View Full Version : My take on the difference of Rep/Dem
GunTroll
07-10-2009, 11:08
Not telling you anything new but I recently had these two experiences....
I was visiting my aunt in AZ and she went on to tell me how she made a milestone of breaking the 100k income. Great I tell her. She then ask me my political standings and I avoided this conversation the best I could. She knows my firearm background and figured I went McCain. She was right. She and my mother have never voted for a president in their lives (50+ years now) but voted out of emotion this last go around. She then ask "don't you want your mother and I to have health care provided for us?" (they don't have any currently) This infuriated me! She has the audacity to make a 100k and think we the taxpayer should pay for her health care. My take.....Dems have a sense of entitlement and want something for nothing. I only made 60+k and paid for my whole family's health care and the rest of our bills/debts. Dems!![Rant1]
Other story....
I help my wife with her business down at Cherry Creek farmers market on Saturdays. We sell coffee if you want to know. We have been getting asked about recycling a lot lately. The market management doesn't offer recycling. When we approached them to ask why they don't offer the recycling service they leaned in and said "the mall owners want to charge for the recycling service/bins". Sounds fair. They then lean in further and say "its because they are Republicans"! This guy is lucky he didn't say this to me. He said it to my wife. So again my take.....The business owners (assumable Republican) wont give a service away for free. That's good business plain and simple. The Market owners/management (A fact to be Dem and far left at that) want something for free and wont pay for it even if it lines up in their beliefs of being the party that is leading the way to save the world from "Global warming" etc.
That is the bottom line, fundamental deference of the two IMHO. Wont give something away for nothing (a profit loss and stupid/expensive) vs. Wanting everything for free because they are entitled (not coming out of their own pocket but, will take out of yours and mine).
Sorry for the lengthy rant. Just had to pass it along and move on. This shit just gets to me everyday! And sorry you third party people out there. I haven't got a take on your beliefs with my experiences.
100%. That is a fundamental difference between the two. That and in a republic, we are governed by law, whereas in a democracy, we are governed by "mob rule". I find it both sad and ironic that the people who would fight have let the people who would never fight take control of the country.
ChunkyMonkey
07-10-2009, 11:48
+1 in one of our monday meeting. I had the opportunity to explain the difference between a republic and a democracy system. We were voting for 'what to eat for lunch :D;' Nonetheless, I liked the fact that some of us are now have better understanding!
Pancho Villa
07-10-2009, 11:59
The GOP supports social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, free medical care for anyone who runs into an emergency room, the prescrioption drug benefit plan, high taxes (though not as high as Democrats,) the continued existence of socialized medicine for Veterans (its not good enough for civvies, but perfect for people who we allegedly want to take care of,) subsidies to farmers, subsidies to "American" industry, depending on the Republican they may or may not support other protectionist economic policies...
I just scratched the surface.
The difference between the GOP and the Democratic party - rhetoric aside, and practically speaking - is that the GOP agrees that the Democratic party has its heart in the right place, but we should become socialist/fascist a little slower than what the Democrats want.
Many conservatives, despite my deep disagreements with them (particularly on religion,) I can agree with to some extent. I have no admiration for the Republican party. So long as men enshrine the idea that the moral ideal is service to others, rather than the right of each individual to their life, liberty and pursuit of their own happiness - we'll continue on this road, where the Dems sprint forward and the GOP tiptoes behind them.
My favorite example was during the latest campaign, Obama blasted oil companies for being "selfish" for making all those profits, McCain ran ads saying how making profits are not, in fact, selfish. Give me a break. Its completely selfish, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
GunTroll
07-10-2009, 12:12
Pancho, would you consider yourself a capitalist? Do you own/run your own business? Do you want to?
Third parties unfortunately are a joke in this two party system so they can't be included in this debate between REP/DEM
Everyone knows Republicans aren't the answer to all the problems. And on that note everyone knows the Dems are the undermining force behind removing capitalist ideals. Hence there watered down version and desire to move us into a more socialist state. AND THEY ARE BY THE WAY!
This is more a debate of Capitalist vs. Socialist
GunTroll
07-10-2009, 12:35
Also Pancho, I will concede that the Republicans are in there own way are very evil and very flawed. Its about getting votes when it comes down to it. Making promises and enticing different classes and or ethnic backgrounds is a card used by both parties. IE all the "free" stuff you mentioned above from the Republicans. You are correct in a way.
Think about this as well. Most of the educational institutions are liberal (democratic). The students are taught or conditioned that the Government needs to solve "the" problem. Those students will become our leaders in the future. This attitude is becoming pervasive.
I think the country was a lot more productive and prosperous when we, as individuals, solved our own problems, did not have and entitlement complex and kept the government out of things as much as possible.
Jumpstart
07-10-2009, 14:33
SPELLING BEE CHAMP
My name be Eboneesha Li Herenandez, an African Hispanic Asiatic-American
Girl who just got an award for being the bess speler in class. I got 67% on
the speling test and 30 points for being black, 5 points for not bringin
drugs into class, 5 points for not bringin guns into class, and 5 points for
not gettin pregnut during the cemester. It be hard to beat a score of 120%.
White dude who sit nex to me is McGee from Ocala . He got a 94% on the test
but no extra points on acount of he have the same skin color as the
opressirs of 150 years ago. Granny ax me to thank all Dimocrafts and
Liberuls for suportin Afermative action. You be showin da way to true
eqwallity. I be gittin in medical skool nex an mabe I be yo doctor when
Barrac take over da healtcare in dis cuntry
Jumpstart
07-10-2009, 14:36
A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a destitute refugee outside a Maryland
immigration office.
'Good man,' the fairy said, 'I've been sent here byPresident Obama and told
to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in the United States with
your wife and three children.'
The man told the fairy. 'Well, where I come from we don't have good teeth,
so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them.'
The fairy looked at the man's almost toothless grin and *PING * he had a
brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!
'What else?' asked the fairy, 'two more to go.'
The refugee claimant now got bolder. 'I need a big house with a three car
garage in Annapolis on the water with eight bedrooms for my family and the
rest of my relatives who still live in my country. I want to bring them all
over here . .' and *PING * in the distance there could be seen a beautiful
mansion with a three car garage, a long driveway, a walkout patio with a BBQ
in an upscale neighborhood overlooking the bay.
'One more wish', said the fairy, waving her wand. 'Yes, one more wish. I
want to be like an American with American clothes instead of these torn
clothes, and a baseball cap instead of this turban. And
I want to have white skin like Americans. . .' and *PING * The man was
transformed, wearing worn out jeans, a Baltimore Orioles T-shirt and a
baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared
from the horizon.
'What happened to my new teeth?' he wailed. 'Where is my new house?'
THIS IS GOOD . . . . . .
NO, ACTUALLY THIS IS VERY GOOD . . . . . . . .
The fairy said 'Tough shit, Mac, Now that you are a White American, you
have to fend for yourself
GunTroll you are exactly correct. Dems want something for free and they feel entitled to others hard work.
Unfortunetly I came to this same conclusion about 9 months ago when some of my Dem friends said the same type stuff to me around election season.
One even told me how the gov needs to tax ammo out of existance and take all weapons from people, people need the government to control them.
I let them know that when they come for me, I will kill them and I will come kill you, you are an enemy of our nation. they Quicky changed the subject.
Come get some you socialist, commie, facist scum [M2]this is one Patriot that is not backing down.
The "capitalist vs. Democrat" idea is kinda moot, since all governments and most people are capitalists. Even at the height of the commie party they were capitalists. The word in and of itself has derived an incorrect meaning.
