrented search and seizure, violated. And many, many others. Since these have not take place, its to be assumed, they did preserve the freedoms. However, since you didnt vote for them (but the other guy or gal), you feel its 'ok' to attack them, without evidence. And expect all of us, to take you seriously later? The election of Mr. Obama to the Office of the President, did not trigger gun sales. It was the fear, pushed by (and for lack of a better defination) 'fear-mongers' whom stood to gain plenty from said sales. I guess (my theory), that many of those caught up in the fear, of a black man being elected President, triggered (no pun intended) subconscious anxieties; since they have, in their past, have put down black people and were expecting the same in return. This has not happen either. The reason you believe and the actual reason, are two different things.

DarkSteven -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 1:24:46 AM)
Patrick, you seem to believe that the Dems are the party of goodness and light, and the GOP is the party of evil and darkness. If you believe that both parties are out to get you, and neither one has your interests at heart, you might see things differently.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 7:32:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And if you are on the same path as Firm, then you realize that when you use a term such as a "significant number" it indicates that your thinking is along those lines. Yet where is the proof? I have yet to see any numbers on just how many people in The Tea Party movement are backward-thinking. Just as I have yet to see any distinctive numbers on just how many in the Democratic party are further to the left of our President. Because there is no such study. There is nothing to back up that statement other than conjecture and drawn assumptions. Assumptions are colored by who and what we are. You are of a progressive nature, Patrick...your words prove that. So any idea that is different from yours is going to be seen as backwards or wrong...and that is also indicated by your words. That is what someone meant earlier when they posted to you the question about ever having been wrong. You state you have but I would also be willing to bet that it has not been because you looked at a liberal idea and discarded it for a more moderate or conservative way of thought on a particular matter...it was because you were not progressive enough in your thinking, to yours' or others' way of thought. Many conservatives are like me...like Firm...like Merc...we enjoy making money and we enjoy having that money to use as we see fit. We don't mind contributing to the national defense and the general welfare...we DON'T like being told how to life our lives because the government KNOWS better and is going to take care of us despite ourselves. Like eating for example...through regulation of restaurants and food suppliers to the extent of no trans-fats, a limitation on the amount of processed sugar that can be used in certain food and drink, etc... You seem confused. On one hand you don't want the government making "knowing" better than you. Then on the other you are completely ok with them telling you that you need a national defense and general welfare. Why are you letting them "Know" better on those issues and not the rest? Fairly simple question to answer...to the national defense part: The government...as in general terms...has always been in charge of defending a nation. The main reason is that they have the access to the funds necessary to defend a nation and it's interests and is equipped with a system of checks and balances within both the civilian realm and the military realm. Can you honestly tell me who YOU think is better equipped to defend the nation? To keep you safe from those who would do your country harm? Can you honestly tell me what entity YOU would set up that would represent the interests of the country as a whole and not their own self-interest? McDonnell-Douglas? Microsoft? General Motors? (oh wait, they're still building state vehicles) Warren Buffet? A consortium of peaceniks? A consortium of hawks? I've given you my answer...let's see yours. As to the general welfare...that's a bit more difficult to answer. To promote the general welfare is to ensure the well-being of all citizens, not just the poor or the afflicted but ALL those who reside within the borders of this country. In doing so, the country enriches itself. But for the last 50 years, the "general" welfare of the country has turned around into a welfare state and a nation concerned mainly with "victims"...and there are a lot of victims. This is one reason why so many who have taken advantage of the opportunities they were given simply by being born in this country or living here and have gone on to do well are tired of paying into the system to help those who continue to make poor choices. It's one thing to help a man or woman who has been working and striving to make their way who has now found themselves out of work. It is something else entirely to help the woman who has 3 kids by 3 different fathers and dropped out of high school and thinks "the government" should help her. It is something else to continue to help the guy who chose to become addicted and scrambled his brain through that poor choice. The government in this case is me and anyone else who has worked all their lives.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 8:29:03 AM)
See that is the issue with Republicans. There never is anything definite in what they are proposing. They want to help everyone but not "everyone". They don't want gov't to intrude on them yet they want gov't to "do" things. So, you don't like the spending that is going on now. What specifically would you cut? And please don't hit me with the across the board...blah blah blah....... Given your stance on how Gov't shouldn't intrude on your life I would have assumed that putting together your own defense would be preferable than a Gov't backed one. Are you saying the Free Market couldn't do the job for you? Think of the possibilities. In my opinion the basics of the argument are that Republicans think of themselves as individuals only. Democrats think of themselves as Individuals within a Community or Country.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 10:23:09 AM)
Here is a good place to start some cuts: PORK BARREL SPENDING

