Cowardice vs. Sheeplike stupidity

[Stacey]

Point 1. For welfare, I have never heard any representative of the republican party give anything but a case example that welfare doesn't work. It does work when Its mandatory that welfare recipients are getting educated so they can get a job and contribute to society.

Point 2. Many conservative don't want there kids going to college because they fear the influence of liberal professors. Basically they fear thinking bilaterally. If your doing more than pulling a party line and thinking about useless things like philosophy you might ask, "If its moral for the US to torture and kill, then why can't I?" "If I am afraid because my neighbor has a gun, can I launch a first strike by tossing a grenade into his living room?" Those in power don't want the populace thinking, which is why they discredit liberals and liberal colleges with there liberal professors. Very Orwellian.

Point 3. What do values mean? Whos values? Christian values? Such as torture and imperialism? The early Church was communist, the idea of selling all you had and giving it to the poor is another christian value. Conservative values means nothing. So you want to kill born people instead of the unborn? Personally I'm against abortion as I am against aggresive expansionism. What I can't stand is the incongruency in thought by those that tout "VALUES" these people need to take a class in basic logic to see that their "value" make a very select people wealthy and that this does not include them and even if it did, It would still go directly against there "VALUES"

"Its a free country for now" Except with Bush saying things like "There ought to be limits to freedom" and Ashcroft's Patriot act, its not long before the unwitting populace that love Bush religious fervor and "values" are feared into a decreasing civil liberties.

Point 4. I love my Father, but my first obediance is to truth and sanity, because I grew up with an insane person, I can see when the country is going insane. Its the same languid logic and rigidly living in someone elses fantasy land.

Point 5. I like guns, they are fun, I like target shooting and because I'm a country boy, we shoot and butcher cattle. Many of my friends are good hunters. Guns are good, technology is good, we don't need to get rid of tools, we need to educate people.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
Pro-choice is not necesarily pro-abortion

Yes it is. The role of legislation is not to indicate how cool or uncool a certain action is - it is simply to indicate which actions are not permissible. The pro-choice versus pro-life debate occurs in the context of legislation: so the issue at stake is whether or not abortion is a permissible action. There is no thing that "pro-abortion" could mean in this context other than that it is a permissible action, which is precisely what "pro-choice" means. Thus, they are synonymous.

but what about a right to a DECENT life?

What about it?

[it is] not the church's or the governments buisness WHAT a woman chooses to do with her body

I agree with you. However, this is not a logically consistent position unless things like drug use and euthanasia are made legal. Moreover, this is not in any case a reasonable position on abortion because abortion concerns what a woman chooses to do with someone else's body, not her own.

i dont necessarily like it, but i am not going to force the issue

Let us hope this is not the universal attitude towards injustices.

And when corporations out source thier work to INDIA to cut costs and labor wages, rather than provide the work HERE for our citizens

Are you are an advocate for America making India and the rest of the world poorer in order to make Americans richer? This seems to be your position here.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Stacey
[welfare] does work when Its mandatory that welfare recipients are getting educated so they can get a job and contribute to society.

This is not welfare. This is like "workfare" or "unemployment insurance" - financial supplements offered over a short-term in order to transition someone from unemployment to employment, and/or in exchange for productivity.

Many conservative don't want there kids going to college because they fear the influence of liberal professors. Basically they fear thinking bilaterally.

Your logic does not follow here. If the professors are liberal, it's partisan, not bipartisan.

The early Church was communist

I do not think it was. What gives you this idea? In any case, when Americans speak of Christian values, they tend to be referring to the values of the Reformation rather than the early church.

[Stacey]

Originally posted by Christopher M
This is not welfare. This is like "workfare" or "unemployment insurance" - financial supplements offered over a short-term in order to transition someone from unemployment to employment, and/or in exchange for productivity.

In that case I'm for workfare and not for welfare.

I don't believe that the professors are neccesarilly liberal or conservative, but colleges tend to inspire thought which doesn't go well with obedience.




Having at one time memorized Luther's Catechism, I don't remember anything about it that remotely follows Bush's decisions.
There were sections in Luthers Catechism such as explanation of the 10 commandments that did require dharma. IE...Honor thy father and mother, What does this mean? Whether you are a father, mother, son daughter, slave, manservant or maidservant or whatever is your charge........etc.



