The Conservative Cave
The Bar => Introductions & Subsequent Welcomes => Topic started by: Angry Dragon on July 20, 2010, 10:35:58 PM
-
Hello, I am new here.
I hesitate to post on this website. The reason I say that is because I probably disagree with most of the Republican talking points. At the same time I also realize that to get my country back I need to better understand the Republican point of view. I also hear the Republicans say that they want their country back. Are both sides correct or are they both wrong??
I am here to get honest discussions, arguments are fine if they are based on facts and not just talking points. My premise is that both Republicans and Democrats have lost their country to the politicians and the power elite. I feel they are out of touch with the common man and woman, the ones that are just trying to eck out a living day to day. The only way to get the country back is for Republicans and Democrats to really hear each other and work together to bring this country back to Founding Fathers' intent for this country.
I am walking into enemy territory and saying hey, we can continue fighting each other and one day in the future the power elite and the corporations will rule this country and we will be serfs or we can work together and bring the power elite down and once again the people will be the ones with the power. I guess it is your choice, either we better understand each other or we all go down together. Either way we will end up with the same fate.
Rip me apart if you like or we can sit down and talk.
Angry Dragon
-
Your thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum.
Welcome to Conservative Cave.
-
Your first mistake is that you've apparently confused the terms, Republican" and "Conservative". Rethink your stance and you may enjoy some decent debate or conversation.
-
Welcome.
-
Hello,
I am here to learn. My understanding is that the Republican party is more conservative than the Democratic party. One is more for status quo and the other is more for change. I also understand that labels do not answer all the questions so that is why it is important to talk to understand the other person.
-
Hello,
I am here to learn. My understanding is that the Republican party is more conservative than the Democratic party. One is more for status quo and the other is more for change. I also understand that labels do not answer all the questions so that is why it is important to talk to understand the other person.
Not only to talk, but more importantly to be able to listen, not just hear.
-
Hello,
I am here to learn. My understanding is that the Republican party is more conservative than the Democratic party.
That is not always the case. I'm not saying the Democratic party has anything to recommend it, but parts of the GOP are certainly no better.
One is more for status quo and the other is more for change.
I think you need to stop listening to campaign ads and taking them literally.
-
Not only to talk, but more importantly to be able to listen, not just hear.
Hello debk,
People tell me I am natural listener, and if I do not understand someone i will ask questions so I do understand. Actually hearing someone is more important than listening. Listening is just the act of paying attention. Hearing is the actual event of feeling what the other person is saying, being able to put yourself in that persons place and feeling what they are feeling.
-
So...tell us more about yourself...non-political.
Sometimes, it's easier to find common ground and then get into the heavier discussions. While most of us here are Conservatives and there are several threads that discuss politics.... we are a very mixed group, and we do talk about and have interests in, all kinds of things that have nothing to do with politics.
-
Hello chris,
I really do not listen to campaign ads, I listen to more of what they say out in public and how they vote. I question all politicians, all parties. That is why I came here, to understand the real people. You seem to disagree with my understanding of the parties, so I ask you to tell me where I am mistaken.
-
I'm just wondering how you square a comment like this:
My premise is that both Republicans and Democrats have lost their country to the politicians and the power elite.
with this one:One is more for status quo and the other is more for change.
-
So...tell us more about yourself...non-political.
Sometimes, it's easier to find common ground and then get into the heavier discussions. While most of us here are Conservatives and there are several threads that discuss politics.... we are a very mixed group, and we do talk about and have interests in, all kinds of things that have nothing to do with politics.
I golf, not very good, but I enjoy the fresh air, the pitting of myself against the course, the relaxation that comes with the effort. I enjoy reading, spy novels, mysteries, I read reference books to gain knowledge. I enjoy the companionship and beauty of animals. I hate hypocrites and hypocrisy. I enjoy a good and honest debate. I enjoy expanding my mind. I write poetry when the mood hits me. I enjoy asking questions and answering questions.
I can be passionate about things that are important to me.
-
Welcome to the CC
-
I'm just wondering how you square a comment like this:
with this one:
Just so you know that these are my opinions and they may be wrong so correct me if I am.
I hear both sides say that they feel they have lost control of what is happening in this country. Conservatives feel that government is taking too much control of their lives and the Democrats are of the opinion that the government needs to provide for the basic needs of the people. I feel that this can be accomplished for both sides. It will take a lot of hearing and a responsive government to achieve this.
As far as the second quote is concerned it has to do with conservatives feel that the government is encroaching more and more into our lives, while my side I guess would say that government should make sure everyone has the same chances to succeed. I probably am not saying this as well as it should be said. I am just trying not to go so deep here as I could.
-
I golf, not very good, but I enjoy the fresh air, the pitting of myself against the course, the relaxation that comes with the effort. I enjoy reading, spy novels, mysteries, I read reference books to gain knowledge. I enjoy the companionship and beauty of animals. I hate hypocrites and hypocrisy. I enjoy a good and honest debate. I enjoy expanding my mind. I write poetry when the mood hits me. I enjoy asking questions and answering questions.
I can be passionate about things that are important to me.
There's a book thread under Hobbies, in the Interests forum. Also a cooking thread is over there, if you have any interest in food and cooking.
Most of us have pets, there are also some ranchers and farmers here.
College football is an interest for many too.
I would venture a guess, that everyone here can be passionate about things that are important to them. We are particularly passionate about our country and our military people. There are several active duty military people here, some who are currently in and some who have recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan.
-
Just so you know that these are my opinions and they may be wrong so correct me if I am.
I hear both sides say that they feel they have lost control of what is happening in this country. Conservatives feel that government is taking too much control of their lives and the Democrats are of the opinion that the government needs to provide for the basic needs of the people. I feel that this can be accomplished for both sides. It will take a lot of hearing and a responsive government to achieve this.
As far as the second quote is concerned it has to do with conservatives feel that the government is encroaching more and more into our lives, while my side I guess would say that government should make sure everyone has the same chances to succeed. I probably am not saying this as well as it should be said. I am just trying not to go so deep here as I could.
To the bolded:
Is that like saying everyone deserves a participation trophy?
-
To the bolded:
Is that like saying everyone deserves a participation trophy?
Hi Evil_Conservative,
No, it does not. Everyone in this country is equal, we just have different strengths and weaknesses. Should we cast aside the ones that struggle more with live than others, should we cast aside people because they are not as intelligent as the average?? It is my belief that everyone in this country deserves to have the same basic rights. We may disagree what those basic rights are, but I am sure some would be the same.
-
What are those basic rights?
-
What are those basic rights?
Equal education, civil rights, basic affordable health care, equal protection under the law (laws that apply to everyone and not just the common person), honest government,
That is all that come to mind at this time
-
Equal education, civil rights, basic affordable health care, equal protection under the law (laws that apply to everyone and not just the common person), honest government,
That is all that come to mind at this time
Where in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights does it say those things tat I bolded are required or guaranteed?
The other things you mentioned...minus the honest government pabulum are already there.
I guess would say that government should make sure everyone has the same chances to succeed.
The CONSTITUTION not the Government says you have the right to peruse "life liberty and happiness". No where was it ever guaranteed or promised to you on a silver platter.
If you want those things get off your ass and go do what needs to be done to make sure you have them.
Don't sit around on your ass expecting them to be GIVEN to you.
-
Welcome to the Cave be prepared when you come in here don't expect to be treated with kid gloves
-
Where in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights does it say those things tat I bolded are required or guaranteed?
The other things you mentioned...minus the honest government pabulum are already there.
The CONSTITUTION not the Government says you have the right to peruse "life liberty and happiness". No where was it ever guaranteed or promised to you on a silver platter.
If you want those things get off your ass and go do what needs to be done to make sure you have them.
Don't sit around on your ass expecting them to be GIVEN to you.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That is what the Constitution says. So if you are going to quote something why don't you take the time to quote the correct thing??
General welfare does include education and health care. We the people are the government.
-
Welcome to the Cave be prepared when you come in here don't expect to be treated with kid gloves
I am just here to learn and I can dish out as well as I take it.
Thank you for the welcome
-
Well I hope you have thick skin
-
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That is what the Constitution says. So if you are going to quote something why don't you take the time to quote the correct thing??
No...that's the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.
If you're gonna accuse somemone of not quoting something correctly...make damn sure you know what YOU are talking about first.
We hold these truths to be self evident...that ALL men are created equal...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is in the Declaration of Independence and I paraphrased that in my other post to point out that nothing was ever guaranteed to you in this country beyond "certain unalienable rights".
Neither of the things in your post that I pointed out are included in those "rights"
With your crappy reading comprehension you took two separate parts of my post and mashed them into one.
My first question to you had to deal with where in the Constitution the bolded parts of what you said were found and where were we obligated to provide them.
You come back with the Preamble and an accusation that I'm quoting falsely.
:whatever:
General welfare does include education and health care. We the people are the government.