CreativeDominant -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 12:47:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk See that is the issue with Republicans. There never is anything definite in what they are proposing. They want to help everyone but not "everyone". They don't want gov't to intrude on them yet they want gov't to "do" things. So, you don't like the spending that is going on now. What specifically would you cut? And please don't hit me with the across the board...blah blah blah....... No...that is the issue with many on both sides, liberal and conservative: the "all or nothing" principle. Just because I want to make my own decisions about what I choose to eat, what I choose to wear, who I choose to fuck does not mean that I do not want the government involved in taking care of me. But I want them taking care of me in the way spelled out by the documents AS GOVERNMENTAL OBLIGATION set forth when this nation began. The government took on as its' obligation the NATIONAL defense. Fine...then do it. The government did NOT take on...nor were they given...the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in my personal life, within lawful limits. Do I have the right to own a gun? Yes, I do. Do I have the right to rob you or anyone else with that gun? No, I do not. The government took on the obligation to promote the GENERAL welfare of its citizenry. They were NOT given the right to take money from my pocket to pay for a never-ending line-up of "victims". quote: Given your stance on how Gov't shouldn't intrude on your life I would have assumed that putting together your own defense would be preferable than a Gov't backed one. Are you saying the Free Market couldn't do the job for you? Think of the possibilities. A nonsensical one...the government took on this obligation when it was formed. Just as any government across the world takes on the issue of national defense...except of course for those countries who rely on us for their defense because they are too busy spending their funds on their social programs. quote: In my opinion the basics of the argument are that Republicans think of themselves as individuals only. Democrats think of themselves as Individuals within a Community or Country. No...Democrats think of themselves as Individuals who know better than you how to spend your money and like to think of themselves as compassionate...with someone else's money. Their compassion blinds them to the fact that many...though not all...of the victims out there are "victims" due to their own poor choices. Now then, just as most progressives do...you conveniently avoided the questions I asked of you in my post. How about your answers? What would YOU do in terms of National Defense? What would YOU do about the ongoing dependance on the generosity of others...through our government...of many, though again I add the caveat of "not all", through the welfare system?

mnottertail -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 12:49:16 PM)
I'm a vet, all for defense, I don't need gabilllionandahalf dollar missles to throw at my enemy my gabilliondollar ones work just fine and are so far ahead......nor do I need to be in Iraq.