There used to be a link here when I first joined that had a really good movie explaining (albeit rather biasedly) the differences in definition of the various forms of government.
Our country was founded on religion and law. The law was based on religious beliefs. Now that America is no longer a Christian country, it's had it's downfall. 28 of the founding fathers and signatories of the constitution had seminary degrees-I could go on all day long on this one.
The point is that once we moved away from God we fell on our face, plain and simple. It cannot be an argument of Capitalism since everybody, including commies are capitalists. Free and private enterprise is what our system is/used to be based on. I find it funny that even the online dictionary has it wrong and defines capitalism as free and private enterprise. And that is what we are losing-bailouts, government backed loans and warranties, etc.-that's still capitalism-also known as communism-just that the government derives the benefits from our labor and not us.
Whatever. I'm with jim02.[Beer]
Anyways, maybe one of the bosses here could repost the link. I think it was a google video.
GunTroll
07-10-2009, 17:35
was it the cartoon showing the differences in governments?
GunTroll
07-10-2009, 17:48
Also its not a capitalist vs democrat thought. Its capitalist vs. socialist thought or thread debate. I think there is a big difference between the two. Individual gains/loss vs collective gains/loss. If I succeed at a profit through my hard work with business, Shanequa shouldn't get squat from me! If I fail you/everyone shouldn't have to bail me out. And visa versa. Why should I get a dime from your profit if I didn't put in anything. Where is the incentive to try to become successful/wealthy in business in our current gov? I say let the poor lazy asses who make babies for money just stay right were they are. At the bottom of the chain. I'm all about helping the needy but you got to cut the life support at sometime!
You the man Jim02![Beer]
ryanek9freak
07-10-2009, 18:32
My take? There is no difference. Both parties are nothing but scum guzzling fucktards hell bent on lining their pockets with taxpayer money, plain and simple.
Once we rid this country of this false 2 party horse shit, we'll be better off.
the problem I have with liberals is the complete lack of parity. you must conform to their world view. there is zero live and let live......
you must celebrate diversity by accepting our lifestyle, but fuck you if you want to own a gun.
we love democracy as long as it goes our way, if not then we protest in the streets.
universities are bastions of higher learning and free speech, but if you say something we don't like we'll yell, rush the stage, and throw things at you.
guns hurt kids and should be banned, but a woman has the right to kill an unborn any time she likes.
al sharpton says "you're not allowed to say that, it's offensive" kanye says "she ain't messin with no broke niggas"
gay man in west hollywood hangs sarah palin in effigy for two weeks with no problems. straight boys in texas hang obama in effigy and get charged with a hate crime.
if I point my finger in a threatening manner and say "bang!" I can be charged with assault, but terrorists trying to kill americans deserve miranda rights and constitutional freedoms.
I can keep going, but I think the point has been made.
GunTroll
07-10-2009, 21:03
No keep going I like it! Very well said!
And everyone who may think I like the Republicans......I don't all the time. That being said, I do however feel it is in my best interest to align myself with the/any party (that has a chance of getting elected) that has at least a few of my interest close to theirs. For me it is guns, opportunity to grow business, and not take care of the lower class through high taxes and worthless bills aimed at leveling the playing field. You/we need classes. wealth, middle & lower. Its just the way it is.
ronaldrwl
07-10-2009, 21:08
It's easier to separate by Conservative or Liberal. From my point of view it comes down to:
Conservative:
In God and myself I trust.
Liberals:
In government and others I hope (with my hand out).
I see more and more of the entitlement issue coming up now. maybe it was the same when you guys were growing up, but me being pretty fresh out of college (24 now), and my fiance graduating just this year, I see a lot of the younger people feeling like they should GET things instead of WORKING for them.
I know this single item doesn't just apply to just the dems because some of my friends are full blooded redneck repubs but have some of the same feelings. I think this is due to a more left leaning .gov trying to save the people instead of having them work for it.
I would have lost it...she makes 100K a year and wants free health care...tell her ass to save up some money. my employer gives pretty damn good health care coverage, but for just me it is still something like $1500 a year or so, maybe a little less.
Pancho Villa
07-11-2009, 07:55
I consider myself an intellectual - conservatives (of which there are many here) lack intellectuals (I could probably count the number of conservatives intellectuals on one hand, and, aside from perhaps Victor Davis Hanson, who has interesting new takes on stuff in his particular field (history,) none of them are intellectual innovators, just conservative apologists,) for the simple reason that conservatism tends to equate intellectualism with liberalism.
This was a diasastrous choice for Conservatism, and more or less spelled the death knell of the old American system back in the 1930s.
Someone mentioned the school system. Here is a short history of how our schools got to be this way.
It all starts with Plato, but none of you guys want me to go back that far. So lets fast forward to Immanuel Kant. Back when this great country was first founded, a philosopher in Germany (pay attention, Germany - it'll become clear why in a moment,) waged a systematic attack on all of the things that The Enlightenment was based on. Reality, reason, individual rights - all of these were the subject of long, confused and boring attacks. However, America did not have any first-rate philosophers to counter such an attack - the founders held "these truths to be self evident" - they felt that the implicit philosophical foundation (reality as an absolute, reason as man's means to tame reality, individual rights as the only thing the government should be involved in,) of their system was obvious. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and Kant tore the (very poor) intellectual defenses of each apart in his books.
Kant got into ethics, in which he enshrined 'duty' so much that he declared that even enjoying the carrying out of your duty is a moral black mark; but, rather, the height of morality is a scoundrel, who desires in his heart to do evil, instead carrying out his 'duty' in contradiction to all his desires. But he never got into politics. One of his disciples, Hegel (another German,) had to do that. Hegel, if you'll recall, was the primary intellectual influence on Marx. What most people don't know is that his ideas (and his own disciples) were also the primary influence that helped disarm Germany intellectually against the Nazis.
Hegel preached collectivism. His was a religious collectivism (where rulers get authority from "The Whole," something like God.) But his followers took the essence and preached all kinds of collectivism - the most intellectually fashionable one was to combine a smattering of the infant science of biology with Hegel's collectivism and declare that men owe all their allegeance to das volk. Everyone is already familiar what happens when a culture accepts those ideas, I hope.
But as this was happening, Hegel's ideas crossed the Atlantic. The man to look at in America is John Dewey. An early disciple of Hegel, he came up with the distinctly American philosophy of pragmatism, which in fact is not very pragmatic, but thats for another time. The important part here is that Dewey was one of the major leaders of the progressive teaching movement. The remnants of this movement are what guides the schools today - not because of their fierce devotion to ideas (they have demonstrably failed, and miserably at that,) but because no new ideas have risen to challenge them.
Progressive education was "child-centered" rather than "subject-centered." What this meant is that the child's whims, fancies and moods took precidence over learning. Progessive educators were against "system-building" - so if you look back to your school days and remember only a jumble of unconnected, unexplained facts, with no rhyme or reason to remember them, do not wonder. Dewey felt - and imposed on the public school system - that schools are not really for learning stale, intellectual subject matter, but for conditioning the child to adapt to the social attitudes of his or her time - in short, in teaching children to conform to and obey the collective.
Such schools produce, in large parts, illiterates, brutes, and morons. A person who goes through many years of public school and comes out with a genuine respect for ideas is often only that way due to attentive, encouraging parents - the school system itself being very little, if any help there.
The Conservative movement, for the most part agreeing with the premises of the "liberals" (sacrifice is noble, duty to the group is moral, the individual owes his life, to a greater or lesser extent, to the interests of the group, etc.,) had no real argument against the progressive education movement. The result is the recent history of America.
Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough - 'duty to others' as a moral ideal is what allows a bankrupt Democratic party to continue to gain victory at the polls. A Republican party that also clamors about 'duty to others' can and never will bring about any fundamental change in the country. The Democrats are the more consistent advocates of that ideal, and any honest person can see that. If you want to really save America, it is that ideal - and all the intellectual underpinnings that hold it aloft - that you need to fight.
Damn, Poncho......
I agree with most of what you said as far as opinion and 100% as far as fact-but the truth in my earlier statement is also fact-the removal of God from this country is when it fell on it's face. I'm no preacher or Bible thumper-just pointing the obvious.
Since you brought up schools, you also must know the first school bill signed by congress and the President was what?
No, Troll, it's not the cartoon-much, much better than that. I'll see if I can find the link after I get done blabbing.
I'm 100% republican-the way a republican is supposed to be-based upon our founding fathers-which I think most here are the same. Today's definition of a republican is trash, IMHO.
Yup, Poncho-your last line says it all. But, and not being a fatalist, I figure it's already too late. for that.
I don't know where the line was drawn, but this has been building for years. When I was a kid we had to work for the things we wanted. Now all the kids have the latest toys they have the fancy clothes. They get an allowance because they are breathing, not because they did their chores. It's not just the political lines its the parents that are causing this it the parents starting them off yung and giving them everything they ask for we are breeding a caudled mass, not an informed society. I maried into three kids, and I am trying to change the mentality in my house now thats a fight. I wonder if this started when they took dodgeball out of schools, and said spanking was wrong...
I know I can't spell, what can I say public education worked for me.[Beer]
Okay-here's the link;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=overview+of+america+site%3Avideo.google.com&pr=goog-sl
p.s.- I voted for Baldwin.
Pancho Villa
07-11-2009, 09:51
Damn, Poncho......
I agree with most of what you said as far as opinion and 100% as far as fact-but the truth in my earlier statement is also fact-the removal of God from this country is when it fell on it's face. I'm no preacher or Bible thumper-just pointing the obvious.
Since you brought up schools, you also must know the first school bill signed by congress and the President was what?
No, Troll, it's not the cartoon-much, much better than that. I'll see if I can find the link after I get done blabbing.
I'm 100% republican-the way a republican is supposed to be-based upon our founding fathers-which I think most here are the same. Today's definition of a republican is trash, IMHO.
Yup, Poncho-your last line says it all. But, and not being a fatalist, I figure it's already too late. for that.
Hey, Tristan,
Here's a fun fact for you: the time of the Founders and just after was a time of tremendous religious downplay. Many priests, pastors, etc., lamented at the complete lack of interest men had, day to day, in religion and God. I would go as far to say that in many areas (especially the most advanced, prosperous colonies) religious attendance and, even moreso, spirituality was less than it was today. One famous pastor at the time wrote in a letter to a friend that "mankind is in danger of being laughed out of religion," this less than a couple decades after the founding of this great country.
Religious conservatives try to blame everything on a lack of religion; but the fact is that religion is not what made this country great, not what kept it great and it will not be what makes this country great again.
Here's a quote from Rand, that I thought you and any other conservative might find of interest, as an outside perspective of the three major categories of conservative argument for freedom:
Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal[/i]"]
There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.
Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.
Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.
Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits . . . .
Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old . . . .
The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.
This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.
This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.
Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.
The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.
I liked Ayn Rand when I was younger. Incredible author.
Naw, though, I'd totally disagree with you on the God thing. Just because a few penned bad things doesn't mean it was the majority-and religion had a different meaning than it did now. And the tenants and doctrines were a lot stricter than they are today. So if the few that wrote such were around today, they would be in utter shock of what has happened.
There are many, many mentions of God-more of God than Politics itself-in everything from the federalist papers to memoirs to newspaper articles back in the day. Just like Ben Franklin said, although he was not a highly religious man-our country is based on a religious morals and law. It will not work without either.
Regardless, most religions teach morality-and that is what we need in this country, be it religion or, just as hobowh said-PARENTING.
Parenting (or the lack thereof) is the key. If all parents teach their children simple respect and honesty, well, it would be a different place. But humans, as a species, is a very sick lot anyways.
Dillon Klebold and Eric Harris are prime examples of failed parenting.
He-he. Gun free zone my ass.
Anyways, I saw a film once many, many moons ago that stated our society of entitlement started with frozen peas-since then everybody expects everything NOW. I really get a kick out of the idiots calling 911 on McDonald's.
Yup. I'm glad and proud my dad took me behind the barn a few times. Saved my ass more than once. I've never had to raise a hand to my children-ever. Maybe because they know I would. And still will. I remember 8 years ago when the neighbor girl told her step mom "go ahead and hit me bitch! I'll call the cops on you and then you'll go to jail and me and dad can finally live in peace". Dad was a puss and never disciplined her for anything.
I'll never forget that, either.
Oops-forgot to reply to Ayns' statements.
What she says is pretty ridiculous for anybody that knows their history.
The first school bill was to open school everyday with a prayer. Congress and the senate always opened with a prayer. Politics are religion are interwoven as they can possibly be. Our founding fathers meant it that way and meant to keep it that way. She's way out there sometimes as we all know anyways.
There are still many, many laws on the books today concerning God IN the government. It has nothing to do with the faith, per se. More with what I mentioned earlier-the morals.
True religion, be it personal or public, can and never will be separate from politics anyways. Religion is not God-it's what you believe and what you do.
Dont pin me down with a label, I have found no label that fits me other then an American who has pledged to defend the Constitution and believes in individual freedom and responsibility.
Pancho,
"Conservatives lack intellectuals" as in people that think and dicover new ideas? I think you actual mean conservatives lack "enlightened thinkers."
Like Al Gore, who cares so much for us all and is saving our planet before we all cook to death.
"Duty to others", like commies who take from me and give it to that person who pisses all there money away on shit, just because I went without and saved OR LIKE Treat others as you wish to be treated?
I am just trying to understand where you stand. I dont want to cast insults.
GunTroll
07-11-2009, 19:16
Hey Tristan that is the video I was referencing. Just a different/edited version than what I saw. Seems like the one I saw starts at the explanation of governments. I shouldn't have said cartoon. I meant pictures and funny animation on top of them. That is a great video!
So Pancho as a intellectual , and you may be with the info you can come up with and back up well with your own take.....you dodged my question directed at you...intelligently. I'll word it differently.
1) Do you work for someone?
2) Or do you work for yourself?
3) If you work for someone, do you want to one day work for yourself?
Please answer as plainly as possible. I have a headache and don't want to decipher your lengthy (but good) post. This isn't an attack on you by the way. I think you are in the right place IMO.
[Beer]
Pancho Villa
07-11-2009, 21:18
Dont pin me down with a label, I have found no label that fits me other then an American who has pledged to defend the Constitution and believes in individual freedom and responsibility.
Pancho,
"Conservatives lack intellectuals" as in people that think and dicover new ideas? I think you actual mean conservatives lack "enlightened thinkers."
Like Al Gore, who cares so much for us all and is saving our planet before we all cook to death.
"Duty to others", like commies who take from me and give it to that person who pisses all there money away on shit, just because I went without and saved OR LIKE Treat others as you wish to be treated?
I am just trying to understand where you stand. I dont want to cast insults.
No, I mean "conservatives lack intellectuals." The defenses of conservatism, intellectually speaking, are laughably bad. It is that poor intellectual defense that makes dispicable people like Al Gore possible. When liberty has no champions in the intellectual sphere, cockroaches like him come in and take over.
