| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
When does someone 'have to' engage in trade? That would be called Obamacare. One more contradiction in the progressive's philosophy. | ||
| Spike |
PICK A SIDE! You just finished telling us that everyone is a moral relativist implying that all morality is relative. Now you insist that your morality is the correct one and then insist that people who claim to know right and wrong are 'a**holes'. You've got to get a grip on your own worldview. You can't claim that morality is relative and then speak in absolutes. | ||
| Reindog |
a pm from m2me doesn't count. a pm from m2me is a bm. | ||
| Reindog |
God, I'm gonna miss doug_s. He is gone for good cuz he said so. Sheesh. Excellent post, Hootowl. Conservatism may have some religious roots, but it cannot be the basis of American governance. America is too diverse to be a theocracy and that is a good thing. The basis of a strong America is limited government, minimal taxation, strong economic and personal freedom, equal opportunity, individual and corporate responsibility, and strong parents. There is hope. | ||
| Sifo |
Like it or not the American system of Governance is strongly rooted in Judeo/Christian theology. That doesn't mean that we are anything similar to a theocracy, it's just that we were founded on well established religious principles. | ||
| Strokizator |
I really see no solution other than to divide this country in two; either east/west or north/south. The libs can have first choice. They can have their open borders, free health care, zero carbon footprint vehicles, designate all undeveloped land as "wilderness", stop cutting down trees and start worshiping them, have everyone wear Birkenstock sandals, tie-died t-shirts and eat tofu, have the nanny-state raise their offspring, instead of free education just give everyone a HS diploma at 18 and a PhD at 25 (that way no one will have low self-esteem), legislate a 32 work week (if you insist on working), abortion on demand, 100% corporate tax rate (if they even allow non-government owned business), they can make love not war, operate their utilities on wind and solar power only, take mass transit, open elections without registration or proof of eligibility (heck, it'll be a one party system anyway). It''l be a paradise, Eden, Utopia and Nirvana all rolled into one. Trouble is, it'll last all of 6 months. Just like the hippie communes of the 60's, that's all the time it will take to find out the there are people out there who want to take but don't want to give. Who's going to grow their food? We can't have pesticides and irrigation steals water from the fishies. I guess they'll buy it from China (but only if it's certified "Organic". What will they build their houses from? We can't cut trees, smelt steel or mine for limestone (concrete). Guess they'll make really cool yurts out of yak wool and recycled tires. Like I said earlier, I'm tired of this $hit. I'm tired of people who believe otherwise telling me I'm a moron. Do what you want; I don't care. Just leave me the F*ck out of your grand schemes. You wanna take this country and turn it into a Marxist utopia? Go ahead and try. I like the idea of splitting it up. Just be sure you take Michael Moore, Cindy Shehan, Babs, Sean Penn and George Soros with you. I'd even be willing to take 100% of the national debt. You'll be bankrupt in a short while anyway. For vacation, you can come over to the other side and ride motorcycles. | ||
| Hootowl |
I wouldn't say it was rooted in Christian theology. Principles, yes, and I do not advocate that we move away from those principles. There is no theology in our founding documents. God is spoken of, but acknowledging that God grants each person rights that the government can not take away is not the same thing as being rooted in the theology of a particular religion. For example there is no mention of how often citizens should attend church services, or how often they must pray. There are governments who have such rules, and we're fighting one of them in Afganistan right now. Our founders never intended us to have a religious government, nor did they intend to wipe God off the face of America, as some are attempting to do today. There is a balance there. I don't think the RR or the ACLU know where that balance is. I'm not sure I do either. But I'm pretty sure they don't, and for that reason, I can't support a candidate who is in the pocket of either group. | ||
| Hootowl |
Strokizator, that was beautiful. I don't think it'll take 6 months for the hippies to realize they don't have any one else's money left to spend. They'll run out much faster than that. | ||
| Sifo |
To me founded on religious principles vs. religious theology is pretty darned close. You have no religious principles without the theology. That is very different from having a government run religion or a government controlled by a religion. | ||
| Hootowl |
Meanwhile, in the real world, the hippies HAVE run out of money, and are borrowing several trillion more to hold them over. | ||
| Reindog |
I didn't state my case too clearly. Of course, America is based on Judeo-Christianity values. My point is that the so-called Religious Right will never be elected because of narrowly held viewpoints. | ||
| Sifo |
GWB was considered part of the Religious Right. Did he take any actions that were out of line based on religion? (Message edited by SIFO on August 06, 2010) | ||
| Hootowl |
True Sifo. Like I said, I'm not sure where the line is. Our founders did, and they wrote down a lot of their thinking in places other than the Constitution. I have not read all of their writings, but I have read some. The progressives foisted prohibition on us, but now the RR have taken up the flag. There are still dry counties in Texas. I can't buy beer after midnight on Saturday (Sunday morning). These laws have nothing to do with anything other than religion, and I believe they are unconstitutional. If the RR ever gains a majority (I don't think they will) expect similar laws. I don't want what the left wants, a total removal of God from government, but neither do I want what the RR wants, which is to dictate to me what I can and can't do (based on their interpretation of scripture) when it affects no one but myself. I think I get more Libertarian every day. | ||
| Hootowl |
Well, the left called him that, but as you pointed out, his actions were not that of someone who deserves that name. Banning stem cell research conducted with human embryos created for the sole purpose of destroying them, in my view, does not make him RR, it simply makes him moral. See my earlier posts about abortion. | ||
| Sifo |
Nothing unconstitutional about a town, county or state making themselves a dry area. I personally find it a bit silly, and would vote against it, but that is part of living in a democratic republic. Dry areas aren't always a religious thing either. I've seen dry towns where the only way you can get served is by paying a membership fee at a given establishment. It makes it almost impossible for a new resturant/bar to open up because people are reluctant to purchase yet another membership. Local authorities are free to do such things though. Free citizens are also free to live in whatever area suites them best. It's all part of our system. Bush didn't ban stem cell research at all. What he did was stop government funding of stem cell research. Sorry, but I get tired of the misstatements of GWB's actions, such as this one. It's one of the lies of the left that have become mainstream. Total BS. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The framers didn't want a codified religion nor did they seek a government free of religion. They sought to create a system of government where a person could freely exercise his faith (and have his decisions guided by that faith) while at the same time protecting those of different faiths (or no faiths at all). At NO point in time was the intent to have a secular government completely free from even the mention of God or faith. Unfortunately, that is how the interpretation of the Constitution has been twisted. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
there was a time when it was split, it was the civil war.... and of course when you pit capitalism against socialism E.Berlin vs W. Berlin N. Korea vs S. Korea Where is the prosperity ? duh. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I can't buy beer after midnight on Saturday (Sunday morning). These laws have nothing to do with anything other than religion, and I believe they are unconstitutional. The original "blue" laws were based on the commandment to honor the sabath and keep it holy, My understanding is that legitimate concern about drunk drivers is one argument raised by proponents of no hard liquorr sales on Sunday. In a massive twist of irony, huge support for maintaining the dry status of Texas counties comes from the owners of liquor stores, the ones situated just over the county line in a neighboring "wet" county. Huckabee has no record of ever trying to force his religious views on anyone. He seems to me to be one of the most genuine, forthright, and unabashedly honest candidates out there. My concern with him is that he'd not be conservative enough. The only legitimate issue hurting Palin that I recall is her resignation from governorship. What other legitiment issue is there? She walks the talk. Gotta relish how the mere mention of the Gipper generates hysterical derangement in left wingers. (Message edited by Blake on August 07, 2010) | ||
| Hootowl |
You are correct, he did not ban stem cell research. I of course meant he banned government funded stem cell research involving NEW embryos that are created for the specific purpose of destroying them during research. The existing embryos could still be used for research with government money. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Doug s et al, Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.  G | ||
| Doug_s |
nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione...  doug s. | ||
| 86129squids |
I like to open all threads. I reject labeling. I like being a US citizen, born and raised, and I like to vote. Watching these threads is like watching tennis between two pros- back and forth, back and forth. Dialogue/the dialectic/good conversation is much preferable to most of this. Too bad that's no longer fashionable. We need more shady front porches, more rocking chairs, more sticks, more whittling. And sometimes a good jar of mountain dew to share. Carry on... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
everything I liked about this country as been fizzling out like air from a deflated intertube that you are using to float down the river. At somepoint the tube is no longer viable, its cumbersome and tedious, you have to reject it and discard it. When did it officially begin to suck?...Clinton. (that was right about the time 'political correctness' became a validation for the dumbest damn things I have ever witnessed) | ||
| Doug_s |
cityxslicker, for me it began w/ronnie reagan. nixon and carter certainly sucked, but ronnie institutionalized the rebirth of "trickle down" economics in the late 20th century. the beginning of the end of the strong american middle class. the clintons certainly didn't help matters any... doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If you hated trickle down, you're gonna hate socialism, trickle up poverty. | ||
| Doug_s |
the only socialism in america that i have seen is socialism for the rich. i agree that trickle up poverty is a strong possibility from it, as average folk stop consuming because they're getting poorer & poorer; the big corporations' markets will shrink... doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
the only socialism in america that i have seen is socialism for the rich. i agree that trickle up poverty is a strong possibility from it, as average folk stop consuming because they're getting poorer & poorer; the big corporations' markets will shrink... doug s. Really? Where have you been since Woodrow Wilson? | ||
| Sifo |
Doug_s, Where do you get that average people are getting poorer and poorer. You have already provided data in another thread that shows this to not be the case. | ||
| Doug_s |
uh, no, sifo, i have posted plenty of info to support the fact that it's true. twist it any way you want. dig your head deeper. cut off your nose to spite your face, supporting economic policies that only hurt you. fat bastard, things were relatively ok until the economic policies of ronald reagan. where ya been since 1980? doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No Doug, the problems were just better hidden. Under the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, the social security has been "off-budget" since 1986. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on August 11, 2010) |