General welfare does NOT mean government mandated healthcare any more than it means special treatment for gays nor does it provide in the "general welfare" the right to abortion demand.
It's up to the states to provide for those as they see fit. It is NOT the job if the Federal Government despite what you Libs believe and try to force upon the rest of us.
-
I am just here to learn and I can dish out as well as I take it.
Thank you for the welcome
Stick to the facts and you'll be fine.
Continue the typical Liberal tripe like what you've read into the Constitution that isn't there and you might find your stay not as pleasant.
Lib talking points and DNC Dogma doesn't fly here.
-
No...that's the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.
If you're gonna accuse somemone of not quoting something correctly...make damn sure you know what YOU are talking about first.
That is in the Declaration of Independence and I paraphrased that in my other post to point out that nothing was ever guaranteed to you in this country beyond "certain unalienable rights".
Neither of the things in your post that I pointed out are included in those "rights"
With your crappy reading comprehension you took two separate parts of my post and mashed them into one.
My first question to you had to deal with where in the Constitution the bolded parts of what you said were found and where were we obligated to provide them.
You come back with the Preamble and an accusation that I'm quoting falsely.
:whatever:
General welfare does NOT mean government mandated healthcare any more than it means special treatment for gays nor does it provide in the "general welfare" the right to abortion demand.
It's up to the states to provide for those as they see fit. It is NOT the job if the Federal Government despite what you Libs believe and try to force upon the rest of us.
The Preamble is part of the Constitution. It states the goals of the new government and the rest of the Constitution is how the people plan to do it. You quoted the Declaration of Independence and mentioned it as if it was part of the Constitution in your first post. The Declaration did not set up any part of the government, it was just a letter stating why this country no longer wanted to be governed by England. No where did I mention gays nor abortion. If you want to put words in my posts show me where I wrote them. As for the HCR bill I think it is not worth the paper it is written on. It will not accomplish the intended result.
If you want to accuse me of something then you better have your facts straight. Attack me if you wish but you have no idea what I think nor feel. How would you like it if I accused you of being something you are not??
I will tell you that the gay, abortion, the hate, the anger problems are getting to the point of tearing this country apart. You can spew all the anger you want but it will not solve the problems this country is facing.
-
Something makes me tend to think that the Angry Dragon would also suggest that the 2nd Amendment was only meant for those folks in the "militia" and would probably define the "militia" as the Reserves or National Guard......
-
Stick to the facts and you'll be fine.
Continue the typical Liberal tripe like what you've read into the Constitution that isn't there and you might find your stay not as pleasant.
Lib talking points and DNC Dogma doesn't fly here.
All I see you stating are standard conservative talking points. Anytime you want to talk facts is fine with me. I have an open mind, can you say the same thing??
-
Something makes me tend to think that the Angry Dragon would also suggest that the 2nd Amendment was only meant for those folks in the "militia" and would probably define the "militia" as the Reserves or National Guard......
I do understand that is what is written in the Constitution but I believe that the common person should have the right to own guns. I would like to think it would not be necessary to be able to own ak47s nor machine guns. I own guns and would be pissed if someone wanted to take them away.
-
You quoted the Declaration of Independence and mentioned it as if it was part of the Constitution in your first post.
Ummm...no here is what I said:
Where in the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights does it say those things that I bolded are required or guaranteed?
The other things you mentioned...minus the honest government pabulum are already there.
The Declaration did not set up any part of the government, it was just a letter stating why this country no longer wanted to be governed by England. No where did I mention gays nor abortion. If you want to put words in my posts show me where I wrote them. As for the HCR bill I think it is not worth the paper it is written on. It will not accomplish the intended result.
The Declaration put forth in VERY clear language why we deserve to be the Country we are today.
You should REALLY stop reading the Cliff Notes/Liberal version.
If you want to accuse me of something then you better have your facts straight. Attack me if you wish but you have no idea what I think nor feel. How would you like it if I accused you of being something you are not??
You've made it painfully clear how you think. You believe that somehow the General Welfare part of the Preamble means the Federal Government is supposed to provide affordable healthcare and education"...roger...got it.
You're wrong.
I will tell you that the gay, abortion, the hate, the anger problems are getting to the point of tearing this country apart. You can spew all the anger you want but it will not solve the problems this country is facing.
The controversies over all of those issues are a creation and a monster fostered and cared for by the Leftists in this country as a way to put fear into people and ensure that they keep getting votes.
There are no "rights" in this country that Homosexuals aren't entitled to under the Constitution.
Abortion...the murder of the unborn...is NOT a right in the Constitution...I don't care what kind of bad law the Supreme Court used at the time. It wasn't in the Constitution in 1972 and it isn't in there now.
Hate? You wnt to see what "hate" is in this country? We have a section of this Forum called "The DUmpster". It tracks the hate of the Liberals in this country and a prominent site of theirs called DemocratUnderground.com.
Angry...bitter...petty...it's all right there.
The majority of this country is not racist...bigoted homophobic or for the most part angry. And I include myself in that majority.
What you have is a political party that focuses on a sliver of the population...magnifies and harps on it so much that people begin to believe...yourself included...that it's prevalent through out the nation.
That is just not the case.
-
All I see you stating are standard conservative talking points. Anytime you want to talk facts is fine with me. I have an open mind, can you say the same thing??
:whatever:
Just as I thought. Another typical Liberal cemented in the Hive mentality.
I have been talking facts with you.
I have stated plainly that certain things you think we have the "right" to are NOT owed us in the Constitution.
You've spun and avoided those facts as hard and as fast as you could.
And you've got the nerve to say that I am the one not having an open mind?
-
I do understand that is what is written in the Constitution
Starts off good...
but I believe that the common person should have the right to own guns.
:thatsright: Damn! He proves Thor correct in his assumption.
I would like to think it would not be necessary to be able to own ak47s nor machine guns. I own guns and would be pissed if someone wanted to take them away.
What's wrong with owning an AK-47? Don't see anywhere in the 2nd Amendment where it tells you what KIND of gun you can or can't own.
-
I own guns and would be pissed if someone wanted to take them away.
Where you from Dragon? That's a very oddly worded phrase.
-
Ummm...no here is what I said:
The Declaration put forth in VERY clear language why we deserve to be the Country we are today.
You should REALLY stop reading the Cliff Notes/Liberal version.
You've made it painfully clear how you think. You believe that somehow the General Welfare part of the Preamble means the Federal Government is supposed to provide affordable healthcare and education"...roger...got it.
You're wrong.
The controversies over all of those issues are a creation and a monster fostered and cared for by the Leftists in this country as a way to put fear into people and ensure that they keep getting votes.
There are no "rights" in this country that Homosexuals aren't entitled to under the Constitution.
Abortion...the murder of the unborn...is NOT a right in the Constitution...I don't care what kind of bad law the Supreme Court used at the time. It wasn't in the Constitution in 1972 and it isn't in there now.
Hate? You wnt to see what "hate" is in this country? We have a section of this Forum called "The DUmpster". It tracks the hate of the Liberals in this country and a prominent site of theirs called DemocratUnderground.com.
Angry...bitter...petty...it's all right there.
The majority of this country is not racist...bigoted homophobic or for the most part angry. And I include myself in that majority.
What you have is a political party that focuses on a sliver of the population...magnifies and harps on it so much that people begin to believe...yourself included...that it's prevalent through out the nation.
That is just not the case.
The CONSTITUTION not the Government says you have the right to peruse "life liberty and happiness" This what you wrote, quoting the Declaration and not the Constitution. The Declaration did not give any rights.
I agree with you that the Declaration said why we deserved to govern ourselves but it did say how we were going to do that.
General Welfare That is what the Constitution guaranteed the people, how would you do that??
"There are no "rights" in this country that Homosexuals aren't entitled to under the Constitution" I am not sure I understand this sentence that you wrote. Are you saying the homosexuals have the same rights as you??
I did not bring up the subject of abortion, it seemed that you wanted to push that issue.
You talk about hate as if it is just a fact on the Democratic side, perhaps you should go to the Free Republic website and see the hate voiced there. I do travel the web and what I see is a lot of fear, anger, hate. I see racism. I see bigotry. I have not accused anyone here of those things. These are just things I have seen. They are not just part of one party nor one group of people.
-
Where you from Dragon? That's a very oddly worded phrase.
I am from the midwest and I am confused why that sounds oddly worded to you??
-
:whatever:
Just as I thought. Another typical Liberal cemented in the Hive mentality.
I have been talking facts with you.
I have stated plainly that certain things you think we have the "right" to are NOT owed us in the Constitution.
You've spun and avoided those facts as hard and as fast as you could.
And you've got the nerve to say that I am the one not having an open mind?
I read your quotes at the bottom of your posts. That does sound a little set in ones' way.
Tell me what facts I have avoided as hard and as fast as I could.
-
All I see you stating are standard conservative talking points. Anytime you want to talk facts is fine with me. I have an open mind, can you say the same thing??
