Ultimately, why did you choose your party? [Archive] - Debate Policy

cadet

01-26-2013, 01:09 PM

My Mom taught me something once.

I spent all day outside bailing hay, it was painful, and hard. By the end of it i was so stuffed up and sore that i could hardly stand. For my day of work the guy gave me 20 bucks. (I think i got the short end of the deal)
I got in the van with my mom and brothers, she said, "Alright, give your brothers 5 bucks each."
startled, I said "No! that's my money, I worked hard for it, why should i give it to them? they didn't work for it!"
Mom replied "Yeah but they're young and don't have the ability to work yet. they're only getting 5 dollars each, where you're getting a whole 10. You get more money out of this."
I said, "No, i worked for it. It's mine. I spent all day bailing hay to get this measly amount of money, and no one's gonna take it away from me."
She said, "Congratulations, now you know how tax's work."
That was the day i joined the libertarian party, due to not believing in taking money away from hard workers to give to people who don't want to work, so they can mooch.

What about all of you? Was there ever a defining moment where you chose what side you were on?

tailfins

01-26-2013, 02:22 PM

I resented that my sister got to legally drive 70 MPH and got gas for 29.9 cents per gallon. I had to watch over my shoulder to drive 70 and gas was over a buck a gallon. Jimmy Carter was giving speeches on sacrifice and Reagan was telling us it was the government that needed to sacrifice. My first political activism was to repeal the 55 MPH speed limit. It seemed hopeless at the time. Intra-election issues oriented efforts is where the action is. There were Republicans, Libertarians and even a few Democrats who were active to repeal the national speed limit. Our society is too lazy now and just lets a party dictate what they think.

jimnyc

01-26-2013, 02:31 PM

Ronald Reagan

His speeches were second to none and rang so true to me. I started paying attention a tad when he came into office and freed the hostages. Then the more I heard him speak about government, and our liberties and freedoms, and "we the people" - I was sold.

taft2012

01-26-2013, 02:52 PM

I did some thinking back.... and this is an honest answer. It may seem a little odd, but it's honest.

I wasn't always so certain about my political beliefs. I'd like to say I recognized the truth early on, but I didn't. Like Bingster, I was influenced by my teachers and professors.

I knew Jimmy Carter was a loser, but the backlash against Reagan also impacted me. I did feel a certain draw towards Reagan, but it was with trepidation I drew nearer.

So if not Reagan, who was it that drew me to conservatism?

In an age before cable tv took off, exposure to conservatism was EXTREMELY limited. Once in a while on PBS there was Bill Buckley, but that was not a regular exposure.

It was Jerry Falwell. He used to buy blocks of television time and speak extensively on both religion and politics. His homespun charm and wisdom, and his common sense won me over. He inspired me to look deeper, and I did, and I found the truth.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-26-2013, 03:22 PM

My Mom taught me something once.

I spent all day outside bailing hay, it was painful, and hard. By the end of it i was so stuffed up and sore that i could hardly stand. For my day of work the guy gave me 20 bucks. (I think i got the short end of the deal)
I got in the van with my mom and brothers, she said, "Alright, give your brothers 5 bucks each."
startled, I said "No! that's my money, I worked hard for it, why should i give it to them? they didn't work for it!"
Mom replied "Yeah but they're young and don't have the ability to work yet. they're only getting 5 dollars each, where you're getting a whole 10. You get more money out of this."
I said, "No, i worked for it. It's mine. I spent all day bailing hay to get this measly amount of money, and no one's gonna take it away from me."
She said, "Congratulations, now you know how tax's work."
That was the day i joined the libertarian party, due to not believing in taking money away from hard workers to give to people who don't want to work, so they can mooch.

What about all of you? Was there ever a defining moment where you chose what side you were on?

Easy, I was taught the value of work , honesty and the importance of our Constitution!
Therefor, the dem party was not for me!! Ever so easy..-Tyr

Esox

01-26-2013, 04:17 PM

I chose to have no party, but vote libertarian, because the republicans lie about spending less and shrinking/eliminating bureaucracy and stupid programs.

I quit buying into their lies in 1995 after the Bill Paxon faction tried overthrowing Newt Gingrich, then had my opinion on the matter underscored by the first six years of the big spending bureaucracy bloating of the Shrub.

Trigg

01-26-2013, 04:24 PM

I consider myself Independent, and vote for people in both parties.

Year after year of politicians "saying" they will vote for smaller government, cutting taxes, and balance the budget is getting tiresome. But I continue to vote anyway in the hopes that eventually someone will keep their word

ConHog

01-26-2013, 05:18 PM

My Mom taught me something once.

I spent all day outside bailing hay, it was painful, and hard. By the end of it i was so stuffed up and sore that i could hardly stand. For my day of work the guy gave me 20 bucks. (I think i got the short end of the deal)
I got in the van with my mom and brothers, she said, "Alright, give your brothers 5 bucks each."
startled, I said "No! that's my money, I worked hard for it, why should i give it to them? they didn't work for it!"
Mom replied "Yeah but they're young and don't have the ability to work yet. they're only getting 5 dollars each, where you're getting a whole 10. You get more money out of this."
I said, "No, i worked for it. It's mine. I spent all day bailing hay to get this measly amount of money, and no one's gonna take it away from me."
She said, "Congratulations, now you know how tax's work."
That was the day i joined the libertarian party, due to not believing in taking money away from hard workers to give to people who don't want to work, so they can mooch.

What about all of you? Was there ever a defining moment where you chose what side you were on?

Being as that I am an individual not a member of a Borg, and understand that the only thing either party cares about is being reelected, I am part of neither. I occasionally vote for candidates for either party, and occasionally one of the parties pretends to believe the same as me on any given topic, but that is as far as it goes.

red states rule

01-27-2013, 06:26 AM

When I got my first job at the Red Barn restaurant and as I looked at my first pay check I asked my dad about all those taxes being taken out of pay. My dad looked at me and said that is to help the poor, pay for the government, and make sure everyone is taken care of. Well as time went on I kept asking why I am paying for other peoples way of life. My dad was a devoted Dem and when I grew up and voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 - he never got over it. But I got pissed off early in life with having an ever increasing share of the money I earned taken away and given to others the government deemed worthy of it

tailfins

01-27-2013, 09:33 AM

It was Jerry Falwell. He used to buy blocks of television time and speak extensively on both religion and politics. His homespun charm and wisdom, and his common sense won me over. He inspired me to look deeper, and I did, and I found the truth.

I was so impressed with Jerry Falwell that I drove down to Virginia to attend Thomas Road Baptist Church when I got the chance.

hjmick

01-27-2013, 09:51 AM

Though my political leanings are center/right, I claim no party affiliation. Though I suppose that if I were to doso, it would most likely be Libertarian or perhaps Independent. When I vote, I vote for the issues and candidates that best represent my beliefs. Their party affiliation means nothing to me.

PostmodernProphet

01-27-2013, 10:14 AM

I'm beginning to see why I fit in here......so many of you are also Reagan Democrats......Carter was a great Republican recruiter......

taft2012

01-27-2013, 10:36 AM

When I got my first job at the Red Barn restaurant and as I looked at my first pay check I asked my dad about all those taxes being taken out of pay. My dad looked at me and said that is to help the poor, pay for the government, and make sure everyone is taken care of. Well as time went on I kept asking why I am paying for other peoples way of life. My dad was a devoted Dem and when I grew up and voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 - he never got over it. But I got pissed off early in life with having an ever increasing share of the money I earned taken away and given to others the government deemed worthy of it

It's amazing how Americans have become conditioned to look at their net pay and say "I don't get paid enough," and not look at their gross pay and say "I'm taxed too much."

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 11:12 AM

Though my political leanings are center/right, I claim no party affiliation. Though I suppose that if I were to doso, it would most likely be Libertarian or perhaps Independent. When I vote, I vote for the issues and candidates that best represent my beliefs. Their party affiliation means nothing to me.

In most states, that means you cannot vote in any primaries. That is unacceptable to me.

Drummond

01-27-2013, 01:19 PM

Well, to answer for myself, I have to answer from my perspective as someone who's from the UK .. of course.

I went to a school with very strong Conservative traditions ... and it had at that time recently, and successfully due to a loophole in the law, remained separated out from our Socialists' newly-created Comprehensive Education system, a Leftie-fying of our education system .. and an attack on our Grammar Schools, which represented a tier of education supplying superior teaching standards to those best equipped to benefit from them.

Our Lefties wanted a 'one size fits all' approach to education, you see, and to attack excellence .. because It's What The Left Does, in its typically mindless fashion ..

So anyway, I rebelled against all that, and became a diehard Leftie. Typical kid ... rebelling against a status quo. Not because it was smart, but because it was rebellion.

But in the years that followed, Trade Union militancy came to the fore in UK society. We had waves of strikes. Coal wasn't dug. Electricity power-workers went on strike in a co-ordinated action with militant miners. So, the Three Day Working Week was born, where for two working days out of every five, electricity supplies were cut off for all but the most needy, to conserve dwindling fuel stocks (our nuclear industry was in its infancy at that time).

Ted Heath, the then-Conservative PM, chose to meet this emergency not through a display of leadership, but by giving us a General Election (.. over here, the prevailing Government was able to call an election at a time of its choosing). Its question: Who governs, us, or the Trade Unions ? Well, Labour won that election, they gave into the Unions, and the answer became: THE TRADE UNIONS DID.

We staggered through the rest of the decade .. managing somehow, with Union militancy always ready to strike at any time.

And so they did, in spades .. in 1978. Callaghan's pact with Unions fell apart, we had our Winter of Discontent .. which nearly saw us go into meltdown. Mrs Thatcher fought an election against Callaghan, won, and she started as she meant to continue .. giving Unions total opposition. She would NOT yield to their destructiveness. Laws were passed curbing Union power, the Unions were tamed over time. By the time the Coal Workers tried, again, to bring the country to its knees in 1984, she was ready for them, having built up the largest fuel stocks ever held in our history. The strike lasted for ages .. and failed miserably.

So there it is. Over the years, an ongoing lesson in social truth was learned. Socialist forces are DESTRUCTIVE (.. and true Socialism in no way addresses human nature ANYWAY ..). And Conservative policies are SALVATIONIST.

These days, I hate Socialism with such a passion that I cannot hope to express it to anyone here. Socialism is a lie, it's unworkable, attempts to apply it in no way address human need and aspiration. Only Conservatism does this.

So today, I'm a staunch Conservative .. who wants Socialism destroyed, as the societal poison it is.

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 01:42 PM

...

So there it is. Over the years, an ongoing lesson in social truth was learned. Socialist forces are DESTRUCTIVE (.. and true Socialism in no way addresses human nature ANYWAY ..). And Conservative policies are SALVATIONIST.
...

Very few people realize or even consider the truth of the bolded statement.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 01:44 PM

Very few people realize or even consider the truth of the bolded statement.

well neither does pure capitalism consider the truth of human nature.

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 01:46 PM

well neither does pure capitalism consider the truth of human nature.

What part of "pure" capitalism doesn't consider the truth of human nature?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-27-2013, 01:49 PM

Well, to answer for myself, I have to answer from my perspective as someone who's from the UK .. of course.

I went to a school with very strong Conservative traditions ... and it had at that time recently, and successfully due to a loophole in the law, remained separated out from our Socialists' newly-created Comprehensive Education system, a Leftie-fying of our education system .. and an attack on our Grammar Schools, which represented a tier of education supplying superior teaching standards to those best equipped to benefit from them.

Our Lefties wanted a 'one size fits all' approach to education, you see, and to attack excellence .. because It's What The Left Does, in its typically mindless fashion ..

So anyway, I rebelled against all that, and became a diehard Leftie. Typical kid ... rebelling against a status quo. Not because it was smart, but because it was rebellion.

But in the years that followed, Trade Union militancy came to the fore in UK society. We had waves of strikes. Coal wasn't dug. Electricity power-workers went on strike in a co-ordinated action with militant miners. So, the Three Day Working Week was born, where for two working days out of every five, electricity supplies were cut off for all but the most needy, to conserve dwindling fuel stocks (our nuclear industry was in its infancy at that time).

Ted Heath, the then-Conservative PM, chose to meet this emergency not through a display of leadership, but by giving us a General Election (.. over here, the prevailing Government was able to call an election at a time of its choosing). Its question: Who governs, us, or the Trade Unions ? Well, Labour won that election, they gave into the Unions, and the answer became: THE TRADE UNIONS DID.

We staggered through the rest of the decade .. managing somehow, with Union militancy always ready to strike at any time.

And so they did, in spades .. in 1978. Callaghan's pact with Unions fell apart, we had our Winter of Discontent .. which nearly saw us go into meltdown. Mrs Thatcher fought an election against Callaghan, won, and she started as she meant to continue .. giving Unions total opposition. She would NOT yield to their destructiveness. Laws were passed curbing Union power, the Unions were tamed over time. By the time the Coal Workers tried, again, to bring the country to its knees in 1984, she was ready for them, having built up the largest fuel stocks ever held in our history. The strike lasted for ages .. and failed miserably.

So there it is. Over the years, an ongoing lesson in social truth was learned. Socialist forces are DESTRUCTIVE (.. and true Socialism in no way addresses human nature ANYWAY ..). And Conservative policies are SALVATIONIST.

These days, I hate Socialism with such a passion that I cannot hope to express it to anyone here. Socialism is a lie, it's unworkable, attempts to apply it in no way address human need and aspiration. Only Conservatism does this.

So today, I'm a staunch Conservative .. who wants Socialism destroyed, as the societal poison it is.

Bravo. I would like to compliment you sir on your enlightenment. Its always a bonus to know so well the thinking of one's opposition. As you have demonstrated many times here you know how such people think and how they scheme! To your credit you embrace truth and have no fears of admitting past mistakes! I too often speak of my youthful errors and do so because to deny such would be not only folly but dishonor as well.
We most often are a well represented sum of our life experiences and teachings! Much of that comes from family and our actions engaged in during our youth.-Tyr

"So today, I'm a staunch Conservative .. who wants Socialism destroyed, as the societal poison it is."

^^ Presented with firm conviction and brave heart, a honest expression of a moral outrage at life's injustices!
Again, bravo,well offered! -Tyr

ConHog

01-27-2013, 02:05 PM

What part of "pure" capitalism doesn't consider the truth of human nature?

that people are greedy, selfish, self centered, jealous, petty, and just outright cruel.

Oddly those are the exact same reasons communism never works also. lol

Drummond

01-27-2013, 02:06 PM

Very few people realize or even consider the truth of the bolded statement.

... hah ! Well, the easy answer to that would be to say to such people that they should try it sometime !

But I'm not that cruel ....

History proves the point, though. From Stalin to Chairman Mao to Pol Pot. And our own experience of it in the UK can be easily studied./ Like, the reckless spending Labour indulged in, in the run-up to the Banking Crisis of 2008 ... making us particularly badly fitted to weather that particular storm.

Here, we're trying austerity measures. I understand that Obama is against copying our approach. With the result that the American economy just lurches from one fiscal crisis-point to the next.

Drummond

01-27-2013, 02:17 PM

that people are greedy, selfish, self centered, jealous, petty, and just outright cruel.

Oddly those are the exact same reasons communism never works also. lol

Why 'oddly' ? What are you talking about ? I'd say that you've just shown why Communism can never work.

When people create businesses, and strive to make them work, is the human nature that drives them one of wanting to make more and more money ? When people go to those businesses to work for them, do they do so as charitable actions, OR, because they want good wages, to prosper, to allow themselves and their families to prosper ?

The drive for prosperity is at the heart of Capitalism, and it's at the heart, also, of human nature. Tell any 'breadwinner' that out of all he earns, the State will then come along and tax him so heavily that he'll only just make enough to survive and no more, and what do you do ?

You kill the spirit of enterprise within him. You diminish him as a person, and as someone able to reach his potential. Drive is lost. Confidence is lost. Real, measurable harm is done to that person's feeling of wellbeing.

Why ? BECAUSE CAPITALISM WORKS FOR HUMAN NATURE. SOCIALISM WORKS AGAINST IT.

QED.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 02:21 PM

Why 'oddly' ? What are you talking about ? I'd say that you've just shown why Communism can never work.

I meant oddly in the respect that the reasons given are the exact reasons that two completely opposite systems won't work.

face it , the only system that works well FOR EVERYONE is a system that gives no one an advantage and that is MOSTLY capitalist, but includes some socialism. The only argument should be what percentage of socialism. My personal opinion is much less than we have today.

Why ? BECAUSE CAPITALISM WORKS FOR HUMAN NATURE. SOCIALISM WORKS AGAINST IT.

QED.

sure, it works out real well for a few. It doesn't work for society as a whole.

Drummond

01-27-2013, 02:23 PM

Bravo. I would like to compliment you sir on your enlightenment. Its always a bonus to know so well the thinking of one's opposition. As you have demonstrated many times here you know how such people think and how they scheme! To your credit you embrace truth and have no fears of admitting past mistakes! I too often speak of my youthful errors and do so because to deny such would be not only folly but dishonor as well.
We most often are a well represented sum of our life experiences and teachings! Much of that comes from family and our actions engaged in during our youth.-Tyr

"So today, I'm a staunch Conservative .. who wants Socialism destroyed, as the societal poison it is."

^^ Presented with firm conviction and brave heart, a honest expression of a moral outrage at life's injustices!
Again, bravo,well offered! -Tyr

Many thanks, Tyr, much appreciated.

Yes, I'm one for wanting to study my opposition, see how it works - or doesn't.

And we learn best from our mistakes.

As for Socialism, I don't THINK it's an evil, I KNOW it is, because I've seen that evil. It's a proven fact for me. Nobody can any more tell me I'm wrong on that, that they can tell me that the Moon is square. I know what I KNOW.

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 02:24 PM

that people are greedy, selfish, self centered, jealous, petty, and just outright cruel.

Oddly those are the exact same reasons communism never works also. lol

Funny thing is, I think those are the very reasons capitalism does work. The economy works because people want to succeed and work hard for profit. Greed, selfishness, etc., are motivators.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 02:27 PM

that people are greedy, selfish, self centered, jealous, petty, and just outright cruel.

Oddly those are the exact same reasons communism never works also. lol

Really, which philosopher of capitalism features an emphasis on those values? Max Weber partially saw the explosion of capitalism as a factor of certain types of Christian religions and also as a cause for people active in commerce to turn to religion.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 02:30 PM

Funny thing is, I think those are the very reasons capitalism does work. The economy works because people want to succeed and work hard for profit. Greed, selfishness, etc., are motivators.

absolutely the are motivators. But MUST be tempered because of man's inherent nature.

Look at a guy like John D Rockefeller. In the early days of his career, we were pure capitalism, no government intervention at any time. That was great , for him. For his workers? Not so much.

That's where a little socialism stepped in and said "no John, you can't take advantage of people like this anymore, figure out a way to succeed without taking advantage of everyone you come in contact with"

I mean honestly, communism would work to if a few at the top didn't have the exact same attitudes that Rockefeller had and wanted more and more. But as humans we all want more and what others want, or even need, becomes irrelevant.

Pure capitalism would not worry about things like child labor, minimum wages, worker safety, etc etc. And in fact the early entrepreneurs in Industrial Age America did not care about such things until they were forced to.

You could even extend that to slavery. Slavery was a very capitalist idea. Worked out well for the slavers, not so well for the slaves.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-27-2013, 02:31 PM

Why 'oddly' ? What are you talking about ? I'd say that you've just shown why Communism can never work.

When people create businesses, and strive to make them work, is the human nature that drives them one of wanting to make more and more money ? When people go to those businesses to work for them, do they do so as charitable actions, OR, because they want good wages, to prosper, to allow themselves and their families to prosper ?

The drive for prosperity is at the heart of Capitalism, and it's at the heart, also, of human nature. Tell any 'breadwinner' that out of all he earns, the State will then come along and tax him so heavily that he'll only just make enough to survive and no more, and what do you do ?

You kill the spirit of enterprise within him. You diminish him as a person, and as someone able to reach his potential. Drive is lost. Confidence is lost. Real, measurable harm is done to that person's feeling of wellbeing.

Why ? BECAUSE CAPITALISM WORKS FOR HUMAN NATURE. SOCIALISM WORKS AGAINST IT.

QED.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Drummond again.

Socialism fails because man's nature is evil. To suppress the evil Socialism must use to great and savage effect extreme brute force, murder, imprisonment and torture. Those suffering under its realities soon lose any fantasy about its much heralded and imagined paradise!! Others having never experienced or even properly studied its realities are still living in fantasy land while ever so foolishly praising such savagery. Ignorance being a meal well enjoyed , much praised , while the truth is ever so arrogantly rejected!!-Tyr

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 02:31 PM

Funny thing is, I think those are the very reasons capitalism does work. The economy works because people want to succeed and work hard for profit. Greed, selfishness, etc., are motivators.

True that. I'm not arguing regarding Weber that those 'motivators' do not develop within emerging capitalistic markets, just that they are not part of the theory of capitalism.

Abbey, I think you make a strong point on they can be motivators, however in unbridled markets those tendencies lead to a Hobbesian problem regarding survival. There are needs for regulations, the problem is keeping the 'regulators' from becoming the rulers.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 02:31 PM

Really, which philosopher of capitalism features an emphasis on those values? Max Weber partially saw the explosion of capitalism as a factor of certain types of Christian religions and also as a cause for people active in commerce to turn to religion.

I'm not debating with you in serious threads, and that is entirely in your own hands. Otherwise I'd love to discuss that point with you.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 02:36 PM

I'm not debating with you in serious threads, and that is entirely in your own hands. Otherwise I'd love to discuss that point with you.

LOL! No problem.

Drummond

01-27-2013, 02:40 PM

I meant oddly in the respect that the reasons given are the exact reasons that two completely opposite systems won't work.

Nonsense. One works. The other does not.

How did Russia, as leading power of the Soviet Union, last so long ? It did, out of a mixture of repression, propaganda, sponging off of satellite State systems much as a vampire, in stories, leeches off of its victims.

But despite ALL the repression, ALL the propaganda, still, human nature won out. Soviet Communism rotted from within.

Since then, what was born out of the old Soviet era has turned not only far more capitalist, but so much so that they act like they're trying to make up for lost time ! Which, since what's really happening is that human aspiration has been freed from its shackles, is anything but surprising.

Yes, human nature won out .. as it must.

I believe that all forms of Socialism must one day perish. My concern is that of wondering how much damage it'll do before it does.

face it , the only system that works well FOR EVERYONE is a system that gives no one an advantage and that is MOSTLY capitalist, but includes some socialism. The only argument should be what percentage of socialism. My personal opinion is much less than we have today.

The truth here is that a percentage of socialism can survive ONLY because its destructiveness is counterbalanced by remedial Capitalism. Liken the analogy to one where insufficient weedkiller is administered to kill the weed ... so that when the life-giving rain of Capitalism falls, the weed is nourished once more.

sure, it works out real well for a few. It doesn't work for society as a whole.

Convince people that they need not work, because State benefits will deal with their needs instead, and what do you see ?

The birth of a parasitic relationship.

The State gives. The recipient receives. One feeds off of the richness of the other.

But what allows for such a system ?

A healthy, thriving economy is one where Capitalistic endeavours feeds its health. That and the fact of taxing those who EARN that wealth.

But those living off of benefits don't give. Instead, they take. This is only possible because the Capitalism in the system can prop up the act of dependency invited by State handouts.

A balance is achieved ... but Capitalism is the source of the balance, its backbone. Human society thrives because of Capitalistic effort, and Capitalistic products.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 02:41 PM

I'm beginning to see why I fit in here......so many of you are also Reagan Democrats......Carter was a great Republican recruiter......

Many of the best conservatives were liberal.

Drummond

01-27-2013, 02:42 PM

Many of the best conservatives were liberal.

And some of the funniest Lefties talk rot.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 02:46 PM

Nonsense. One works. The other does not.

How did Russia, as leading power of the Soviet Union, last so long ? It did, out of a mixture of repression, propaganda, sponging off of satellite State systems much as a vampire, in stories, leeches off of its victims.

But despite ALL the repression, ALL the propaganda, still, human nature won out. Soviet Communism rotted from within.

Since then, what was born out of the old Soviet era has turned not only far more capitalist, but so much so that they act like they're trying to make up for lost time ! Which, since what's really happening is that human aspiration has been freed from its shackles, is anything but surprising.

Yes, human nature won out .. as it must.

I believe that all forms of Socialism must one day perish. My concern is that of wondering how much damage it'll do before it does.

The truth here is that a percentage of socialism can survive ONLY because its destructiveness is counterbalanced by remedial Capitalism. Liken the analogy to one where insufficient weedkiller is administered to kill the weed ... so that when the life-giving rain of Capitalism falls, the weed is nourished once more.