So there is mention of slavery, this is a conservative value. Lincoln abolished slavery, but at that time the republican party was liberal.


Why do conservative who tend to lean toward small governenment still think Bush is so great when he is expanding the government and being outrageously liberal with our money?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Stacey
In that case I'm for workfare and not for welfare.

Me too.

I don't believe that the professors are neccesarilly liberal or conservative, but colleges tend to inspire thought which doesn't go well with obedience.

I think, and study suggests, that there is a disproportional liberal bias. In any case, I think 'not going well with obedience' is definitely a good thing - but not one that in itself biases one to either liberalism or conservatism, in their political senses.

Having at one time memorized Luther's Catechism, I don't remember anything about it that remotely follows Bush's decisions.

Well, you could debate whether Bush has been loyal to the 'Christian Right', and you could debate whether the 'Christian Right' is itself loyal to its principles; but the fact remains that, as fundamentalists, their thought is traced to Reformation currents rather than early church currents. Of course, Luther had alot of scathing things to say about the church.

Why do conservative who tend to lean toward small governenment still think Bush is so great

They tend not to, actually. The paleoconservative and libertarian factions of American politics have been extremely critical of Bush since the beginning.

They may nonetheless appear to be favoring Bush in light of: their disfavor of the liberal criticisms of him, the doubt that the alternatives are any better, and the great desire to have seen the Hussein regime deposed.

[YinYangDagger]

Hey WS, that's why this is a free country, we can speak our minds. I could go on and on and argue your viewpoints along with everyone elses regarding the issues you brought up. But, I won't simply because I don't like to get caught up in all this arguing over a forum crap. Too much time wasted. I could be doing something more productive like going out to gun shows and buying up all the guns WITHOUT paperwork so the government doesn't know what I have. Or go over to some ghey forums and do a little bashing.

[Stacey]

Chris: Thanks for the clarification.


Now that the Hussein regime is gone and we have Halliburton in there fixing pipelines.

1. Do we at least get cheaper gas prices for conquering Iraq?
2. Do you think invading Iraq has made the US safer?
3. Do you think Kerries plan to give tax cuts to those making under 200,000 is a wise continuation of Bush's tax cut theory?

It seems like like kerry doesn't have the balls to just do away with it. I don't trust Kerry any ****her than I can throw him, but I think that Bush is foolhardy and destructive. To much wood energy to use chinese philosophy.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Stacey
Do we at least get cheaper gas prices for conquering Iraq?

I've got no idea. Doesn't seem like it, so far. I think the issue with gas prices did not concern any immediate reduction. Rather, it is tied to stability generally in the middle east. There is a fear that instability could result in a middle-east-wide meltdown, one of whose effects would be an oil crisis. If stability is increased, the chances of this have decreased, but this offers no reduction of our current gas prices.

Do you think invading Iraq has made the US safer?

Not really. Maybe in the long term, resulting from potential related changes in the futures of North Korea, etc..

Do you think Kerries plan to give tax cuts to those making under 200,000 is a wise continuation of Bush's tax cut theory?

I think every citizen should be taxed equally in proportion, regardless of what that proportion is, and would support any plan to that effect. As a different issue, I think taxes and government should be kept small, and so tend to be supportive of cuts in general.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Stacey
Why do conservative who tend to lean toward small governenment still think Bush is so great

Concerning this, you may be interested in reading Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, Deroy Murdock at National Review, Pat Buchanan at The American Conservative, and Murray Rothbard at Lew Rockwell's page. This gives a wide spectrum of critical views from minarchists. Except for National Review, which is a very prominent publication in mainstream American conservativism, the other authors at these sites will offer similar views (I've just listed the primary author in each case).

[The Willow Sword]

[The Willow Sword]

christopher M originally quoted this.

Are you are an advocate for America making India and the rest of the world poorer in order to make Americans richer? This seems to be your position here.