Not for nothin', but I personally think you're treading dangerous water, darlin'. It doesn't seem like you've come here to talk facts, or have civil conversation at all. I stopped at this quote, because I wanted to alert you about the fire that is being heavily stoked here. Mostly on account of you. Starting a war with Radioguy, or anyone else with "You just have talking points, I have facts." tripe isn't going to get you anywhere. You have an air of arrogance, and self importance about you, and so far, I think it sucks, to be frank.
Again, my only goal here is to steer you in a less aggressive direction to make your life here easier. If you choose to ignore it, I'm afraid the ride down may be fun for you, but you'll still hit bottom at some point or another.
-
If you come back please explain the origin of your screen name as it was pointed out once in regards to a poster at the DUmp with the same handle it is a term for a sexual act that is vile and abusive to women.
-
Hello, I am new here.
I hesitate to post on this website. The reason I say that is because I probably disagree with most of the Republican talking points. At the same time I also realize that to get my country back I need to better understand the Republican point of view. I also hear the Republicans say that they want their country back. Are both sides correct or are they both wrong??
I am here to get honest discussions, arguments are fine if they are based on facts and not just talking points. My premise is that both Republicans and Democrats have lost their country to the politicians and the power elite. I feel they are out of touch with the common man and woman, the ones that are just trying to eck out a living day to day. The only way to get the country back is for Republicans and Democrats to really hear each other and work together to bring this country back to Founding Fathers' intent for this country.
I am walking into enemy territory and saying hey, we can continue fighting each other and one day in the future the power elite and the corporations will rule this country and we will be serfs or we can work together and bring the power elite down and once again the people will be the ones with the power. I guess it is your choice, either we better understand each other or we all go down together. Either way we will end up with the same fate.
Rip me apart if you like or we can sit down and talk.
Angry Dragon
You claim you don't want "talking points," then go ahead and spew some liberal nonsense about power elites and corporations ruling the country.
I kind of see where this is going.
:whatever:
-
If you come back please explain the origin of your screen name as it was pointed out once in regards to a poster at the DUmp with the same handle it is a term for a sexual act that is vile and abusive to women.
I was thinking the exact same thing, but didn't want to pull the trigger. I'm also curious as to the reason this chew toy chose the name.
-
I am from the midwest and I am confused why that sounds oddly worded to you??
Gun owners don't say "I own guns", just like Corvette owners don't say "I own a Corvette." I was trying to determine if you're simply posing or if maybe you type with an accent ~ having an accent would be fine, posing would not.
Maybe you could go into more detail about just what part of "your" country you want back?
-
Gun owners don't say "I own guns", just like Corvette owners don't say "I own a Corvette." I was trying to determine if you're simply posing or if maybe you type with an accent ~ having an accent would be fine, posing would not.
I do own guns. I used to hunt and have not for quite awhile. I do not own any hand guns nor rifles. You talk of having an accent and posing, I am not sure what you mean by that.
Maybe you could go into more detail about just what part of "your" country you want back?
I honestly believe that the average person of this country has lost their voice in government. The elected officials in both parties seem not to listen to the people they represent. It has become more about getting re-elected than serving the people that they work for. I honestly fear that the American people are losing their country and the only way to stop that is for the average person in both parties is for them to work together from a common ground to get their voices heard.
-
If you come back please explain the origin of your screen name as it was pointed out once in regards to a poster at the DUmp with the same handle it is a term for a sexual act that is vile and abusive to women.
Same person. You can look up the answer that I gave. At the time I picked the name I had no idea it was a vile sexual act. I came here not trying to hide, but to be as honest as I could be. How can I expect you and I to be able to talk about the things that we find important if we hide??
-
Not for nothin', but I personally think you're treading dangerous water, darlin'. It doesn't seem like you've come here to talk facts, or have civil conversation at all. I stopped at this quote, because I wanted to alert you about the fire that is being heavily stoked here. Mostly on account of you. Starting a war with Radioguy, or anyone else with "You just have talking points, I have facts." tripe isn't going to get you anywhere. You have an air of arrogance, and self importance about you, and so far, I think it sucks, to be frank.
Again, my only goal here is to steer you in a less aggressive direction to make your life here easier. If you choose to ignore it, I'm afraid the ride down may be fun for you, but you'll still hit bottom at some point or another.
Thank you for the advice. I was accused of just having talking points and was not taken seriously for my beliefs.
-
You claim you don't want "talking points," then go ahead and spew some liberal nonsense about power elites and corporations ruling the country.
I kind of see where this is going.
:whatever:
I honestly believe that the people with money, the corporations, lifetime elected politicians are controlling more and more of this country and it scares me. I feel we all are losing this country to the few with power. This may or not be a liberal talking point, but it is my belief.
-
At the same time I also realize that to get my country back I need to better understand the Republican point of view. I also hear the Republicans say that they want their country back. Are both sides correct or are they both wrong??
.... both Republicans and Democrats have lost their country to the politicians and the power elite. I feel they are out of touch with the common man and woman, the ones that are just trying to eck out a living day to day. The only way to get the country back is for Republicans and Democrats to really hear each other and work together to bring this country back to Founding Fathers' intent for this country.
.... we can continue fighting each other and one day in the future the power elite and the corporations will rule this country and we will be serfs or we can work together and bring the power elite down and once again the people will be the ones with the power.
Based upon you wanting cooperation between two factions, I'll be glad to inform you what would need to take place in order to get me personally, as a Conservative, to join in order to wrestle the Federal Gov't back to where it needs to be.
First of all, my concern is that of too large a gov't that slowly regulates and encroaches upon what should be the people's responsibility. That would have to be the focus. I've examined the claims that corporations are trying to "rule the country" as you stated, but have personally found that viewpoint to be baseless. Seeing that I would have no reason to fight against an entity or group of entities (in this case, multi-national corporations) which I do not believe are a threat, I am not willing to join to fight something that doesn't exist and/or isn't trying to take place.
As far as “basic rights†being (your abbreviated list) “Equal education, civil rights, basic affordable health care, equal protection under the law (laws that apply to everyone and not just the common person), honest government,†there are some we already have. I’m not really sure of what “equal education†consists, but if that means Federal oversight of education, then I’m not willing to join in that fight. If “basic affordable healthcare†means universal and/or single-payer healthcare, then I will not join that fight either. In fact, I would go as far to say that if we ever got single-payer and/or universal healthcare, or we had Federal control over the schools without any regard of the individual States, we’d have just hit the express button for this nation to eventually become a place where “the (gov’t) power elite … will rule this country and we will be serfs,†something you claim you don’t want, and neither do I. I see no reason to help speed up that effort. These matters should be left up to the individual States and to the local communites to decide how best to address. If the “General welfare does include education and health care,†then this country will eventually collapse economically, for these things cannot be indefinitely sustained. I have no reason to fight for things that will destroy the country eventually.
I am willing to join hands in order to help advance a nation that upholds morality. Abortion and homosexuality are immoral. I have no reason to join hands with those who defend immorality.
If the political left really want to know how to join hands, they need to drop the notion that a bloated gov’t and additional laws and regulations placed upon the American people and the companies they form in order to conduct business is a good thing. That was never the Founding Father’s intent. If we want to go back to that, we should just tell England we’d like to become colonies again. So far, the solutions offered from the left to the nation’s problems all point to this country eventually becoming a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship. It might take 50 years, or 100 years, or longer, but that will be the end result. And I’ve read enough of their comments and viewpoints to convince me that many of them desire that result.
So there is my short list. If they want cooperation from me in order to give the country back to the people, then they need to fight for freedom and liberty from an ever-expanding role of the Federal Gov’t in our lives, or no deal.
.
-
Hello,
I am here to learn. My understanding is that the Republican party is more conservative than the Democratic party. One is more for status quo and the other is more for change. I also understand that labels do not answer all the questions so that is why it is important to talk to understand the other person.
My understanding of conservatism is conservative aren't for the status quo but rather they appreciate and incorporate the lessons of history.
Being rooted in history does not equate with stasis.
I honestly believe that the people with money, the corporations, lifetime elected politicians are controlling more and more of this country and it scares me. I feel we all are losing this country to the few with power. This may or not be a liberal talking point, but it is my belief.
Your belief is not unfounded. But as history tells us: it was ever thus.
What the people here do NOT want to see is the government racing in to claim it seeks to rein in the rich and powerful...because the government IS the rich and powerful or at least their bought and paid-for representatives.
What we want is the government to be so scaled back that its ability to use regulations, laws etc to crush the little guy is taken away. That isn't to say we want economic/social anarchy, that serves no ones interest.
We also don't like collective punishment embodied in many of these so-called reform schemes. Just because BP is a bad actor doesn't mean every oil producer is bad and they should not be punished unless and until they have been found to have acted improperly.
Ditto for the fact that taxes and regulations just add to the cost of production and as such invariably become passed dow to the consumer. That being said it becomes obvious that all of the so-called efforts to impart "fairness" really just hurt the people such schemes profess to protect.