Convince people that they need not work, because State benefits will deal with their needs instead, and what do you see ?

The birth of a parasitic relationship.

The State gives. The recipient receives. One feeds off of the richness of the other.

But what allows for such a system ?

A healthy, thriving economy is one where Capitalistic endeavours feeds its health. That and the fact of taxing those who EARN that wealth.

But those living off of benefits don't give. Instead, they take. This is only possible because the Capitalism in the system can prop up the act of dependency invited by State handouts.

A balance is achieved ... but Capitalism is the source of the balance, its backbone. Human society thrives because of Capitalistic effort, and Capitalistic products.

you make an argument that socialism should be a small part of the equation. We agree on that.

You do NOT make an argument that it should play no part.

As I said , it takes a mix of the two to have a successful society.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-27-2013, 02:47 PM

True that. I'm not arguing regarding Weber that those 'motivators' do not develop within emerging capitalistic markets, just that they are not part of the theory of capitalism.

Abbey, I think you make a strong point on they can be motivators, however in unbridled markets those tendencies lead to a Hobbesian problem regarding survival. There are needs for regulations, the problem is keeping the 'regulators' from becoming the rulers.

Greed being the most natural motivator and best one yet known to man. Self interests are a necessary part of survival. Capitalism has in its structure the ability to streamline and promote community unison and prosperity for the common good. Much like a regenerating circle it forces out certain undesirable elements like the uncontrolled greed and lust that always exist in man's nature that would destroy the system .

Socialism uses extreme and brutal force to control such while Capitalism uses financial gain and well structure regulations based upon the reward of greater prosperity and freedom.--Tyr

fj1200

01-27-2013, 02:48 PM

well neither does pure capitalism consider the truth of human nature.

Disagree. It's the very nature of competition that tempers human nature.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 02:52 PM

Disagree. It's the very nature of competition that tempers human nature.

and it's the very nature of man that causes humans to take advantage of other humans when competing.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 02:56 PM

and it's the very nature of man that causes humans to take advantage of other humans when competing.

That would be attempt to take advantage. When one has information, transparency, and many market competitors then the market becomes efficient.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:00 PM

That would be attempt to take advantage. When one has information, transparency, and many market competitors then the market becomes efficient.

really, so let me ask you. IF the government hadn't stepped in with "socialism" do you think that Rockefeller would have ever seen his empire broken up allowing any actual competition?

looking at a more modern example. Do you think Wal Mart would not use their considerable power to bully people and essentially take over an entire market if they were allowed to just operate with pure unchecked capitalism?

Or would Wal Mart even have existed in the first place, probably not because the people in power in the industry to begin with certainly wouldn't have allowed it.

Pure capitalism is great , for those in power.

If you like we can also discuss roads, schools, police, fire, water, electricity, etc etc.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 03:03 PM

That would be attempt to take advantage. When one has information, transparency, and many market competitors then the market becomes efficient.

Granted. One could argue that 'regulations' have not only broken up the 'bad' monopolies, but also the 'natural' monopolies to some degree at a cost to national security. As you implied, if I understand correctly, that while regulations are implemented often with good intentions; more effective means through capitalism would eventually have lower costs in the end?

Drummond

01-27-2013, 03:08 PM

you make an argument that socialism should be a small part of the equation. We agree on that.

You do NOT make an argument that it should play no part.

As I said , it takes a mix of the two to have a successful society.

I've made no such argument.

What I have done is to show that, where Socialism exists within a system, it gives nothing of value to it. What driving force exists in society comes from a Capitalistic experience.

Socialistic practises are parasitic. If they're tolerated, they are only tolerated because of the health of the society as CAPITALISM provides for.

Societies would fare much better - as would humanity as a whole - if the parasite was killed off, and humanity, as a result, was free to reach its full potential.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:10 PM

I've made no such argument.

What I have done is to show that, where Socialism exists within a system, it gives nothing of value to it. What driving force exists in society comes from a Capitalistic experience.

Socialistic practises are parasitic. If they're tolerated, they are only tolerated because of the health of the society as CAPITALISM provides for.

Societies would fare much better - as would humanity as a whole - if the parasite was killed off, and humanity, as a result, was free to reach its full potential.

oh, i think I could make a fairly convincing argument that the socialist nature of say the electric grid has given value to society.

Please argue that that is a purely capitalist system.

oh and the electric grid is just one example.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 03:13 PM

really, so let me ask you. IF the government hadn't stepped in with "socialism" do you think that Rockefeller would have ever seen his empire broken up allowing any actual competition?

looking at a more modern example. Do you think Wal Mart would not use their considerable power to bully people and essentially take over an entire market if they were allowed to just operate with pure unchecked capitalism?

Or would Wal Mart even have existed in the first place, probably not because the people in power in the industry to begin with certainly wouldn't have allowed it.

Pure capitalism is great , for those in power.

If you like we can also discuss roads, schools, police, fire, water, electricity, etc etc.

Well you arguing one thing and another. The power to bully which would not exist under pure capitalism and pure capitalism itself. We can discuss but I'm guessing you'll have to pick a side. ;) You'll also have to define socialism to use in this context because I won't claim that we should have no government.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:23 PM

Well you arguing one thing and another. The power to bully which would not exist under pure capitalism and pure capitalism itself. We can discuss but I'm guessing you'll have to pick a side. ;) You'll also have to define socialism to use in this context because I won't claim that we should have no government.

I'm not sure how you think I'm arguing two sides. Maybe I just posted confusingly. Actually I just re read and now I see what you were saying.

In regards to Wal Mart I was talking about what they would do if left unchecked, not what they currently are doing.

for purposes of this discussion I would define socialism as the public being involved in setting policies which prevent a few from dominating a market, or taking advantage of those who work for them. The government certainly is the vessel the people use to be involved in such things.

I am certainly not suggesting that people don't own businesses they have built, or that they should have to share their profits , or anything of that nature.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 03:23 PM

Granted. One could argue that 'regulations' have not only broken up the 'bad' monopolies, but also the 'natural' monopolies to some degree at a cost to national security. As you implied, if I understand correctly, that while regulations are implemented often with good intentions; more effective means through capitalism would eventually have lower costs in the end?

I don't think I was going that deep. :eek: But as far as monopolies go, good or bad, might be broken down into how much government was in place to prop up those monopolies. A great piece a few years ago, Bring Back the Robber Barons (in the WSJ iirc), argued that robber barons built on true innovation are no harm and shouldn't be feared whereas robber barons built on government granted monopoly, either by patent protection or government contract, are contrary to good public policy.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:27 PM

I don't think I was going that deep. :eek: But as far as monopolies go, good or bad, might be broken down into how much government was in place to prop up those monopolies. A great piece a few years ago, Bring Back the Robber Barons (in the WSJ iirc), argued that robber barons built on true innovation are no harm and shouldn't be feared whereas robber barons built on government granted monopoly, either by patent protection or government contract, are contrary to good public policy.

what a bunch of rubbish. Read the story about Standard Oil, and tell me who that was any good for.

Now compare that to Wal Mart, which is not a monopoly but is as close as we will allow, and tell me which company was better for more people.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 03:35 PM

I don't think I was going that deep. :eek: But as far as monopolies go, good or bad, might be broken down into how much government was in place to prop up those monopolies. A great piece a few years ago, Bring Back the Robber Barons (in the WSJ iirc), argued that robber barons built on true innovation are no harm and shouldn't be feared whereas robber barons built on government granted monopoly, either by patent protection or government contract, are contrary to good public policy.

I concur with that article. Consider the railroads, that were really a subsidy for the already wealthy to gain land and more wealth. How are the railroads doing today? Oh yea, still subsidized and regarding passengers? Not so good.

Great argument for a government subsidized super dooper train, right?

fj1200

01-27-2013, 03:35 PM

oh, i think I could make a fairly convincing argument that the socialist nature of say the electric grid has given value to society.

Please argue that that is a purely capitalist system.

oh and the electric grid is just one example.

I don't think the electric grid is your better example there. I'm not sure of the 'socialistic' nature of it anyway but education or roads are a better argument IMO.

I'm not sure how you think I'm arguing two sides. Maybe I just posted confusingly. Actually I just re read and now I see what you were saying.

In regards to Wal Mart I was talking about what they would do if left unchecked, not what they currently are doing.

for purposes of this discussion I would define socialism as the public being involved in setting policies which prevent a few from dominating a market, or taking advantage of those who work for them. The government certainly is the vessel the people use to be involved in such things.

I am certainly not suggesting that people don't own businesses they have built, or that they should have to share their profits , or anything of that nature.

You mean if WM were left unchecked and they did an even better job of delivering goods cheaply to the end consumer? I don't think I accept your definition. My robber baron example before would impose restrictions on all robber barons no matter the method on which the status was attained. IMO regulations imposed by government should first be used to impose/encourage the basis for the free market, transparency, barriers to entry, perfect information, etc., and then sit back and see who's being "taken advantage of."

If one wants to look at minimum wage and decide that people shouldn't have to work for less than X at the point we are consigning those who aren't worth that much to far less/any? opportunity. There are more free-market methods of ensuring that people can live without all to often ham-handed response by government.

Drummond

01-27-2013, 03:37 PM

oh, i think I could make a fairly convincing argument that the socialist nature of say the electric grid has given value to society.

The Socialist 'nature' of the electric grid ??

Electricity is Socialist ? :cuckoo:

In the UK, the 'National Grid' used to be State run. I'm happy to say that one of Mrs Thatcher's great innovations was to carve it up into regions, and to sell those regions off to private Companies. Private companies run them to this day. [By the way, I bought shares in a couple of those Companies, and sold them at a profit, as did many other people .. generation of wealth, where none otherwise would've existed ..]

The 'Electric Grid' is a business. Companies provide a product from what those businesses are set up to produce, which is duly distributed to the customer. And customers pay the Company for the product they receive.

Furthermore, customers, thanks to a further refinement, are now permitted to switch providers, which creates healthy competition. Something which the State version WHOLLY LACKED.

Please argue that that is a purely capitalist system.

oh and the electric grid is just one example.

Well, have I not argued that it's run as one ... and is better off for it ?

Certainly Mrs Thatcher thought so .. and we've had ample time to find out she was right !

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 03:40 PM

I don't think the electric grid is your better example there. I'm not sure of the 'socialistic' nature of it anyway but education or roads are a better argument IMO.

...

I have to agree with your assessment on the example of the electrical grid:

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/21/the-history-of-the-u-s-electr.html

The history of the U.S. electric grid

fj1200

01-27-2013, 03:43 PM

what a bunch of rubbish. Read the story about Standard Oil, and tell me who that was any good for.

Now compare that to Wal Mart, which is not a monopoly but is as close as we will allow, and tell me which company was better for more people.

Consumers.

Market entrepreneurs like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Hill built businesses on product and price. Hill was the railroad magnate who finished his transcontinental line without a public land grant. Rockefeller took on and beat the world's dominant oil power at the time, Russia. Rockefeller innovated his way to energy primacy for the U.S.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099572105775414.html

Who benefits from Walmart? Consumers.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:45 PM

I don't think the electric grid is your better example there. I'm not sure of the 'socialistic' nature of it anyway but education or roads are a better argument IMO.

You mean if WM were left unchecked and they did an even better job of delivering goods cheaply to the end consumer? I don't think I accept your definition. My robber baron example before would impose restrictions on all robber barons no matter the method on which the status was attained. IMO regulations imposed by government should first be used to impose/encourage the basis for the free market, transparency, barriers to entry, perfect information, etc., and then sit back and see who's being "taken advantage of."

If one wants to look at minimum wage and decide that people shouldn't have to work for less than X at the point we are consigning those who aren't worth that much to far less/any? opportunity. There are more free-market methods of ensuring that people can live without all to often ham-handed response by government.

I disagree that the electric grid is not a good example. It is in fact the ULTIMATE example. Most electric companies are CO OPS which are funded and managed by their customers. They are not owned by "robber barons" and in fact the early power companies that were had limited customers and thus helped a limited number of people.

I could certainly argue, and in fact DO argue, that left to their own devices much of the country would have been very late in getting electricity because many people lived , and indeed some still live, in an area that a purely capitalistic company would not service because the cost outweighs the profit .

Now, I doubt you can come up with an argument that getting as many people as possible electricity was not a good a thing.

Heck, right now we're having the same discussion about internet. Should we "socialize" the internet by making sure high speed internet is available anywhere, or should we let internet providers decide where they want to offer it?

As for minimum wage. I would probably agree that in today's society no company is going to offer less than what they can by law. However, that obviously didn't always hold true, else there wouldn't have been a need for such a law to begin with. The fact that there was a need for such a law directly contradicts your assertion that industry will regulate itself.

And we haven't even touched upon OSHA or the EPA or any similar yet.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:46 PM

Consumers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099572105775414.html

Who benefits from Walmart? Consumers.

and that's fine for consumers, but oh society certainly has other concerns besides consumers.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 03:47 PM

Is someone really arguing there is not enough competition to Walmart in where one shops? How else is one to define, 'near monopoly?'

I guess facts and opinions do get mixed up a bit, not too mention hyperbole.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 03:51 PM

and that's fine for consumers, but oh society certainly has other concerns besides consumers.

Well so far you haven't detailed the atrocities. :poke:

EDIT:

Not saying necessarily that you won't find any just that there may be something underlying those. And as Bastiat said, "what point is production other than to consume." Or something like that.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 03:53 PM

Well so far you haven't detailed the atrocities. :poke:

LOL - I'm sorry FJ but I know you are smart enough not to have to be spoon fed the many way that Standard Oil and its contemporaries abused its employees, the land, and indeed nearly everything it touched.

A few profited while many suffered. Wait a minute, exactly what happens under pure communism.

Hey now..............

tailfins

01-27-2013, 03:57 PM

The Socialist 'nature' of the electric grid ??

Electricity is Socialist ? :cuckoo:

Electricity being socialist is specifically the Mennonite objection to it. I don't include Amish because the are not open to self-generated electricity while the Mennonites are.

Just to show how socialist minded those who push "green" energy are, they are making essentially NO effort to promote it and package it for individualists. A wind turbine or a solar panel could be owned by the consumer. Instead "green" energy is being implemented to be part of the power grid, showing NO effort to empower the individual. Why introduce an additional point of failure? Why aren't any "green" energy subsidies available to the purchaser of a single turbine or solar panel?

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 03:59 PM

Just to show how socialist minded those who push "green" energy are, they are making essentially NO effort to promote it and package it for individualists. A wind turbine or a solar panel could be owned by the consumer. Instead "green" energy is being implemented to be part of the power grid, showing NO effort to empower the individual. Why introduce an additional point of failure? Why aren't any "green" energy subsidies available to the purchaser of a single turbine or solar panel.

Why is it being subsidized at all?

ConHog

01-27-2013, 04:00 PM

Electricity being socialist is specifically the Mennonite objection to it. I don't include Amish because the are not open to self-generated electricity while the Mennonites are.

Just to show how socialist minded those who push "green" energy are, they are making essentially NO effort to promote it and package it for individualists. A wind turbine or a solar panel could be owned by the consumer. Instead "green" energy is being implemented to be part of the power grid, showing NO effort to empower the individual. Why introduce an additional point of failure? Why aren't any "green" energy subsidies available to the purchaser of a single turbine or solar panel.

Huh? That's completely untrue. There are LOTS of tax rebates available for individuals who use green energy or otherwise utilizing technology to use less energy

By lots, I mean LOTS.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 04:03 PM

Why is it being subsidized at all?

to encourage proliferation.

much the same as when Sony introduced the PlayStation3 they sold it at a loss to proliferate the Blu Ray technology.

Now blu ray is everywhere.

Now if you want to argue that the government should not be playing a part in proliferating green energy, have at . Not sure I'd argue with you.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 04:03 PM

I disagree that the electric grid is not a good example. It is in fact the ULTIMATE example. Most electric companies are CO OPS which are funded and managed by their customers. They are not owned by "robber barons" and in fact the early power companies that were had limited customers and thus helped a limited number of people.

I could certainly argue, and in fact DO argue, that left to their own devices much of the country would have been very late in getting electricity because many people lived , and indeed some still live, in an area that a purely capitalistic company would not service because the cost outweighs the profit .

Now, I doubt you can come up with an argument that getting as many people as possible electricity was not a good a thing.

Heck, right now we're having the same discussion about internet. Should we "socialize" the internet by making sure high speed internet is available anywhere, or should we let internet providers decide where they want to offer it?

As for minimum wage. I would probably agree that in today's society no company is going to offer less than what they can by law. However, that obviously didn't always hold true, else there wouldn't have been a need for such a law to begin with. The fact that there was a need for such a law directly contradicts your assertion that industry will regulate itself.

And we haven't even touched upon OSHA or the EPA or any similar yet.

You're rigging again; electricity generally good, being hooked in to the grid, not necessarily. I can easily make the argument that rural electrification wasn't necessarily the best way. Mandating that all far reaches be hooked in to the electrical grid forestalls other options that may have been a better option. It's the same argument how highways, why should we trip over ourselves to lay freeway lanes all over the country when it will only encourage people to live farther away from 'civilization' and force more services be extended out to them? It also advantages trucking companies over the railroads; it's no wonder they don't make a profit when we've subsidized/are subsidizing their competition.

Let's say we mandate that all households have a cable line strung down their street just to be able to have high speed internet? It forestalls other options that may be better. I live in a major metropolitan area and only have gas and electric feeding the house. No land line (two cells), no high-speed internet (wireless), and no cable (choice). There can be far better methods to deliver services than government being behind the times.

tailfins

01-27-2013, 04:07 PM

Huh? That's completely untrue. There are LOTS of tax rebates available for individuals who use green energy or otherwise utilizing technology to use less energy

By lots, I mean LOTS.

Are you saying there are tax credits for a single wind turbine or solar panel? There are many who couldn't care less about the environmental aspects, but just want to get off the power grid.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 04:08 PM

LOL - I'm sorry FJ but I know you are smart enough not to have to be spoon fed the many way that Standard Oil and its contemporaries abused its employees, the land, and indeed nearly everything it touched.

A few profited while many suffered. Wait a minute, exactly what happens under pure communism.

Hey now..............

Consumers profited as well. You can't dispute the point.

But there you go again, I'm not saying that the times were perfect and that business didn't have market power over workers but you've got to show that they were a product of pure capitalism. You're also throwing up a strawman, "nearly everything," rather than acknowledging other factors.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 04:11 PM

You're rigging again; electricity generally good, being hooked in to the grid, not necessarily. I can easily make the argument that rural electrification wasn't necessarily the best way. Mandating that all far reaches be hooked in to the electrical grid forestalls other options that may have been a better option. It's the same argument how highways, why should we trip over ourselves to lay freeway lanes all over the country when it will only encourage people to live farther away from 'civilization' and force more services be extended out to them? It also advantages trucking companies over the railroads; it's no wonder they don't make a profit when we've subsidized/are subsidizing their competition.

Let's say we mandate that all households have a cable line strung down their street just to be able to have high speed internet? It forestalls other options that may be better. I live in a major metropolitan area and only have gas and electric feeding the house. No land line (two cells), no high-speed internet (wireless), and no cable (choice). There can be far better methods to deliver services than government being behind the times.

Better and less expensive. However, once the government does become involved, the competition ceases to develop and stagnation sets in.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 04:14 PM

You're rigging again; electricity generally good, being hooked in to the grid, not necessarily. I can easily make the argument that rural electrification wasn't necessarily the best way. Mandating that all far reaches be hooked in to the electrical grid forestalls other options that may have been a better option. It's the same argument how highways, why should we trip over ourselves to lay freeway lanes all over the country when it will only encourage people to live farther away from 'civilization' and force more services be extended out to them? It also advantages trucking companies over the railroads; it's no wonder they don't make a profit when we've subsidized/are subsidizing their competition.

Let's say we mandate that all households have a cable line strung down their street just to be able to have high speed internet? It forestalls other options that may be better. I live in a major metropolitan area and only have gas and electric feeding the house. No land line (two cells), no high-speed internet (wireless), and no cable (choice). There can be far better methods to deliver services than government being behind the times.

Just sticking with electricity for the moment, you are right. If such technology existed at the time, which it didn't. Hell even now today a person would be hard pressed to live in a house that is completely off the power grid (assuming one didn't want to live like a cave man)

I suppose you could build your own solar cell farm to power your house, but that seems pretty damned inefficient, also depending on other variables it could be downright dangerous which could lead to other expenses to society.

which leads us to the real argument. Is it to societies benefit to make sure as many people as possible have access to cheap, safe electricity.

I would answer that yes. From many perspectives. Somehow I doubt your answer is no.

Now if we move on to the question of internet availability. I would almost argue that society itself has made internet access a must; for instance we assign kids in school homework that simply can't be completed without the internet. As a school, we almost just assume that everyone has such access at home.

However, I personally am not convinced that right now we must make internet available to all. Mostly because I certainly remember sitting at the library many a night doing homework when I was a kid and the internet wasn't even available, but that wasn't an every night occurrence the way homework is assigned now so honestly I don't know..........

ConHog

01-27-2013, 04:16 PM

Are you saying there are tax credits for a single wind turbine or solar panel? There are many who couldn't care less about the environmental aspects, but just want to get off the power grid.

having a solar panel or wind turbine doesn't get one off the power grid. Yes there are tax credits available.

I have several solar panels , they are used solely to operate the heater and filter system of my swimming pool. They are completely separated from the main electrical of my home, or I would have had to pay to have them phased in. VERY expensive.

bingster

01-27-2013, 04:18 PM

I consider the Republican party a faith-motivated and sometimes faith-based ideology and the Democratic party is a fact-based ideology. It’s as simple as that to me. Am I saying that neo-conservatism is just a lie? No, I’m just saying it’s more likely to be motivated by feelings and not facts. More often than not, conservatism articulates itself using high flying symbolism, Christian nation assertions, rare exceptions taken as rules, insults to the poor, idolization of the rich, government is evil, black and white without grays, etc….

I enjoyed, as a teenager, listening to Rush Limbaugh. He was a hell of an entertainer. He was funny and seemed to make common sense arguments. Then I mentioned this in front of my father. He showed controlled restraint, disappointment was plain on his face, and he told me a truth: People lie on the Radio and TV. Yes, I was naïve, but this was shocking at the time.

We turned on the radio and listened to Rush together and point by point, my father knocked down all of Rush’s arguments. He didn’t just compete with arguments, he showed me in newspaper and encyclopedia articles that Rush’s assertions were made on false premises. Then he told me about “Southern Strategy” and pointed out Rush’s attempt to paint the poor as lazy immigrants or minority welfare moms having 4 kids. Dad questioned my ability to think on my own. Are you a “ditto-head”? What’s wrong with women’s rights that Rush denigrates with his “femi-natzi” comments?

For instance, seemingly at the center of all Republican’s economic rhetoric is this huge number of welfare moms with the 4 kids. Of the 47% Romney mentioned at his private party, only 1% contains all of those welfare moms with the 4 kids, and I’m sure they’re all neither moms, nor do they all have four kids. In fact, I’m sure a large part of that 1% contains the mentally or physically disabled. This is an example of believing the exception is a rule and the attempt to characterize that entire 47% as losers.

So, I became a student. I’m not a college kid, an economist, or even one who has a classical education. I just read books constantly, mostly history, and whenever I can think of a question, I look it up. I question my own liberalism often and adopt conservative views when I learn that they are correct. My weakest view is abortion, for instance: I think conservatives have the stronger argument although I haven't adopted the term "murder" and don't think I will. I also think teacher tenure should go away. Teachers need to be graded somehow, but they should be paid better.

I just don’t think life is KISS (keep it simple stupid). Conservatives see the world in easy black and white terms. Or maybe they don’t, but politicians have found that you can’t sell gray. You can sell KISS, but gray takes explanation. Explanations look weak-see Carter, but the world is complicated and I think it’s ignorant to ignore or deny the grays.

I believe in a good mixture of socialist and capitalist views. I don’t believe in destroying capitalism, I just don’t believe capitalism provides the answers to everything. I also don’t believe socialism answers all questions. These two philosophies can come together and synergisticly move our country forward. One will never destroy the other, attempts to do so is futile, counterproductive, and will fail.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 04:19 PM

Consumers profited as well. You can't dispute the point.

But there you go again, I'm not saying that the times were perfect and that business didn't have market power over workers but you've got to show that they were a product of pure capitalism. You're also throwing up a strawman, "nearly everything," rather than acknowledging other factors.

I'm not the one who labeled them as pure capitalists, others have. I merely don't disagree with their definitions. So if you don't like the definitions speak to them.