HardHum -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/3/2010 5:34:19 PM)
Let the nation die. The nation state exists to benefit the parasite class. Wall St., Washington politicians and the military industrial complex are the only beneficiaries of the nation state.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/4/2010 9:13:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk See that is the issue with Republicans. There never is anything definite in what they are proposing. They want to help everyone but not "everyone". They don't want gov't to intrude on them yet they want gov't to "do" things. So, you don't like the spending that is going on now. What specifically would you cut? And please don't hit me with the across the board...blah blah blah....... No...that is the issue with many on both sides, liberal and conservative: the "all or nothing" principle. Just because I want to make my own decisions about what I choose to eat, what I choose to wear, who I choose to fuck does not mean that I do not want the government involved in taking care of me. But I want them taking care of me in the way spelled out by the documents AS GOVERNMENTAL OBLIGATION set forth when this nation began. The government took on as its' obligation the NATIONAL defense. Fine...then do it. The government did NOT take on...nor were they given...the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in my personal life, within lawful limits. Do I have the right to own a gun? Yes, I do. Do I have the right to rob you or anyone else with that gun? No, I do not. The government took on the obligation to promote the GENERAL welfare of its citizenry. They were NOT given the right to take money from my pocket to pay for a never-ending line-up of "victims". quote: Given your stance on how Gov't shouldn't intrude on your life I would have assumed that putting together your own defense would be preferable than a Gov't backed one. Are you saying the Free Market couldn't do the job for you? Think of the possibilities. A nonsensical one...the government took on this obligation when it was formed. Just as any government across the world takes on the issue of national defense...except of course for those countries who rely on us for their defense because they are too busy spending their funds on their social programs. quote: In my opinion the basics of the argument are that Republicans think of themselves as individuals only. Democrats think of themselves as Individuals within a Community or Country. No...Democrats think of themselves as Individuals who know better than you how to spend your money and like to think of themselves as compassionate...with someone else's money. Their compassion blinds them to the fact that many...though not all...of the victims out there are "victims" due to their own poor choices. Now then, just as most progressives do...you conveniently avoided the questions I asked of you in my post. How about your answers? What would YOU do in terms of National Defense? What would YOU do about the ongoing dependance on the generosity of others...through our government...of many, though again I add the caveat of "not all", through the welfare system? So you would repeal any law or program that helps anyone that can't prove they didn't make a poor choice. Just a couple for instances....Say you live in florida and a hurricane comes by and destroys everything. Is that a bad choice since you know there is going to be a hurricane at some point? Or, you live in Minnesota and are on a fixed income. you don't have enough money to pay the heating bill and it gets turned off. Is that a poor choice? How about if you are a farmer in Wyoming. You've got plenty of land but there has been a bit of a drought. The Federal Lands are next over the hill. Should he be allowed to graze or is that a bad choice on his part since he knew he was living in a semi arid desert... No, Conservatives are always the blind ones or at least the ones that want to pull wool over everyones eyes. Since they are very ok with welfare that benefits them but not ok when it doesn't benefit them. Me? Defense...I'd obviously raise taxes and pay for it. But, I wouldn't start a war and do it with credit. Bush, a CONSERVATIVE, started this practice and unfortunately Obama has kept it going. Programs? I would finally fully fund the ones on the books and start a new school rebuilding program throughout the country. I'd hire the hell outta of more teachers to lower teacher/student ratios. I'd raid the endowment funds of Harvard, Yale, Penn et al to pay for a greater number of students of any economic class to get an education for very small amounts of money. I'd make sure a single mom had the money to raise her family and not have to worry about working the job at night and being away from her kids or eating. That is obviously where we differ. God appeals to our better selves. It is just unfortunate that most Republicans and Teabaggers appeal to the worst that humans can provide.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/4/2010 9:17:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk . Are you saying the Free Market couldn't do the job for you? No, it cant. Its a free-rider problem.

tazzygirl -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/4/2010 9:23:40 AM)
quote: The government took on the obligation to promote the GENERAL welfare of its citizenry. And yet many seem to believe this does not involve the health of its citizenry.

popeye1250 -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/4/2010 10:14:18 AM)
Ha! People were saying that when Obama got elected! Looks like they were right!

HardHum -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/4/2010 10:25:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The government took on the obligation to promote the GENERAL welfare of its citizenry. And yet many seem to believe this does not involve the health of its citizenry. The completely misunderstood "general welfare" clause does not operate, as many seem to think, as a license for the government to do anything, as long as they think it promotes the general welfare. The Founders went to all the that trouble to form a limited government which was limited to operate within parameters. Why would they bother spelling out the areas in which government was empowered to operate only to completely negate it with a "general welfare" clause which permits it to do anything it wants? The government began to chisel away at these limitations almost immediately though. The Constitution was a nice try, but given the current disaster that exists in Washington DC, it's time to admit that it failed. Presently, the US is a police state which interferes in the lives of, not just US citizens, but people all over the world. Constant war, a national debt in the trillions, and the destruction of civil liberties is not consistent with a free society.

tazzygirl -> RE: Take Heart - The Nation Will Endure (11/4/2010 10:31:21 AM)
quote: Constant war, a national debt in the trillions, and the destruction of civil liberties is not consistent with a free society. Nor did i even imply it was. But i think this is a great debate for its own thread and will start that.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875