-
Well...AD, I'm late to the party, but here is your first problem, as I see it:
No, it does not. Everyone in this country is equal, we just have different strengths and weaknesses. Should we cast aside the ones that struggle more with live than others, should we cast aside people because they are not as intelligent as the average?? It is my belief that everyone in this country deserves to have the same basic rights. We may disagree what those basic rights are, but I am sure some would be the same
Everyone in this country is NOT equal, nor will they ever be, nor is it the government's role to attempt to accomplish that goal......our founders stated that "All men are created equal......", but after that creation, the equality ends, and nowhere in our founding documents or principles does the role exist to generate "equality" for anyone, other than "equal justice under the law"......the country needs ditchdiggers, as well as rocket scientists, and they are never going to be "equal", except hypothetically, for their treatment under our ;egal system.
I, for one, will never compromise with anyone, or any political party which stands for the principle of attempting to equalize outcomes for all its citizens.......therefore, there (at least in the present political environment) appears to be little that we can do to "reach across the aisle"........
It is the role of the government to create the environment for "equality of opportunity"......what each of us does with that opportunity is purely up to the individual.
doc
-
Well...AD, I'm late to the party, but here is your first problem, as I see it:
Everyone in this country is NOT equal, nor will they ever be, nor is it the government's role to attempt to accomplish that goal......our founders stated that "All men are created equal......", but after that creation, the equality ends, and nowhere in our founding documents or principles does the role exist to generate "equality" for anyone, other than "equal justice under the law"......the country needs ditchdiggers, as well as rocket scientists, and they are never going to be "equal", except hypothetically, for their treatment under our ;egal system.
I, for one, will never compromise with anyone, or any political party which stands for the principle of attempting to equalize outcomes for all its citizens.......therefore, there (at least in the present political environment) appears to be little that we can do to "reach across the aisle"........
It is the role of the government to create the environment for "equality of opportunity"......what each of us does with that opportunity is purely up to the individual.
doc
All people should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of socio-economic status, race, peaceful political affiliation, religion etc.
But equality of result is a poison that will kill us because the people deciding what constitutes equality and how to achieve it always exempt themselves and those of us who become less equal lose the means to oppose them when their excesses invariably become abuses.
-
What the people here do NOT want to see is the government racing in to claim it seeks to rein in the rich and powerful...because the government IS the rich and powerful or at least their bought and paid-for representatives.
I totally agree with the above statement.
What we want is the government to be so scaled back that its ability to use regulations, laws etc to crush the little guy is taken away. That isn't to say we want economic/social anarchy, that serves no ones interest.
I also believe that the government has grown too large over the years. And a good hard look is needed to decide what needs to go. I also do not want the little guy crushed. Either the small business man/woman nor the average person.
We also don't like collective punishment embodied in many of these so-called reform schemes. Just because BP is a bad actor doesn't mean every oil producer is bad and they should not be punished unless and until they have been found to have acted improperly.
Ditto for the fact that taxes and regulations just add to the cost of production and as such invariably become passed dow to the consumer. That being said it becomes obvious that all of the so-called efforts to impart "fairness" really just hurt the people such schemes profess to protect.
I guess I come up with the questions of how one balances the need for production and protecting the people from pollution, unsafe working conditions, fair wages, etc. I do know that there are companies out there that care about these things and others that the only thing that matters it seems is the bottom line.
Perhaps the need to know what is fair is the first step.
-
I guess I come up with the questions of how one balances the need for production and protecting the people from pollution, unsafe working conditions, fair wages, etc. I do know that there are companies out there that care about these things and others that the only thing that matters it seems is the bottom line.
Perhaps the need to know what is fair is the first step.
"Fairness" is not a legitimate role of government........
The government does not need to involve itself in "unsafe working conditions, fair wages", et al, the individual is free to make their own choices as to what to do, and where to work.......
All government regulation vis-a-vis "pollution, safety, and wages" accomplishes is forcing companies to move their jobs elsewhere where the regulatory environment is less burdensome........
Hence the hypocrisy of liberalism........when ones government imposes regulation in order to "protect and insure fairness" towards workers.........the liberal cannot logically complain when the company ships the jobs overseas to a less onerous regulatory environment.......and the same principle applies to taxation......
You simply can't have it both ways......
doc
-
I guess I come up with the questions of how one balances the need for production and protecting the people from pollution, unsafe working conditions, fair wages, etc. I do know that there are companies out there that care about these things and others that the only thing that matters it seems is the bottom line.
Perhaps the need to know what is fair is the first step.
The FDA began, in part, because people selling food were scamming their customers. In the olden days it was not uncommon for flour to be cut with chalk dust.
But ask any conservative economist and they will tell you: fraud is bad for business.
That is why the Constitution (COTUS) allows congress to set weights and measures. Congress CAN establish something like the FDA which in turn can regulate what can legally be labeled as "flour" and how much constitutes "one pound" etc. This in turn becomes a truly free market because the market is able to compete and buy with confidence.
But when the government comes along and starts dictating our levels of sodium, trans-fats, etc etc etc then suddenly we find out what should be bulwark has suddenly become a prison.
Last year I read an article that in California they were debating outlawing plasma TVs as bad for the environment. Don't get me started on so-called environmental science, we have an entire forum dedicated to it, but suddenly it was revealed that one of the biggest pushers of this notion of plasma = evil was the manufacturers of LCD TVs. That ANY business can use the halls of government to suppress a rival should give us cold shivers down our spines.
As G K Chesterton notes: morality, like art, involves knowing where to draw the line.
-
"Fairness" is not a legitimate role of government........
The government does not need to involve itself in "unsafe working conditions, fair wages", et al, the individual is free to make their own choices as to what to do, and where to work.......
All government regulation vis-a-vis "pollution, safety, and wages" accomplishes is forcing companies to move their jobs elsewhere where the regulatory environment is less burdensome........
Hence the hypocrisy of liberalism........when ones government imposes regulation in order to "protect and insure fairness" towards workers.........the liberal cannot logically complain when the company ships the jobs overseas to a less onerous regulatory environment.......and the same principle applies to taxation......
You simply can't have it both ways......
doc
It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues. I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day
-
It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues. I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day
Trying to legislate "fairness" is a losing proposition. You're asking for people to join hands to fight, so I'm guessing that might mean eventually having to put your life on the line. The type of gov't the left desires is not worth dying for. Why should one fight to eventually become a slave?
.
-
It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues. I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day
True....I am a "Constitutional Conservative"........to me any taint of the current form of liberalism is poisonous, and must be vehemently opposed. The days of "compromise" are beginning to end.
Hence the import of the title of this thread, and what it means to most of us........we want to take it back from people that think like you do (an observation, not an insult).
Most on this forum will agree with much of what I have stated, therefore, you now are fully aware of first, where you are, and second, what to expect.......
You sir, have a pleasant day as well.......
doc
-
It would seem that you and I are far apart on many issues. I do not know if we would every get any closer.
Thank you for your replies and have a pleasant day
Don't you think it is at least plausible that high taxes and regulatory costs could make domestic companies less competitive?
Unless you plan on banning imports or jacking-up tariffs to make import cost more then you run that risk and you must be willing to accept the consequences but FYI trade wars are bad for everyone, hence calling them wars.
It is possible to provide safe working conditions for US workers without crushing their parent company. Common law could settle many of these issues, i.e. lawsuits build case law precedent as to what does or does not create a safe work environment. I would also hasten to add that once law/precedent is created the law is obligated to release an employer from liability if they operate within the law. Case in point: an employee was trampled and killed on a "Black Friday" shopping stampede. A regulation was written after the fact by OSHA and then OSHA used this new reg to ex post facto fine the store.
It seems to me that many liberal policies seem based on anger over owners and investors having more money than workers. This begs us to ask if nobody has more money who pays for the worker. I never could get a poor man to pay more a salary higher than his own. Yet, when the capital providers are punished they simply sit on their capital or send it where it will grow. In the end the policy meant to help me, the common bunny, ends up hurting me the most.
But I would remind you of your own sentiment: the rich and powerful ARE the ones in government. So any notion that they should be the ones to decide what is fair is putting the fox in the hen house and asking what's for dinner.
Let's use our political energies not to create "fairness" (what is fair, fair to whom and who decides?) but a society free from force or fraud and prepared for calamity.
-
Here's Angry Dragon's DU Journal is anyone is interested.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Angry%20Dragon
I can tell you right now, AD, having read a portion of your comments at DU, the things you say there about those of whom you oppose politically are not words that demonstrate you want to "work together," as you claimed in your opening statement. If you're truly seeking to find a way to work together, the first step is to stop saying the things you do at DU. You've got to change yourself first, and after a period of demonstrating you can do that, then it might be time to explore what you claim you would like to do.
.