I used nearly everything in addition to two examples, I didn't not acknowledge anything.

Back to the first topic. if YOU disagree with defining them as pure capitalists then the onus is on you to identify them as something else.

fj1200

01-27-2013, 04:23 PM

I consider the Republican party a faith-motivated and sometimes faith-based ideology and the Democratic party is a fact-based ideology.

:laugh: Wow, I'm going to have to read this later.

bingster

01-27-2013, 04:44 PM

:laugh: Wow, I'm going to have to read this later.

Have fun. It took me all day to figure out if I even wanted to post to this thread, and that's what I came up with.

jimnyc

01-27-2013, 04:49 PM

I consider the Republican party a faith-motivated and sometimes faith-based ideology and the Democratic party is a fact-based ideology.

No offense, but I've long considered Democrats/Liberals to be motivated by emotions and desires, while Republicans/Conservatives are motivated by principles and facts.

bingster

01-27-2013, 05:14 PM

No offense, but I've long considered Democrats/Liberals to be motivated by emotions and desires, while Republicans/Conservatives are motivated by principles and facts.

It's always amazing how two intelligent thoughtful people can have such opposite views.

aboutime

01-27-2013, 05:18 PM

No offense, but I've long considered Democrats/Liberals to be motivated by emotions and desires, while Republicans/Conservatives are motivated by principles and facts.

Jim. In an odd, weird kind of way. He's right about the Democrats. As long as they are permitted to MAKE UP THEIR OWN FACTS.

Robert A Whit

01-27-2013, 05:35 PM

My Mom taught me something once.

I spent all day outside bailing hay, it was painful, and hard. By the end of it i was so stuffed up and sore that i could hardly stand. For my day of work the guy gave me 20 bucks. (I think i got the short end of the deal)
I got in the van with my mom and brothers, she said, "Alright, give your brothers 5 bucks each."
startled, I said "No! that's my money, I worked hard for it, why should i give it to them? they didn't work for it!"
Mom replied "Yeah but they're young and don't have the ability to work yet. they're only getting 5 dollars each, where you're getting a whole 10. You get more money out of this."
I said, "No, i worked for it. It's mine. I spent all day bailing hay to get this measly amount of money, and no one's gonna take it away from me."
She said, "Congratulations, now you know how tax's work."
That was the day i joined the libertarian party, due to not believing in taking money away from hard workers to give to people who don't want to work, so they can mooch.

What about all of you? Was there ever a defining moment where you chose what side you were on?

I have told my story in past posts. But you learned not why you should be a Libertarian, but why you should at all times reject as unwise any claims by Democrats.

I vote republican. I too believe in Libertarian ideology. But I won't waste one vote if ie means democrats take over. I don't like it, but I must vote republican to keep democrats out. My mission is not to create more republicans, but to create more like you are.

I was born a Democrat. Mom and dad both were devoted democrats. I was taught when Ike ran for office that he was a decent General but that did not make him a president. Mom was quite clear and adament on that point. Only democrats were decent humans per her.

My changing point was after I voted for President Carter so he won the job of president.

I got pissed that he prevented the atheletes from going to the Soviet Union to be in the Olympics but figured he did more good than bad. He did other things too. I hate presidents claiming they can create jobs but then those jobs do not happen. Carter loved taxing us all more. So did Clinton and so does Obama.

As you learned, money does not grow on trees. Every dollar one gets is the product of much more effort that one sees by a casual look.

Some think the rich got that way by evil deeds. My mom trained us to think that way.

My change came only when I got an open mind. But not to be a republican. I wanted to know insider details of how it works in DC. I picked up a very good book.

It is out of print but perhaps it can be located by searching for it.

It is kind of like my bible on government.

William E. Simon is the author. That man was very brilliant. A time for truth is the title of his book. That title says a lot. He wrote truth.

I then happend to see the brilliant books by Thomas PAine in the bookstore and so i decided to read them.

I could not stand to vote for Democrats from that day forward. My first republican I helped win was Ronald Reagan. When he ran for Gov of CA, I then opposed him. Mom told me he was also evil.

Well for my money, he should be the number 1 ranked president over Washington, Jefferson, Adams and that bastard Abe Lincoln.

Thing is when this nation was founded, those such as Madison, Washington and Jefferson were in open revolt against their own government. I never saw the constitution as the sort of document that Lincoln could use to put down men who operated just like Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Ben Franklin had operated. Men that felt like the union left them.

Abe at the time had many detractors in the north. A lot of them hated his war where he invaded the South.

If Washington was correct so were those that voted to abandon the union by 1860.

I flipped parties by 1980.

Kathianne

01-27-2013, 05:47 PM

I consider the Republican party a faith-motivated and sometimes faith-based ideology and the Democratic party is a fact-based ideology. It’s as simple as that to me. Am I saying that neo-conservatism is just a lie? No, I’m just saying it’s more likely to be motivated by feelings and not facts. More often than not, conservatism articulates itself using high flying symbolism, Christian nation assertions, rare exceptions taken as rules, insults to the poor, idolization of the rich, government is evil, black and white without grays, etc….

I enjoyed, as a teenager, listening to Rush Limbaugh. He was a hell of an entertainer. He was funny and seemed to make common sense arguments. Then I mentioned this in front of my father. He showed controlled restraint, disappointment was plain on his face, and he told me a truth: People lie on the Radio and TV. Yes, I was naïve, but this was shocking at the time.

We turned on the radio and listened to Rush together and point by point, my father knocked down all of Rush’s arguments. He didn’t just compete with arguments, he showed me in newspaper and encyclopedia articles that Rush’s assertions were made on false premises. Then he told me about “Southern Strategy” and pointed out Rush’s attempt to paint the poor as lazy immigrants or minority welfare moms having 4 kids. Dad questioned my ability to think on my own. Are you a “ditto-head”? What’s wrong with women’s rights that Rush denigrates with his “femi-natzi” comments? Setting Limbaugh aside, he IS an entertainer, not a spokesman for Conservatives. While he may articulate some conservative arguments, a spokesman he is not, he'd be terrible at that.Isn't your point really to paint anyone who's conservative a 'ditto-head?' 'A misogynist?'

Aren't you saying that you went to your dad and he 'fixed' you, by giving you his version, with sites, to believe?

For instance, seemingly at the center of all Republican’s economic rhetoric is this huge number of welfare moms with the 4 kids. Of the 47% Romney mentioned at his private party, only 1% contains all of those welfare moms with the 4 kids, and I’m sure they’re all neither moms, nor do they all have four kids. In fact, I’m sure a large part of that 1% contains the mentally or physically disabled. This is an example of believing the exception is a rule and the attempt to characterize that entire 47% as losers. Ever hear of strawman?

So, I became a student. I’m not a college kid, an economist, or even one who has a classical education. I just read books constantly, mostly history, and whenever I can think of a question, I look it up. I question my own liberalism often and adopt conservative views when I learn that they are correct. My weakest view is abortion, for instance: I think conservatives have the stronger argument although I haven't adopted the term "murder" and don't think I will. I also think teacher tenure should go away. Teachers need to be graded somehow, but they should be paid better.
So you're not a student, an economist, nor one with a classical education. What are you? How old? Good idea to question your own beliefs, shows some maturity. However, there is a topic here and teacher tenure, abortion, or even the economy isn't the topic. There are other threads for those.

I just don’t think life is KISS (keep it simple stupid). Conservatives see the world in easy black and white terms. Or maybe they don’t, but politicians have found that you can’t sell gray. You can sell KISS, but gray takes explanation. Explanations look weak-see Carter, but the world is complicated and I think it’s ignorant to ignore or deny the grays. Really? Conservatives see no gray? So then, why do so many volunteer as ESL instructors? Work in PADS and food pantries? Why donate so much money for the poor? Help with job skills and help with clothing and grooming for interviews? Because they are hateful? Or could it possibly be that they believe that not only does government harm those that are looking for self-sufficiency, they want them to succeed?

I believe in a good mixture of socialist and capitalist views. I don’t believe in destroying capitalism, I just don’t believe capitalism provides the answers to everything. I also don’t believe socialism answers all questions. These two philosophies can come together and synergisticly move our country forward. One will never destroy the other, attempts to do so is futile, counterproductive, and will fail.

 <m:smallfrac m:val="off"> <m:dispdef> <m:lmargin m:val="0"> <m:rmargin m:val="0"> <m:defjc m:val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440"> <m:intlim m:val="subSup"> <m:narylim m:val="undOvr"> </m:narylim></m:intlim> </m:wrapindent>

This last paragraph really stumps me. It's so 'forcefully put forward' yet lacks any real meaning other than an attempt to sit on a fence. The reader is left to wonder why, after all that came before you end up with this as a conclusion.
</m:defjc></m:rmargin></m:lmargin></m:dispdef></m:smallfrac>

Robert A Whit

01-27-2013, 05:59 PM

I consider the Republican party a faith-motivated and sometimes faith-based ideology and the Democratic party is a fact-based ideology. It’s as simple as that to me. Am I saying that neo-conservatism is just a lie? No, I’m just saying it’s more likely to be motivated by feelings and not facts. More often than not, conservatism articulates itself using high flying symbolism, Christian nation assertions, rare exceptions taken as rules, insults to the poor, idolization of the rich, government is evil, black and white without grays, etc….

I enjoyed, as a teenager, listening to Rush Limbaugh. He was a hell of an entertainer. He was funny and seemed to make common sense arguments. Then I mentioned this in front of my father. He showed controlled restraint, disappointment was plain on his face, and he told me a truth: People lie on the Radio and TV. Yes, I was naïve, but this was shocking at the time.

We turned on the radio and listened to Rush together and point by point, my father knocked down all of Rush’s arguments. He didn’t just compete with arguments, he showed me in newspaper and encyclopedia articles that Rush’s assertions were made on false premises. Then he told me about “Southern Strategy” and pointed out Rush’s attempt to paint the poor as lazy immigrants or minority welfare moms having 4 kids. Dad questioned my ability to think on my own. Are you a “ditto-head”? What’s wrong with women’s rights that Rush denigrates with his “femi-natzi” comments?

For instance, seemingly at the center of all Republican’s economic rhetoric is this huge number of welfare moms with the 4 kids. Of the 47% Romney mentioned at his private party, only 1% contains all of those welfare moms with the 4 kids, and I’m sure they’re all neither moms, nor do they all have four kids. In fact, I’m sure a large part of that 1% contains the mentally or physically disabled. This is an example of believing the exception is a rule and the attempt to characterize that entire 47% as losers.

So, I became a student. I’m not a college kid, an economist, or even one who has a classical education. I just read books constantly, mostly history, and whenever I can think of a question, I look it up. I question my own liberalism often and adopt conservative views when I learn that they are correct. My weakest view is abortion, for instance: I think conservatives have the stronger argument although I haven't adopted the term "murder" and don't think I will. I also think teacher tenure should go away. Teachers need to be graded somehow, but they should be paid better.

I just don’t think life is KISS (keep it simple stupid). Conservatives see the world in easy black and white terms. Or maybe they don’t, but politicians have found that you can’t sell gray. You can sell KISS, but gray takes explanation. Explanations look weak-see Carter, but the world is complicated and I think it’s ignorant to ignore or deny the grays.

I believe in a good mixture of socialist and capitalist views. I don’t believe in destroying capitalism, I just don’t believe capitalism provides the answers to everything. I also don’t believe socialism answers all questions. These two philosophies can come together and synergisticly move our country forward. One will never destroy the other, attempts to do so is futile, counterproductive, and will fail.

Guess how many times this year I have listened to Rush Limbaugh.

1 t0 5 or more? Nope. Zero. But surely I listened to him last year give an election?? The only time I might happen to hear him for even a few moments is in my car. I have a station preset but not to hear Rush Limbaugh.

Rush is a strawman argument. He is the poster child of democrats who think if they knock him down, they knock me down and other good thinkers down.

As I grew up, I was one of the most intensely loyal Demorats man ever ran into. Me and you dad would have been asshole buddies.

But i learned I was flat wrong. And what you claim about republicans is not true.

Take faith for instance. I would be put into a mental hospital for life if I thought the universe simply self created.

That makes as much sense as you coming home and your wife told you she is pregnant but since you were gone all year long, it self created.

We know that no matter what you call it, the universe had help. It is very orderly. It could not have always existed. Even today it is constantly changing.

But my faith is in God since I have no other name to use for something that can create universes. As to faith being my light in the night, nonsense. I feel it as scientific as any other scientific idea.

Actually the Democrats are the father of neoconservatives and all they are is a sort of faction of democrats.

Democrats love to make a big deal out of the southern strategy but some strategy had to be created or the South was doomed to perpetual control by Democrats. I well recall in the days if you were a republican in the South by admitting it you were taking your life into their hands. Nope, when I was stationed in the Army in the South, I was still a democrat. Sworn to hate republicans. I grew out of that crap and won't vote ever again for any democrats.

Back in those days, it was well known that it was Democrats that started the thing known as the Bible Belt part of this country.

I happen to believe in God. But not because of most people's claims.

That 47 percent Romney mentioned were not welfare moms, but people who don't pay any of their income to the Feds. We knew that for many years. How can you dispute IRS figures?

My problem with socialism and your comments on it is when one imposes an ideology on the weak, it does not make them stronger. You will never turn a democrat into a saver or investor by telling him he has Social Secuirty and Medicare wating once he becomes 62.

Believe it or not, many people do the minimum and by figuring they can count on social security to survive, they kick into the lazy person mode and of course I wonder why you would want that to be normal?

ConHog

01-27-2013, 06:03 PM

Guess how many times this year I have listened to Rush Limbaugh.

1 t0 5 or more? Nope. Zero. But surely I listened to him last year give an election?? The only time I might happen to hear him for even a few moments is in my car. I have a station preset but not to hear Rush Limbaugh.

Rush is a strawman argument. He is the poster child of democrats who think if they knock him down, they knock me down and other good thinkers down.

As I grew up, I was one of the most intensely loyal Demorats man ever ran into. Me and you dad would have been asshole buddies.

But i learned I was flat wrong. And what you claim about republicans is not true.

Take faith for instance. I would be put into a mental hospital for life if I thought the universe simply self created.

That makes as much sense as you coming home and your wife told you she is pregnant but since you were gone all year long, it self created.

We know that no matter what you call it, the universe had help. It is very orderly. It could not have always existed. Even today it is constantly changing.

But my faith is in God since I have no other name to use for something that can create universes. As to faith being my light in the night, nonsense. I feel it as scientific as any other scientific idea.

Actually the Democrats are the father of neoconservatives and all they are is a sort of faction of democrats.

Democrats love to make a big deal out of the southern strategy but some strategy had to be created or the South was doomed to perpetual control by Democrats. I well recall in the days if you were a republican in the South by admitting it you were taking your life into their hands. Nope, when I was stationed in the Army in the South, I was still a democrat. Sworn to hate republicans. I grew out of that crap and won't vote ever again for any democrats.

Back in those days, it was well known that it was Democrats that started the thing known as the Bible Belt part of this country.

I happen to believe in God. But not because of most people's claims.

That 47 percent Romney mentioned were not welfare moms, but people who don't pay any of their income to the Feds. We knew that for many years. How can you dispute IRS figures?

My problem with socialism and your comments on it is when one imposes an ideology on the weak, it does not make them stronger. You will never turn a democrat into a saver or investor by telling him he has Social Secuirty and Medicare wating once he becomes 62.

Believe it or not, many people do the minimum and by figuring they can count on social security to survive, they kick into the lazy person mode and of course I wonder why you would want that to be normal?

some of you guys crack me up. As you run around yelling at a guy for generalizing about Republicans you find it perfectly acceptable to generalize about Democrats, and vice versa.

If we took this board as an example of each party it is a FACT that one would conclude that Republicans are hypocritical assholes.

However, this board is NOT a microcosm of Republicans , nor Democrats.

Robert A Whit

01-27-2013, 06:19 PM

When I got my first job at the Red Barn restaurant and as I looked at my first pay check I asked my dad about all those taxes being taken out of pay. My dad looked at me and said that is to help the poor, pay for the government, and make sure everyone is taken care of. Well as time went on I kept asking why I am paying for other peoples way of life. My dad was a devoted Dem and when I grew up and voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 - he never got over it. But I got pissed off early in life with having an ever increasing share of the money I earned taken away and given to others the government deemed worthy of it

My Step father was 100 times the man my actual father was. Mom divorced my birth father when I was 12. Mom was so devoted to democrats and i loved her so much, I just accepted her false doctrine like a good son does. Dad on the other hand was not so controlling.

I told Mom in 1980 I got so sick of Carter and the democrat ideology i could no longer vote for any democrat. I am not saying all democrats are flaming jerks, but far too many of them are.

Feinstein may come off as a kind grandmother but her head is screwed on wrong. Whe has a plan, but it won't save any lives. She has this false idea that goverment stops crimes. We can tell by the full prisons that they did not stop crimes. And when many convicts get out of prison, they do more crimes. Even prison has not stopped them.

I reported some books that greatly influenced me. I believe the public deserves a fair chance. But I think when society makes it easy to not succeed as the democrats plans do, it is time to not vote for Democrats. Trigg in my view should end that habit of voting for Democrats since their acts show they don't support her at all.

I advize some books from time to time. I find that so far, Democrats by their nature refuse to be better educated on how this system misfires all the time.

Very few people are satisfied with Government. But Democrats ardently are on the side not of the people, but the side of Government. Damdest lesson i ever learned is they don't cling to guns and religion, they cling to government and of all powers, none can create such misery all over the world as can government.

Robert A Whit

01-27-2013, 07:00 PM

The word Greed in no way represents what Capitalism actually is. Mind you, beware of that word since it is the invention of a Socialist.

I prefer the way Milton Friedman speaks of capitalism.

To those who see Socialism as our countries savior, nonsense. Any and all socialism means the Government controls.

While Rockefeller made billions in today's dollars, so what? Sure he and men like him are reasons given by loyal Democrats as to why he got his empire broken up.

The job of Government is to serve. Breaking up economic empires is not their business.

Empires such as Rockefeller created can't last much beyone the man's lifetime. And where there is profit to be made, men like him can't prevent others from coming up with a great idea and selling that idea to the public.

Money won't make you mad nor will money make you some evil son of a bitch. Every man I hafe met that was greedy had his roots based in his own family and how they believed.

I want this debated as part of this topic if some of you don't mind.

The wolf is in the woods, Spots the deer and catches the deer and eats it. Is that wolf greedy? If the wolf was a company, clearly democrats would claim it is greedy.

The deer runs for it's life not wanting to feed the Wolf. Is that deer greedy?

We have in this nation a lot of wolves. They are Democrats.

They want to prey on some people and pretend by passing them deer meat, they did good. But the deer lost it's life.

Notice the teachings of Democrats. Supposedly if somebody works for an income and does such a great job, as did Walmart, why does a company that hires so many humans get demonized.?

In my area, a few years ago, we saw our first Walmart store. They sprang up pretty fast.

But I seldom shop at Walmart. I prefer companies like Costco and Smart and Final.

With a family, Costco can be the best place to shop for many things. While I have a few items from Walmart, most of the high ticket items came from Costco.

But not exclusively Costco. Smart and Final is easy to shop at. Cheap prices and good quality food. Safeway has more variety but at higher costs most of the time. I found Ham at Safeway at prices less than Smart and Final or Costco. So the lesson is to use free market principles and shop around. Don't resent Walmart when you can simply drive over to some other store and find what you are willing to buy.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-27-2013, 07:52 PM

I enjoyed, as a teenager, listening to Rush Limbaugh. He was a hell of an entertainer. He was funny and seemed to make common sense arguments. Then I mentioned this in front of my father. He showed controlled restraint, disappointment was plain on his face, and he told me a truth: People lie on the Radio and TV. Yes, I was naïve, but this was shocking at the time.

From reading your posts I'd say you are still quite a bit naive..-Tyr

We turned on the radio and listened to Rush together and point by point, my father knocked down all of Rush’s arguments. He didn’t just compete with arguments, he showed me in newspaper and encyclopedia articles that Rush’s assertions were made on false premises.

Knocked them all down!!!! I don't know whether its best to laugh or cry about such a statement!
It is plainly a gross exaggeration made to support your views as presented. -Tyr

Then he told me about “Southern Strategy” and pointed out Rush’s attempt to paint the poor as lazy immigrants or minority welfare moms having 4 kids. Dad questioned my ability to think on my own. Are you a “ditto-head”? What’s wrong with women’s rights that Rush denigrates with his “femi-natzi” comments?

I find this part just as unbelievable as the others. Care to explain, "Southern Strategy" or any of the other straw men that you built??--Tyr

^^^^^ My nephew used to tell tales like that. He grew out of it..-- :laugh:-Tyr

bingster

01-27-2013, 08:14 PM

^^^^^ My nephew used to tell tales like that. He grew out of it..-- :laugh:-Tyr

You call me naive and you don't know that the Southern Strategy was? See Robert's post.

bingster

01-27-2013, 08:26 PM

No offense, but I've long considered Democrats/Liberals to be motivated by emotions and desires, while Republicans/Conservatives are motivated by principles and facts.

Here are a few examples of conservative issues born out of "emotions or desires" or as I put it "faith or feelings"

Christian nation-this country is a nation made up of every religion on earth. The 1st Amendment clearly knocks down the adoption of any religion for our country, but I know quite a few of you can fill a whole thread claiming this country is a Christian country. That's basically offensive to all US citizens who are not Christians.

War on Xmas is a pretty ridiculous one. Just because I say "Happy Holidays" on December 1st doesn't mean I have a problem with Christmas, it's because Hanukah, Kwansa, and a few other holidays happen to be in the same month.

The gay rights issue is a huge faith/feeling subject. Honestly, how do two guys getting married actually cause harm to your marriage? You want sanctity in your marriage, how is that my problem? Do you think you can get a grip?

Burning the flag in protest. Haven't seen this issue in a while, but I'll bet some conservatives on this forum would be all for a constititutional amendment against flag burning. Burn a Koran? What's the big deal? Burn a flag? Go to jail.

bingster

01-27-2013, 08:31 PM

I would also like to echo what another poster said without naming him to protect the innocent. All replies to this thread that regarded the original subject "Ultimately, why did you choose your party?" spoke in generalities. People generalize to form opinions about things. If I don't refer to all conservatives, fine and dandy.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-27-2013, 08:38 PM

You call me naive and you don't know that the Southern Strategy was? See Robert's post.

Actually, I asked you to explain what it was and how you viewed it. Especially what your Dad told you about it. You left all that for the imagination . I do not do guess work when such a broad term is used.
You used it so explain it.. I am all eyes buddy.-Tyr

bingster

01-27-2013, 08:44 PM

Setting Limbaugh aside, he IS an entertainer, not a spokesman for Conservatives. While he may articulate some conservative arguments, a spokesman he is not, he'd be terrible at that.Isn't your point really to paint anyone who's conservative a 'ditto-head?' 'A misogynist?'

Aren't you saying that you went to your dad and he 'fixed' you, by giving you his version, with sites, to believe? Ever hear of strawman?
So you're not a student, an economist, nor one with a classical education. What are you? How old? Good idea to question your own beliefs, shows some maturity. However, there is a topic here and teacher tenure, abortion, or even the economy isn't the topic. There are other threads for those. Really? Conservatives see no gray? So then, why do so many volunteer as ESL instructors? Work in PADS and food pantries? Why donate so much money for the poor? Help with job skills and help with clothing and grooming for interviews? Because they are hateful? Or could it possibly be that they believe that not only does government harm those that are looking for self-sufficiency, they want them to succeed?

This last paragraph really stumps me. It's so 'forcefully put forward' yet lacks any real meaning other than an attempt to sit on a fence. The reader is left to wonder why, after all that came before you end up with this as a conclusion.

He didn't fix me, he taught me to verify. There weren't sites back then, I'm talking about '79 or '80.

You didn't like me mentioning topics? I'm sorry, isn't the name of this thread "ultimately, why id you choose your party?"

What does "not seeing gray" in an argument have to do with what job you have? I was talking about complexities of a subject. You know like Palestine=bad. Israel=good. That's a flat conservative view that ignores: Palestinians were there first and Israeli's sometimes shoot Palestinian children who throw rocks. There is no perfect good/bad, like black/white, there are grays.

I didn't call conservatives hateful.

Lastly, like I said on another post, I wasn't sure I wanted to have this fight in the first place. I just wanted to explain, like others did, where I got my opinions. I didn't write to be devisive.

bingster

01-27-2013, 08:46 PM

Actually, I asked you to explain what it was and how you viewed it. Especially what your Dad told you about it. You left all that for the imagination . I do not do guess work when such a broad term is used.
You used it so explain it.. I am all eyes buddy.-Tyr

No, actually, I left it for the informed. Back in the 60's, the Republican party hadn't had a chance in the south since Lincoln, so they devised a strategy to appeal to the southern whites to win votes. It was mostly coded racism.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 08:51 PM

He didn't fix me, he taught me to verify. There weren't sites back then, I'm talking about '79 or '80.