I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro( i care about what is happening HERE in the USA), and i for one am not an advocate of America trying to police and solve the world of its problems. re read my statement ,,,Keep the manufactoring basin HERE in THIS country where it BELONGS.
i dont care if i have to pay a little extra for things that are made here in this country. you seem to fail to realize that corporations slave labor in poor oppressed countries and these countries see little if no benefit at ALL from it.
as far as your replies to my pro-choice statements,,,i am not even going to go there with you on it, suffice it to say that as men you or i dont have any say in what a woman chooses for herself(its up to HER not YOU or Bush or Jesus) 'nuff said.


PEace,,,TWS

[YinYangDagger]

"I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro( i care about what is happening HERE in the USA), and i for one am not an advocate of America trying to police and solve the world of its problems. re read my statement ,,,Keep the manufactoring basin HERE in THIS country where it BELONGS."

I couldn't agree more, WS. I believe that a message HAD to be sent to let the world know that we will not condone any more 9/11's. Me personally IF I were President I believe it could have been something more devastating, like testing some underground nukes in the caves where Bin Laden had been hiding. Of course do this before we made the initial assaults in Afghanistan, I believe the nukes could have "caught" Bin Laden, whiped out most of his terrorist, and sent a firmer message to the rest of the terrorist operating in the world: If you come and kill our civilians we will nuke your a$$, so stay away. Of course, then Greenpeace would have stepped in and found some type of endangered sand lizard and condemned the nuking action. WEll, d@mn, you just can't please everyone

God Bless you WS

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by The Willow Sword
I could care less about the economic situation in INDIA bro

Ok. So long as you're being logically consistent. Personally, I recognize that people in India and much of the non-American world are starving to death and helping them is a serious humanitarian concern. I think contributing to this problem simply to improve your own lot is morally repugnant.

you seem to fail to realize that corporations slave labor in poor oppressed countries and these countries see little if no benefit at ALL from it.

I don't "fail to realize" this, I explicitly disagree with it. Giving jobs to people who need jobs and money to people who need money seems to me like a rather obvious and significant benefit.

you or i dont have any say in what a woman chooses for herself

Absolutely. But I do not see what this has to do with abortion, as abortion concerns what a woman chooses for someone else, as opposed to for herself.

[The Willow Sword]

Quoted by christopherM

Ok. So long as you're being logically consistent. Personally, I recognize that people in India and much of the non-American world are starving to death and helping them is a serious humanitarian concern. I think contributing to this problem simply to improve your own lot is morally repugnant.

you are missing what i am saying dipsh!it,,i am talking about outsourcing Jobs to other countries so that we can save a buck or two on some tech device and at the same time creates unemployment for our own citizens, destroys job security for factory workers and those who actually go to a trade or tech school,,get a degree and get a job that pertains to their degree and then to have that job taken away from them and sent to places like India and indonesia where the corporations can pay slave wages and get past child labour laws, they do nothing for these countries that would save them from thier turmoil,,we turn these countries in to indentured servants and you wonder why they rise up against us and ram planes into our WORLD TRADE centers. We build factories over there because " it is too expensive" for us to build more here when actually that extra added expense takes away from the ceo's golf trips and excursions to wherever.
i am all for feeding the starving nations of the world,,we produce enough edible grain in this country to feed the world over but we reserve it for our cattle and livestock,,we feed North Korea and they crap on us every chance they get(well as long as carter is still alive we will continue to feed the koreans)
i am all for our humanitarian efforts,,,but you have to understand that we have our own problems and economic decay as well as a poor and starving unemployed people in our own country,,,,when you can pull your head out of your a$$ and realize that what i am saying is not some anti-other country propaganda you will then realize that i am for our common folks here in this country. we have to be able to take care of our own and be stable with in our own borders before we can go galabanting in to the wild blue yonder trying to rescue everyone else of thier BS. America was NOT founded on the principle that we suffer ourselves whilst we wipe the a$$ of some other country.

Peace,,,TWS

[Christopher M]

I recognize that moving jobs and money out of America reduces the jobs and money in America.

What I'm unclear on is why you imagine that moving jobs and money into (eg.) India doesn't increase the jobs and money in India. This just seems plainly silly.

Moreover, except in the short-term, none of this requires American suffering at all. Following the economic tenet of "comparative advantage", this sort of restructuring will be beneficial to America as well as (eg.) India, in the long-term. Let me know if you are unclear on what comparative advantage is.