-
Here's Angry Dragon's DU Journal is anyone is interested.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Angry%20Dragon
I can tell you right now, AD, having read a portion of your comments at DU the things you say there about those of whom you oppose politically are not words that demonstrate you want to "work together," as you claimed in your opening statement. If you're truly seeking to find a way to work together, the first step is to stop saying the things you do at DU. You've got to change yourself first, and after a period of demonstrating you can do that, then it might be time to explore what you claim you would like to do.
.
That sounds fair enough. I did tell you where to find me. I did not come here to lurk and disrupt. I cam here to listen and learn and to share my thoughts. That can not be done by hiding. I came here to find some common ground to start the process.
-
Don't you think it is at least plausible that high taxes and regulatory costs could make domestic companies less competitive?
Unless you plan on banning imports or jacking-up tariffs to make import cost more then you run that risk and you must be willing to accept the consequences but FYI trade wars are bad for everyone, hence calling them wars.
It is possible to provide safe working conditions for US workers without crushing their parent company. Common law could settle many of these issues, i.e. lawsuits build case law precedent as to what does or does not create a safe work environment. I would also hasten to add that once law/precedent is created the law is obligated to release an employer from liability if they operate within the law. Case in point: an employee was trampled and killed on a "Black Friday" shopping stampede. A regulation was written after the fact by OSHA and then OSHA used this new reg to ex post facto fine the store.
It seems to me that many liberal policies seem based on anger over owners and investors having more money than workers. This begs us to ask if nobody has more money who pays for the worker. I never could get a poor man to pay more a salary higher than his own. Yet, when the capital providers are punished they simply sit on their capital or send it where it will grow. In the end the policy meant to help me, the common bunny, ends up hurting me the most.
But I would remind you of your own sentiment: the rich and powerful ARE the ones in government. So any notion that they should be the ones to decide what is fair is putting the fox in the hen house and asking what's for dinner.
Let's use our political energies not to create "fairness" (what is fair, fair to whom and who decides?) but a society free from force or fraud and prepared for calamity.
I am not advocating that the ones in power right now are the best ones to decide what is fair. It is not working right now.
A report came out not too long ago, about 2 weeks at the most, that said that the average CEO salary was 317 times the person at the bottom. It used to be about 30 to 40 times higher. That is a big jump. Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs
I had not thought about the case law and will ponder it. At the same time should people have to die so a law gets passed to protect workers??
-
I am not advocating that the ones in power right now are the best ones to decide what is fair. It is not working right now.
"Right now?"
Please tell us when humanity suddenly becomes beneficent, fair-minded and trustworthy.
Until that day it will always be "right now."
A report came out not too long ago, about 2 weeks at the most, that said that the average CEO salary was 317 times the person at the bottom. It used to be about 30 to 40 times higher. That is a big jump. Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs
I had not thought about the case law and will ponder it. At the same time should people have to die so a law gets passed to protect workers??
Nixon tried using price controls to stave off inflation. The market worked around him.
CEO salaries are a price. If you try to control them the market will work around you. Even in an economic environment as draconian as the USSR the market still worked its will. The government is incapable of effectively controlling prices and wages. In time the share-holders will decide they think the price of an effective CEO is too high and that figure will come down.
-
That sounds fair enough. I did tell you where to find me. I did not come here to lurk and disrupt. I cam here to listen and learn and to share my thoughts. That can not be done by hiding. I came here to find some common ground to start the process.
You are certainly not the first to sign up and post here and it seems that when most from DU do they suddenly become civil in discourse yet when they post there it is hysterics and lunancy.
Why is that?
-
Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs
As a small business owner, I can tell you I'm sitting on capital right now and will continue to do so. The reason I'm doing it is for a reason I've personally found many are also doing: They're not quite sure just what new regulations and/or taxes Obama might impose upon us as business people, and that includes all this healthcare mess.
I've got to budget. Uncertainty means USA4ME has to hedge his bets until such time I can feel confident that 1) he and his desires can be stopped, or 2) I know what's coming down the pike in order to determine exactly what reductions will have to be made in order to cut costs and still be able to stay in business. Because one thing I know for sure; whatever he does won't make my overhead costs go down.
.
-
As a small business owner, I can tell you I'm sitting on capital right now and will continue to do so. The reason I'm doing it is for a reason I've personally found many are also doing: They're not quite sure just want new regulations and/or taxes Obama might impose upon us as business people, and that includes all this healthcare mess.
I've got to budget. Uncertainty means USA4ME has to hedge his bets until such time I can feel confident that 1) he and his desires can be stopped, or 2) I know what's coming down the pike in order to determine exactly what reductions will have to be made in order to cut costs and still be able to stay in business. Because one thing I know for sure; whatever he does won't make my overhead costs go down.
.
IOW: Joe the Plumber was publicly scourged for being a prophet.
-
As a small business owner, I can tell you I'm sitting on capital right now and will continue to do so. The reason I'm doing it is for a reason I've personally found many are also doing: They're not quite sure just want new regulations and/or taxes Obama might impose upon us as business people, and that includes all this healthcare mess.
I've got to budget. Uncertainty means USA4ME has to hedge his bets until such time I can feel confident that 1) he and his desires can be stopped, or 2) I know what's coming down the pike in order to determine exactly what reductions will have to be made in order to cut costs and still be able to stay in business. Because one thing I know for sure; whatever he does won't make my overhead costs go down.
.
A wise move........and almost universal in US business today. Large corporations as well as small businesses, and even just investors like myself are sitting on a pile of cash, due to the simple fact that no one knows on whose back the next Democrat target is going to get painted. Obama and the Democrats may believe that they can legislate their socialist utopia in a few years, but the capitalists are not buying it, and the flight of capital off-shore is increasing at an alarming rate. Liberals (and socialists) always forget that wealth and capital are very "portable".
Earnings are up, but the market continues to trend downward........all due to the fact that most reasonable business people know that liberal economic policies NEVER work, therefore, they are simply "waiting it out"
Should the Republicans win a majority in the House this November, and have the ability to emasculate the liberal agenda through cutting off funding for their proposals, we will likely see some confidence return........for now, it ain't gonna happen.
doc
-
You are certainly not the first to sign up and post here and it seems that when most from DU do they suddenly become civil in discourse yet when they post there it is hysterics and lunancy.
Why is that?
I do not believe I have called a poster an idiot nor stupid. Why would I start now.
I have called some politicians those things. And yes some democratic politicians are stupid.
-
AD, I've read this thread with a small amount of interest but have avoided chiming in until now.
From your DU blog:
They often say that god intended for families to exist of one man and one woman and have a great fear of homosexuals destroying the family. I have never heard them give an example of this destruction they often speak of. I hear and read often of people that invoke god to justify their actions having sex outside of their marriage, having sex with minors, and numerous marriages and other things that go against marriage.
There's no way in hell we can join hands and sing Kum Bah Yah with this kind of drivel -- even if I did sing.
Being against homosexuality is NOT the same as being homophobic. Get that straight.
By definition, homosexuals who cohabit cannot form the traditional family without resorting to technology to do it. By "traditional family", I mean husband/father, wife/mother, and children. Like it or not, the traditional family is still the way things are done. Homosexuals who cohabit are the EXCEPTION rather than the RULE. Since when does society have to sit up and take notice when a minority exists? You want to pack fudge? Hey, knock yourself out. Just don't expect the world to instantly accept your abnormal lifestyle.
I hear and read often of people that invoke god to justify their actions having sex outside of their marriage, having sex with minors, and numerous marriages and other things that go against marriage.
Care to explain this pile of shit? It sounds incoherent to me. Do you normally blog incoherent shit?
found I had to go back at look at god's family to better understand the family that god intended for us. What I found was a god the father that impregnated two woman as they slept so he could could have a son, and in that household lives a ghost of some kind. So we have a father, son and holy ghost thingy. Is this the family the christians wish everyone to have?? No women, except the concept for men to use them as they wish. An all male household.
Just who comprises "god's family"? And who are you to understand ANYTHING that God does? Are you putting yourself at the same level as God? Even if you believe in God, which you clearly don't?
My problem with young pups like you is you don't know you don't know. You pretend things are all sweetness and light when in point of fact you're as clueless as the day is long.
Some day when your ass is truly, deeply, irretrievably in a sling and you think you're truly not going to survive the encounter, but do survive, come back and tell me that God doesn't exist. I double dog dare you.
-
I do not believe I have called a poster an idiot nor stupid. Why would I start now.
I have called some politicians those things. And yes some democratic politicians are stupid.
I don`t know if you have or haven`t and didn`t mean to sound like a personal accusation but in general.
It seems that they have one personality to post there and another one to post here.
-
I am not advocating that the ones in power right now are the best ones to decide what is fair. It is not working right now.
A report came out not too long ago, about 2 weeks at the most, that said that the average CEO salary was 317 times the person at the bottom. It used to be about 30 to 40 times higher. That is a big jump. Also the corporations are already sitting on $10 trillion dollars that they are not putting into the system and creating jobs
I had not thought about the case law and will ponder it. At the same time should people have to die so a law gets passed to protect workers??