You didn't like me mentioning topics? I'm sorry, isn't the name of this thread "ultimately, why id you choose your party?"

What does "not seeing gray" in an argument have to do with what job you have? I was talking about complexities of a subject. You know like Palestine=bad. Israel=good. That's a flat conservative view that ignores: Palestinians were there first and Israeli's sometimes shoot Palestinian children who throw rocks. There is no perfect good/bad, like black/white, there are grays.

I didn't call conservatives hateful.

Lastly, like I said on another post, I wasn't sure I wanted to have this fight in the first place. I just wanted to explain, like others did, where I got my opinions. I didn't write to be devisive.

what you meant is irrelevant when it comes to message boards my man.

When looking at a message board , any message board, no matter how well meaning the moderating team you're going to have situations where there is a , for lack of a better word, popular opinion, and an unpopular opinion.

Both sides will have insane, inane, stupid, illogical, ignorant posters who just don't even try to have actual discussion but invariably whichever side is "popular" gets away with more simply because they are obviously going to have less complaints. A moderation team is obviously going to grease the squeaky wheel.

Just know that message boards do not represent the whole. The truth is there are idiots on both sides who don't want to brook any argument, they have their opinions and that's that. Why they even bother coming to a place designed to debate is beyond me.

Myself, I think you're a fine example of a liberal poster even though I disagree with nearly everything you post. That is something most posters will never say. Hey, I disagree with you, but you are a good poster. Preferring to attack the messenger because in fact they don't fully understand the topic well enough TO debate it.

jimnyc

01-27-2013, 08:54 PM

Here are a few examples of conservative issues born out of "emotions or desires" or as I put it "faith or feelings"

Christian nation-this country is a nation made up of every religion on earth. The 1st Amendment clearly knocks down the adoption of any religion for our country, but I know quite a few of you can fill a whole thread claiming this country is a Christian country. That's basically offensive to all US citizens who are not Christians.

War on Xmas is a pretty ridiculous one. Just because I say "Happy Holidays" on December 1st doesn't mean I have a problem with Christmas, it's because Hanukah, Kwansa, and a few other holidays happen to be in the same month.

The gay rights issue is a huge faith/feeling subject. Honestly, how do two guys getting married actually cause harm to your marriage? You want sanctity in your marriage, how is that my problem? Do you think you can get a grip?

Burning the flag in protest. Haven't seen this issue in a while, but I'll bet some conservatives on this forum would be all for a constititutional amendment against flag burning. Burn a Koran? What's the big deal? Burn a flag? Go to jail.

^^ :lol:

I think it's you that needs to get a grip. Just when I said I though liberals acted on emotions, and desires, you pop in and make a post filled with emotional rhetoric. I'm not taking the time to fix the many errors I see. Suffice to say, conservatives do not see this as a Christian country. Conservatives have good reason to see attacks against Christmas. It's MUCH different now than it was 20 years ago, and almost unrecognizable to those who celebrated it for a lot longer than that. It's not nearly as simple as happy holidays. I don't think you can break down the entire gay rights issue to one question, but emotional people tend to do that. While I detest people who would burn our countries flag, unfortunately it is also protected for them to do so.

Your entire post was regurgitated rhetoric that I would expect to find on Democratic Underground, the internet's largest online garbage disposal. :coffee:

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 09:01 PM

what you meant is irrelevant when it comes to message boards my man.

When looking at a message board , any message board, no matter how well meaning the moderating team you're going to have situations where there is a , for lack of a better word, popular opinion, and an unpopular opinion.

Both sides will have insane, inane, stupid, illogical, ignorant posters who just don't even try to have actual discussion but invariably whichever side is "popular" gets away with more simply because they are obviously going to have less complaints. A moderation team is obviously going to grease the squeaky wheel.

Just know that message boards do not represent the whole. The truth is there are idiots on both sides who don't want to brook any argument, they have their opinions and that's that. Why they even bother coming to a place designed to debate is beyond me.

Myself, I think you're a fine example of a liberal poster even though I disagree with nearly everything you post. That is something most posters will never say. Hey, I disagree with you, but you are a good poster. Preferring to attack the messenger because in fact they don't fully understand the topic well enough TO debate it.

Actually, this staff member gave kudos to bingster just earlier today in the abortion thread. And I'd be hard-pressed to find an issue I am more in passionate disgreement with him/her over. It's far from the first time I've done that with liberal posters. Our "moderation team" is pretty fair.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 09:04 PM

Actually, this staff member gave kudos to bingster just earlier today in the abortion thread. And I'd be hard-pressed to find an issue I am more in passionate disgreement with him/her over. It's far from the first time I've done that with liberal posters. Our "moderation team" is pretty fair.

I wasn't speaking of THIS board in particular, and I certainly didn't mean to call anyone out. I thought I made it clear that I was speaking in generalities.

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 09:04 PM

He didn't fix me, he taught me to verify. There weren't sites back then, I'm talking about '79 or '80.

You didn't like me mentioning topics? I'm sorry, isn't the name of this thread "ultimately, why id you choose your party?"

What does "not seeing gray" in an argument have to do with what job you have? I was talking about complexities of a subject. You know like Palestine=bad. Israel=good. That's a flat conservative view that ignores: Palestinians were there first and Israeli's sometimes shoot Palestinian children who throw rocks. There is no perfect good/bad, like black/white, there are grays.

I didn't call conservatives hateful.

Lastly, like I said on another post, I wasn't sure I wanted to have this fight in the first place. I just wanted to explain, like others did, where I got my opinions. I didn't write to be devisive.

I think it goes without saying that explaining our political views is going to seem like criticism of the other side.

But I have to disagree with your characterization of Conservatives. We are no more prone to black and white views than liberals.

jimnyc

01-27-2013, 09:05 PM

Actually, this staff member gave kudos to bingster just earlier today in the abortion thread. And I'd be hard-pressed to find an issue I am more in passionate disgreement with him/her over. It's far from the first time I've done that with liberal posters. Our "moderation team" is pretty fair.

Yep, as bing and I are obviously at opposite ends of the political spectrum, I've pointed out and gave him kudos for the way he posts several times - and had a nice PM conversation with him about things, and applauding him. I hope he doesn't get jaded as time goes by, and remains open to both sides, as he's shown the ability to do thus far, while remaining true to his beliefs.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 09:06 PM

^^ :lol:

I think it's you that needs to get a grip. Just when I said I though liberals acted on emotions, and desires, you pop in and make a post filled with emotional rhetoric. I'm not taking the time to fix the many errors I see. Suffice to say, conservatives do not see this as a Christian country. Conservatives have good reason to see attacks against Christmas. It's MUCH different now than it was 20 years ago, and almost unrecognizable to those who celebrated it for a lot longer than that. It's not nearly as simple as happy holidays. I don't think you can break down the entire gay rights issue to one question, but emotional people tend to do that. While I detest people who would burn our countries flag, unfortunately it is also protected for them to do so.

Your entire post was regurgitated rhetoric that I would expect to find on Democratic Underground, the internet's largest online garbage disposal. :coffee:

LOL there is a 64 page 1000 post thread on this board where some are adamant that we are a Christian nation.

and I could find thousands of examples of alleged conservatives posting on emotion instead of facts.

aboutime

01-27-2013, 09:07 PM

Actually, I asked you to explain what it was and how you viewed it. Especially what your Dad told you about it. You left all that for the imagination . I do not do guess work when such a broad term is used.
You used it so explain it.. I am all eyes buddy.-Tyr

Tyr. That is the sound of the self-proclaimed, know-it-all, everybody else is wrong kinds of attitudes we are seeing from bingster.

Somebody...probably bingster. Convinced him that Only He...Bigster is always correct, and always has just the right WORLD SAVING answers...because somebody wasted many big bucks on him/her trying to educate bingster. And bingster is now...the Sole Expert on everything. Thereby making anyone else who doesn't follow the Brainwashed principles of Liberalism...wrong.

And bingster is not acting alone. He has a huge following of equally mentally challenged, easily convinced liberally vacant minds for support. And I have no need to mention the other members here. We know who they are. But bingster has to scratch his head because denial is at work.

jimnyc

01-27-2013, 09:08 PM

LOL there is a 64 page 1000 post thread on this board where some are adamant that we are a Christian nation.

and I could find thousands of examples of alleged conservatives posting on emotion instead of facts.

Ummm, no. You found a thread that thinks this country was FOUNDED as a christian nation. And many believe a lot of roots started with Christian roots. But not many posts claiming that we are a christian nation NOW.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 09:10 PM

Ummm, no. You found a thread that thinks this country was FOUNDED as a christian nation. And many believe a lot of roots started with Christian roots. But not many posts claiming that we are a christian nation NOW.

Now you''re using my own semantics game against me LOL

You're right. Of course no one believes we are a Christian nation now, and that isn't what Bingster was saying and you know it lol

Abbey Marie

01-27-2013, 09:12 PM

Tyr. That is the sound of the self-proclaimed, know-it-all, everybody else is wrong kinds of attitudes we are seeing from bingster.

Somebody...probably bingster. Convinced him that Only He...Bigster is always correct, and always has just the right WORLD SAVING answers...because somebody wasted many big bucks on him/her trying to educate bingster. And bingster is now...the Sole Expert on everything. Thereby making anyone else who doesn't follow the Brainwashed principles of Liberalism...wrong.

And bingster is not acting alone. He has a huge following of equally mentally challenged, easily convinced liberally vacant minds for support. And I have no need to mention the other members here. We know who they are. But bingster has to scratch his head because denial is at work.

AT, I have to disagree. Bingster has different opinions, but has been pretty cool about them so far. He has a few times already said that he doesn't feel strongly abpout a particular issue, for example. He doesn't act any more like an "expert" than most people here. In fact, a lot less than some.

aboutime

01-27-2013, 09:15 PM

AT, I have to disagree. Bingster has different opinions, but has been pretty cool about them so far. He has a few times already said that he doesn't feel strongly abpout a particular issue, for example. He doesn't act any more like an "expert" than most people here. In fact, a lot less than some.

Opinion noted. Thank you.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 09:24 PM

Also, I choose my party based on who has the hotter women, the colder beer, and the best snacks.

duh

jimnyc

01-27-2013, 09:26 PM

I decided to bite anyway!

Here are a few examples of conservative issues born out of "emotions or desires" or as I put it "faith or feelings"

Christian nation-this country is a nation made up of every religion on earth. The 1st Amendment clearly knocks down the adoption of any religion for our country, but I know quite a few of you can fill a whole thread claiming this country is a Christian country. That's basically offensive to all US citizens who are not Christians.

We have a long running thread here, that perhaps the nation was FOUNDED in Christianity, but you won't find many conservatives claiming "this is a Christian country". But I'll reserve further judgment - can you post for me a credible link to where conservatives have this stance?

War on Xmas is a pretty ridiculous one. Just because I say "Happy Holidays" on December 1st doesn't mean I have a problem with Christmas, it's because Hanukah, Kwansa, and a few other holidays happen to be in the same month.

Nothing really wrong if someone chooses to use that phrase, but there is if someone is told to use that phrase. And every mention of it starts to disappear from stores. The word Christmas used to be every other word you would read, everywhere you went. Now it's disappearing. Not just on public property, but as many places as I can think of, the nativity scenes have disappeared. A "war"? I don't think I would be labeling it that harshly, but without a doubt there has been a desire to "not offend" people with Christmas related things and Jesus - while everything and anything else IS allowed, for fear of offending anyone else. You would need to be nearing blindness and deafness to not see how much it's changed in the past 30 years or so. This same level of "make it politically correct" is not given to other religions.

The gay rights issue is a huge faith/feeling subject. Honestly, how do two guys getting married actually cause harm to your marriage? You want sanctity in your marriage, how is that my problem? Do you think you can get a grip?

Really? And where does this leave those that think politics shouldn't be involved here to begin with?

Burning the flag in protest. Haven't seen this issue in a while, but I'll bet some conservatives on this forum would be all for a constititutional amendment against flag burning. Burn a Koran? What's the big deal? Burn a flag? Go to jail.

Lots of smack talking towards conservatives that you know very little about. That's the problem with crappy rhetoric, politics and peoples stances are not a one size fits all. Personally, I have a problem with scumbags that would burn our flag. Call me nuts. I don't have a problem with someone burning a Quran. But the right to do so to both is protected by our constitution

ConHog

01-27-2013, 09:31 PM

I decided to bite anyway!

We have a long running thread here, that perhaps the nation was FOUNDED in Christianity, but you won't find many conservatives claiming "this is a Christian country". But I'll reserve further judgment - can you post for me a credible link to where conservatives have this stance?

Nothing really wrong if someone chooses to use that phrase, but there is if someone is told to use that phrase. And every mention of it starts to disappear from stores. The word Christmas used to be every other word you would read, everywhere you went. Now it's disappearing. Not just on public property, but as many places as I can think of, the nativity scenes have disappeared. A "war"? I don't think I would be labeling it that harshly, but without a doubt there has been a desire to "not offend" people with Christmas related things and Jesus - while everything and anything else IS allowed, for fear of offending anyone else. You would need to be nearing blindness and deafness to not see how much it's changed in the past 30 years or so. This same level of "make it politically correct" is not given to other religions.

Really? And where does this leave those that think politics shouldn't be involved here to begin with?

Lots of smack talking towards conservatives that you know very little about. That's the problem with crappy rhetoric, politics and peoples stances are not a one size fits all. Personally, I have a problem with scumbags that would burn our flag. Call me nuts. I don't have a problem with someone burning a Quran. But the right to do so to both is protected by our constitution

it leaves you admitting that I have been right all along, government out of marriage, let whomever marry whomever (once again, consenting adults)

Robert A Whit

01-27-2013, 11:05 PM

Here are a few examples of conservative issues born out of "emotions or desires" or as I put it "faith or feelings"

Christian nation-this country is a nation made up of every religion on earth. The 1st Amendment clearly knocks down the adoption of any religion for our country, but I know quite a few of you can fill a whole thread claiming this country is a Christian country. That's basically offensive to all US citizens who are not Christians.

War on Xmas is a pretty ridiculous one. Just because I say "Happy Holidays" on December 1st doesn't mean I have a problem with Christmas, it's because Hanukah, Kwansa, and a few other holidays happen to be in the same month.

The gay rights issue is a huge faith/feeling subject. Honestly, how do two guys getting married actually cause harm to your marriage? You want sanctity in your marriage, how is that my problem? Do you think you can get a grip?

Burning the flag in protest. Haven't seen this issue in a while, but I'll bet some conservatives on this forum would be all for a constititutional amendment against flag burning. Burn a Koran? What's the big deal? Burn a flag? Go to jail.

I would say point 1 is misunderstood. The 1st amendment is designed to prevent Government from interfering in religion. The key word is interfere. As to the nature of the country? Back when it was founded, clearly the founders in general were Christian. Not all, but in general. But they were clever enough to take that issue off the table.

We all realize that the founders did not believe the Catholics were correct. But they did not prevent Catholics from showing up. When i grew up, Christmas was eagerly celebrated in grade school though in High school it meant we could escape school work. At no time did I see Jews protest nor others seeking to celebrate something else. i dunno, but those were happy times for me. Notice that even Obama puts up lots of Christmas trees in the White house. He realizes what is going on here.

Are you appointing yourself the advocate for homosexuals? Please, if you want me to listen, I prefer the term gay is disposed with. Gay as I grew up meant happy. Clearly your message is not happy.

What does a homosexual marriage to to my marriage? My question is why you crave marriage when you don't want the opposite sex as your spouse? Seems to me what you want is something other than marriage. What effect does our marriages have on you? Do we have such a good deal you think it is better than your deal? I would think if homosexuals started out saying they want contract rights and feel something needs to be done for them, most of us would listen. But one way to close our minds is to say GAY and to tell us we have a better deal than you have.

I paid for my flags. What makes you think one can't burn flags? My flags are personal property just as my socks, shoes and trousers are.

I have a confederate flag. Do you desire by law I burn the flag? Do you want a law making us all burn our confederate flags?

If you burn your flags, I don't wish anybody pass judgement on you nor try to prevent you from doing as you wish.

ConHog

01-27-2013, 11:11 PM

I would say point 1 is misunderstood. The 1st amendment is designed to prevent Government from interfering in religion. The key word is interfere. As to the nature of the country? Back when it was founded, clearly the founders in general were Christian. Not all, but in general. But they were clever enough to take that issue off the table.

We all realize that the founders did not believe the Catholics were correct. But they did not prevent Catholics from showing up. When i grew up, Christmas was eagerly celebrated in grade school though in High school it meant we could escape school work. At no time did I see Jews protest nor others seeking to celebrate something else. i dunno, but those were happy times for me. Notice that even Obama puts up lots of Christmas trees in the White house. He realizes what is going on here.

Are you appointing yourself the advocate for homosexuals? Please, if you want me to listen, I prefer the term gay is disposed with. Gay as I grew up meant happy. Clearly your message is not happy.

What does a homosexual marriage to to my marriage? My question is why you crave marriage when you don't want the opposite sex as your spouse? Seems to me what you want is something other than marriage. What effect does our marriages have on you? Do we have such a good deal you think it is better than your deal? I would think if homosexuals started out saying they want contract rights and feel something needs to be done for them, most of us would listen. But one way to close our minds is to say GAY and to tell us we have a better deal than you have.

I paid for my flags. What makes you think one can't burn flags? My flags are personal property just as my socks, shoes and trousers are.

I have a confederate flag. Do you desire by law I burn the flag? Do you want a law making us all burn our confederate flags?

If you burn your flags, I don't wish anybody pass judgement on you nor try to prevent you from doing as you wish.

to your point about gay. No offense, but who cares if you like the term gay or not? That's irrelevant to the discussion, you call it whatever you like.

as far as that goes, why do you care if they call it marriage. It's exactly NONE of your business. Exact same answer I give when people ask me why I own 57 different guns. Why? Because I can, and it's none of your business.

You see how that works Robert? You want your rights respected, try respecting the rights of others.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-27-2013, 11:19 PM

No, actually, I left it for the informed. Back in the 60's, the Republican party hadn't had a chance in the south since Lincoln, so they devised a strategy to appeal to the southern whites to win votes. It was mostly coded racism.

Yes, I knew the Southern Strategy was code for accusation of racism by modern democrats/liberals that are now placing such blame on Republicans. . So you are told of an accusation of racism and believe it without any verifiable proof.
You do realize back then it was the Southern democrats that were dead set against civil rights or didn't your dad/school teach you that?-Tyr

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:21 AM

Tyr. That is the sound of the self-proclaimed, know-it-all, everybody else is wrong kinds of attitudes we are seeing from bingster.

Somebody...probably bingster. Convinced him that Only He...Bigster is always correct, and always has just the right WORLD SAVING answers...because somebody wasted many big bucks on him/her trying to educate bingster. And bingster is now...the Sole Expert on everything. Thereby making anyone else who doesn't follow the Brainwashed principles of Liberalism...wrong.

And bingster is not acting alone. He has a huge following of equally mentally challenged, easily convinced liberally vacant minds for support. And I have no need to mention the other members here. We know who they are. But bingster has to scratch his head because denial is at work.

I never professed to know more than anyone else. I, like everyone else, assume say what I think or believe. I wasn't aware I had a following, but please, invisible minion, follow along!

I think I'm in the minority on this forum, and actually don't mind it. I would be bored to tears on a liberal blog/forum. Preaching to the coir is not my thing.

As mentioned before, I'm not highly educated. I'm smart and like to read a lot, but I have no self allusions. I don't think I know it all. I'll even admit I've been highly impressed with this forum and believe that many of you know more than I do. Thanx for the lofty compliments, however.

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:23 AM

Ummm, no. You found a thread that thinks this country was FOUNDED as a christian nation. And many believe a lot of roots started with Christian roots. But not many posts claiming that we are a christian nation NOW.

I beg to differ with you and agree with Conhog. That was exactly the thread I was thinking about. The arguments were, to put it nicely, at a very low standard.

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:26 AM

Also, I choose my party based on who has the hotter women, the colder beer, and the best snacks.

duh

Megan McCain is hot, so is S.E. Cupp.

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:44 AM

I decided to bite anyway!

We have a long running thread here, that perhaps the nation was FOUNDED in Christianity, but you won't find many conservatives claiming "this is a Christian country". But I'll reserve further judgment - can you post for me a credible link to where conservatives have this stance?

That may have been the intent of the thread, but the post were red-blooded evangelist. See also the thread that practically called for the extermination of Islam

Nothing really wrong if someone chooses to use that phrase, but there is if someone is told to use that phrase. And every mention of it starts to disappear from stores. The word Christmas used to be every other word you would read, everywhere you went. Now it's disappearing. Not just on public property, but as many places as I can think of, the nativity scenes have disappeared. A "war"? I don't think I would be labeling it that harshly, but without a doubt there has been a desire to "not offend" people with Christmas related things and Jesus - while everything and anything else IS allowed, for fear of offending anyone else. You would need to be nearing blindness and deafness to not see how much it's changed in the past 30 years or so. This same level of "make it politically correct" is not given to other religions.

My experience with that term is from being asked to use it in stores. How do I know if my customers celebrate Christmans, Chanuka, or Kwansa. Let me ask you, Would you mind if a retail cashier wished you a "Happy Chanuka"? Now, maybe you would be OK with it, maybe you wouldn't but I know my conservative brother-in-law might pop her in the jaw. Yes, life has changed since then and I'm not one of those people who would resent a nativity scene. But ask those on your side of the aisle if they would mind a star of david on top of a hill, or a muslim scene at a city hall. If they truly don't mind those things then they are more enlightened than I thought.

Really? And where does this leave those that think politics shouldn't be involved here to begin with?

I don't know what you mean about that. The Mormons made proposition 8 here in California. I always thought tax-free religious institutions were supposed to be non-political. My point in this matter is that it's a position held only based on faith and feelings. Sure, you could make a silly semantic argument about what "marriage" means, but that wouldn't be productive. That is what my original post was about.

Lots of smack talking towards conservatives that you know very little about. That's the problem with crappy rhetoric, politics and peoples stances are not a one size fits all. Personally, I have a problem with scumbags that would burn our flag. Call me nuts. I don't have a problem with someone burning a Quran. But the right to do so to both is protected by our constitution

I'm with you regarding the flag and would be tempted to call them scumbags myself. I trained in a highly elite unit to fight for my country and a flag means more to me than to some others. But, like you, I believe the constitution protects the practice.

I'm not without principles because I see both sides of the story. Again, I've said much of the conservative rhetoric is black and white. I don't think most conservatives see both sides all of the time. I'm also not saying they are the only ones like that. This is why this is a great forum and you are doing a hell of a job running it.

Now, kick my butt again.

All of the blue above is mind.

red states rule

01-28-2013, 02:34 AM

It's amazing how Americans have become conditioned to look at their net pay and say "I don't get paid enough," and not look at their gross pay and say "I'm taxed too much."

If I had my way the payroll deductions would go away and every month workers would write a check out for their Federal; taxes; state taxes; Social Security taxes, and all the other taxes that come out of their check. I am confident you would see such an outcry the politicians on both sides would make the cuts needed to balance the budget and cut taxes

bingster

01-28-2013, 03:08 AM

If I had my way the payroll deductions would go away and every month workers would write a check out for their Federal; taxes; state taxes; Social Security taxes, and all the other taxes that come out of their check. I am confident you would see such an outcry the politicians on both sides would make the cuts needed to balance the budget and cut taxes

More privatizing. Gee wiz, what a boon to banking charges. And the stamps? LOL

Good point, but world wide, we're not as bad as you think

red states rule

01-28-2013, 03:11 AM

More privatizing. Gee wiz, what a boon to banking charges. And the stamps? LOL

Good point, but world wide, we're not as bad as you think

Who said anything about privatizing. I am pointing out the government takes in and wastes too much money; and people do not realize how much of their income is being taken by government. Look at that "stimulus" bill that was to put millions of people back to work. Pure pork and handouts to the unions

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 03:31 AM

I'm with you regarding the flag and would be tempted to call them scumbags myself. I trained in a highly elite unit to fight for my country and a flag means more to me than to some others. But, like you, I believe the constitution protects the practice.

I'm not without principles because I see both sides of the story. Again, I've said much of the conservative rhetoric is black and white. I don't think most conservatives see both sides all of the time. I'm also not saying they are the only ones like that. This is why this is a great forum and you are doing a hell of a job running it.