"Duty to others" as in putting forth as a moral ideal "need before greed."
Let me put it as plainly as possible: I am a defender of individual rights and political liberty, which means: I am an enemy of democrats, and I reject as useless, tired and unprincipled "conservatism." There is nothing conservative about me - I am a radical for capitalism, which means, a radical for freedom.
Guntroll: Back in Dallas I used to run an Evictions business (no doublespeak there, I evicted bum tenants from properties, legally.) Here I work as a shipping manager for a businessman - fell in love and wanted a job. But I hope to get back to being a business owner again. So I supposed I am an "aspiring capitalist." So #1 and #3.
Damn- a BIG......SMART......MEXICAN.....we're all screwed now.....
jk, Poncho. Thanks for the comments.
Poncho is right. The present "republicans" are a joke-both intellectually and philosophically. And they, as well as they the dems, make a mockery of our system, which, by the way is still the best system on earth.
Ya, Troll, it's a great movie. I really wished more people would watch it. I though you were referring to the cartoon made in the 50's about a snake oil salesman. I liked that one too.
Sincerely,
the gun-toting-long-haired-red-necked-fag-hating-country-loving-gunrack-in-my-pickup capitalist pig,
Tristan
I'm turning into more of an asshole everyday.
GunTroll
07-11-2009, 22:36
Wear the badge of asshole proudly!
ChunkyMonkey
07-11-2009, 23:24
Dont you already have real one? what's the badge for? [ROFL1]
Delfuego
07-12-2009, 14:00
But, this seems to me like a pretty one sided argument. Almost everyone posting has been in agreement on the major points.
If you’re interested I can play the "Devil's Advocate" in this debate.
GunTroll
07-12-2009, 16:31
But, this seems to me like a pretty one sided argument. Almost everyone posting has been in agreement on the major points.
If you’re interested I can play the "Socialist Pig who wants your money Advocate" in this debate.
There fixed it for you! Always wanted to do that.
And if you'll notice this wasn't started to be a debate. IT was my take on the differences. No one had to agree with me but the responses that followed where made for some compeling reason. Disagree with my take. I could care less. So enlighten me please with your take........
theGinsue
07-12-2009, 23:24
I had to jump ahead on the posts to provide my 2 cents. If this has already been addressed in later posts, I apologize. I intend to go back and continue reading the posts until the end. I agree with Tristan on this.
Religious conservatives try to blame everything on a lack of religion; but the fact is that religion is not what made this country great, not what kept it great and it will not be what makes this country great again.
Here's a quote from Rand, that I thought you and any other conservative might find of interest, as an outside perspective of the three major categories of conservative argument for freedom:
The Ayn Rand quote is VERY flawed. Starting with the statement: "fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues."
Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. This is a pervasive misbelief and a total failure to understand what our Founding Fathers tried to establish. These individuals wanted to ensure every citizen was allowed to worship freely - following the religion of their choice, not the choice of the government. Just looking at almost every official document produced at that time should be example enough of this very fact; GOD is mentioned over and over.
In fact, religion, and a belief in God, is exactly what helped to establish this nation. I have copies of MANY documents from the time of the first ships crossing the Atlantic into the start of the 19th Century that support this. Because our Founding Fathers had such a strong belief in God and the tenants of their religions they saw fit to include this throughout our system of government. The posting of the 10 Commandments in government buildings, the use of "In God We Trust", the concept of "One Nation Under God"... these have followed us since our creation up until we started to get "enlightened" in the 20th Century.
Once upon a time, the majority of this nation had strong religious beliefs which provided us with a morality, or moral compass. This morality existed in our private lives, our work and businesses, and even our government. After our "enlightenment", we decided that we were too limited by these morals and that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect us from religion. This is when we started to lose our way.
We decided that we didnt need to be told what to do and what was right and wrong. We removed (and are continuing to remove) the symbols of religion from our government and places of work because they might offend someone. We twisted our Constitutional right of "Freedom of Religion" into "Freedom FROM Religion". We decided that the bible and religion preached HATE by telling us that certain actions and behaviors were wrong. We didn't like the rules that our morality imposed on us so we sought to eliminate these rules so we could do our own thing without the constraints of morality. We decided that we knew what was better for ourselves than some abstract religion did and that we needed the government to protect us from such rules - by imposing new rules. Those who chose to practice their religious faith publicly were told this isn't allowed. Public schools prevent children from praying (even those who pray silently are often counselled or disciplined) and they stopped saying the Pledge of Allegience because the term "under God" was deemed offensive. We were told that the government knew what was best for us. As such, we simply traded one "God" for another - a false God we call "government"!
Along the way, our moral compass lost it's bearing on true North and points to the individual direction of the compass holder. Each person has come to possess a varied understanding of what is right and what is wrong. All the while, our new government officials came to realize that there was a great opportunity to grow their power - and they ran with it. Under our new understanding of right and wrong we saw no problem with this - the more power the government had, the less power that religion could have over us and could be restrainted from telling us that what we were doing wasn't right.
Where once we sought freedom from religious persecution for questioning the beliefs of the religion that was forced on us (by The Church of England), now we face persecution by our new "religion" - government, when we question the rules they impose on us.
Our mandatory "tithe" to this new religion continues to grow. Our indivudual rights continue to diminish. The things that were once considered perverse and wrong are now accepted as simply another choice - not necessarily right, but certainly not wrong. Voicing opposition to those things is a failure to accept diversity and is considered HATE.
As I said before, we have simply traded one God for another. Enjoy your daily communion - it's now made of bitter herbs!
theGinsue
07-12-2009, 23:44
Anyways, I saw a film once many, many moons ago that stated our society of entitlement started with frozen peas-since then everybody expects everything NOW.
I call this the Microwave Syndrome. When microwaves first came out, everybody hailed them because they could cook so fast. Instead of 45 minutes - 2 hours to bake a potato, you could microwave it in 8 minutes. Nowdays, we tend to feel that those 8 minutes are just too damned long.
Yup. I'm glad and proud my dad took me behind the barn a few times. Saved my ass more than once. I've never had to raise a hand to my children-ever. Maybe because they know I would. And still will. I remember 8 years ago when the neighbor girl told her step mom "go ahead and hit me bitch! I'll call the cops on you and then you'll go to jail and me and dad can finally live in peace". Dad was a puss and never disciplined her for anything.
I'll never forget that, either.
Back in '99 I was arrested (and eventually convicted) of 2 misdemeanor counts of child abuse. What did I do that was so heinous? I spanked my children on their clothed buttocks with an open hand. I was turned in by my wifes best friend - at the time she was a paralegal for the DA's office. Because of this, I was nearly courts-martialed. I was a week away from a courts-martial when I got a new commander that put a stop to it. The charges went back to the civilian courts and I was convicted. By abiding by the terms of the civilian conviction, the charges are now officially "dismissed". Last I had heard, I was to be placed on the Colorado list of Cild Abusers FOR LIFE. So I can never be a teacher or a child care provider - so what?! The DHS rep I spoke with had informed me that she was going to make it her mission to keep me from EVER seeing my kids again. She tried, she failed. What I did was probably wrong in that I was angry when I spanked them but I never realized an open-handed spanking on a clothed bottom would be considered illegal. I'm sure that it can go without saying that I have not since laid a hand on either of my children.
True religion, be it personal or public, can and never will be separate from politics anyways.
Politics, perhaps no, but (sadly) I believe that it will, someday, be totally separated from our government.
GunTroll
07-13-2009, 00:22
Damn The Ginsue stricks again! Man you deep!
theGinsue
07-13-2009, 17:30
Um, sorry about that - the conversation hit a nerve.