But are you advocating that the federal government have the power to decide how private industry apportions its own capital? That's Mr. SB's point, I'd say. Which is the worse evil: that government decides what the private citizens who are supposed to be the masters of the government may do with their own wealth, which they earned or created and the government did not, or that private citizens decide, on their own, to apportion their own wealth at such a disparate ratio?
You've written "the ones in power now" are not the ones you'd advocate have such control. So you're saying this would be your positon with a different set of elected leaders? That salary control be made the law of the land?
Do you understand why we consider this idea tyranny? Or why we can't understand why you don't consider this idea tyranny?
-
I don`t know if you have or haven`t and didn`t mean to sound like a personal accusation but in general.
It seems that they have one personality to post there and another one to post here.
I did not take it has a personal accusation, so it is okay. I try not to change my personality where I post.
My feeling is that if one only listens to one side then they end up with a slant to that one side. So I came here to hear the other side.
Not calling anyone out here, just stating my belief.
-
I did not take it has a personal accusation, so it is okay. I try not to change my personality where I post.
My feeling is that if one only listens to one side then they end up with a slant to that one side. So I came here to hear the other side.
Not calling anyone out here, just stating my belief.
Let me ask you a question about one of the hot topics of late and the government pumping (borrowed) money into the economy via a demand side philosophy.
I have equated it to priming a pump over a dry hole and thinking a well will develop.
No doubt it can push reported numbers in a positive direction for a bit but how is it sustained after the money is given then spent?
At some point the deficits created will cause a collapse (see Greece) or will push taxes to the point of so little profit that all expansion ceases.
-
I did not take it has a personal accusation, so it is okay. I try not to change my personality where I post.
My feeling is that if one only listens to one side then they end up with a slant to that one side. So I came here to hear the other side.
Not calling anyone out here, just stating my belief.
In case you haven't noticed, we have a whole sub forum dedicated to listening to the other side. Conversations outside of that forum, and on the whole forum in general deal with listening to the other side. Not to mention proving them WRONG, and poking a bit of fun, but I digress.
Try learning about the forum before you state what you think you know.
Some day when your ass is truly, deeply, irretrievably in a sling and you think you're truly not going to survive the encounter, but do survive, come back and tell me that God doesn't exist. I double dog dare you.
Many thanks for posting this before I got to it. I have had that kind of experience at least once. That's one of the reasons I am absolutely certain there is a God.
-
Let me ask you a question about one of the hot topics of late and the government pumping (borrowed) money into the economy via a demand side philosophy.
I have equated it to priming a pump over a dry hole and thinking a well will develop.
No doubt it can push reported numbers in a positive direction for a bit but how is it sustained after the money is given then spent?
At some point the deficits created will cause a collapse (see Greece) or will push taxes to the point of so little profit that all expansion ceases.
I am not sure I understand the question you are asking. If you are talking about the unemployment extension then I would say that would be a good investment. I think the money would flow through many hands in the local communities. It would secure others jobs that are vulnerable at this time. Where are the jobs these people need to survive??
I do not know what would help this country turn around. One may have to look at what the biggest expenditures are, the things that are adding the most to the deficits.
-
If you want a reference, see "ObamaCare."
-
I am not sure I understand the question you are asking. If you are talking about the unemployment extension then I would say that would be a good investment. I think the money would flow through many hands in the local communities. It would secure others jobs that are vulnerable at this time. Where are the jobs these people need to survive??
I do not know what would help this country turn around. One may have to look at what the biggest expenditures are, the things that are adding the most to the deficits.
That was my point,it can make temporary numbers better but how does it sustain that without having to pump in more?
You touched the reason it is not sound economics and I suspect didn`t even realize it yet that is the mindset of what we now have in Congress and the White House.
-
Where are the jobs these people need to survive??
Either driven out of business or out of the country due to the very types of over regulation and over taxation that your ilk seem to approve of.
-
Either driven out of business or out of the country due to the very types of over regulation and over taxation that your ilk seem to approve of.
The left, especially DU, is frothing with rancid hatred for anyone deemed "rich". The rich are portrayed as lying, exploitative thieves.
With that sort of social stigma alone why would anyone endeavor to be rich. Then you get to heap on the regulatory controls and taxes.
So when liberals hate the rich people either stop striving or they port their assets more accommodating yet the liberals howl about jobs going overseas.
Can you imagine a woman screaming about the evils of alcohol then becoming furious you bought a drink for some other girl.
-
Carl, how do you then increase jobs, don't raise taxes, and lessen regulations??
And then attack the deficit??
-
Carl, how do you then increase jobs, don't raise taxes, and lessen regulations??
And then attack the deficit??
Jobs = revenue
economic activity = revenue
The trick isn't to stop taxing people but to understand there is a point where taxing TOO MUCH is actually counter productive. There is a point of diminishing returns on both ends of the economic spectrum.
Just ask yourself: if you had a choice of 2 jobs that both paid $60,000 but Job #1 had a aggregate tax rate of 30% vs. Job #2 with its aggregate tax rate of 55%, which job would you take?
Which job would allow you to engage in more economic activity thereby providing jobs to other people as well?
-
The left, especially DU, is frothing with rancid hatred for anyone deemed "rich". The rich are portrayed as lying, exploitative thieves.
With that sort of social stigma alone why would anyone endeavor to be rich. Then you get to heap on the regulatory controls and taxes.
So when liberals hate the rich people either stop striving or they port their assets more accommodating yet the liberals howl about jobs going overseas.
Can you imagine a woman screaming about the evils of alcohol then becoming furious you bought a drink for some other girl.
I have spent very little time over at DU. But I've dealt with enough liberals to come to a comclusion that many of them deem anyone that makes more than they personally do, are "rich". Of course for some reason they are willing to give a free pass to the liberal hollywood crowd and multi-millionaire DEM politicians.
When was thr last time you heard of a "poor" person creating jobs? I have never heard of one.
But I have heard of several "so called" rich creating tons of them. Small business owners create the bulk of them.
-
Carl, how do you then increase jobs, don't raise taxes, and lessen regulations??
And then attack the deficit??
Let us change tracks just slightly.
In your opinion what should the minimum wage be in dollars per hour?
-
It is for us to decide how much of our wealth government is permitetd to have and use, it is not for government to decide what is ours to keep. That is one of the true core principles of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Once government has control of all property and wealth, all other rights are not worth the paper they're inked upon. Government is our creature, not we the creatures of the government.
At least, until Obama.
-
Carl, how do you then increase jobs, don't raise taxes, and lessen regulations??
And then attack the deficit??
You didn`t answer my question but I will yours.
You provide for an atmosphere of growth where it is a worthy goal to be an entrepreneur rather then one taxed and regulated either out of existence or to a level of return for the output of capital to make a business be so unrewarded as to not make it worth the hassle of doing it.
It isn`t that difficult a thing to grasp and where the left fails is they don`t recognize it does take capital and hard work to build a business,not to mention risk.
They seem to operate from a belief that all things they know exist from a steady state.
Yes there will be well known successful business men and women but there will also be a lot more that weren`t and are never heard of.
You act as if they never existed but they do so why then should those who have succeeded in such ways as providing the computer you post on and the infrastructure needed to allow it be punished by mandate of oppressive taxation that the left yearns for?
-
Even if a command economy dictated from a central government somehow produced a better economy than individuals acting with their own wealth--which it doesn't, never has, and never will--that better economy would not be worth exchanging our freedoms for.
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."*
Substitute freedoms for "good name" and Shakespeare's words are just as applicable. The rub is, though, that he who steals my purse steals my freedoms at the same time. They are, in the end, one.
*Yes I know it's Iago. Shakespeare often let his villains speak truths. And Iago often led Othello on with undeniable general truths.
-
I do understand that is what is written in the Constitution but I believe that the common person should have the right to own guns. I would like to think it would not be necessary to be able to own ak47s nor machine guns. I own guns and would be pissed if someone wanted to take them away.
Why? Are AK47s scary looking? Is that why they should be banned?
-
You didn`t answer my question but I will yours.
You provide for an atmosphere of growth where it is a worthy goal to be an entrepreneur rather then one taxed and regulated either out of existence or to a level of return for the output of capital to make a business be so unrewarded as to not make it worth the hassle of doing it.
It isn`t that difficult a thing to grasp and where the left fails is they don`t recognize it does take capital and hard work to build a business,not to mention risk.
They seem to operate from a belief that all things they know exist from a steady state.
Yes there will be well known successful business men and women but there will also be a lot more that weren`t and are never heard of.
You act as if they never existed but they do so why then should those who have succeeded in such ways as providing the computer you post on and the infrastructure needed to allow it be punished by mandate of oppressive taxation that the left yearns for?
Carl, tell me which question I did not answer and I will answer.
I do know most small businesses fail. I am sorry, but I do not see an answer in your post. How would you create jobs??
It has been shown that small business create the most jobs.
-
Let us change tracks just slightly.
In your opinion what should the minimum wage be in dollars per hour?