Now, kick my butt again.

All of the blue above is mind.

While my church did back proposition 8, there is nothing wrong with them doing that.

Say, It is time for Jim to give you the Army sign as he finally did to me.

Can you tell us what elite unit you served with?

I believe I see both sides since i have been on both sides.

As I say over and over, my goal is to keep Democrats out. That normally means i support Republicans.

I am not a big fan of many terms I see tossed around. Like Neo Conservative. I have their history at hand. I know how they started and who the father of neo conservatism is.

I am not a fan of the term conservative or liberal.

A true liberal is not found in the Democrat party.

As to conservative, that seems to mean whatever a person claims it means. The words are almost without meaning.

I recall talking to a client from Ethiopia who holds a Ph.D and was educated up to Masters degree in the former Soviet Union. He got his Ph.D in Colorado and had planned to high tail it back to ethiopia until Selasie was killed. His brother was a Major General for Selasie and was put into house arrest. Jailed in his home surrounded by guards he was taken out a few times and lined up in front of a firing squad. They suddenly would put him back into his home. He endured that for years. When the politics again changed, he was released and lives in a state in the East Coast of the USA.

Anyway, he told me that Americans have no idea of what left and right actually means. Once he explained it to me, I believe he is correct. I also was friends with a man who was a Major in the Soviet Army who had his masters degree. He told me the same thing. Matter of fact he asked me to try to explain why America was headed down the path the Soviet Union was abandoning. He saw dangerous signs in the USA we were falling for the socialist nonsense.

Bear in mind that you and I were raised by hard core Democrats who saw as evil the rich and republicans. Mom never told me her opinion on Libertarians but I tend to think were she alive she would come down hard on them. I am probably one that believes very seriously that the constitution pretty well got it dead on. I think slavery approval in the constitution was a tragic error.

Still even so, I see that at least slaves had a steady job and a place to live and food to eat.

I have seen slave quarters at Mt Vernon and Monticello and noticed that the rich had slaves and since they cost a lot of money, tend to think that for the most part, they worked hard but in general were not beat all the time. Yet i don't dispute some owners did beat slaves.

red states rule

01-28-2013, 03:35 AM

BTW Bing before you try to defend that "stimulus" here are just a few of the pork projects that were included. These should explain why unemployment is still high and why taxpayers should not pay another cent in higher taxes
Provisions of the bill that many legislators are questioning:

$1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t earned a profit in four decades.
$2 billion to help subsidize child care.
$400 million for research into global warming.
$2.4 billion for projects to demonstrate how carbon greenhouse gas can be safely removed from the atmosphere.
$650 million for coupons to help consumers convert their TV sets from analog to digital, part of the digital TV conversion.
$600 million to buy a new fleet of cars for federal employees and government departments.
$75 million to fund programs to help people quit smoking.
$21 million to re-sod the National Mall, which suffered heavy use during the Inauguration.
$2.25 billion for national parks. This item has sparked calls for an investigation, because the chief lobbyist of the National Parks Association is the son of Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wisc. The $2,25 billion is about equal to the National Park Service’s entire annual budget. The Washington Times reports it is a threefold increase over what was originally proposed for parks in the stimulus bill. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
$335 million for treatment and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. $4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The bill allows nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money, which means a substantial amount of it will be captured by ACORN, the controversial activist group currently under federal investigation for vote fraud. Another $750 million would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN – meaning cities and states are barred from receiving that money. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., charges the money could appear to be a “payoff” for the partisan political activities community groups in the last election cycle.
$44 million to renovate the headquarters building of the Agriculture Department.
$32 billion for a “smart electricity grid to minimize waste.
$87 billion of Medicaid funds, to aid states.
$53.4 billion for science facilities, high speed Internet, and miscellaneous energy and environmental programs.
$13 billion to repair and weatherize public housing, help the homeless, repair foreclosed homes.
$20 billion for quicker depreciation and write-offs for equipment.
$10.3 billion for tax credits to help families defray the cost of college tuition. $20 billion over five years for an expanded food stamp program.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/stimulus-pork-spending/2009/01/29/id/327981#ixzz2JJgECxFq

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 04:08 AM

BTW Bing before you try to defend that "stimulus" here are just a few of the pork projects that were included. These should explain why unemployment is still high and why taxpayers should not pay another cent in higher taxes

He can read your list but what I find to be ironic is if you look over your list of stimulus and ask yourself who the government cuts that check to, suddenly it may dawn on you that they cut checks to the rich.

Bear in mind just to contract with the Feds means you have plenty of money to pay for the job until at last you get paid by the Feds.

I have only studied how hard it is to get money from the Feds but learned over time that if you are very rich, you get it much more easily than say you are working class.

Not quite the same thing but when I owned my machine shop where I did some government work, i had to submit in like 6/8 copies approved certifications on even aluminum.

Get this.

Aluminum you use is normally stress relieved by stretching. They clamp bars of aluminum in a machine and pull on the bar and it relieves the stress.

I did a job that called for a unique aluminum alloy that the certifications had to stay on them that the metal was stress relieved by compressing.

This was for rocket parts to be launched by the Air Force. I made some parts for those rockets.

I was not able to locate that aluminum anywhere in teh SF Bay area and called alluminum compaines in Los Angeles who sold it to aerospace companies and In some days I finally got the shipment.

I want to point out the year and then the cost.
1969. Get this, and this was when machinist wages were very low.

We bought bars of aluminum that each weighed when put on the milling machine about 12 pounds. These were some fairly large chunks of aluminum. The bar stock was as I recall about 8 inches wide and about 3 inches thick.

When we finished machining each, we gutted the aluminum till it weighed about 10 oz. All the rest was scrap.

So what did Taxpayers pay me per piece?

It's been awhile but I believe I charged them about $550 per item. My men took something like 4 days to make each one. They were pretty intricate when finished. I would only be estimating a price today but clearly it would be many times that $550. What the hell all it was was taxpayers money. And we know the Feds act like they have an endless supply of money.

red states rule

01-28-2013, 04:15 AM

Your previous post reminded me of Obama's "Green" projects where taxpayers took a bath. More proof governemt does not ned more tax revenue - it needs to cut spending
Remember Solyndra? That’s where taxpayers lost hundreds of millions of dollars after the Obama administration handed out money and the company took it and went out of business.
But how about Evergreen Solar? Or Beacon Power? Or EnerDel subsidiary Ener1

They also took taxpayer money from the Obama administration for their “green” energy projects, and then filed for bankruptcy.
In fact, a new report from the Heritage Foundation (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/) says, “So far, 36 companies that have received federal support from taxpayers have either gone bankrupt or are laying off workers and are heading for bankruptcy.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-green-energy-handouts-costing-billions/#1lwllDUfMtFmll2U.99

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 06:33 AM

He didn't fix me, he taught me to verify. There weren't sites back then, I'm talking about '79 or '80.

You didn't like me mentioning topics? I'm sorry, isn't the name of this thread "ultimately, why id you choose your party?"

What does "not seeing gray" in an argument have to do with what job you have? I was talking about complexities of a subject. You know like Palestine=bad. Israel=good. That's a flat conservative view that ignores: Palestinians were there first and Israeli's sometimes shoot Palestinian children who throw rocks. There is no perfect good/bad, like black/white, there are grays.

I didn't call conservatives hateful.

Lastly, like I said on another post, I wasn't sure I wanted to have this fight in the first place. I just wanted to explain, like others did, where I got my opinions. I didn't write to be devisive.

'cites' as in citations. Believe it or not, sources counted even before the internet. As for the topics, you may not have noticed, but I was using 'the poor' as an example that the conservatives don't have a 'war' on them, quite to the contrary, they have a different opinion on what can help the poor get out of poverty; they don't think it's food stamps and such.

bingster

01-28-2013, 12:11 PM

While my church did back proposition 8, there is nothing wrong with them doing that.

Say, It is time for Jim to give you the Army sign as he finally did to me.

Can you tell us what elite unit you served with?

I believe I see both sides since i have been on both sides.

As I say over and over, my goal is to keep Democrats out. That normally means i support Republicans.

I am not a big fan of many terms I see tossed around. Like Neo Conservative. I have their history at hand. I know how they started and who the father of neo conservatism is.

I am not a fan of the term conservative or liberal.

A true liberal is not found in the Democrat party.

As to conservative, that seems to mean whatever a person claims it means. The words are almost without meaning.

I recall talking to a client from Ethiopia who holds a Ph.D and was educated up to Masters degree in the former Soviet Union. He got his Ph.D in Colorado and had planned to high tail it back to ethiopia until Selasie was killed. His brother was a Major General for Selasie and was put into house arrest. Jailed in his home surrounded by guards he was taken out a few times and lined up in front of a firing squad. They suddenly would put him back into his home. He endured that for years. When the politics again changed, he was released and lives in a state in the East Coast of the USA.

Anyway, he told me that Americans have no idea of what left and right actually means. Once he explained it to me, I believe he is correct. I also was friends with a man who was a Major in the Soviet Army who had his masters degree. He told me the same thing. Matter of fact he asked me to try to explain why America was headed down the path the Soviet Union was abandoning. He saw dangerous signs in the USA we were falling for the socialist nonsense.

Bear in mind that you and I were raised by hard core Democrats who saw as evil the rich and republicans. Mom never told me her opinion on Libertarians but I tend to think were she alive she would come down hard on them. I am probably one that believes very seriously that the constitution pretty well got it dead on. I think slavery approval in the constitution was a tragic error.

Still even so, I see that at least slaves had a steady job and a place to live and food to eat.

I have seen slave quarters at Mt Vernon and Monticello and noticed that the rich had slaves and since they cost a lot of money, tend to think that for the most part, they worked hard but in general were not beat all the time. Yet i don't dispute some owners did beat slaves.

Long Range Surveliance Detachment 2/10th at Fort Ord '84-'86. Most of the unit were Rangers, we were scuba trained, and spent some time training with the Special Forces in North Carolina. We weren't exactly Delta Force, but we stood tall among a fort full of "legs". We trained very hard on the beaches of Monterey and I felt a lot of pride. I actually, though, still give Marines more respect for their service than I think I deserve.

I understand what you mean when you compare conservative vs liberal in relation to Europe. Fascists and Soviet Socialists are much more extreme. I think though, when you read history, you have to keep conservative and liberal in mind. If you guy by party names only, U.S. history will twist your brain into knots. With many exceptions, I'll admit, typically conservatives have been rural and liberals have been urban going all the way back to the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Anti-federalists.

I'm not going there on slavery. I think they would have been better off home in Africa before they were taken as slaves.

bingster

01-28-2013, 12:18 PM

Your previous post reminded me of Obama's "Green" projects where taxpayers took a bath. More proof governemt does not ned more tax revenue - it needs to cut spending

36 out of 22,226 ain't half bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy/index.html

ConHog

01-28-2013, 12:24 PM

If I had my way the payroll deductions would go away and every month workers would write a check out for their Federal; taxes; state taxes; Social Security taxes, and all the other taxes that come out of their check. I am confident you would see such an outcry the politicians on both sides would make the cuts needed to balance the budget and cut taxes

That's actually not a bad idea , except that there would be so many bounced checks to the government that it wouldn't even be funny.

bingster

01-28-2013, 12:25 PM

BTW Bing before you try to defend that "stimulus" here are just a few of the pork projects that were included. These should explain why unemployment is still high and why taxpayers should not pay another cent in higher taxes

You got to do what you have to do to create jobs. All of those things pump money into the economy. Tax cuts to the job creators, while stimulative, is not as stimulative putting it straight into the demand side. The trickle down theory is Voodoo Economics. Job creators don't hire because they get a tax break. They hire because the 99% has more money to create demand. This isn't a "rich are evil" statement. It's a statement of fact that's been shown in studies just recently by the CBO and CRS.

bingster

01-28-2013, 12:27 PM

Who said anything about privatizing. I am pointing out the government takes in and wastes too much money; and people do not realize how much of their income is being taken by government. Look at that "stimulus" bill that was to put millions of people back to work. Pure pork and handouts to the unions

Sorry, my sense of humor does not translate to on-line very well. Maybe I'll use more of these. :laugh::dance:...woah, that's cool.

bingster

01-28-2013, 12:32 PM

BTW Bing before you try to defend that "stimulus" here are just a few of the pork projects that were included. These should explain why unemployment is still high and why taxpayers should not pay another cent in higher taxes

I am not an accountant and I don't trust a cherry picked list that contains political analysis. ACORN-like just means money going to agencies who take care of the poor. Rep's would say that's political. I would argue that any help to the poor is political-they aren't voting for you.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 12:38 PM

I beg to differ with you and agree with Conhog. That was exactly the thread I was thinking about. The arguments were, to put it nicely, at a very low standard.

I haven't read this entire thread yet, so not sure if you produced this yet or not, but if this is what conservatives think - can you produce legit proof that this is part of their platform?

ConHog

01-28-2013, 12:41 PM

I haven't read this entire thread yet, so not sure if you produced this yet or not, but if this is what conservatives think - can you produce legit proof that this is part of their platform?

conservatives don't have a platform, the Republican party does, and they don't represent the group who I am referring to when I say some , many, believe that the US was founded as a Christian Nation.

Actually, I would argue that at least half the people in that particular thread screaming that we were founded as such are not conservatives, even though they claim they are.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 12:44 PM

conservatives don't have a platform, the Republican party does, and they don't represent the group who I am referring to when I say some , many, believe that the US was founded as a Christian Nation.

Actually, I would argue that at least half the people in that particular thread screaming that we were founded as such are not conservatives, even though they claim they are.

Then show bonafide proof that conservatives OR the GOP see the USA as a "christian nation". Founded - and IS - are 2 different things, as I said to begin with.

bingster

01-28-2013, 12:57 PM

Yes, I knew the Southern Strategy was code for accusation of racism by modern democrats/liberals that are now placing such blame on Republicans. . So you are told of an accusation of racism and believe it without any verifiable proof.
You do realize back then it was the Southern democrats that were dead set against civil rights or didn't your dad/school teach you that?-Tyr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Just read about it, there's plenty of proof. I'm not old enough to remember it's beginnings, but there's also an Atwater link out there that surfaced recently that not only describes it, it interprets the racial coding.

As I've mentioned in many posts. You are confusing Democrats with Liberal. Conservative Democrats that are now Republican were dead set against civil rights.

You're ruthless with the "dad" references. I showed bravery in exposing a little about my history and you satisfy your teenage fetish in poking me for it. Want to get in a "My dad's better than your dad fight?"

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 01:03 PM

We have a long running thread here, that perhaps the nation was FOUNDED in Christianity, but you won't find many conservatives claiming "this is a Christian country". But I'll reserve further judgment - can you post for me a credible link to where conservatives have this stance?

That may have been the intent of the thread, but the post were red-blooded evangelist. See also the thread that practically called for the extermination of Islam

Some very well probably believe America is a Christian nation. Some probably believe Islam should be exterminated. Neither of that means that conservatives as a whole, or republicans, believe the same. A few threads hardly speak for millions.

Nothing really wrong if someone chooses to use that phrase, but there is if someone is told to use that phrase. And every mention of it starts to disappear from stores. The word Christmas used to be every other word you would read, everywhere you went. Now it's disappearing. Not just on public property, but as many places as I can think of, the nativity scenes have disappeared. A "war"? I don't think I would be labeling it that harshly, but without a doubt there has been a desire to "not offend" people with Christmas related things and Jesus - while everything and anything else IS allowed, for fear of offending anyone else. You would need to be nearing blindness and deafness to not see how much it's changed in the past 30 years or so. This same level of "make it politically correct" is not given to other religions.

My experience with that term is from being asked to use it in stores. How do I know if my customers celebrate Christmans, Chanuka, or Kwansa. Let me ask you, Would you mind if a retail cashier wished you a "Happy Chanuka"? Now, maybe you would be OK with it, maybe you wouldn't but I know my conservative brother-in-law might pop her in the jaw. Yes, life has changed since then and I'm not one of those people who would resent a nativity scene. But ask those on your side of the aisle if they would mind a star of david on top of a hill, or a muslim scene at a city hall. If they truly don't mind those things then they are more enlightened than I thought.

You're keying solely on a greeting when it is SO much more than that. The Christmas tree in some parts is now a "holiday tree". Many Christmas songs are now banned from school. Stores that sell Christmas things no longer have the word everywhere. Christmas caroling is now considered harassment to many. There used to be about 3,000 Christmas cartoons and shows every year, now I have trouble finding any. But lets get to the main point - what is CHRISTmas - because that's the part that is being taken apart, the religious aspect, and that's exactly what the day is about!

Really? And where does this leave those that think politics shouldn't be involved here to begin with?

I don't know what you mean about that. The Mormons made proposition 8 here in California. I always thought tax-free religious institutions were supposed to be non-political. My point in this matter is that it's a position held only based on faith and feelings. Sure, you could make a silly semantic argument about what "marriage" means, but that wouldn't be productive. That is what my original post was about.

My point was that you were making blanket statements about how all republican/conservatives feel, based solely on rhetoric. But I will give you this one. Primarily, the Republican party is against gay marriage. But I think it goes a lot deeper than solely an emotion.

Lots of smack talking towards conservatives that you know very little about. That's the problem with crappy rhetoric, politics and peoples stances are not a one size fits all. Personally, I have a problem with scumbags that would burn our flag. Call me nuts. I don't have a problem with someone burning a Quran. But the right to do so to both is protected by our constitution

\I'm with you regarding the flag and would be tempted to call them scumbags myself. I trained in a highly elite unit to fight for my country and a flag means more to me than to some others. But, like you, I believe the constitution protects the practice.

I'm not without principles because I see both sides of the story. Again, I've said much of the conservative rhetoric is black and white. I don't think most conservatives see both sides all of the time. I'm also not saying they are the only ones like that. This is why this is a great forum and you are doing a hell of a job running it.

I'll be honest, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they made it illegal to burn Old Glory. I DO think it goes against our freedoms of speech/expression, but if there's any one thing that deserves protection, as if it were real, it would be our Flag which has been there since day 1.

:flyflag:

Marcus Aurelius

01-28-2013, 01:21 PM

...I'll be honest, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they made it illegal to burn Old Glory. I DO think it goes against our freedoms of speech/expression, but if there's any one thing that deserves protection, as if it were real, it would be our Flag which has been there since day 1.

:flyflag:

With exceptions for the normal retiring of a flag in accordance with current flag code, right?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30243.pdf

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for
display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

The act is silent on procedures for burning a flag. It would seem that any
procedure which is in good taste and shows no disrespect to the flag would be
appropriate. The Flag Protection Act of 1989,38 struck down albeit on grounds
unrelated to this specific point,39 prohibited inter alia “knowingly” burning of a flag
of the United States, but excepted from prohibition “any conduct consisting of
disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.”

I've personally burned many flags, in a dignified and respectful manner, as part of flag retirement ceremonies with the Boy Scouts.

Unlike these flags left over from Obama's Denver convention.

http://www.bloggernews.net/117648

http://www.bloggernews.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/flags.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/SMMpFv0FPbI/AAAAAAAAVv4/6rDk055EQ7k/s400/obama%252Btrash.JPG

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 01:22 PM

^^ I take no issue with a flag being retired appropriately

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:34 PM

Yes, I knew the Southern Strategy was code for accusation of racism by modern democrats/liberals that are now placing such blame on Republicans. . So you are told of an accusation of racism and believe it without any verifiable proof.
You do realize back then it was the Southern democrats that were dead set against civil rights or didn't your dad/school teach you that?-Tyr

Here's a clip of Lee Atwater and for further reading try any two books about Nixon, even some by Nixon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

The party did flip from north to south and vice versa. Some don't believe it, but I don't think it takes much imagination to wonder: Do you think the whole Confederacy moved north and the Union Yankees moved south? Do you really think the people changed places or did the party name change places? Aren't proud fliers of the Confederate Flag Republicans? The political tool for this phenomena is called "the southern strategy."

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:45 PM

Then show bonafide proof that conservatives OR the GOP see the USA as a "christian nation". Founded - and IS - are 2 different things, as I said to begin with.

I'm not finding a whole lot right now, but here's a survey in which the question is "Do you think America is a Christian nation?"-it's down to 67% 4 years ago.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/06/one-nation-under-god.html
During the past election other politicians came out saying that they govern by their beliefs and that "All that I have learned regarding the Big Bang theory, evolution, and embryology are all lies from hell". He's on the House's science committee and went on to pronounce that the world is only 6000 years old.

I'll come up with better ones. They're not hard to find, they just don't all identify themselves out loud as Republicans or GOP-I don't think it's a secret, though.

Google video for "America is a Christian Country"-not "founded", "is" and you'll find all kinds of links.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 01:49 PM

I'm not finding a whole lot right now, but here's a survey in which the question is "Do you think America is a Christian nation?"-it's down to 67% 4 years ago.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/06/one-nation-under-god.html
During the past election other politicians came out saying that they govern by their beliefs and that "All that I have learned regarding the Big Bang theory, evolution, and embryology are all lies from hell". He's on the House's science committee and went on to pronounce that the world is only 6000 years old.

I'll come up with better ones. They're not hard to find, they just don't all identify themselves out loud as Republicans or GOP-I don't think it's a secret, though.

Google video for "America is a Christian Country"-not "founded", "is" and you'll find all kinds of links.

A poll, which likely spoke to less than 1000 people, can't speak for 350 million people. I'd also like to see the line of questioning and such. But regardless, I don't see where that points out specifically conservatives, it looked more to me to be a poll of all of Americans. So whatever was found out in that poll, was not a conservative standing.

ConHog

01-28-2013, 01:55 PM

Then show bonafide proof that conservatives OR the GOP see the USA as a "christian nation". Founded - and IS - are 2 different things, as I said to begin with.

I just said that I don't think the GOP thinks that, and in fact I even said I think the ones who do claim it only claim to be conservatives. So , you're asking me to prove something I don't believe.

Tantamount to you asking me to prove that conservatives want the government to keep gay marriage illegal, when in fact I have said MANY times that those who think the government has a role in marriage are NOT conservatives, no matter what they claim.

bingster

01-28-2013, 01:58 PM

Some very well probably believe America is a Christian nation. Some probably believe Islam should be exterminated. Neither of that means that conservatives as a whole, or republicans, believe the same. A few threads hardly speak for millions.

You're keying solely on a greeting when it is SO much more than that. The Christmas tree in some parts is now a "holiday tree". Many Christmas songs are now banned from school. Stores that sell Christmas things no longer have the word everywhere. Christmas caroling is now considered harassment to many. There used to be about 3,000 Christmas cartoons and shows every year, now I have trouble finding any. But lets get to the main point - what is CHRISTmas - because that's the part that is being taken apart, the religious aspect, and that's exactly what the day is about!

I agree that some of that is ridiculous (the holiday tree part), some of it may be ratings (a change in demographics may make Christmas shows less popular-if they get ratings, they will be produced and shown), and some of this my be the "war" part by outspoken atheists and non-Christians. I think, though, the commercializing and forgetting the point of Christmas, has more to do with the mighty buck than a push-back against Christmas.

My point was that you were making blanket statements about how all republican/conservatives feel, based solely on rhetoric. But I will give you this one. Primarily, the Republican party is against gay marriage. But I think it goes a lot deeper than solely an emotion.

I'll admit, the easiest way to make a point is to make a blanket statement. Everyone on this forum does that from time to time. But, again, I had to make such statements to get to the heart of my liberal roots.

I'll be honest, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they made it illegal to burn Old Glory. I DO think it goes against our freedoms of speech/expression, but if there's any one thing that deserves protection, as if it were real, it would be our Flag which has been there since day 1.

:flyflag:

Amen to that, brother!

:clap:

bingster

01-28-2013, 02:00 PM

A poll, which likely spoke to less than 1000 people, can't speak for 350 million people. I'd also like to see the line of questioning and such. But regardless, I don't see where that points out specifically conservatives, it looked more to me to be a poll of all of Americans. So whatever was found out in that poll, was not a conservative standing.

ok, i'll work on it

bingster

01-28-2013, 02:13 PM

ok, i'll work on it

You know what, you have me chasing my tail. They don't have to say this is a Christian nation, they only have to legislate like it is. The gay rights issue is all religion and nothing else. Only the Christian Republicans want prayer in school. Which party or religion wants to teach "intelligent design" right next to, or instead of evolution in the science class?

I'm not going to prove that all Republicans do or believe anything, just like you can't prove the same within the Democratic party. This all goes back to my original post that, with many exceptions, Republicans base their beliefs on faith and not facts.

ConHog

01-28-2013, 02:18 PM

You know what, you have me chasing my tail. They don't have to say this is a Christian nation, they only have to legislate like it is. The gay rights issue is all religion and nothing else. Only the Christian Republicans want prayer in school. Which party or religion wants to teach "intelligent design" right next to, or instead of evolution in the science class?

I'm not going to prove that all Republicans do or believe anything, just like you can't prove the same within the Democratic party. This all goes back to my original post that, with many exceptions, Republicans base their beliefs on faith and not facts.

I agree with you on gay rights. I disagree with you on the others.

Prayer in school. Generally speaking a teacher isn't going to lead a class in prayer unless at least the majority of the students are interested in doing. Why can't those who either they or their kids don't want to just tell their kids that's fine, just sit there and shut the fuck up , you know be respectful?

As for evolution, it is no more or no less of a THEORY than evolution. Why can't a school teach competing theories on ANY subject and let kids decide on their own?

In short , why can't people just live and let live?

cadet

01-28-2013, 02:27 PM

You know what, you have me chasing my tail. They don't have to say this is a Christian nation, they only have to legislate like it is. The gay rights issue is all religion and nothing else. Only the Christian Republicans want prayer in school. Which party or religion wants to teach "intelligent design" right next to, or instead of evolution in the science class?

I'm not going to prove that all Republicans do or believe anything, just like you can't prove the same within the Democratic party. This all goes back to my original post that, with many exceptions, Republicans base their beliefs on faith and not facts.

I want you to imagine being a teacher and telling a Muslim to stop praying to allah cause they're not allowed to.
Hint hint, teachers are trained not to. All Christians want is the same treatment.

ConHog

01-28-2013, 02:28 PM

I want you to imagine being a teacher and telling a Muslim to stop praying to allah cause they're not allowed to.
Hint hint, teachers are trained not to. All Christians want is the same treatment.

untrue, a student can pray all they want at school , at appropriate times of course, regardless of their religion.

Teachers are not trained to allow certain religions to be practiced at school LOL.

bingster

01-28-2013, 02:29 PM

I would say point 1 is misunderstood. The 1st amendment is designed to prevent Government from interfering in religion. The key word is interfere. As to the nature of the country? Back when it was founded, clearly the founders in general were Christian. Not all, but in general. But they were clever enough to take that issue off the table.

As I bottom-lined what I meant when I responded to Jim, some Republicans push a Christian agenda, whether they call the nation Christian or not. Prayer in school; teaching intelligent design along with or instead of evolution in science class; and the gay issue are all Christian issues that aren't based on facts, but are based mostly on faith.

We all realize that the founders did not believe the Catholics were correct. But they did not prevent Catholics from showing up. When i grew up, Christmas was eagerly celebrated in grade school though in High school it meant we could escape school work. At no time did I see Jews protest nor others seeking to celebrate something else. i dunno, but those were happy times for me. Notice that even Obama puts up lots of Christmas trees in the White house. He realizes what is going on here.

Are you appointing yourself the advocate for homosexuals? Please, if you want me to listen, I prefer the term gay is disposed with. Gay as I grew up meant happy. Clearly your message is not happy.

What does a homosexual marriage to to my marriage? My question is why you crave marriage when you don't want the opposite sex as your spouse? Seems to me what you want is something other than marriage. What effect does our marriages have on you? Do we have such a good deal you think it is better than your deal? I would think if homosexuals started out saying they want contract rights and feel something needs to be done for them, most of us would listen. But one way to close our minds is to say GAY and to tell us we have a better deal than you have.

Whatever you call them, these people want equal protections under the law and that includes marriage. SCOTUS will rule soon.

I paid for my flags. What makes you think one can't burn flags? My flags are personal property just as my socks, shoes and trousers are.

I have a confederate flag. Do you desire by law I burn the flag? Do you want a law making us all burn our confederate flags?

If you burn your flags, I don't wish anybody pass judgement on you nor try to prevent you from doing as you wish.

I never said you couldn't or could burn flags. The wish to forbid burning flags come from the Republican party. I wouldn't burn an American flag personally.

bingster

01-28-2013, 02:31 PM

I want you to imagine being a teacher and telling a Muslim to stop praying to allah cause they're not allowed to.
Hint hint, teachers are trained not to. All Christians want is the same treatment.

Kind of a weak point. It doesn't have anything to do with kids praying between classes or at lunches. The prayer in school issue is to actually put aside class time for prayer. This is not an equality issue.

Marcus Aurelius

01-28-2013, 02:32 PM

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bingster http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=612322#post612322)
I'm not finding a whole lot right now, but here's a survey in which the question is "Do you think America is a Christian nation?"-it's down to 67% 4 years ago.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...under-god.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/04/06/one-nation-under-god.html)
During the past election other politicians came out saying that they govern by their beliefs and that "All that I have learned regarding the Big Bang theory, evolution, and embryology are all lies from hell". He's on the House's science committee and went on to pronounce that the world is only 6000 years old.

I'll come up with better ones. They're not hard to find, they just don't all identify themselves out loud as Republicans or GOP-I don't think it's a secret, though.

Google video for "America is a Christian Country"-not "founded", "is" and you'll find all kinds of links.

A poll, which likely spoke to less than 1000 people, can't speak for 350 million people. I'd also like to see the line of questioning and such. But regardless, I don't see where that points out specifically conservatives, it looked more to me to be a poll of all of Americans. So whatever was found out in that poll, was not a conservative standing.

His source specifically states 'Americans', not 'Conservatives'. So, it proves nothing regarding his comments about Conservatives. But he knew that when he posted it. He just hoped no one would bother to look at it too closely.

cadet

01-28-2013, 02:34 PM

untrue, a student can pray all they want at school , at appropriate times of course, regardless of their religion.

Teachers are not trained to allow certain religions to be practiced at school LOL.

http://skinnyreporter.com/schoolbans.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196794/CoE-school-pupil-banned-wearing-crucifix-Sikh-pupils-allowed-wear-bangles.html

http://www.gazette.com/articles/school-105857-springs-cross.html

ConHog

01-28-2013, 02:35 PM

Kind of a weak point. It doesn't have anything to do with kids praying between classes or at lunches. The prayer in school issue is to actually put aside class time for prayer. This is not an equality issue.

You're wrong to. A teacher can certainly set aside prayer time in class.

What they can NOT do is lead that prayer.

They can't lead prayer at any school event. students can pray at any even they like.

aboutime

01-28-2013, 02:36 PM

His source specifically states 'Americans', not 'Conservatives'. So, it proves nothing regarding his comments about Conservatives. But he knew that when he posted it. He just hoped no one would bother to look at it too closely.

Marcus. Like everything else that comes from the Left. What they "DON'T SAY" intentionally, is usually more accurate when it comes to polls..
Considering the various, and countless sources that are So supportive of Obama, and Democrats.

Who is surprised?

ConHog

01-28-2013, 02:36 PM

http://skinnyreporter.com/schoolbans.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196794/CoE-school-pupil-banned-wearing-crucifix-Sikh-pupils-allowed-wear-bangles.html

http://www.gazette.com/articles/school-105857-springs-cross.html

AH, I did not say some schools weren't doing things on their own. I said the COURTS have ruled that students can pray at school.

Those schools in your examples are stupid. Has nothing to do with what I said.

bingster

01-28-2013, 02:40 PM

I agree with you on gay rights. I disagree with you on the others.

Prayer in school. Generally speaking a teacher isn't going to lead a class in prayer unless at least the majority of the students are interested in doing. Why can't those who either they or their kids don't want to just tell their kids that's fine, just sit there and shut the fuck up , you know be respectful?

As for evolution, it is no more or no less of a THEORY than evolution. Why can't a school teach competing theories on ANY subject and let kids decide on their own?

In short , why can't people just live and let live?

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's a belief based on faith. It's a belief according to Genesis. Faith is not science.

A theory is based on scientific study. And, as far as theories go, the only way to ever prove evolution is to go back in time and watch the monkey turn into a human. With that said, however, evolution principles have been scientifically proven in real time by observing present time species. The point here, though, this is science. Faith belongs with faith and science belongs with science.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 02:41 PM

Long Range Surveliance Detachment 2/10th at Fort Ord '84-'86. Most of the unit were Rangers, we were scuba trained, and spent some time training with the Special Forces in North Carolina. We weren't exactly Delta Force, but we stood tall among a fort full of "legs". We trained very hard on the beaches of Monterey and I felt a lot of pride. I actually, though, still give Marines more respect for their service than I think I deserve.

I understand what you mean when you compare conservative vs liberal in relation to Europe. Fascists and Soviet Socialists are much more extreme. I think though, when you read history, you have to keep conservative and liberal in mind. If you guy by party names only, U.S. history will twist your brain into knots. With many exceptions, I'll admit, typically conservatives have been rural and liberals have been urban going all the way back to the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Anti-federalists.

I'm not going there on slavery. I think they would have been better off home in Africa before they were taken as slaves.

I started training at Ft. Ord 16 Feb 62 (date format because I was a company clerk in Germany in a HQ/HQ unit, 1st Bn 30th Infantry, 3rd Division for part ot the time then TDY to the airfield where I was till sent to Ft. Dix for discharge) and had basic and leadership at the academy by Monterey, CA followed by a leader job in AIT) so I know the area very well. From Ft. Ord I was appointed group leader over 140 men and we all went by train to Ft Benning for jump school. Did go to jump school since you mentioned legs which is a Airborne term? We used that term in 1962. If you were at Ft. Benning, no doubt you recall the PT test prior to starting school. I aced that test in spades till I got to the pull up part. At Ft. Ord that was not something they had us do despite pull up bars being by the mess hall if memory serves me.

Anyway I got, i believe just short of the 4 pull ups they required. Some will snort and say, only 4?

They never did Airborne pull ups or they were superman. You have to do those puppies to appreciate them. I came to Benning as the group leader and you can imagine the embarassment failing the pull ups caused me. I appealed to one of the Sgts who I thought might help and he said tough shit. I went to see the CO and he was no help. I went to see OCS but could not locate anybody there at the time I went. My plan was to join OCS. Nothing worked. I noticed by the mess hall a bulletin board and on it the guys that quit Airborne got assigned to either Korea or to Europe. I kept track for a couple of days and we from the West Coast got sent to Europe. I quit Airborne and ended up in Germany. My plan had worked. You volunteered and I was drafted. Being obligated to only 2 years gives you a perspective that the volunteers don't ordinarily have. And i admit some get very gung ho and do what you did. I must have had enough gung ho in me since I signed up for AirBorne. The lecture to go to OCS was at the same time as was AirBorne. I actually went in planning to go to OCS and be in the Army for just short of 3 years. I had no idea that there was a time limit to go to OCS. I went to the main post and tried to sign up for OCS when still at Ft. Ord. A Major informed me he wanted me but I had showed up too late. He said my orders to Ft.Benning had been cut. Well, I figured at Ft. Benning I could still go to OCS. The CO at Ft. Benning said to me, well no, you can't sign up since you are on trainng status and you must next volunteer for OCS at a regular duty station. Anyway, it was sure a mess and I ended up in Germany and immediately told my CO there I wanted to return to Georgia to OCS. He gave me a rigamarole story that I had to wait for a top secret clearance and it would take 6 months or so. I said screw that and did my time.

Did you travel outside the USA when you were in?

I listened recently to a highly educated man from Nigeria on CSPAN and he said to the audience that slaves could blame Africans for capturing them and selling them. He said in Africa slaves was part of business.

Also bear in mind that the poor did not own slaves. And there was no more reason to mistreat slaves than there is to mistreat livestock. A few do mistreat their horses but it makes no sense to disable slaves with whippings for the majority of them. If a slave was whipped and they were, it more than likely scared the rest who then did their work and put up no resistance. 12 presidents owned slaves and as far as I can find out, none were alleged to mistreat slaves.

This is not an argument in favor of slavery. Rather it is an argument that we know that many slaves had food, clothes, shelter and of course a job.

I felt, when I was in the Army that we were used as slaves. Sure they fed us, sheltered us and so forth. But can Shit on a Shingle be decent food? Would you order it at some restaurant?

Even fast food operations won't offer it. But we had it.

ConHog

01-28-2013, 02:41 PM

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's a belief based on faith. It's a belief according to Genesis. Faith is not science.

A theory is based on scientific study. And, as far as theories go, the only way to ever prove evolution is to go back in time and watch the monkey turn into a human. With that said, however, evolution principles have been scientifically proven in real time by observing present time species. The point here, though, this is science. Faith belongs with faith and science belongs with science.

Why didn't you address the portion of my quote that had to do with prayer in school?

bingster

01-28-2013, 02:44 PM

His source specifically states 'Americans', not 'Conservatives'. So, it proves nothing regarding his comments about Conservatives. But he knew that when he posted it. He just hoped no one would bother to look at it too closely.

I wasn't trying to hide anything. Really, do you think that if 67% of Americans think our country is Christian, that most of this 67% is Democrat? Really?

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 02:53 PM

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's a belief based on faith. It's a belief according to Genesis. Faith is not science.

A theory is based on scientific study. And, as far as theories go, the only way to ever prove evolution is to go back in time and watch the monkey turn into a human. With that said, however, evolution principles have been scientifically proven in real time by observing present time species. The point here, though, this is science. Faith belongs with faith and science belongs with science.

Abiogenesis always gets mixed up in talks about evolution. Evolution takes place. Genesis is not about that, it is about abiogenesis but told by ancients. They speak of the appearance of Adam but recall that early on they mentioned other tribes.

Faith has created many wonderful things. To suppose the universe appeared one fine day and it was just some strange process is very unscientific to me. I believe GOD created the universe and made it possible for the animal and plant and other life forms to show up on Earth.

bingster

01-28-2013, 03:00 PM

I started training at Ft. Ord 16 Feb 62 (date format because I was a company clerk in Germany in a HQ/HQ unit, 1st Bn 30th Infantry, 3rd Division for part ot the time then TDY to the airfield where I was till sent to Ft. Dix for discharge) and had basic and leadership at the academy by Monterey, CA followed by a leader job in AIT) so I know the area very well. From Ft. Ord I was appointed group leader over 140 men and we all went by train to Ft Benning for jump school. Did go to jump school since you mentioned legs which is a Airborne term? We used that term in 1962. If you were at Ft. Benning, no doubt you recall the PT test prior to starting school. I aced that test in spades till I got to the pull up part. At Ft. Ord that was not something they had us do despite pull up bars being by the mess hall if memory serves me.

Anyway I got, i believe just short of the 4 pull ups they required. Some will snort and say, only 4?

They never did Airborne pull ups or they were superman. You have to do those puppies to appreciate them. I came to Benning as the group leader and you can imagine the embarassment failing the pull ups caused me. I appealed to one of the Sgts who I thought might help and he said tough shit. I went to see the CO and he was no help. I went to see OCS but could not locate anybody there at the time I went. My plan was to join OCS. Nothing worked. I noticed by the mess hall a bulletin board and on it the guys that quit Airborne got assigned to either Korea or to Europe. I kept track for a couple of days and we from the West Coast got sent to Europe. I quit Airborne and ended up in Germany. My plan had worked. You volunteered and I was drafted. Being obligated to only 2 years gives you a perspective that the volunteers don't ordinarily have. And i admit some get very gung ho and do what you did. I must have had enough gung ho in me since I signed up for AirBorne. The lecture to go to OCS was at the same time as was AirBorne. I actually went in planning to go to OCS and be in the Army for just short of 3 years. I had no idea that there was a time limit to go to OCS. I went to the main post and tried to sign up for OCS when still at Ft. Ord. A Major informed me he wanted me but I had showed up too late. He said my orders to Ft.Benning had been cut. Well, I figured at Ft. Benning I could still go to OCS. The CO at Ft. Benning said to me, well no, you can't sign up since you are on trainng status and you must next volunteer for OCS at a regular duty station. Anyway, it was sure a mess and I ended up in Germany and immediately told my CO there I wanted to return to Georgia to OCS. He gave me a rigamarole story that I had to wait for a top secret clearance and it would take 6 months or so. I said screw that and did my time.

Did you travel outside the USA when you were in?

I listened recently to a highly educated man from Nigeria on CSPAN and he said to the audience that slaves could blame Africans for capturing them and selling them. He said in Africa slaves was part of business.

Also bear in mind that the poor did not own slaves. And there was no more reason to mistreat slaves than there is to mistreat livestock. A few do mistreat their horses but it makes no sense to disable slaves with whippings for the majority of them. If a slave was whipped and they were, it more than likely scared the rest who then did their work and put up no resistance. 12 presidents owned slaves and as far as I can find out, none were alleged to mistreat slaves.

This is not an argument in favor of slavery. Rather it is an argument that we know that many slaves had food, clothes, shelter and of course a job.

I felt, when I was in the Army that we were used as slaves. Sure they fed us, sheltered us and so forth. But can Shit on a Shingle be decent food? Would you order it at some restaurant?

Even fast food operations won't offer it. But we had it.

Thank you for your story and thank you for your service.

I wanted to get out of California, but was stationed at Ft. Ord after basic in SC, AIT in GA, and jump school at your favorite place Ft. Benning. Loved rolling around all sweaty in the worm pits! :)

Spent almost 2 years in Ft. Ord and had a ball. They sent us to Hawaii twice just to jump out of the plane.
After that I was sent to Korea to be attached to an attack helicopter company. It was a leg unit so I shined bright as a penny among the others and did well. I would have re-enlisted had I not gotten married at home.

After four years, I tried the Reserves but it wasn't for me. The armour didn't seem to know a flash suppressor from a blank suppressor.- He actually didn't! I had to explain why after you shoot the blank, it doesn't recharge to fire again without a blank suppressor.
After 4 years of Airborne Army radio operating I was taught to be a water purification specialist (Have you seen the Pauli Shore movie?). A few months later, sick of turd-herding I asked my C.O. go into the inactive reserve. I did.

A month later Desert Storm started and I actually saw my 1st Sergeant waving "hello" from the near east!

bingster

01-28-2013, 03:02 PM

Abiogenesis always gets mixed up in talks about evolution. Evolution takes place. Genesis is not about that, it is about abiogenesis but told by ancients. They speak of the appearance of Adam but recall that early on they mentioned other tribes.

Faith has created many wonderful things. To suppose the universe appeared one fine day and it was just some strange process is very unscientific to me. I believe GOD created the universe and made it possible for the animal and plant and other life forms to show up on Earth.

I'm not disputing you at all. I wouldn't dream of insulting Christianity either. One is science though, and one is not.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 03:05 PM

I wasn't trying to hide anything. Really, do you think that if 67% of Americans think our country is Christian, that most of this 67% is Democrat? Really?

I can't speak for all religions as to political parties but in the mid 1990s I did a study using published figures to find out what parties were Evangelists. I worked hard on that study so I recall the figures. About 55 percent of Evangelists are republicans and 45 percent are Democrats. I have no clue why some suppose democrats are not in organized religion.

bingster

01-28-2013, 03:11 PM

Why didn't you address the portion of my quote that had to do with prayer in school?

I'm getting confused reponding to so many posts. Are you referring to the SC ruling? I didn't know it ruled that way, I missed that. I thought prayer in school was still an unfinished issue.

Or were you talking about "In short , why can't people just live and let live". I agree with that, it's my credo too.

bingster

01-28-2013, 03:15 PM

I can't speak for all religions as to political parties but in the mid 1990s I did a study using published figures to find out what parties were Evangelists. I worked hard on that study so I recall the figures. About 55 percent of Evangelists are republicans and 45 percent are Democrats. I have no clue why some suppose democrats are not in organized religion.

Good information and I appreciate that. I could also, however, include that the separation of Church and State is much more important to Democrats than to Republicans. I suspect that most of that 67% is Republican.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 03:24 PM

Good information and I appreciate that. I could also, however, include that the separation of Church and State is much more important to Democrats than to Republicans. I suspect that most of that 67% is Republican.

Can you articulate how Republicans are against the separation?

bingster

01-28-2013, 03:38 PM

Marcus. Like everything else that comes from the Left. What they "DON'T SAY" intentionally, is usually more accurate when it comes to polls..
Considering the various, and countless sources that are So supportive of Obama, and Democrats.

Who is surprised?

Even the Fox News poll said Obama was going to win the election, but Fox News pundits pushed your line regarding polls. Even the Bureau of Labor and Statistics was accuse of being at Obama's mercy.

There are plenty of polls generous to Republicans: Gallup, Rassmussen, and of course anything from the NRA or the Heritage Foundation.-the list does go on and on...

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-28-2013, 03:45 PM

I did some thinking back.... and this is an honest answer. It may seem a little odd, but it's honest.

I wasn't always so certain about my political beliefs. I'd like to say I recognized the truth early on, but I didn't. Like Bingster, I was influenced by my teachers and professors.

I knew Jimmy Carter was a loser, but the backlash against Reagan also impacted me. I did feel a certain draw towards Reagan, but it was with trepidation I drew nearer.

So if not Reagan, who was it that drew me to conservatism?

In an age before cable tv took off, exposure to conservatism was EXTREMELY limited. Once in a while on PBS there was Bill Buckley, but that was not a regular exposure.

It was Jerry Falwell. He used to buy blocks of television time and speak extensively on both religion and politics. His homespun charm and wisdom, and his common sense won me over. He inspired me to look deeper, and I did, and I found the truth.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

You being unafraid to repeat the truth to others rates highly in my book...:salute:-Tyr
Far too many are PC and will not do so!

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 03:53 PM

Thank you for your story and thank you for your service.

I wanted to get out of California, but was stationed at Ft. Ord after basic in SC, AIT in GA, and jump school at your favorite place Ft. Benning. Loved rolling around all sweaty in the worm pits! :)

Spent almost 2 years in Ft. Ord and had a ball. They sent us to Hawaii twice just to jump out of the plane.
After that I was sent to Korea to be attached to an attack helicopter company. It was a leg unit so I shined bright as a penny among the others and did well. I would have re-enlisted had I not gotten married at home.

After four years, I tried the Reserves but it wasn't for me. The armour didn't seem to know a flash suppressor from a blank suppressor.- He actually didn't! I had to explain why after you shoot the blank, it doesn't recharge to fire again without a blank suppressor.
After 4 years of Airborne Army radio operating I was taught to be a water purification specialist (Have you seen the Pauli Shore movie?). A few months later, sick of turd-herding I asked my C.O. go into the inactive reserve. I did.

A month later Desert Storm started and I actually saw my 1st Sergeant waving "hello" from the near east!

When I was at Ft. Benning, it was summer and I stayed there for a lot longer than I wanted to stay. It was very humid. I hated the enormous cock roaches and this inspite of tanker trucks spraying the jump school area to kill them. Those suckers should have been harnessed to wagons. LOL I wish I had my 201 file and may ask records to send it to me. I would know the precise date I got to Ft. Benning and I do recall I left there in October. Some guy was accused of stealing from the other guys and I had been told to stay at Ft. Benning to testify at his court martial. They may have got him to plead guilty or dropped the charges since suddenly I was told I was going to Ft. Dix. There I departed from McGuire AFB to Rhein Mein in Frankfurt. I got assigned to my unit in Schweinfurt while at Frankfurt. I have not seen the Pauli Shore film.

We had some M-60 tanks assigned to my HQ unit but I never was in one. I did get a chance to drive an APC one day and went out from the post to a field and raised hell with some trees. That was very bad I was told. Seems the Germans got a lot of money for a destroyed tree.

I would not know about firing blanks from tanks. I came home and was assigned to a reserve unit and showed up one day in Sunnyvale, CA to report. They were all dicking around and It looked to me like a major fubar. I got back in my car and came home. I later got orders to show for summer training but I was then working in construction and did not report. I then got orders to show up for a make up summer camp but sent letters to my Senator since as a HQ Co Clerk I knew the power of Senators.

I got orders from 6th Army to be reduced in rank one grade and something else... probably orders to show up again. I tossed that paper long ago.

I got a call from my Senator who told my wife who took the call he fixed the "Army problerm."

Believe it or not, I got orders from a 6th Army General restoring my rank and removing me from the active reserve obligation. I served no time in reserves. I got the discharge per schedule and put it in my past. I am so happy I had been a HQ company clerk. I had the tools to fight the Army.

How did you repare to do the 4 pull ups? Maybe they changed how they did them and of course most of the guys I was with passed them. I simply was not doing pull ups at Ft. Ord though when I got to Benning, I did pull ups trying to prepare for the pull ups. I did not have enough time to get that last pull up done. When we did the pull ups, we had to get the bar to our chest. Most pull ups are to the chin. Do it to the chest and it is a killer. (I speak only of the Airborne pull ups)

bingster

01-28-2013, 04:30 PM

Can you articulate how Republicans are against the separation?

It's always a conservative that articulates that the 1st amendment is to keep government from interfering with churches and does not attempt to express a separation. It's always a conservative who researches his tail off to prove that the founders wanted us to be a Christian country. There are the Jefferson deniers who say that he never intended a separation of church and state. And as I've articulated before, Republican leaders have attempted to legislate a Christian agenda-DOMA, prayer in school, teach creationism along with evolution, etc...
Here's a link that firmly asserts our Christian Country.

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm

bingster

01-28-2013, 04:37 PM

When I was at Ft. Benning, it was summer and I stayed there for a lot longer than I wanted to stay. It was very humid. I hated the enormous cock roaches and this inspite of tanker trucks spraying the jump school area to kill them. Those suckers should have been harnessed to wagons. LOL I wish I had my 201 file and may ask records to send it to me. I would know the precise date I got to Ft. Benning and I do recall I left there in October. Some guy was accused of stealing from the other guys and I had been told to stay at Ft. Benning to testify at his court martial. They may have got him to plead guilty or dropped the charges since suddenly I was told I was going to Ft. Dix. There I departed from McGuire AFB to Rhein Mein in Frankfurt. I got assigned to my unit in Schweinfurt while at Frankfurt. I have not seen the Pauli Shore film.

We had some M-60 tanks assigned to my HQ unit but I never was in one. I did get a chance to drive an APC one day and went out from the post to a field and raised hell with some trees. That was very bad I was told. Seems the Germans got a lot of money for a destroyed tree.

I would not know about firing blanks from tanks. I came home and was assigned to a reserve unit and showed up one day in Sunnyvale, CA to report. They were all dicking around and It looked to me like a major fubar. I got back in my car and came home. I later got orders to show for summer training but I was then working in construction and did not report. I then got orders to show up for a make up summer camp but sent letters to my Senator since as a HQ Co Clerk I knew the power of Senators.

I got orders from 6th Army to be reduced in rank one grade and something else... probably orders to show up again. I tossed that paper long ago.

I got a call from my Senator who told my wife who took the call he fixed the "Army problerm."

Believe it or not, I got orders from a 6th Army General restoring my rank and removing me from the active reserve obligation. I served no time in reserves. I got the discharge per schedule and put it in my past. I am so happy I had been a HQ company clerk. I had the tools to fight the Army.

How did you repare to do the 4 pull ups? Maybe they changed how they did them and of course most of the guys I was with passed them. I simply was not doing pull ups at Ft. Ord though when I got to Benning, I did pull ups trying to prepare for the pull ups. I did not have enough time to get that last pull up done. When we did the pull ups, we had to get the bar to our chest. Most pull ups are to the chin. Do it to the chest and it is a killer. (I speak only of the Airborne pull ups)

I've always been small framed but much stronger than I look. The pullup were no problem for me. We had to do 7 or more. Since I'm tall and lanky, the situps were always my problem.

The Pauli Shore movie had him training to be a water purification specialist. And, as in the movie, that MOS is very important to fighting a desert war. I just got out in the knick of time to avoid war, although I would have been proud to serve.

I can't find my records either, isn't it a dd214? What's a 201?

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 04:39 PM

It's always a conservative that articulates that the 1st amendment is to keep government from interfering with churches and does not attempt to express a separation. It's always a conservative who researches his tail off to prove that the founders wanted us to be a Christian country. There are the Jefferson deniers who say that he never intended a separation of church and state. And as I've articulated before, Republican leaders have attempted to legislate a Christian agenda-DOMA, prayer in school, teach creationism along with evolution, etc...
Here's a link that firmly asserts our Christian Country.

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm

Blame Republicans for DOMA - but no mention of who signed it into law? And that it passed in the house with the support of 120 Dems and the Senate with Dems going 32-14 in favor - before Clinton signed it into law. The rest of your post is just more of blanket accusations and rhetoric again.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 05:01 PM

You got to do what you have to do to create jobs. All of those things pump money into the economy. Tax cuts to the job creators, while stimulative, is not as stimulative putting it straight into the demand side. The trickle down theory is Voodoo Economics. Job creators don't hire because they get a tax break. They hire because the 99% has more money to create demand. This isn't a "rich are evil" statement. It's a statement of fact that's been shown in studies just recently by the CBO and CRS.

Obama put very little into the demand side. 2 percent saved by the working public of the SS funds has not done much if anything to create a lot of jobs. It reminds me of the man who wanted to light an enormous cave on the darkest night and used a household candle to light the cave. While some light helped, it was not what one expected in well illuminated areas.
Most seem to be talking of tax cuts for the rich, yet when you carefully examine what Obama actually did do, he simply poured a lot more money into the bank accounts of the rich. His system is what some may call trickle down economics.

If you have a lot of demand, which is your idea, you will have a short supply so you will encourage inflation.

Reagan was a trained economist which Democrats ignore. And he responded well to Jack Kemps ideas. It sounds easy to say put money into Joes pocket and he will spend it, but Joe is scared. And Joe is proving he wants to pay his bills and save for his future.

bingster

01-28-2013, 05:07 PM

It's always a conservative that articulates that the 1st amendment is to keep government from interfering with churches and does not attempt to express a separation. It's always a conservative who researches his tail off to prove that the founders wanted us to be a Christian country. There are the Jefferson deniers who say that he never intended a separation of church and state. And as I've articulated before, Republican leaders have attempted to legislate a Christian agenda-DOMA, prayer in school, teach creationism along with evolution, etc...
Here's a link that firmly asserts our Christian Country.

http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/09/fox-news-figures-outraged-over-obamas-christian/149056

Here's Fox and Gingrich pissed off because Obama said that we are not a Christian Country.

tailfins

01-28-2013, 05:14 PM

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/09/fox-news-figures-outraged-over-obamas-christian/149056

Here's Fox and Gingrich pissed off because Obama said that we are not a Christian Country.

Broken link.

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 05:14 PM

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/09/fox-news-figures-outraged-over-obamas-christian/149056

Here's Fox and Gingrich pissed off because Obama said that we are not a Christian Country.

Link doesn't work.

aboutime

01-28-2013, 05:16 PM

Link doesn't work.

Kathianne. I tried to correct the link. It's no good at all.

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 05:20 PM

As a country, we were founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, we have no 'state religion' thus no one religion or philosophy can claim ownership.

While Christians comprise a majority of the religious self-identified, the overwhelming mark of America is just how seriously most people practice their religion compared to other 'Western' countries. While I'd not deny prejudices within, they tend not to lead to violence. Yes, there are the nutters to prove the rule, but in the main one can practice any or no religion one chooses to.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 05:20 PM

I fixed the original and subsequent links.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 05:21 PM

I've always been small framed but much stronger than I look. The pullup were no problem for me. We had to do 7 or more. Since I'm tall and lanky, the situps were always my problem.

The Pauli Shore movie had him training to be a water purification specialist. And, as in the movie, that MOS is very important to fighting a desert war. I just got out in the knick of time to avoid war, although I would have been proud to serve.

I can't find my records either, isn't it a dd214? What's a 201?

Maybe you did them to your chin. I could then do many of those. I was in at a time of no war other than the Special forces training some of the Vietnamese. At Jump school a lot of Vietnamese were enrolled. As you may recall, rank was not on our fatigues so I had no clue what rank they were. I figured some of our older guys there were probably officers though.

Your DD-214 is what you got upon discharge. Your 201 file is what the Army kept showing every thing you did and I think we can get them from Army records. For instance, while I was in Basic Training as an E-1, the Company Commander must have liked the job I did as platoon Sgt where I wore a black armband with E5 stripes on it since he promoted me to E2. I was never told since he learned he did it sooner than regulations allowed and he had to cut orders to rescind the promotion. But as a Company Clerk with personnel in my unit, it was easy for me to go to personnel and view my 201 file. Most men did not know the proper file to check on so they did not know of the 201 file. When he cut my rank back to E-1 his reason was he did it too early. I got promoted very fast and but for a change of company commander in Germany, I would have been an E5 by about 18 months. The new Company commander was great to me but the 1st Sgt wanted to play politics so my stripes went to the Col's clerk since he was RA. I was drafted.

With the end of the draft, I expect that most of you did not know that draftees had SNs starting as US where the guys who voluntered had SN on their dog tags with the RA as the first two letters. So many things have changed since early 60s that i have no idea what the SNs look like today. I would tend to think they went to the use of the social security numbers. I had both a SS number then my Army number.

US 12 345 678 is an example but had I volunteered the US was off and RA was there. RA means regular army. Your records should be at St. Louis. You may be surprised what is in your 201 file.

Also in that 201 file is the DD-214.

bingster

01-28-2013, 05:23 PM

www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/mccain.christian.nation/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/mccain.christian.nation/index.html)

Here's one in which McCain says the constitutions establishes our country as a Christian Country.

bingster

01-28-2013, 05:26 PM

This article describes my feelings most accurately and sites examples. (regarding Christian Nation)

http://www.salon.com/2009/04/14/christian_nation/

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 05:26 PM

As to religion in Germany there is no doubt they were a Christian nation. Villages often were one or the other, catholic or lutheran.

If anybody has been to Berlin, they must know of the bombed out remains of the Catholic Church not far from the Berlin Zoo which is a main area of Berlin. I don't expect the muslims have made much headway in Germany. If you think our immigrant policy was tough, try the German immigrant policy. It is very hard to become a German citizen.

This photo is in the evening. Old Cathedral on the left and the structure on the right is the bell tower constructed after war ended. Most of the church is gone. That ruin on the left had the bells of the original church. The structure once was much larger.

4411

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 05:30 PM

I fixed the original and subsequent links.

Thanks. I think Media Matters made a bigger deal out of FOX than FOX did out of Obama's remarks. For the gist was the same as mine, while founded on Judeo-Christian principles...

bingster

01-28-2013, 05:32 PM

Maybe you did them to your chin. I could then do many of those. I was in at a time of no war other than the Special forces training some of the Vietnamese. At Jump school a lot of Vietnamese were enrolled. As you may recall, rank was not on our fatigues so I had no clue what rank they were. I figured some of our older guys there were probably officers though.

Your DD-214 is what you got upon discharge. Your 201 file is what the Army kept showing every thing you did and I think we can get them from Army records. For instance, while I was in Basic Training as an E-1, the Company Commander must have liked the job I did as platoon Sgt where I wore a black armband with E5 stripes on it since he promoted me to E2. I was never told since he learned he did it sooner than regulations allowed and he had to cut orders to rescind the promotion. But as a Company Clerk with personnel in my unit, it was easy for me to go to personnel and view my 201 file. Most men did not know the proper file to check on so they did not know of the 201 file. When he cut my rank back to E-1 his reason was he did it too early. I got promoted very fast and but for a change of company commander in Germany, I would have been an E5 by about 18 months. The new Company commander was great to me but the 1st Sgt wanted to play politics so my stripes went to the Col's clerk since he was RA. I was drafted.

With the end of the draft, I expect that most of you did not know that draftees had SNs starting as US where the guys who voluntered had SN on their dog tags with the RA as the first two letters. So many things have changed since early 60s that i have no idea what the SNs look like today. I would tend to think they went to the use of the social security numbers. I had both a SS number then my Army number.

US 12 345 678 is an example but had I volunteered the US was off and RA was there. RA means regular army. Your records should be at St. Louis. You may be surprised what is in your 201 file.

Also in that 201 file is the DD-214.

I think you're right about the chin-ups. I don't remember having to get up to my chest.
Communications always required at least 100 promotional points more than the infantry in my unit, so I got out as an e-4. I was pretty close to getting that e-5, but I didn't advance as fast as you did.
Thanx for the info. I may be interested in getting my 201.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 05:36 PM

Broken link.

And to inform the board, Media Matters is a mouth organ for Democrats.

bingster

01-28-2013, 05:40 PM

Blame Republicans for DOMA - but no mention of who signed it into law? And that it passed in the house with the support of 120 Dems and the Senate with Dems going 32-14 in favor - before Clinton signed it into law. The rest of your post is just more of blanket accusations and rhetoric again.

Liberals have always been against DOMA. If some middle of the roaders voted for it, fine. Clinton should have vetoed it.

bingster

01-28-2013, 05:41 PM

Thanks. I think Media Matters made a bigger deal out of FOX than FOX did out of Obama's remarks. For the gist was the same as mine, while founded on Judeo-Christian principles...

It was a video of Gingrich and Hanity talking. What does Media Matters have to do with it?

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 05:42 PM

It was a video of Gingrich and Hanity talking. What does Media Matters have to do with it?

The write up.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 05:52 PM

I think you're right about the chin-ups. I don't remember having to get up to my chest.
Communications always required at least 100 promotional points more than the infantry in my unit, so I got out as an e-4. I was pretty close to getting that e-5, but I didn't advance as fast as you did.
Thanx for the info. I may be interested in getting my 201.

I was so upset that after easily acing the rest of the PT Test and having been the group leader, but I know that many also did not manage the pull ups that i was focused only on my plight.

I got promoted by having the luck to be made a platoon Sgt in Basic and AIt due to a shortage of their skilled cadre and for some reason good luck followed me. I was supposed to be a rifleman in Germany in C company but since the guys were all out in the snow training, i was told to bunk down at HQ company since C company building was locked up. When the first sgt of HQ shows up, he opens my 201 file and tells me he is changing me from C company to HQ/HQ company and at first I drove jeeps for officers. Since they could want a jeep at any moment, I got on KP duty nor guard duty. At Fort Ord, the only time I went to Guard Duty I was in charge of the detail and of course my guys spent time on guard duty but I did not. I made sure though that they got up on time. I never served a day doiing KP either. Oh yeah, my final rank was also E-4.

But if a guy happens to be qualified, and per my 201 file somebody had to think i was qualified, I got put in the right spot at the right time. When I became Company Clerk in Germany, I even did not have to show up in morning formation.

I admit it. I was plain lucky.

bingster

01-28-2013, 06:00 PM

I was so upset that after easily acing the rest of the PT Test and having been the group leader, but I know that many also did not manage the pull ups that i was focused only on my plight.

I got promoted by having the luck to be made a platoon Sgt in Basic and AIt due to a shortage of their skilled cadre and for some reason good luck followed me. I was supposed to be a rifleman in Germany in C company but since the guys were all out in the snow training, i was told to bunk down at HQ company since C company building was locked up. When the first sgt of HQ shows up, he opens my 201 file and tells me he is changing me from C company to HQ/HQ company and at first I drove jeeps for officers. Since they could want a jeep at any moment, I got on KP duty nor guard duty. At Fort Ord, the only time I went to Guard Duty I was in charge of the detail and of course my guys spent time on guard duty but I did not. I made sure though that they got up on time. I never served a day doiing KP either. Oh yeah, my final rank was also E-4.

But if a guy happens to be qualified, and per my 201 file somebody had to think i was qualified, I got put in the right spot at the right time. When I became Company Clerk in Germany, I even did not have to show up in morning formation.

I admit it. I was plain lucky.

Good job, man. See we can fight like cats and dogs and still be honorable men. I hated driving for my superiors. It was a side job for commo guys, we always had to drive. I still get nervous to drive people.

bingster

01-28-2013, 06:03 PM

The write up.

Oh, that did describe my views though. Here's just one more, the best of all. This guy is on the science committee and decides to share how he governs.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0S00Mm5AQdR61oAZB_7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdG pndTY2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzNQ--?p=Rep.+Paul+Broun&vid=77719aea8907b3e7a930fc508277b30d&l=1%3A24&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.48 95739600240741%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fview%3Fi%3D07 b_1349603060&tit=Rep+Congressman.+Paul+Broun+denies+evolution&c=0&sigr=11du3n1ge&fr=my-myy&tt=b

I'll admit, he may be on the extreme, but there's no denying conservatives govern with a high loyalty to the bible.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 06:07 PM

Liberals have always been against DOMA. If some middle of the roaders voted for it, fine. Clinton should have vetoed it.

The majority of Dems in both the house and the senate voted for, than against. Granted a higher percentage were Republican, but don't make it sound as if this was solely a conservative republican issue, when the majority of Democrats vote YES as well, and the Democrat president signed it into law, to which he even released a statement in favor of.

jimnyc

01-28-2013, 06:09 PM

As an Fyi - Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Fox News.... NONE of them speak for ALL conservatives or Republicans. I'm conservative and don't watch or listen to any pundits at all really.

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 06:13 PM

Oh, that did describe my views though. Here's just one more, the best of all. This guy is on the science committee and decides to share how he governs.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0S00Mm5AQdR61oAZB_7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdG pndTY2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjEzNQ--?p=Rep.+Paul+Broun&vid=77719aea8907b3e7a930fc508277b30d&l=1%3A24&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.48 95739600240741%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fview%3Fi%3D07 b_1349603060&tit=Rep+Congressman.+Paul+Broun+denies+evolution&c=0&sigr=11du3n1ge&fr=my-myy&tt=b

I'll admit, he may be on the extreme, but there's no denying conservatives govern with a high loyalty to the bible.

No, it 'proves' that one guy does. As do all your anecdotal examples.

Here's one for you, I was against DOMA, so were others. Not 'liberal.' Perhaps not even moderate.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 06:14 PM

I think you're right about the chin-ups. I don't remember having to get up to my chest.
Communications always required at least 100 promotional points more than the infantry in my unit, so I got out as an e-4. I was pretty close to getting that e-5, but I didn't advance as fast as you did.
Thanx for the info. I may be interested in getting my 201.

I forgot to mention.

When I showed up in Schweinfurt, the units were called Battle Groups.

HQ/HQ had the officers and men needed to staff Battle Group Headquarters and had some internal support for HQ company. It also included the medics, and commo as well.

A through E company I seem to recall were all line units. And also there was Combat and support. That company had tanks, and heavy weapons including nukes.

We were reorganized into what then became a Battalion and HQ and HQ company sucked into our unit Combat and Support and we also kept motor pool since we had it as a BG unit. We were called a strike unit due to always being on a semi alert status and we often went to full alert status which meant all guys packed up and went to a rally point. We had to go on full alert at least once per month. Sometimes more often. We no longer had A-E companies and it became A-C companies. C/S company had the Tanks and upon the changes they became part of HQ/HQ company. If one studied the history of 1st Bn, 30th infantry, 3rd Division, the history is laid out.

I happen to recall it very well since in my job in Germany I put in a lot of time making the changes. To this day I still recall the first First Sgt name and the guy who took over when he left. As well as the two Company Commanders I served with. The one common officer was the company XO and he was some rich SOB from a great lakes state and was the worst example of an officer I met till I met the captain commanding the army airfield the Col sent me to fix their problems. That guy was a drunk and had been passed over for promotion for a long time. He found a loop hole in regulations and he did not make Major in the Infantry so he changed his MOS to Armor and got more times to be passed over. He showed up at the Airfield too often smelling of booze. His idea was he could hang on long enough to get in his 20 years. He was close too. How many guys can't get above Captain in 20 years?

I have to say thiis about him since he was a pilot. We woke up one morning and the field was totally fogged in. General Mildren had somebody call us to find out if we were fogged in since they were fogged in in Wurtzburg, his headquarters. This dumb ass Captain told him it was fogged in but he would come get the General in one of our helicopters. The General was smart enough to refuse the offer.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 06:22 PM

As an Fyi - Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Fox News.... NONE of them speak for ALL conservatives or Republicans. I'm conservative and don't watch or listen to any pundits at all really.

i usually find out what FOX news says from some Democrat. And until they tell me what Rush is saying, I have no clue what he is saying.

My personal principles since they changed from very pro democrat to well, voting for republicans, is based on my self study of what I believe are correct principles to meet the structure of our founding documents.

bingster

01-28-2013, 06:28 PM

As an Fyi - Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, Fox News.... NONE of them speak for ALL conservatives or Republicans. I'm conservative and don't watch or listen to any pundits at all really.

I appreciate that and respect that, but I don't believe you are in the majority. Last time I looked, Fox had the highest ratings of all "news" stations. I know my sister and brother-in-law watch it daily. When you see a guy like Romney shy away from knocking down scurrilous comments from Limbaugh when asked, I think the politicians know how popular they are also.

On the gay rights issue, liberals have evolved more for and conservatives have evolved more against very recently. Lots of liberals were against not too long ago including Clinton and Obama.

bingster

01-28-2013, 06:34 PM

I forgot to mention.

When I showed up in Schweinfurt, the units were called Battle Groups.

HQ/HQ had the officers and men needed to staff Battle Group Headquarters and had some internal support for HQ company. It also included the medics, and commo as well.

A through E company I seem to recall were all line units. And also there was Combat and support. That company had tanks, and heavy weapons including nukes.

We were reorganized into what then became a Battalion and HQ and HQ company sucked into our unit Combat and Support and we also kept motor pool since we had it as a BG unit. We were called a strike unit due to always being on a semi alert status and we often went to full alert status which meant all guys packed up and went to a rally point. We had to go on full alert at least once per month. Sometimes more often. We no longer had A-E companies and it became A-C companies. C/S company had the Tanks and upon the changes they became part of HQ/HQ company. If one studied the history of 1st Bn, 30th infantry, 3rd Division, the history is laid out.

I happen to recall it very well since in my job in Germany I put in a lot of time making the changes. To this day I still recall the first First Sgt name and the guy who took over when he left. As well as the two Company Commanders I served with. The one common officer was the company XO and he was some rich SOB from a great lakes state and was the worst example of an officer I met till I met the captain commanding the army airfield the Col sent me to fix their problems. That guy was a drunk and had been passed over for promotion for a long time. He found a loop hole in regulations and he did not make Major in the Infantry so he changed his MOS to Armor and got more times to be passed over. He showed up at the Airfield too often smelling of booze. His idea was he could hang on long enough to get in his 20 years. He was close too. How many guys can't get above Captain in 20 years?

I have to say thiis about him since he was a pilot. We woke up one morning and the field was totally fogged in. General Mildren had somebody call us to find out if we were fogged in since they were fogged in in Wurtzburg, his headquarters. This dumb ass Captain told him it was fogged in but he would come get the General in one of our helicopters. The General was smart enough to refuse the offer.

You spent a lot more time around officers than I did. Of course we had a company commander, but we did almost all of our training either in our separate platoons or together with the company and a senior NCO. One of my favorite memories was when we learned how to give each other IV's. You should have seen the bad ass Rangers who were afraid of needles. That place looked like a murder scene by the time we were done practicing. There was blood everywhere. It was just training. I honor those who serve in combat today.

bingster

01-28-2013, 06:37 PM

No, it 'proves' that one guy does. As do all your anecdotal examples.

Here's one for you, I was against DOMA, so were others. Not 'liberal.' Perhaps not even moderate.

I'm done trying to prove anything. Unless you find a Democrat in a red state who fears reelection, it's quite clear where Republicans and Democrats line up on the Relligious issues I mentioned.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 06:39 PM

No, actually, I left it for the informed. Back in the 60's, the Republican party hadn't had a chance in the south since Lincoln, so they devised a strategy to appeal to the southern whites to win votes. It was mostly coded racism.

I was in the states of Georgia and South Carolina during that era. They were very racist. But I believe they were democrats.

I had several negro pals who were decent guys and I put gas in one guy's car from Michigan who managed to get his covertable to Ft. Benning and his reason for not driving us downtown was he was a negro. He kept telling me we all would be beaten. And at that time I was a very loyal Democrat. I expect it would have been those democrats he figured would beat us all up.

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 06:40 PM

I'm done trying to prove anything. Unless you find a Democrat in a red state who fears reelection, it's quite clear where Republicans and Democrats line up on the Relligious issues I mentioned.

However, you painted with a broad brush. Not ALL conservatives are religious based, nor are all against some ideas you are in favor of.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 06:51 PM

You spent a lot more time around officers than I did. Of course we had a company commander, but we did almost all of our training either in our separate platoons or together with the company and a senior NCO. One of my favorite memories was when we learned how to give each other IV's. You should have seen the bad ass Rangers who were afraid of needles. That place looked like a murder scene by the time we were done practicing. There was blood everywhere. It was just training. I honor those who serve in combat today.

I know we had officer ranks from 2nd lt up to Bird Col in my company. We had plenty of Captains and A few Majors and one Lt. Col. We had a Sgt Major in the unit and I knew him pretty well too.

Due to my job at times I interfaced with some of them. At times when we got a new second or first Lt they would come to my desk to talk to me and try to get the low down on the unit. If asked, I helped them. I told all of those officers that the unit had very good NCOs and if they were cool to their top NCOs they could learn how to run their unit they would command.

My unit had no rangers that I remember nor special forces. It is possible that some of the officers had the Ranger patch. I have not thought about that though and I doubt I can goad my memory to recal one of them.

I tend to think the Rangers and Special forces men had more important jobs to do than be in some infantry unit. Bear in mind though that this era was post Korea but pre Vietnam. I recall the guy who was regular army and he got sent to Germany from Korea. I guess he had some fun in Korea but I think he might have liked Germany more.

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 07:09 PM

I'm really pro-military. Really. Just guys, could you please look at the topic? Start a new thread, would be very interesting, but imo we're now dealing with two threads within one. Thanks for the consideration.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 07:19 PM

I appreciate that and respect that, but I don't believe you are in the majority. Last time I looked, Fox had the highest ratings of all "news" stations. I know my sister and brother-in-law watch it daily. When you see a guy like Romney shy away from knocking down scurrilous comments from Limbaugh when asked, I think the politicians know how popular they are also.

On the gay rights issue, liberals have evolved more for and conservatives have evolved more against very recently. Lots of liberals were against not too long ago including Clinton and Obama.

I perhaps have not seen all of your posts. That admitted, have you mentioned being married to a woman and having children of your own? Oh wait, you told me you got married and got out of the Army. Forget it. Did you however have children? You are not one of those that came out of the closet are you?

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 07:39 PM

I read a post claiming, as I understand it anyway, that Bingster and I are off topic.

Don't know how he sees it but I feel like I don't particularly want to pick a fight with him. I will say this to those thinking we are off topic.

Have you changed his mind?

Did he change your mind?

As many posts there are, are you wasting time when he and I are speaking of actual experience rather than theory?

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 08:23 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Just read about it, there's plenty of proof. I'm not old enough to remember it's beginnings, but there's also an Atwater link out there that surfaced recently that not only describes it, it interprets the racial coding.

As I've mentioned in many posts. You are confusing Democrats with Liberal. Conservative Democrats that are now Republican were dead set against civil rights.

You're ruthless with the "dad" references. I showed bravery in exposing a little about my history and you satisfy your teenage fetish in poking me for it. Want to get in a "My dad's better than your dad fight?"

And the myth rolls on. Democrats keep this myth alive.

From your own article in Wikipedia,

Writer Jeffrey Hart (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Jeffrey_Hart) who worked on the Nixon campaign as a speechwriter (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Speechwriter) says that Nixon did not have a "Southern Strategy" but "Border State Strategy" as the campaign ceded the Deep South to George Wallace and that the press merely call it a "Southern Strategy" as they are "very lazy".[35] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-35)

Kathianne

01-28-2013, 08:57 PM

My hope for the thread to get back to what made one choose a party died. It was a good thread, when on topic. Now I guess it's on the Vietnam era, which is also interesting, but only those involved can find it. The OP is misleading for that topic.

Robert A Whit

01-28-2013, 09:22 PM

My hope is that the original topic dies a peaceful death. I believe that those that wanted to state why they picked a party have all had plenty of say as to that topic.

red states rule

01-29-2013, 03:26 AM

My hope for the thread to get back to what made one choose a party died. It was a good thread, when on topic. Now I guess it's on the Vietnam era, which is also interesting, but only those involved can find it. The OP is misleading for that topic.

I will give it a shot Kat. t the age of 18 I failed to grasp the logic as to why a political party thought is was wise to pay people to stay poor. All through my life since, all I have heard from liberals was that if people like me would just pay a little more in taxes they (the libs) would reduce poverty and save people from starving. Well, the Dems War on Poverty has been going on for over 40 years and has cost taxpayers about 12 Trillion dollars in wealth transfers and yet we are told the poverty problem is worse then ever. Now the Dems pay people not to work by extending unemployment to 99 weeks. This after the trillion dollar Obama stimulus that was to put millions back to work. I have ben called shellfish, mean spirited, heartless, and compared to Nazi's when I express my desire to keep more of the money I earn and oppose having the government take it form me and give to someone else they deem worthy. I have no problem with helping someone with a legit TEMPORARY need, but all Dems have done is shackle people into generations of dependency and the producers are paying the bill. and they are now broke

taft2012

01-29-2013, 06:36 AM

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

You being unafraid to repeat the truth to others rates highly in my book...:salute:-Tyr
Far too many are PC and will not do so!

Thanks amigo!

Everybody has to go through a learning process, which can be even more complicated in this country because one also has to undo one's public school education as well.

Cable television and the internet make learning and discussing ideas with others a lot simpler, and the truth a lot more evident.

Unfortunately these handy tools arrived far too late in our history, and Americans are now far more interested in the next American Idol than North Korean nukes about the rain down on their heads.

Nukeman

01-29-2013, 06:48 AM

You're wrong to. A teacher can certainly set aside prayer time in class.

What they can NOT do is lead that prayer.

They can't lead prayer at any school event. students can pray at any even they like.
REALLY??? So why so many sanctioned and modified graduation speaches??? If a student is allowed to say or pray as they wish than why are the deemed inappropriate at graduation, hell half the time just to mention God is taboo.... So I think you are mistaken!!
http://www.huliq.com/12092/high-school-valedictorian-speech-censored-god-references

A Vermont high school valedictorian, Kyle Gearwar, was told by his school administrators he could not give part of his graduation speech due to its religious references. He complied. Now it is being debated that Gearwar's free speech rights may have been violated in order to preserve the religious freedom rights of others

http://aclj.org/aclj/christianpost-com---censored-valedictorian-stands-up-for-god-free-speech

Last Thursday at Las Vegas-based Foothill High School, senior Brittany McCombs speech was ended abruptly to the dismay of the crowd of nearly 400 graduates and their families after she departed from the officially-approved text and went on to mention Jesus and the Bible. Officials had cut her microphone before she could finish her speech as people in the audience angrily booed school officials, according to Atlantas WSB-TV.com.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0121_Valedictorian_speech.html

A Louisiana high school graduate is suing her local school officials for censoring her valedictory speech at commencement. Angela Kay Guidry, who was graduated from Sam Houston High School here in May, says her principal’s refusal to let her speak unless she omitted all planned religious references was a violation of her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

These samples kind of blow the bolded part all to hell don't they!?!?!?!

fj1200

01-29-2013, 09:54 AM

Just sticking with electricity for the moment, you are right. If such technology existed at the time, which it didn't. Hell even now today a person would be hard pressed to live in a house that is completely off the power grid (assuming one didn't want to live like a cave man)

I suppose you could build your own solar cell farm to power your house, but that seems pretty damned inefficient, also depending on other variables it could be downright dangerous which could lead to other expenses to society.

which leads us to the real argument. Is it to societies benefit to make sure as many people as possible have access to cheap, safe electricity.

I would answer that yes. From many perspectives. Somehow I doubt your answer is no.

Now if we move on to the question of internet availability. I would almost argue that society itself has made internet access a must; for instance we assign kids in school homework that simply can't be completed without the internet. As a school, we almost just assume that everyone has such access at home.

However, I personally am not convinced that right now we must make internet available to all. Mostly because I certainly remember sitting at the library many a night doing homework when I was a kid and the internet wasn't even available, but that wasn't an every night occurrence the way homework is assigned now so honestly I don't know..........

Until you get around to defining 'as many people as possible' then my answer is definitely no. Does government need to mandate that we drive electricity lines far enough to the point that everyone is connected regardless of cost? No. There is no reason to subsidize the last mile just because they have chosen to live out that far. Once you have stated that it's to societies benefit then it becomes hard to say that is too far.

And before you say it, poverty is a different issue with different solutions IMO.

I'm not the one who labeled them as pure capitalists, others have. I merely don't disagree with their definitions. So if you don't like the definitions speak to them.

I used nearly everything in addition to two examples, I didn't not acknowledge anything.

Back to the first topic. if YOU disagree with defining them as pure capitalists then the onus is on you to identify them as something else.

I disagree on both points. Nevertheless 'pure capitalism' will be used as the calling card for those who wish to use particular examples to bias against said; if you're going to use their definitions you would need to validate them. As I said before I don't disagree that government can be used to regulate against a bias in market power (towards employers in this case) and in monitoring negative externalities (pollution in this case). I have a feeling it's progressivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) (a general political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#cite_note-nugent-1) Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization).) that you're arguing for and not socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) (Socialism refers to an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) characterised by social ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership) of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and co-operative management of the economy.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-1)).

fj1200

01-29-2013, 10:13 AM

I consider the Republican party a faith-motivated and sometimes faith-based ideology and the Democratic party is a fact-based ideology. It’s as simple as that to me. Am I saying that neo-conservatism is just a lie? No, I’m just saying it’s more likely to be motivated by feelings and not facts. More often than not, conservatism articulates itself using high flying symbolism, Christian nation assertions, rare exceptions taken as rules, insults to the poor, idolization of the rich, government is evil, black and white without grays, etc….

I enjoyed, as a teenager, listening to Rush Limbaugh. He was a hell of an entertainer. He was funny and seemed to make common sense arguments. Then I mentioned this in front of my father. He showed controlled restraint, disappointment was plain on his face, and he told me a truth: People lie on the Radio and TV. Yes, I was naïve, but this was shocking at the time.

We turned on the radio and listened to Rush together and point by point, my father knocked down all of Rush’s arguments. He didn’t just compete with arguments, he showed me in newspaper and encyclopedia articles that Rush’s assertions were made on false premises. Then he told me about “Southern Strategy” and pointed out Rush’s attempt to paint the poor as lazy immigrants or minority welfare moms having 4 kids. Dad questioned my ability to think on my own. Are you a “ditto-head”? What’s wrong with women’s rights that Rush denigrates with his “femi-natzi” comments?

For instance, seemingly at the center of all Republican’s economic rhetoric is this huge number of welfare moms with the 4 kids. Of the 47% Romney mentioned at his private party, only 1% contains all of those welfare moms with the 4 kids, and I’m sure they’re all neither moms, nor do they all have four kids. In fact, I’m sure a large part of that 1% contains the mentally or physically disabled. This is an example of believing the exception is a rule and the attempt to characterize that entire 47% as losers.

So, I became a student. I’m not a college kid, an economist, or even one who has a classical education. I just read books constantly, mostly history, and whenever I can think of a question, I look it up. I question my own liberalism often and adopt conservative views when I learn that they are correct. My weakest view is abortion, for instance: I think conservatives have the stronger argument although I haven't adopted the term "murder" and don't think I will. I also think teacher tenure should go away. Teachers need to be graded somehow, but they should be paid better.

I just don’t think life is KISS (keep it simple stupid). Conservatives see the world in easy black and white terms. Or maybe they don’t, but politicians have found that you can’t sell gray. You can sell KISS, but gray takes explanation. Explanations look weak-see Carter, but the world is complicated and I think it’s ignorant to ignore or deny the grays.

I believe in a good mixture of socialist and capitalist views. I don’t believe in destroying capitalism, I just don’t believe capitalism provides the answers to everything. I also don’t believe socialism answers all questions. These two philosophies can come together and synergisticly move our country forward. One will never destroy the other, attempts to do so is futile, counterproductive, and will fail.

Well I had higher hopes from this post than has actually been born out. You start with arguing against Rush with nary an example and then proceed to make extensions from one argument to cover all broadcloth, which seems to be your SOP.

The problem with liberalism is exactly the opposite of your posit IMO (which you have not proven btw) is that they generally propose solutions that address the symptoms (faith) and not the root cause (fact). For example the solution to the health care 'crisis' was to complain about the uninsured and how that issue could be address; mandates for all and subsidies for those who can't afford. Whereas it can argued that the health care 'crisis' is one of cost and ill-advised incentives both of which could be traced to government policies in the first place. How did we get to an employer based system? Wage controls that incentivized benefits 60 years ago and tax benefits that benefit employers. Why does insurance cost so much? Ever increasing mandates in what must be covered. Why does health care itself cost so much? End consumers have no idea what a particular procedure costs and only care if "it's covered" by insurance.

I think you could break down almost any problem in society and determining why that exists and see some sort of government policy or regulation that encouraged it. Carter was weak not because the world is complicated, Carter was weak because he was wrong.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-29-2013, 10:21 AM

Thanks amigo!

Everybody has to go through a learning process, which can be even more complicated in this country because one also has to undo one's public school education as well.

Cable television and the internet make learning and discussing ideas with others a lot simpler, and the truth a lot more evident.

Unfortunately these handy tools arrived far too late in our history, and Americans are now far more interested in the next American Idol than North Korean nukes about the rain down on their heads.

We all had to learn at some point. I was lucky indeed to have had parents and grandparents that thought it very important to teach me the truth about the world we live in. These days too many parents allow that to be the sole responsibility of the public schools, a very sad and tragic mistake. Such shirking of parental responsibility has led this nation into the dire straights we find ourselves now. And allowed a useless, lying leftist fraud like obama to assume power. Only our current state of decay allowed that scum to be elected. Parents and public education are largely responsible for the lack of concern about this nation's survival.
The sheep sleep when the right music is played. It's being played now but its not music that will lead to anything positive rather just the opposite.-Tyr

fj1200

01-29-2013, 10:30 AM

You got to do what you have to do to create jobs. All of those things pump money into the economy. Tax cuts to the job creators, while stimulative, is not as stimulative putting it straight into the demand side. The trickle down theory is Voodoo Economics. Job creators don't hire because they get a tax break. They hire because the 99% has more money to create demand. This isn't a "rich are evil" statement. It's a statement of fact that's been shown in studies just recently by the CBO and CRS.

We're suffering "demand side" right now. The current recovery is far short of other recoveries that were built on either no government change in policy or a tax cut based recovery. Also could you let me know who proclaimed the 'trickle down theory'?

ConHog

01-29-2013, 10:44 AM

Until you get around to defining 'as many people as possible' then my answer is definitely no. Does government need to mandate that we drive electricity lines far enough to the point that everyone is connected regardless of cost? No. There is no reason to subsidize the last mile just because they have chosen to live out that far. Once you have stated that it's to societies benefit then it becomes hard to say that is too far.

The law would seem to disagree with you, at least in Arkansas. Whichever electric company services the area you are in MUST provide electricity at a reasonable cost. Meaning they can charge you a fee for running electricity to your way out there house, but they MUST run electricity to your house, and the fee has to be reasonable. I know our local electric company charges $250 to go from pole to pole, meaning if takes 4 poles to get to your house, it will cost you $1000 to get electricity. That certainly isn't even close to the cost of doing so and so I doubt that the electric company would do it, unless they had to.

We agree that poverty is another matter entirely. One I think the government has a role in, but a far different role than they are currently taking.

And before you say it, poverty is a different issue with different solutions IMO.

I disagree on both points. Nevertheless 'pure capitalism' will be used as the calling card for those who wish to use particular examples to bias against said; if you're going to use their definitions you would need to validate them. As I said before I don't disagree that government can be used to regulate against a bias in market power (towards employers in this case) and in monitoring negative externalities (pollution in this case). I have a feeling it's progressivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) (a general political philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy) advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism#cite_note-nugent-1) Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrialization).) that you're arguing for and not socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) (Socialism refers to an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) characterised by social ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership) of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and co-operative management of the economy.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-1)).c

correct social ownership of the means of production. I would think an electric CO OP would certainly qualify on both counts.

fj1200

01-29-2013, 10:45 AM

Liberals have always been against DOMA. If some middle of the roaders voted for it, fine. Clinton should have vetoed it.

Did you just claim a distinction between liberals and Democrats while spending most of the thread ignoring any distinction between conservatives and Republicans?

fj1200

01-29-2013, 11:06 AM

The law would seem to disagree with you, at least in Arkansas. Whichever electric company services the area you are in MUST provide electricity at a reasonable cost. Meaning they can charge you a fee for running electricity to your way out there house, but they MUST run electricity to your house, and the fee has to be reasonable. I know our local electric company charges $250 to go from pole to pole, meaning if takes 4 poles to get to your house, it will cost you $1000 to get electricity. That certainly isn't even close to the cost of doing so and so I doubt that the electric company would do it, unless they had to.

I'm not sure how that disagrees with me.

We agree that poverty is another matter entirely. One I think the government has a role in, but a far different role than they are currently taking.
c

correct social ownership of the means of production. I would think an electric CO OP would certainly qualify on both counts.

Disagree, a co-op is a form of ownership and is not involved in management of the economy.

ConHog

01-29-2013, 11:10 AM

I'm not sure how that disagrees with me.

Disagree, a co-op is a form of ownership and is not involved in management of the economy.

the definition isn't management of the economy, it's management of the means of production. Are you arguing that electricity isn't a means of production?

I'd make the same argument for roads, certainly transportation is a means of production.

fj1200

01-29-2013, 11:32 AM

the definition isn't management of the economy, it's management of the means of production. Are you arguing that electricity isn't a means of production?

I'd make the same argument for roads, certainly transportation is a means of production.

I'm sorry, what are we missing here?

Socialism refers to an economic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system) characterised by social ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership) of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and co-operative management of the economy.

The definition includes 'co-operative management of the economy.'

ConHog

01-29-2013, 11:43 AM

I'm sorry, what are we missing here?

The definition includes 'co-operative management of the economy.'

okay, well I think we can safely argue that whomever controls the electricity in an area controls the economy in an area, IE they are in a position to manage the economy.

Abbey Marie

01-29-2013, 12:04 PM

My hope for the thread to get back to what made one choose a party died. It was a good thread, when on topic. Now I guess it's on the Vietnam era, which is also interesting, but only those involved can find it. The OP is misleading for that topic.

As for the original topic, I think my leanings are fairly obvious over the years, and are certainly explained in my interview. But I would love to hear with which party Con, fj and logroller identify. And Kath, to be honest, I pretty much know your beliefs, but I'd love to hear which one you identify with too.

ConHog

01-29-2013, 12:23 PM

As for the original topic, I think my leanings are fairly onvious over the years, and are certainly explained in my interview. But I would love to hear with which party Con, fj and logroller identify. And Kath, to be honest, I pretty much know your beliefs, but I'd love to hear which one you identify with too.

I gave a serious answer somewhere in the thread , I know it got lost.

I identify with neither party. I think both are led by fools. I also believe there are good people and bad people in both parties. I don't hold to the "I'm a Republican so all Republicans are smart and all Democrats are stupid" line, nor the reverse, because some in both parties try to pull that shit.

I believe that at their core neither party gives a shit about we the people. They care about the same ONE thing, being reelected.

I believe that in that chase to being reelected that both parties have started chasing the lowest common denominator among their voting demographics.

And before anyone gets unduly upset I think anyone can read this or any other message board and determine who really is the lowest common denominator and who isn't.

I think that if the founders of each party so what they have become today they would roll over in their graves.

As for who I vote for , honestly I almost always vote for whomever is NOT in office. Hoping against hope that eventually an honest person will take office. And being disappointed each time.

When it comes to issues, I vote my conscience rather than along party lines. Both parties sometimes surprise me and support issues that I can agree with. More often that not though, I simply don't pay attention to which party supports which bill when I'm deciding whether I support or not.

fj1200

01-29-2013, 02:42 PM

okay, well I think we can safely argue that whomever controls the electricity in an area controls the economy in an area, IE they are in a position to manage the economy.

No. A private firm, regardless of their ownership structure, does not manage the economy.

ConHog

01-29-2013, 02:44 PM

No. A private firm, regardless of their ownership structure, does not manage the economy.

I beg to differ, a firm that has effectively a monopoly on energy in an area certainly controls the local economy.

fj1200

01-29-2013, 05:49 PM

^That's like saying any local utility 'controls' the economy. They do not and they have different goals than a government that attempts to manage. You're stretching the definition far beyond the reasonable. Besides, any monopoly is granted by government fiat.

red states rule

01-30-2013, 03:15 AM

My hope for the thread to get back to what made one choose a party died. It was a good thread, when on topic. Now I guess it's on the Vietnam era, which is also interesting, but only those involved can find it. The OP is misleading for that topic.

BTW Kat, it is sad to see the direction this country has taken. When I was growing up I was one of those working people who got up and went to work everyday. Tried to save a few bucks. Paid my own way and worked for what I wanted. Now I see more and more people demanding others provide them what they want. It can be from housing to birth control pills. Food to medical care. A growing majority has the mindset that they are entitled to other peoples money. It started with FDR and ever since, the Dems have expanded this base of voters that keep them in power in exchange for their "freebies" I do not know when, but the debt will cause the roof to cave in and the reaction of the takers and the Dems will be to blame Pres Bush and the "greedy" R's. Sadly I suspect a majority of people will agree with that excuse

fj1200

01-30-2013, 08:13 AM

But I would love to hear with which party ... fj ... identify

You mean you're not sure? A practical Libertarian I would guess meaning they have no chance at winning so I vote Republican usually. Although sometimes the county/Congressional district I'm in requires that I crossover from time to time if I want to have any say in who represents me. I'm not above casting a vote for Hank Johnson over Cynthia McKinney in a primary. God help us all when you guys have choices like that. And those two are a microcosm of how my county is run... but at least they haven't shot each other or been under indictment.

ConHog

01-30-2013, 09:28 AM

^That's like saying any local utility 'controls' the economy. They do not and they have different goals than a government that attempts to manage. You're stretching the definition far beyond the reasonable. Besides, any monopoly is granted by government fiat.

You do understand that the government sets electric rates, right? The government decides how much money electric companies can make. They work together, so how can you then say "well electric companies are different that the government ?" No , not really they are not. Not when it comes to deciding who gets electricity and how much they pay, and certainly you can't have an economy without electricity.

Yes, I'm stretching the definition, but I'm not breaking it.

fj1200

01-30-2013, 09:50 AM

You do understand that the government sets electric rates, right? The government decides how much money electric companies can make. They work together, so how can you then say "well electric companies are different that the government ?" No , not really they are not. Not when it comes to deciding who gets electricity and how much they pay, and certainly you can't have an economy without electricity.

Yes, I'm stretching the definition, but I'm not breaking it.

Snap!!!

Government gets... government decides... Government grants the monopoly. A private firm, even a monopoly, has different goals than the government.

ConHog

01-30-2013, 10:22 AM

Snap!!!

Government gets... government decides... Government grants the monopoly. A private firm, even a monopoly, has different goals than the government.

Exactly so, which is why the government takes a socialist view towards electricity, for example.

Glad we agree.

fj1200

01-30-2013, 10:35 AM

Exactly so, which is why the government takes a socialist view towards electricity, for example.

Glad we agree.

Beg pardon?

"Socialism refers to an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Regulation of a granted monopoly =/= management of the economy. Besides, I'm not even sure what point we're debating anymore. :poke:

ConHog

01-30-2013, 10:40 AM

Beg pardon?

"Socialism refers to an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Regulation of a granted monopoly =/= management of the economy. Besides, I'm not even sure what point we're debating anymore. :poke:

Me neither :laugh::laugh:

Suffice to say, whatever it is, I'm right. :laugh:

fj1200

01-30-2013, 11:00 AM

I already told you that whatever side I take, I win. :slap:

ConHog

01-30-2013, 11:04 AM

I already told you that whatever side I take, I win. :slap:

That is true

when you take MY side. :poke:

bingster

01-31-2013, 08:24 PM

We're suffering "demand side" right now. The current recovery is far short of other recoveries that were built on either no government change in policy or a tax cut based recovery. Also could you let me know who proclaimed the 'trickle down theory'?

The current recovery is also from a recession that is far larger than any other recession than the great depression. You had your Reaganesque trickle down theory during the George W. administration blowing our budget surplus and resulting in one of the slowest 8 years of job growth in our history.

fj1200

02-01-2013, 02:41 AM

The current recovery is also from a recession that is far larger than any other recession than the great depression. You had your Reaganesque trickle down theory during the George W. administration blowing our budget surplus and resulting in one of the slowest 8 years of job growth in our history.

True, it was a deep recession but that is weak justification for the policies that prevent a more robust recovery; the responses to the recession have been demand-side failures and focus on bigger government not more incentive. I'll just leave this here about the Bush budgets. ;)

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts)
I don't think it's in the link above but the budget surpluses that Bush "blew" were built on false assumptions and didn't take into reality of recessions and the like. Here it is:

In reality, this surplus projection was wildly unrealistic, as both the revenues and spending estimates were way off base. The CBO projected that revenues would average 20.3 percent of GDP throughout the entire decade-even though that level had been reached only three times in the nation's 225-year history.[5] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/ten-myths-about-budget-deficits-and-debt#_ftn5) In effect, the CBO had projected no significant correction of the stock market bubble that had built up over the previous three years. The projections also understandably failed to foresee the 2001 recession, the 2008 economic downturn, and income distributional shifts that dampened revenues.[6] (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/ten-myths-about-budget-deficits-and-debt#_ftn6)The CBO would have been on firmer ground projecting revenue levels closer to the then-historical average of 18.4 percent of GDP.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/ten-myths-about-budget-deficits-and-debt

And if you'd like to complain about job growth you'll have to show that Bush was responsible for the recessions that book-ended his administration. As I said the last time you challenged the point about tax rates; Tax revenues are not correlated to tax rates.