ChunkyMonkey
07-13-2009, 17:34
So is your wife still best friend w/ that woman?
So do you think that a communist system would work better if it were a strongly religious system as well? Seems like it would.
theGinsue
07-13-2009, 17:55
So is your wife still best friend w/ that woman?
Yes, but they aren't as close as they used to be. In fact, because of this situation, my wife and I had separated for a few months but finally resolved our issues and got back together - stronger than before. This woman left the DA's office to work for a childrens advocacy group. She hasn't worked there for a few years now but goes to church practically daily. What's ironic is that the biggest reason that my wife has been distancing herself from this woman is that she is borderline abusive, but certainly hateful to her adopted daughter. I call this poor girl "cinderella" because of the way she is treated. This woman is the wife of MY best friend which makes for a difficult situation.
So do you think that a communist system would work better if it were a strongly religious system as well? Seems like it would.
It probably would, but it would still be a Communist system which can not compare to the Republic that out nation is SUPPOSED to be.
ChunkyMonkey
07-13-2009, 17:59
Ouch! Gosh someone ever done that to me, he/she would regret it for the rest of his/her life... nothing physical.. just from all the loopholes I know in this country's banking,credit, tax system.. dnt get me going on this stuff!
theGinsue
07-13-2009, 18:10
I figured the cards were stacked against me pretty well and per the terms of the court, I attended:
Marriage counseling
Stress management classes
Anger Management classes
Anger Management for Parents classes
& Preventing Maltreatment classes
By the end of it I was fairly whipped into submission and just wanted to go about my life without any more issues. I almost lost my ability to be an AF cop (even after the courts-martial idea got dropped) and almost lost my right to own guns (if it had been classed as "domestic assault" instead of "child abuse", I would have).
While I've tried to put it behind me and take the Christian stance of foregiveness on this I must admit that it does still bother me. But... I just need to let it go and move on.
So......... How about that Obama? Think he'll come up with any more new tax ideas this week?
ChunkyMonkey
07-13-2009, 18:14
you are a bigger man than I am!
GunTroll
07-13-2009, 18:18
Turning the cheek is hard to do but good for you!
LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! LIBS! Really piss me off!
Pancho Villa
07-14-2009, 06:25
I always wondered why any religious person thinks "Because God said so!" is a stronger moral base than the liberals' "Because I feel like it!"
Both a liberal and a religious person agree that the source of morality is their feelings; the religious person claims they come from a 'revelation' about God's plan for man. The liberal skips the dog-and-pony show and just says thats how he feels. Ultimately they both rest on claiming the power of their feelings to discover what is right.
Before you go saying religion is a more solid base for morality than the liberals' feelings-based nonsense, ask yourself what (ultimately) religious morality rests on.
Several reason. Number one is that it's just easier. Number two would be because God's moral and ethical standards are a lot higher than mans. So when someone says "because God says so" (which I have rarely heard), there is a choice to make-the standards set by a much higher power-or some person, who is fallible (human).
Most religions strive for a higher state of being-liberals do not.
And religious morals rarely are based on what we "feel". Most times it actually goes against what we feel. So, you feel one way, but the Bible tells you to go a different way.
It would be an absolutely ridiculous argument in some instances.
"I feel like blowing this MF's head off"-whether religious or not, is an emotion everybody feels at one time or another.
So you're saying a liberal would do it and a religious man would too? Not. That is what truly separates a religious man from a non religious man. This is the perfect case in point-what this thread was started over. And this whole discussion.
A liberal, by your definition, does what they do, according to their feeling. But a religious man does what is right-regardless of how he feels.
So it's not about "feelings". It's about doing what is right and what is wrong. Something liberals rarely pay attention to, or they make up their own moral codes as they go along.
The easiest and quickest way to success in anything in life is to pattern yourself after someone who has been successful. A tried and proven method works 9 times out of 10. But we don't see that happening.
Another instance would be MacDonalds. You want a big mac when you're in Japan. It should taste the same, be made the same, etc.
That is what religion gives us. A standard and rules to govern ourselves by. Without it, we are lost and the big mac is different in every MacDonalds you come to.
Pancho Villa
07-14-2009, 10:57
Tristan, you're missing the point I was trying to make.
How do you know what morals you're following are right? Religious rules are followed, fundamentally, for the same reason the liberals follow their morals - you 'feel' that what you're doing is right. Religious thinkers labeled this as divine revelation. Thats because (by definition) there's no way to reason out God's will - thats the point, its why to be religious you need faith. So you read the bible and you 'feel' that its right, and fundamentally these rules were not reasoned out, but felt by the originators of it by 'divine revelation' - which is (supposedly, and unproveably) god-inspired feelings. How is that different than the way liberals act out - except that religious people have an older set of rules? And that one set of people claims that they have the sanction of God?
You are lost without an objective, rational morality. I am not advocating for the subjectivism of the liberals. What I am saying is that religious morality is, in the greater scheme of things, irrational and ultimately just as baseless as any liberals' feelings.
I think liberals have their own religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Go on a hike with a hippy and they'll make you stay on the trail the whole time, even when it is ankle deep mud with shin deep water over that.
People who worship the environment set up rules and norms that seem just as difficult as far as a standard of living as the moral ones that religions set up. It's funny to see environmentalist scoff at God fearing people, while they fear Mother Nature just as much. You know what I mean?
GunTroll
07-14-2009, 11:50
Liberal religion is probably "humanist". Man has the answers and he is his own ruler. Very arrogant! Belief in Gods rules to live your life haven't changed for a long time! Maybe different definitions of the rules, but not a change in them. Libs change the rules day to day. No set rules to adhere to. Think I'm wrong then look no further than Congress!
Tristan didn't miss your point Pancho. You just can't see his and you want him to see yours and accept it. I'm guessing but neither of you or faith based vs. non-faith based people will ever see eye to eye on this. Its the damn Devil I tell you [Muaha]! Driving the wedge between God and man. Been that way since day 1 !
Libtards who don't believe in God have a special place waiting for em'!
Come to think of it, ALL who don't believe can have a big block party in HELL when their time comes!
Think.....even if God doesn't exist......the rules that "he" put out for humans to follow are good moral rules to adhere to. So if it was all in vain, at least you lived a good life and treated your fellow man well. Can't say that for mans rules. Just a thought.
When the hell did this turn religious by the way. Pancho you to blame?!?!
I understand you point, Poncho. And in some cases I'd agree with it. There's an awful lot of fake Christians out there.
But I think you missed my point-it's not about what I "feel" is right or wrong-it's a choice I've made to follow a tried and proven system.
Faith is a whole nother discussion.
Liberals are so mentally weak that one comes up with an idea and then tries to get other lost people to go along with him. And they usually do, because they don't know what else to do. You will not find many successful religious people falling into that trap. They simply don't need to. What they are doing works, so why mess with it?
Such is the case when folks lose their faith, as you mentioned, in the present system. Obama is a prime example. But there are many, many different religions. I am referring to Christianity and I believe you are too.
I am sorry you are bitter/jaded towards such.
rhineoshott
07-14-2009, 12:41
Way to go Tristan and Ginsure! I'm completely with you.
I'll let you do the talking
Delfuego
07-14-2009, 13:02
I thought this was a Dems/Reps debate, but if we want to wander then so be it.
I personally cannot stand when people paint anyone that disagrees with them as a "liberal". Is this a bad word? Rush Limbaugh (and other political do-nothing pundits) seems to think it has 4 letters.
Webster's Dictionary defines Liberal as....
Main Entry:
1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
Adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century
1: a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2: a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full
3: obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Yeh that sounds bad.....
We also seem to forget or ignore the fact that organized religion is an institute of man. Created by man, for the governance and control of man. It has been altered and amended routinely throughout history to suit changes in policy or views. Religion and beliefs can be a great thing but not at the expense of others that may not agree with others views. We live in a big big world and people are very different from place to place, and time to time. Follow your teachings and learn to accept people's differences, hell enjoy them. I personally hate when everyone has the same opinion or looks the same or all fall in line. I live in a "melting pot", where do you live? I don’t want to live in an Orwellian world, do you?
And as per my offer to play the "Devil's Advocate"
Ginsue:
"Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
Really?? And you spoke to our forefathers and they told you this? I thought they implemented the plan to separate church and state. I think this was likely to allow different religions equal protection and freedom under the law. I may be wrong, please ask them when you see them again.
Tristan:
"Another instance would be MacDonalds. You want a big mac when you're in Japan. It should taste the same, be made the same, etc.
That is what religion gives us. A standard and rules to govern ourselves by. Without it, we are lost and the big mac is different in every MacDonalds you come to."
A Big Mac does taste different in other countries. McDonalds tunes their menu for local flavors. Don’t believe me go try a hamburger from Mickey D's in Hong Kong!
Sturtle:
"I think liberals have their own religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Go on a hike with a hippy and they'll make you stay on the trail the whole time, even when it is ankle deep mud with shin deep water over that."
Is this some broad generalization or do you often go hiking with "hippies"?
And I am just getting warmed up………
Pedro
GunTroll
07-14-2009, 13:28
the problem I have with liberals is the complete lack of parity. you must conform to their world view. there is zero live and let live......
you must celebrate diversity by accepting our lifestyle, but fuck you if you want to own a gun.
we love democracy as long as it goes our way, if not then we protest in the streets.
universities are bastions of higher learning and free speech, but if you say something we don't like we'll yell, rush the stage, and throw things at you.
guns hurt kids and should be banned, but a woman has the right to kill an unborn any time she likes.
al sharpton says "you're not allowed to say that, it's offensive" kanye says "she ain't messin with no broke niggas"
gay man in west hollywood hangs sarah palin in effigy for two weeks with no problems. straight boys in texas hang obama in effigy and get charged with a hate crime.
if I point my finger in a threatening manner and say "bang!" I can be charged with assault, but terrorists trying to kill americans deserve miranda rights and constitutional freedoms.
I can keep going, but I think the point has been made.
I believe this says it all. Well said!
I'll take a liberal approach. Agree with me or start your own thread!
90% of the people you encounter on a serious hike are hippies. Especially when they invite you. :(
Anyway, I could have elaborated more, but I was just trying to point out that people who don't like religion because of the strict rules, will sometimes have their own set of strict rules that they try to live by themselves. Take a vegan for example. A Vegan telling a religious person that they are an extremist is the pot calling the kettle black. The same goes for someone who is strongly religious telling a Vegan that they are weak willed or something. It goes both ways. That is the point I was getting at. I wasn't trying to pigeon hole every person into two groups, there is of course more diversity than that. I was just making an observation.
Delfuego
07-14-2009, 13:46
You know 80% of statistics are made up.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
And as for Parity... I dont see it either.
Parity
Main Entry:
1par·i·ty
Pronunciation:
\ˈper-ə-tē, ˈpa-rə-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural par·i·ties
Etymology:
Latin paritas, from par equal
Date:
1608
1: the quality or state of being equal or equivalent
2 a: equivalence of a commodity price expressed in one currency to its price expressed in another b: equality of purchasing power established by law between different kinds of money at a given ratio
3: an equivalence between farmers' current purchasing power and their purchasing power at a selected base period maintained by government support of agricultural commodity prices
4 a: the property of an integer with respect to being odd or even <3 and 7 have the same parity> b (1): the state of being odd or even used as the basis of a method of detecting errors in binary-coded data (2): parity bit
5: the property of oddness or evenness of a quantum mechanical function6: the symmetry of behavior in an interaction of a physical entity (as a subatomic particle) with that of its mirror image
Maybe you/we/them should also "live and let live".
PS: Adding quotes from Al Sharpton and Kanye West does not add clarity to your opinion, you might as well quote Scoobie-Doo and Shaggy.
You know 80% of statistics are made up.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Ya, a study came out last year that confirms that 92% of studies are incorrect.
And I have had a Big Mac in Hong Kong. And in Tokyo. And in Moscow.
That's my point-it's still the same anywhere you go-yes, they cater to certain tastes, with different meat and spices added to the sauce and such. But the process they use, the methods of business and their policies vary very little. MacDonalds is a very successful business based upon a very successful business model-that's why I brought it up.
But just like when our great Country was founded, the rules/laws were meant to be the same all over. When Mikky D's first sprouted all over the world, a big mac in hong kong was the exact same as here.
Jeesh, I remember when the mikky d's sign said "almost 1 million sold".......
Damn mexicans! You guys really stick together, don't ya?! :) jk
The sad part about this whole deal is now I and others are labeled as extreme right-wingers. Yet 100 years ago, we would be considered very mild conservatives.
That's how stuff has changed.
And who labels us as such?
The libtyards.
Not us.
Yet true Republicanism hasn't changed-just like someone mentioned earlier, it's the label.
Regardless, I'm an American and proud and actually kinda mean. And I personally believe that if you're not a republican, then you don't belong in this country. Since some here want to quote others and dictionary definitions, then find a true copy of the constitution-you may be amazed.
Jumpstart
07-14-2009, 15:21
How to be a good LIBERAL...
> Another one of those silly missives that captures the heart of liberalism
> so well.
> Still having a hard time believing any person who has attained any level
> of intelligence and logic can sit 'on that side of the aisle'.
>
> **How To Be a Good Liberal... **
>
You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.**
>
You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments
create prosperity.**
You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans
are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands
of Chinese and North Korean Communists.**
You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.**
You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.**
>
You have to believe that defined gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.**
>
You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.**
>
You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders
how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.**
>
You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony
activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.**
>
You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.**
>
You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution.**
>
You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.**
>
You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.**
>
You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.**
>
You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and that she is a
very nice person.**
>
You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked any-
where it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.**
>
You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in
jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.**
>
You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens,
transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and
Christian manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.**
>
You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the
Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.**
>
You have to believe that it's okay to give federal workers Christmas
Day off but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."**
>
You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right wing
conspiracy. **
>
Needless to say, I am not a liberal.
Delfuego
07-14-2009, 15:50
Very Funny!
The reason for the definitions is that people often use words improperly to prove a point, but frequently they contradict their own statements.
But is seems to me you are the one who keeps labeling people.
"And who labels us as such? The libtyards."
Come on, is this a discussion or a name calling contest. I am trying to be forthright and sincere. I detest name calling on the internet or in person.
I think you may be mistaken on the evolution of conservatism. It seems to be working in the opposite direction. The Conservatives of 30-40 years ago were people like Nixon, Kissinger and William F Buckley. They would be moderates by today’s standards.
"if you're not a republican, then you don't belong in this country". If you believe this you should start your own country, because this country was started on the concept of freedom. We have the right to believe what we wish. If you want to live in a Communist (1 Party) state then have at it. And don’t you ever question my patriotism.
And I hope people can do better than copying and pasting some dumb (not funny) email into this thread.
I am still just gettting warmed up![Twist]
PS: I am not Mexican... Try again
You say you don't like name calling and then you say "dumb". That's dumb.
So you want to turn this from a friendly discussion into an idiotfest?
It was a joke.
And libytard was just a much of a joke. That's why I said it.
Also, again, read the Constitution.
And I personally don't give a flying you-know-what about you patriotism. No one questioned it. You are really barking up the wrong tree.
Act intelligent and mature and I'm sure we can have a great debate. Act like this and I won't talk to you. Ha.
p.s.-it also would appear that you are not up to date on you politics. Kissinger is the one who schooled Obama and is still around-yes, even in the white house. So you proved my point about the direction it has taken-the wrong one.
I know you're not mexican-again it was a joke. Get a life. Jeesh. But apparently you would like to think of yourself as such. Go ahead! That's what America is all about.
Jumpstart
07-14-2009, 16:05
Very Funny!
The reason for the definitions is that people often use words improperly to prove a point, but frequently they contradict their own statements.
But is seems to me you are the one who keeps labeling people.
"And who labels us as such? The libtyards."
Come on, is this a discussion or a name calling contest. I am trying to be forthright and sincere. I detest name calling on the internet or in person.
I think you may be mistaken on the evolution of conservatism. It seems to be working in the opposite direction. The Conservatives of 30-40 years ago were people like Nixon, Kissinger and William F Buckley. They would be moderates by today’s standards.
"if you're not a republican, then you don't belong in this country". If you believe this you should start your own country, because this country was started on the concept of freedom. We have the right to believe what we wish. If you want to live in a Communist (1 Party) state then have at it. And don’t you ever question my patriotism.
And I hope people can do better than copying and pasting some dumb (not funny) email into this thread.
I am still just gettting warmed up![Twist]
PS: I am not Mexican... Try again
Easy there big guy..I guess it's okay for you to copy and paste dictionary definitions then? Yawn....
You say you don't like name calling and then you say "dumb". That's dumb.
So you want to turn this from a friendly discussion into an idiotfest?
It was a joke.
And libytard was just a much of a joke. That's why I said it.
Also, again, read the Constitution.
And I personally don't give a flying you-know-what about you patriotism. No one questioned it. You are really barking up the wrong tree.
Act intelligent and mature and I'm sure we can have a great debate. Act like this and I won't talk to you. Ha.
p.s.-it also would appear that you are not up to date on you politics. Kissinger is the one who schooled Obama and is still around-yes, even in the white house. So you proved my point about the direction it has taken-the wrong one.
I know you're not mexican-again it was a joke. Get a life. Jeesh. But apparently you would like to think of yourself as such. Go ahead! That's what America is all about.
ChunkyMonkey
07-14-2009, 16:10
I thought this was a Dems/Reps debate, but if we want to wander then so be it.
I personally cannot stand when people paint anyone that disagrees with them as a "liberal". Is this a bad word? Rush Limbaugh (and other political do-nothing pundits) seems to think it has 4 letters.
It's not a bad word. Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. I personally like preservation of my birth rights and voluntary private decisions which unlike liberal version of 'equality,' my good decision may profit better than the surrounding people.
Webster's Dictionary defines Liberal as....
Main Entry:
1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
Adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century
1: a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2: a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full
3: obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Yeh that sounds bad.....
Yes it sounds bad!
We also seem to forget or ignore the fact that organized religion is an institute of man. Created by man, for the governance and control of man. It has been altered and amended routinely throughout history to suit changes in policy or views. Religion and beliefs can be a great thing but not at the expense of others that may not agree with others views. We live in a big big world and people are very different from place to place, and time to time. Follow your teachings and learn to accept people's differences, hell enjoy them. I personally hate when everyone has the same opinion or looks the same or all fall in line. I live in a "melting pot", where do you live? I don’t want to live in an Orwellian world, do you?
You miss out on the real issue - which is a whole other topic. There is no such thing as melting pot - show me one instance and I ll stand corrected. [Beer]
Ginsue:
"Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
Really?? And you spoke to our forefathers and they told you this? I thought they implemented the plan to separate church and state. I think this was likely to allow different religions equal protection and freedom under the law. I may be wrong, please ask them when you see them again.
His claim has validity, although Thomas might have meant belief instead of religion. The word 'God' is mentioned in final sentence of the Constitution and in many forefathers letters. The first amendment prevents the U.S. from an establishment of religion and guarantees free religious exercise in this land -- However, this country is based on a belief in God. And obviously belief and religions are two completely different things. I have argued with many on the topic. Some could not see through it, while others, like myself, who am not necessarily religious yet have beliefs, can see it clearly.
Tristan:
"Another instance would be MacDonalds. You want a big mac when you're in Japan. It should taste the same, be made the same, etc.
That is what religion gives us. A standard and rules to govern ourselves by. Without it, we are lost and the big mac is different in every MacDonalds you come to."
A Big Mac does taste different in other countries. McDonalds tunes their menu for local flavors. Don’t believe me go try a hamburger from Mickey D's in Hong Kong!
Again, you need to see through his thought. The end result of every big mac is the same. It doesn't necessarily mean taste rather than satisfaction.
Sturtle:
"I think liberals have their own religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Go on a hike with a hippy and they'll make you stay on the trail the whole time, even when it is ankle deep mud with shin deep water over that."
Is this some broad generalization or do you often go hiking with "hippies"?
And I am just getting warmed up………
Pedro
Do you always like to take things out of context?
Why did it double post double post?? Sorry.
ChunkyMonkey
07-14-2009, 16:19
I dont know I dont know that's ok that's ok! [Coffee]
[ROFL1]
[ROFL1]
Thnaks!
Thnaks!
Delfuego
07-14-2009, 16:21
Anyone who disagrees here seems to be some kinda nut.
Sometimes I feel like a nut.... sometimes I don't.
This country was founded by people looking for religious freedom. Separation of "Church and State" is one of the main goals of the formation of our country. This was to protect religious freedoms and allow people to worship in their own way. Just because now we dont have wars between different Christian churches, does not mean it has always been this way.
And as for Kissinger (who I think is a total numbskull), the fact that he is counseling (not as you say schooling; they have not know each other very long) Obama, proves that he is now a middle of the road politician. Because the "Right" has moved so far to the right they left him in the middle.
MB888:
And it was not out of context, in fact it was within context, thats why the quotes were there.
Tristan:
No melting-pot? I personally have friends, relative and neighbors that have come from all different parts of the world and now live here. They look different, talk different and have different beliefs than my own. I would call that a melting-pot. What would you call it?
And I still have not broken a sweat yet!
PS: I called the joke dumb, not the person.
PSS: You did not know I was not a Mexican until I told you i was not.
ChunkyMonkey
07-14-2009, 16:29
So you are like my left nut?[ROFL1]
GunTroll
07-14-2009, 21:56
This is retarded. Yes I said retarded! Debate away but in the name of ___ keep it on topic!
How about this.....since I started this whole DUMB thread out of anger because of the dumb libtards of this country......I will say, it is however nice that all (Americans) aren't on the same page. If we all marched to the same tune then we would be, well not American.
I don't know how to multi quote because I'm dumb.
Sturtle, you are a closet hippy. You have played disc golf! And go hiking, and hiking with hippies at that. Get over it!
Delfuego aka Pedro, you are not Mexican! Get over it! This guy does exsist and he isn't Mexican. You like to stir shet up, so what! Still ain't Mexican!
The Ginsue, you the man!
Tristan, see above.
MB888 look two up!
Jumpstart, you still haten on Mexicans? Delfuego isn't Mexican. I do however think he likes "Spanish" music while shopping at Sportsmans.
Elhuero, you kind of funny! And nailed it best so far. Not to deep, not too shallow!
Pancho, deep man very deep! Too deep for shallow minds.
Rest of you have made no direct impact on this thread. Try harder!
Fuck it. MJ is dead who cares anyway!
theGinsue
07-14-2009, 23:13
Ginsue:
"Our Founding Fathers plan was to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government."
Really?? And you spoke to our forefathers and they told you this? I thought they implemented the plan to separate church and state. I think this was likely to allow different religions equal protection and freedom under the law. I may be wrong, please ask them when you see them again.
I dont have to actually speak with them. While sarcastic and condescending, your manner of speech belies an education, and perhaps intellect. I have. In fact, I've spent a great deal of time and energy studying our history - with a particular focus of the period from the mid-1600's into the early 1800's. While my career and formal education has focused on IT and Computer Science, my self-educational pursuits have always been towards our nations origins. I'd hazard to say that I've studied this era as much as any U.S. History PhD candidate.
With all of that said, I believe that I have some ground to make the claim that I'm not speaking from ignorance. I also believe that what you have stated is A PART of the truth - but fails to look at the whole picture.
You are right though - this thread moved well away from where it started so I'm going to stop here and let this thread be what it was intended to be; differences between Rep/Dem.
ETA: WHOOPS - I skipped ahead in the posts again and missed the last post before posting my statement above. GunTroll - Please accept my apologies for hijacking this thread again - it wasn''t intentional.
Delfuego
07-15-2009, 10:57
You are right Troll.....
I am just trying to stir up shit, and I do listen to and dance and to Latin/Salsa music. And I like wise latina women... he he he
However I am a card carring Democrat, my whole life. Goes back to my parents and family.
My only point would that maybe we have more in common, than we have differences.
Pedro....OUT!
GunTroll: It was nice to meet you and good luck on your new endeavor!
How did I get brought into this? My hiking experience is limited to my failed attempt at a 14'er (mount Harvard) and who better to show you the ropes than a damn hippy?
ChunkyMonkey
07-15-2009, 11:25
MB888:
And it was not out of context, in fact it was within context, thats why the quotes were there.
No melting-pot? I personally have friends, relative and neighbors that have come from all different parts of the world and now live here. They look different, talk different and have different beliefs than my own. I would call that a melting-pot. What would you call it?
It was out of context as far as you fail to see what message he intended to send. You are just being an ass [ROFL1] Not that Stu deserves it sometimes.
As far as the melting pot, to me melting pot requires "FUSSION" on inter-culture. Not a take over, not a side by side, not multicultural. What you described sounds like a multi cultural 'status quo.' It only lasts until one culture gets larger and strong enough to take over. It's happening all over the western world. I can think of only one place that's close to a melting pot; Singapore. Indian, Malay, Chinese, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist work together for the ultimate goal of "GETTING RICH," meanwhile its surrounding neighbors are fighting religious and ethnic low level wars.
And in my opinion, your observation on the 'right has gone far right' is flaw. This country have been steadily moving to the left. I considered myself as a democrat about 15 years ago - until the lovely Clintons started to mingle in private life - attempted to tell me what health care to obtain and so on. [Rant1]
And as for Kissinger (who I think is a total numbskull), the fact that he is counseling (not as you say schooling; they have not know each other very long) Obama, proves that he is now a middle of the road politician. Because the "Right" has moved so far to the right they left him in the middle.
Tristan:
No melting-pot? I personally have friends, relative and neighbors that have come from all different parts of the world and now live here. They look different, talk different and have different beliefs than my own. I would call that a melting-pot. What would you call it?
And I still have not broken a sweat yet!
PS: I called the joke dumb, not the person.
PSS: You did not know I was not a Mexican until I told you i was not.
Jeesh. It's not that hard. Follow along and learn.
Ya-huh. I know people here on this board that have had dealings with you. And since the obvious escapes your comprehension level sometimes, I can read, too! Wow! There are posts on this board!
Ya-huh. Kissinger "schooled" obama ALSO back when he was in high school and College. And now he's obama's adviser. I'd call that "Schooling". Pardon the colloquialism. In the future I'll try to keep in simpler for you.
??? I never said anything about a melting pot. Mr. MB888 did in his good post. But your "explanation" of such and your relations pretty much prove the point I believe you are referring to.
Sweat? Naw, just some crying.
Calling the joke dumb is calling the person dumb.
Being wrong and/or misinformed every time must get old.
So, without risk of getting you panties in a wad some more or offending your anima and causing you to have your personality conflict (evidenced be you nickname) turn into a gender conflict also, I am done with you. If, in the future you wish to "stir shet up" as Troll said, then knowing what you are talking about would certainly help. Otherwise you appear to be both uneducated and inept. And you spelled "I" incorrectly.
Not calling the person such, just the posts, he-he. [Beer][ROFL2]
But I do agree with you on Kissinger being an numbskull. Smart numbskull, yet numbskull nonetheless. So you were right on something! Kudos! :)
Okay. Done.
Did anybody see "Defiance"? Interesting movie. We watched it last night. Hits this thread on the head in a lot of ways. Tuvia kinda started things out democratically, but because of human nature, ended up going into a dictatorship. Just like the overview movie talks about. It has the fellow from the new James Bond movie in it-but he's better as Bond.
Regardless, this Country was founded and subsisted by Republicans-not liberals. That's why I say that if you're not Republican, then you don't belong here. The founding fathers knew more about people and life and psychology than most experts today. They knew what they were doing. The founded an REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a librocracy and not anything else. The Republican way. Period.
GunTroll
07-15-2009, 12:08
Sturtle,can you Sir please state for the record whether you have or have not gone to play disc golf? Don't try to deny it! Its in this forum somewhere! Hippie sympathizer!
I have played disc golf, only by myself though. In my defense, I showered before and after, and did not have a mangy shoulder bag to hold my 1 Frisbee (that was NOT a disc golf frisbee). For further clarification, the park with the course is adjacent to my home, and I run there. I doubt I would have driven any where to try it out.
I've also played Ultimate Frisbee. It is such a good work out, that I always feel like puking while playing.
GunTroll
07-15-2009, 12:30
Glad you cleared it up for all. So it is in my opinion you have dabbled with the stank side and saw the grass wasn't greener on the other side( or is it? ). Without google-ing.... Does the word patchouli mean anything to you? Last test I swear.
Yeah it means something to me. It was what my girl's God damned hippy friend smelled like on the whole hike. Don't even get me fucking started on patchouli.
*Thanks for reminding me to look it up though, to see what it actually is. I was under the impression that it is some rank ass flower or something.*
I looked it up. Even Wikipedia says that it is a damn dirty hippy thing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patchouli
GunTroll
07-15-2009, 12:51
It is in my opinion you are not a hippy. A sympathizer at best but still bashing so you lean to the right side.
I use the word granola to describe mnt hippies. Not your city tour rat types. Those are the worst! And I am a recovering hippie sympathizer so I know one when I see one.
Good luck to you on all future endeavours with bashing hippies![Beer]
This is my closing statement on this topic of dem vs. rep.....
Red will always rule Blue! If not in DC at least in logic.
ronaldrwl
07-15-2009, 13:32
The founding fathers knew more about people and life and psychology than most experts today. They knew what they were doing. The founded an REPUBLIC, not a democracy, not a librocracy and not anything else. The Republican way. Period.
I agree with the wisdom of the founding fathers. They knew people and life far better than I think we do today. But I doubt they would see much in common with the Republican party of today. Everything has drifted so far left. Even the conservatives of today are left of Jefferson and the rest. But the Rep. are the best option out there. We need another Regan revolution.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.