I posted some questions. If you care to answer mine I will be more than willing to answer yours.
Right now I am one talking to many that hold different views than I do. Without telling me actually what you would change how do we know how far apart we are??
-
Carl, tell me which question I did not answer and I will answer.
I do know most small businesses fail. I am sorry, but I do not see an answer in your post. How would you create jobs??
It has been shown that small business create the most jobs.
Mainly how does a demand side philosophy of economics sustain growth?
-
I posted some questions. If you care to answer mine I will be more than willing to answer yours.
Right now I am one talking to many that hold different views than I do. Without telling me actually what you would change how do we know how far apart we are??
Your questions have been answered. If not by me then by somebody who's answer I concur with. Do you expect each person that posts here to individually respond to your every question?
How about answering mine?
-
I posted some questions. If you care to answer mine I will be more than willing to answer yours.
Right now I am one talking to many that hold different views than I do. Without telling me actually what you would change how do we know how far apart we are??
If I may:
I have made a genuine effort to present my views on guiding fundamentals for economics. For a few pages now you have not responded. I'm not calling that a fault because I understand you're being deluged but I will say that if anyone here will give you a fair discussion I certainly will be the first to try.
We can even discuss mono e lago if you prefer.
We have a refugee from the DUmp and I have not only strived to give her a fair hearing but I have petitioned on her behalf (without her propmpting) to have others extend civility to her. As long as you are civil and do not degenerate to ad hominem attacks and cheap caricatures I will respond in kind. If things become uncivil...
...well...
...bunnies can be real bastards.
-
Why? Are AK47s scary looking? Is that why they should be banned?
I honestly do not think AK47s are scary looking. There are some very beautiful guns made. I just do not see the need for everyone to own one.
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, allows for people to voice their opinions without fear of reprisal. The courts have determined that some speech should not be allowed. The classic being, shouting fire in a crowded area, to protect people from unnecessary fear. Should we allow some speech and not others. I would say the same holds true for the Second Amendment.
-
I honestly do not think AK47s are scary looking. There are some very beautiful guns made. I just do not see the need for everyone to own one.
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, allows for people to voice their opinions without fear of reprisal. The courts have determined that some speech should not be allowed. The classic being, shouting fire in a crowded area, to protect people from unnecessary fear. Should we allow some speech and not others. I would say the same holds true for the Second Amendment.
I don't think it's about fear as much as people being crushed in stampedes to escape a building that isn't on fire.
The limits on speech are things that can lead to physical harm, i.e. inciting riots or panic or threats of violence. Slander and libel are other limits because they do cause harm; demonstrated harm being a threshhold for legal action.
Of course people who support the 2nd also tend to support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. After all, it only follws that the RKBA crowd wants to be able to defend itself from criminals, not have criminals enjoy a fair fight.
-
I do understand that is what is written in the Constitution but I believe that the common person should have the right to own guns. I would like to think it would not be necessary to be able to own ak47s nor machine guns. I own guns and would be pissed if someone wanted to take them away.
As far as AK47s, obviously you know little about them. First of all, they are very reliable rifles. The ones that MOST civilians can purchase are little different than your standard hunting rifle. I happen to own an AK47 clone called the SLR-95. It is VERY accurate. As far as "machine guns", legally, one must purchase a tax stamp ($200) and be able to afford one. Most run from $5000 and upwards from there. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, nobody is allowed to own a machine gun made after 1986. (Death of machine guns by obsolescence) An M-16 typically costs a person $15,000.00 !!! Some are even more expensive. IMO, it is contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment. As I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment, it is to overthrow a tyrannical government should the need arise and to protect this country from invasion of other military forces. In today's world, how can a militia of ANY type compete with a Government or country that has sophisticated weapons that far outpower the standard "hunting rifle". The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, get that straight!!!
I hear and read often of people that invoke god to justify their actions having sex outside of their marriage, having sex with minors, and numerous marriages and other things that go against marriage.
NO Christian or Jewish religion that even condone these actions. In the Old testament, there were "concubines" and they were used because the wife could not conceive or bear children, normally. That has gone away over the millennium. The only religion that I'm aware of that actually condones and/ promotes sex with minors is Islam.
They often say that god intended for families to exist of one man and one woman and have a great fear of homosexuals destroying the family. I have never heard them give an example of this destruction they often speak of. I hear and read often of people that invoke god to justify their actions having sex outside of their marriage, having sex with minors, and numerous marriages and other things that go against marriage.
Bear in mind that 80% of this nation is comprised of Christians. (It may be a little less, now) A Christian (even Jews and Islam) views Homosexuality as an "abomination". That is, contrary to God's will. You need to understand these religions before you spout out talking points from the hedonistic society members. Eupher pretty much covered it. An abnormal lifestyle is just that. While I don't condone that way of life and rebuke it as it is an "abomination", what people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Keep it that way and we'll ALL be happier in the end. (excuse the pun) QUIT trying to convince us that this is a "normal" behavior and QUIT trying to force this absurd belief down our throats!!!
Finally, what good is it going to do to extend unemployment benefits to those whose benefits have expired?? Sure, it will make them maybe be able to keep their homes, MAYBE. It MIGHT keep food on the table. But let's look at the long term cost of this debacle. I had heard on one of the news channels that this would cost the country $33 BILLION!!! America is already in financial trouble and the deficit has tripled since 0baMao has been in office and it's growing daily. In the long run, this will only keep people on the Government dime (OUR MONEY!!) and under Government control. Sometimes, one just has to cut their losses and move on. I consider these actions akin to feeding a raccoon. If one feeds a raccoon once, then it might be ok, if one continues to feed that raccoon, it keeps coming back for more, endlessly. Eventually, that raccoon sets up "home" where it is getting fed, forgetting how to go out and forage and live on its own.
-
If I may:
I have made a genuine effort to present my views on guiding fundamentals for economics. For a few pages now you have not responded. I'm not calling that a fault because I understand you're being deluged but I will say that if anyone here will give you a fair discussion I certainly will be the first to try.
We can even discuss mono e lago if you prefer.
We have a refugee from the DUmp and I have not only strived to give her a fair hearing but I have petitioned on her behalf (without her propmpting) to have others extend civility to her. As long as you are civil and do not degenerate to ad hominem attacks and cheap caricatures I will respond in kind. If things become uncivil...
...well...
...bunnies can be real bastards.
I personally love bunnies, I have large numbers of them in my yard all the time. I am deeply touched by the grace of animals, and would add, that in my view they have as much soul as humans.
If I have not answered your questions nor replied, I am sorry, it is not my intent. You and I have different views and all people process information differently. I may not have understood what you were saying. If you could repeat the questions I will try to answer the best I can.
I have no intention of attacking anyone. This is your home, not mine, so I am a guest here.
-
I don't think it's about fear as much as people being crushed in stampedes to escape a building that isn't on fire.
Exactly. Besides, the case where "shouting fire in a theater" was given to us (Schenck v. US) was overturned in the late 1960s (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
From Schenck: the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
The standard from 1919 to 1969 was causing a panic, not fear.
Now the standard is that the speech would likely cause "imminent lawless action."
-
I don't think it's about fear as much as people being crushed in stampedes to escape a building that isn't on fire.
The limits on speech are things that can lead to physical harm, i.e. inciting riots or panic or threats of violence. Slander and libel are other limits because they do cause harm; demonstrated harm being a threshhold for legal action.
Of course people who support the 2nd also tend to support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. After all, it only follws that the RKBA crowd wants to be able to defend itself from criminals, not have criminals enjoy a fair fight.
I used fear in the case of dying in a fire or other harm coming to the person.
-
As far as AK47s, obviously you know little about them. First of all, they are very reliable rifles. The ones that MOST civilians can purchase are little different than your standard hunting rifle. I happen to own an AK47 clone called the SLR-95. It is VERY accurate. As far as "machine guns", legally, one must purchase a tax stamp ($200) and be able to afford one. Most run from $5000 and upwards from there. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, nobody is allowed to own a machine gun made after 1986. (Death of machine guns by obsolescence) An M-16 typically costs a person $15,000.00 !!! Some are even more expensive. IMO, it is contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment. As I understand the intent of the 2nd Amendment, it is to overthrow a tyrannical government should the need arise and to protect this country from invasion of other military forces. In today's world, how can a militia of ANY type compete with a Government or country that has sophisticated weapons that far outpower the standard "hunting rifle". The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, get that straight!!!
NO Christian or Jewish religion that even condone these actions. In the Old testament, there were "concubines" and they were used because the wife could not conceive or bear children, normally. That has gone away over the millennium. The only religion that I'm aware of that actually condones and/ promotes sex with minors is Islam.
Bear in mind that 80% of this nation is comprised of Christians. (It may be a little less, now) A Christian (even Jews and Islam) views Homosexuality as an "abomination". That is, contrary to God's will. You need to understand these religions before you spout out talking points from the hedonistic society members. Eupher pretty much covered it. An abnormal lifestyle is just that. While I don't condone that way of life and rebuke it as it is an "abomination", what people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. Keep it that way and we'll ALL be happier in the end. (excuse the pun) QUIT trying to convince us that this is a "normal" behavior and QUIT trying to force this absurd belief down our throats!!!
Finally, what good is it going to do to extend unemployment benefits to those whose benefits have expired?? Sure, it will make them maybe be able to keep their homes, MAYBE. It MIGHT keep food on the table. But let's look at the long term cost of this debacle. I had heard on one of the news channels that this would cost the country $33 BILLION!!! America is already in financial trouble and the deficit has tripled since 0baMao has been in office and it's growing daily. In the long run, this will only keep people on the Government dime (OUR MONEY!!) and under Government control. Sometimes, one just has to cut their losses and move on. I consider these actions akin to feeding a raccoon. If one feeds a raccoon once, then it might be ok, if one continues to feed that raccoon, it keeps coming back for more, endlessly. Eventually, that raccoon sets up "home" where it is getting fed, forgetting how to go out and forage and live on its own.
Thor,
Thank you for the information. I did not have this before.
As for cramming my post down your throat, I did not post that here, someone else went and grabbed it and brought it here.
-
I used fear in the case of dying in a fire or other harm coming to the person.
I understood your point but we don't inhibit people feeling fear, that is unavoidable in life. Stock market reports can induce fear. Nancy Pelosi discussing her economic theories can induce stark-staring panic...but we can't prohibit that. Prohibitions against yelling fire were never about curtailing emotional distress rather they were about preventing actual physical injury.
-
Mainly how does a demand side philosophy of economics sustain growth?
I do not know.........
-
Your questions have been answered. If not by me then by somebody who's answer I concur with. Do you expect each person that posts here to individually respond to your every question?
How about answering mine?
I honestly do not know the answer.
Some thoughts that I have had:
should it be based on region?
is a minimum wage needed?
what should it be based on?
Not really questions for you but just thoughts.........
-
I do not know.........
Fair enough yet we have a President that the left claims is brilliant basically saying it does.
Isn`t that troubling?
-
Fair enough yet we have a President that the left claims is brilliant basically saying it does.
Isn`t that troubling?
Carl,
I do not have the answers to many things. Obama, I feel, is a smart man. Some of the things he is doing troubles me. And no, I do not feel this is the thread to voice them nor ask and answer questions pertaining to them. Not trying to hide, just that there are other places on this forum where that discussion is better suited.
-
Carl,
I do not have the answers to many things. Obama, I feel, is a smart man. Some of the things he is doing troubles me. And no, I do not feel this is the thread to voice them nor ask and answer questions pertaining to them. Not trying to hide, just that there are other places on this forum where that discussion is better suited.
What possible evidence could you have to even come to that conclusion?
-
What possible evidence could you have to even come to that conclusion?
Feelings are subjective. They do not have to be backed up by facts. When you feel sad, happy, angry, loved, do you have to have them backed up with facts?? I mentioned it was a feeling I had. One can be smart or intelligent over all and still make mistakes in certain areas.
-
Thor,
Thank you for the information. I did not have this before.
As for cramming my post down your throat, I did not post that here, someone else went and grabbed it and brought it here.
You are correct. I quoted some of your DU blog because the talking points in it were so repugnant to me. I utterly fail to understand how some of you people can ignore the presence of God -- except, perhaps, that you've likely not been around long enough to realize that life is a very tenuous, precious thing that can be snuffed out in an instant.
Secondly, the Kum Bah Yah that you and your kind express toward gays is also offensive to me. While I don't believe in gay-bashing, neither do I believe in creating entire subsets of laws and policies just to accommodate a lifestyle, particularly one that I believe is chosen for most of those who practice it.
-
What possible evidence could you have to even come to that conclusion?
I make no bones about saying I loathe the man, but you have to give the devil his due. The evidence is in all the legislation he has passed thus far. It takes a bit of cunning, prowess, and intellligence to do what he has done already. Not to mention trickery, and underhandedness.
Some of his tactics on the to get the majority of the American people to vote him into the highest office were fairly intelligent. I refuse to believe the majority of our people are stupid, so what other conclusion can you come to?
The fact that he is intelligent is more fuel to my intense Obama hatred. Because he is extremely dangerous with the intelligence he posesses.
-
I make no bones about saying I loathe the man, but you have to give the devil his due. The evidence is in all the legislation he has passed thus far. It takes a bit of cunning, prowess, and intellligence to do what he has done already. Not to mention trickery, and underhandedness.
Some of his tactics on the to get the majority of the American people to vote him into the highest office were fairly intelligent. I refuse to believe the majority of our people are stupid, so what other conclusion can you come to?
The fact that he is intelligent is more fuel to my intense Obama hatred. Because he is extremely dangerous with the intelligence he posesses.
Agreed in all but one point - I don't hate the man. That's a very powerful emotion that doesn't work for me. But I'll certainly agree that he's cunning, underhanded, selfish as hell, and intent to follow the Socialist playbook as written by Alinsky et. al.
He cannot be trusted and neither can his handlers. All politicians are automatically suspect, but in his case, all systems are on Red Alert and have been since he was sworn into office.
-
I think "hate" is the perfect emotion for Barry. How would you feel about a person who wanted to destroy your life from the foundation up, and then control it in every conceivable way? That's exactly what Barry wants to do. Only, not just to one person, and one system of living. To capitalism, and every person in this country.
I'm sticking with "hate."
-
I honestly do not think AK47s are scary looking. There are some very beautiful guns made. I just do not see the need for everyone to own one.
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, allows for people to voice their opinions without fear of reprisal. The courts have determined that some speech should not be allowed. The classic being, shouting fire in a crowded area, to protect people from unnecessary fear. Should we allow some speech and not others. I would say the same holds true for the Second Amendment.
You have just encouraged me to buy an AK47.
-
I honestly do not think AK47s are scary looking. There are some very beautiful guns made. I just do not see the need for everyone to own one.
Why not?
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, allows for people to voice their opinions without fear of reprisal. The courts have determined that some speech should not be allowed. The classic being, shouting fire in a crowded area, to protect people from unnecessary fear. Should we allow some speech and not others. I would say the same holds true for the Second Amendment.
That makes no sense at all.
-
I think "hate" is the perfect emotion for Barry. How would you feel about a person who wanted to destroy your life from the foundation up, and then control it in every conceivable way? That's exactly what Barry wants to do. Only, not just to one person, and one system of living. To capitalism, and every person in this country.
I'm sticking with "hate."
meh. Whatever works for you. I'd rather not dwell there, but that's just me.
-
I make no bones about saying I loathe the man, but you have to give the devil his due. The evidence is in all the legislation he has passed thus far. It takes a bit of cunning, prowess, and intellligence to do what he has done already. Not to mention trickery, and underhandedness.
Some of his tactics on the to get the majority of the American people to vote him into the highest office were fairly intelligent. I refuse to believe the majority of our people are stupid, so what other conclusion can you come to?
The fact that he is intelligent is more fuel to my intense Obama hatred. Because he is extremely dangerous with the intelligence he posesses.
I have no idea where Wiki came up with this number, but they assign Stalin an IQ of 140.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Stalin%27s_IQ
-
IF they have no evidence to back up that claim, it's null and void, IMO.
-
Your first mistake is that you've apparently confused the terms, Republican" and "Conservative". Rethink your stance and you may enjoy some decent debate or conversation.
In fairness, I think it accurate to say terms like "conservative" and "liberal" have been misapplied over the decades to the point that they are fairly non-descriptive.
-
In fairness, I think it accurate to say terms like "conservative" and "liberal" have been misapplied over the decades to the point that they are fairly non-descriptive.
Yeah, considering that conservatives used to be called liberals, in the classic sense of the word liberal. Today's liberals have ruined the term so you all can keep it.
-
Yeah, now it's the word phrase "I'm a progressive" that terrifies me. That word is automatic grounds for suspicion in all fields.
-
Yeah, now it's the word phrase "I'm a progressive" that terrifies me. That word is automatic grounds for suspicion in all fields.
It's supposed to be a little less offensive than the word "liberal".
FAIL.
-
Yeah, now it's the word phrase "I'm a progressive" that terrifies me. That word is automatic grounds for suspicion in all fields.
You can't polish a turd. I hate that word "progressive". It doesn't mean squat.
-
You can't polish a turd. I hate that word "progressive". It doesn't mean squat.
Oh, it means something. It means Orwellian, authoritarian communist-statist.
-
It's doesn't mean anything good
-
Yeah, now it's the word phrase "I'm a progressive" that terrifies me. That word is automatic grounds for suspicion in all fields.
Every time I see them refer to themselves as "progressive"....I think of the car insurance commercials....and the woman who does them....particularly the one with her and the calculator that's she's typed in the numbers to say "hEllo"...reminds me of my kids when they were young.... :uhsure: