Obama: US has always paid it's bills

[ndcent]

read this:


Sufficient Reason - Dear Liberal?Here?s Why I?m So Hostile

I read as far as "half black."

Seriously?

Now please respond with some "oh well that's technically true" stammering to really show how "accepting" and open you are.

 

[nevada]

I read as far as "half black."

Seriously?

Now please respond with some "oh well that's technically true" stammering to really show how "accepting" and open you are.

you cherry picked that comment, AND took it out of context.
you talk about acceptance, and you cant even read it?

try again, and read it with an open mind.

 

[BigNuge]

I think the difference between my comments and yours are that mine are funny and lighthearted while yours are ignorant and as Nevada has so perfectly pointed out, hostile.

The party of "hostility." It sounds so hopeful and free, a real united America! Where can I sign up? Guns and jesus baby, let's take this country back to the way it was when it was good, yeeeeehaw!

Redirect, redirect, redirect......That's all you have. Never stand and fight. Why?? Because everything your perverted message contains is complete and utter BS.

Come on, say something real.....say something meaningful......say something logical, rational, quantifiable.

No?

I read as far as "half black."

Seriously?

Now please respond with some "oh well that's technically true" stammering to really show how "accepting" and open you are.

Another great example of the liberal ignorance (ignorance |ˈignərəns| noun
lack of knowledge or information). Yes, you do an outstanding job exemplifying ignorance.

Your choosing not to even read the article further demonstrates you and the lion share of liberals refusal to understand, or even attempt to understand, any other point other than your own. C'mon, put on your big boy pants, read the rest of it......promise there are no more scary parts.....

It was a half hearted joke BTW. Yes, race is still joked about in this country. Want to hear some real raunchy race humor?? Listen to black comedy.....

Get over yourself.....

 

[BigNuge]

you cherry picked that comment, AND took it out of context.
you talk about acceptance, and you cant even read it?

try again, and read it with an open mind.

:snacker:

 

[ndcent]

Hostility is not a virtue

I very much enjoyed this articulate response to the essay...so thanks for the link I guess.

“… as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.”

Born and raised in the South myself, I prefer the part of our culture where people are encouraged to be fundamentally decent to each other. I figure you and I would do a better job discussing these issues over a few beers than through essays on a Gemstone IV message board. I worry, however, that you exult in hostility. You chose here to write a manifesto rather than a letter and I think the bombastic flourishes are unnecessary.

I generally support the Democratic Party. I am uncomfortable with ideological labels like liberal and progressive. Labels mislead. My opinions do not align with most of the “I’m talking to you” segment toward the beginning of your post. Your suggestions there create a caricature, whereas I am a real person. For my part, it gains me nothing to “ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats” or think of them as universally ignorant or racist. It is important for me to try and see things from the other person’s point-of-view when it comes to political disagreements. Hannah Arendt talks about the ability of the human imagination to “go visiting.” I try to exercise that ability and live out the implications. I would advise you to tone down the heat of your rhetoric a little. Consider Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

Your emphasis on personal freedom may put us in agreement on some important issues. I believe that abortion should be legal. I believe that the world is messed up enough without telling people who love each other that they cannot get married. I think it is unjust to deny people these things; I think it is an unacceptable infringement upon their personal freedom.

It is fortunate for me that my conscience is not distressed when I vote for the Democratic Party. If I held your emphasis on freedom, it would be very difficult for me to vote Republican since so much of their rhetoric and legislative agenda is caught up on imposing a moral vision. Were I you, I feel that I would have the choice between a deeply conflicted Republican vote and an impotent third party vote. This conflict between legislating morality and emphasizing freedom is a grave difficulty for the Republicans right now. It leads to the massive cognitive dissonance of a Paul Ryan when he champions Roman Catholicism and Ayn Rand simultaneously. I wonder what will come of these problems.

You make a viable point about the difference between the constitutional bill of rights and the “second bill of rights” proposed by FDR. You argue that “it is a list of demands” upon your “time,” “treasure,” and “talents.” It seems to me, however, that your “time,” “treasure,” and “talents” are also at play in the original bill of rights. If a local government tries to infringe upon my right to free exercise of religion, then it is the tax-funded potency of the federal government that will protect me. The break between the two lists is not as clean as you may think. I could draw a different distinction in that the constitutional bill of rights speaks to human dignity in a special way. To deprive me of my right to free speech is to deprive me of my very humanity. Does it deprive me of humanity if I cannot find a job? I am not as sure.

The heart of the matter: we have different ideas about how to balance issues of personal freedom, social order and justice. I think most reasonable people agree that there must be some balance in this regard. I accept that we have enforced speed limits. I accept that we have free lunch programs for school kids. I accept that we need some kind of government supported healthcare reform. I believe these endeavors lead, slowly but surely, to a better ordered and more just society. I believe they lead to a better society than would be possible with reliance on individual responsibility and charity alone. But it is still a far from perfect society. I accept that too.

Your children and their children may be well provided for financially, and they may make a lot of smart decisions in their lives, and they may find themselves blessedly free of bad luck. I hope so. But if hard times fall upon them, I also hope to have a system of governance ready to provide them a hand up and new opportunities. I hope for this because it seems just but also because I have a sense that your children may have something to contribute to the American story that we cannot afford to miss out on.

I will not spin this out farther and I cannot promise any further posts here. I appreciate your intelligence and thoughtfulness even though we disagree. Please consider that hostility is not a virtue. All Best.

 

[BigNuge]

I very much enjoyed this articulate response to the essay...so thanks for the link I guess.

“… as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.”

Born and raised in the South myself, I prefer the part of our culture where people are encouraged to be fundamentally decent to each other. I figure you and I would do a better job discussing these issues over a few beers than through essays on a Gemstone IV message board. I worry, however, that you exult in hostility. You chose here to write a manifesto rather than a letter and I think the bombastic flourishes are unnecessary.

I generally support the Democratic Party. I am uncomfortable with ideological labels like liberal and progressive. Labels mislead. My opinions do not align with most of the “I’m talking to you” segment toward the beginning of your post. Your suggestions there create a caricature, whereas I am a real person. For my part, it gains me nothing to “ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats” or think of them as universally ignorant or racist. It is important for me to try and see things from the other person’s point-of-view when it comes to political disagreements. Hannah Arendt talks about the ability of the human imagination to “go visiting.” I try to exercise that ability and live out the implications. I would advise you to tone down the heat of your rhetoric a little. Consider Oliver Cromwell, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”

Your emphasis on personal freedom may put us in agreement on some important issues. I believe that abortion should be legal. I believe that the world is messed up enough without telling people who love each other that they cannot get married. I think it is unjust to deny people these things; I think it is an unacceptable infringement upon their personal freedom.

It is fortunate for me that my conscience is not distressed when I vote for the Democratic Party. If I held your emphasis on freedom, it would be very difficult for me to vote Republican since so much of their rhetoric and legislative agenda is caught up on imposing a moral vision. Were I you, I feel that I would have the choice between a deeply conflicted Republican vote and an impotent third party vote. This conflict between legislating morality and emphasizing freedom is a grave difficulty for the Republicans right now. It leads to the massive cognitive dissonance of a Paul Ryan when he champions Roman Catholicism and Ayn Rand simultaneously. I wonder what will come of these problems.

You make a viable point about the difference between the constitutional bill of rights and the “second bill of rights” proposed by FDR. You argue that “it is a list of demands” upon your “time,” “treasure,” and “talents.” It seems to me, however, that your “time,” “treasure,” and “talents” are also at play in the original bill of rights. If a local government tries to infringe upon my right to free exercise of religion, then it is the tax-funded potency of the federal government that will protect me. The break between the two lists is not as clean as you may think. I could draw a different distinction in that the constitutional bill of rights speaks to human dignity in a special way. To deprive me of my right to free speech is to deprive me of my very humanity. Does it deprive me of humanity if I cannot find a job? I am not as sure.

The heart of the matter: we have different ideas about how to balance issues of personal freedom, social order and justice. I think most reasonable people agree that there must be some balance in this regard. I accept that we have enforced speed limits. I accept that we have free lunch programs for school kids. I accept that we need some kind of government supported healthcare reform. I believe these endeavors lead, slowly but surely, to a better ordered and more just society. I believe they lead to a better society than would be possible with reliance on individual responsibility and charity alone. But it is still a far from perfect society. I accept that too.

Your children and their children may be well provided for financially, and they may make a lot of smart decisions in their lives, and they may find themselves blessedly free of bad luck. I hope so. But if hard times fall upon them, I also hope to have a system of governance ready to provide them a hand up and new opportunities. I hope for this because it seems just but also because I have a sense that your children may have something to contribute to the American story that we cannot afford to miss out on.

I will not spin this out farther and I cannot promise any further posts here. I appreciate your intelligence and thoughtfulness even though we disagree. Please consider that hostility is not a virtue. All Best.

While we clearly stand on opposite sides of a lot of issues, I respect and appreciate that response.

I think my passion comes across as hostility, I am truly not a hostile person. I would agree an in-person discussion would be a much better platform for this debate, and I would welcome the opportunity if it ever came to pass.

With that, I wish you pleasant evening (movie night with my son is about to start).

 

[-JD-]

Just wondering if you read the article I posted earlier. The problem with this logic is the fact that the states that vote conservative also tend to receive the most federal assistance.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state#Table_of_Federal_Taxation_and_Spending_by_State]Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/QUOTE]

Liberals want to just keep taking my hard earned money and buy the other HALF of the country fish. Conservatives simply want people to fish for themselves.

Do you know a guy who keeps a loaded shotgun under his bed? You know, in case a gang of European terrorists storm into his house and try to kidnap his family?

If you throw a bunch of statistics at him about how unlikely that is (for example, that he lives in a low-crime suburb in Wisconsin where there's only been one murder in the last 40 years, that he's statistically more likely to accidentally do something stupid than ward off a criminal and that more people were struck by lightning last year than successfully shot bad guys in the middle of committing crimes), it won't change his mind. Instead, he'll rebut you by citing a news story or an anecdote about a guy who successfully fended off a Die Hard bad guy thanks to his trusty 12-gauge. For him, that single, vivid example completely overrides all talk of statistics or probability.

This seems to apply to your logic of 'liberal' vs 'conservative' states.

The irony, these people move here for the NH (Conservative) way of life. As soon as they get here they immediately start trying to change it, in the ruse of making it "better". I have specific knowledge and experience with this as I live in a southern NH town, with a new (5 year old) development right across the street. Want to venture a guess as to how many of those units were sold to a MA (very liberal) transplant?? Out of 29 units, only 3 were bought by NH residents.

If you're smart and savvy, you know not to trust anyone. This is why we can excuse ourselves for using shady or flat-out dishonest tactics to win an argument. We're sure the other guy is doing much, much worse.

The world is so full of hidden agendas and stupid ideologies that we have to do whatever we can to keep up. And "whatever we can" is often code for lying.

The Science:

Think about all the people you've disagreed with this month. How many of them do you think were being intentionally dishonest? Experts say you're almost definitely overshooting the truth. It's called the trust gap, and scientist see it crop up every time one human is asked to estimate how trustworthy another one is. In one study, subjects were asked to rate the likelihood that strangers would share pretend winnings with them. The subjects figured about half were trustworthy enough to share. When it came time to actually share, about 80 percent came through. The subjects thought the world was almost twice as corrupt as it actually is.

The problem, as another study found, is that when you assume someone is lying, you rarely find out that you're wrong. You just walk away congratulating yourself on being able to sniff out an ambush from a mile away.

We start assuming people have ulterior motives and hidden agendas as early as age 7 and from that point on, we never have to lose another argument for the rest of our lives. After all, if we assume the person we're arguing with is lying, the only thing they can prove to us is that they're a really good liar.

Moral of the story, the liberal will do/say anything to get their way, to push their ideals, take any/everything they want to create their own little bubble.

I would also like to add that this healthcare plan is not "liberal". A liberal plan would be a single payer system, like most developed countries have. As has been mentioned previously in this thread this was 'conservative' plan not too long ago. Once it was adopted by Obama and the democrats it suddenly became villified as a 'liberal' idea.

 

[soj1057]

its not happening, because one half isn't trying to dictate what the other half does, with their money/time/lives/etc.
you cant say that for both sides.



and you're right, we should all be sharing the load, the problem is, that's NOT whats happening. the side that is trying to dictate what we do is ALSO not pulling their own weight.

and it is they, and not WE, because the rest of us are fed up. enough is enough.

Really man? when is one side NOT trying to control and dictate what the other half does? Thats the problem with parties to begin with.

 

[soj1057]

Redirect, redirect, redirect......That's all you have. Never stand and fight. Why?? Because everything your perverted message contains is complete and utter BS.

Come on, say something real.....say something meaningful......say something logical, rational, quantifiable.

No?



Another great example of the liberal ignorance (ignorance |ˈignərəns| noun
lack of knowledge or information). Yes, you do an outstanding job exemplifying ignorance.

Your choosing not to even read the article further demonstrates you and the lion share of liberals refusal to understand, or even attempt to understand, any other point other than your own. C'mon, put on your big boy pants, read the rest of it......promise there are no more scary parts.....

It was a half hearted joke BTW. Yes, race is still joked about in this country. Want to hear some real raunchy race humor?? Listen to black comedy.....

Get over yourself.....

I read the article. I could almost hear the death throws of an ancient, bloated dying beast in the distance as I read. Brought down by short sightedness, lack of or false concern for others, racisim, ignorance and greed. It was wierd.

 

[nevada]

Really man? when is one side NOT trying to control and dictate what the other half does? Thats the problem with parties to begin with.

you've got it all wrong.

you're going through life with your eyes closed.

 

[RunninInGA]

Really man? when is one side NOT trying to control and dictate what the other half does? Thats the problem with parties to begin with.

As Randy might say if you were of the opposing view of his: Do you have any suggestions or are you just gonna gripe about it and arm-chair quarterback the situation?

 

[BigNuge]

I read the article. I could almost hear the death throws of an ancient, bloated dying beast in the distance as I read. Brought down by short sightedness, lack of or false concern for others, racisim, ignorance and greed. It was wierd.

You walk the same path that you criticize, showing your face cards again Hypocrite.

Another rank and file/standard issue Obamabot, nothing more.

I'm wondering, was your response part of your indoctrination script, or did you dream that gem up yourself?

 

[ndcent]

When you can't try to defend or even explain democrat policy without being painted with a broad "obamabot" brush, wtf is the point? To stifle rational discussion and sit back and enjoy the echo chamber/circle jerk?

No thanks.

 

[RunninInGA]

When you can't try to defend or even explain democrat policy without being painted with a broad "obamabot" brush, wtf is the point? To stifle rational discussion and sit back and enjoy the echo chamber/circle jerk?

No thanks.

Sorry man, all I see is you sniping comments from the sidelines, which is just as counter-productive.

 

[hikenbike]

Such love in the afternoon.

Amazing how many political strategists, philosophers, psychologists, theologists, physicists, heath care experts, prognosticators, proctologists, financial strategists, economic advisors, social engineers, immigration officials, and cable news anchors there are here and drive 4Runners.

 

[soj1057]

you've got it all wrong.

you're going through life with your eyes closed.

I’m interested as to how you can form an opinion like that from my statements on parties..... Or are my eyes closed because I don't align myself with you and BigNuge?

When the Framers of our Constitution designed our system of representative democracy it was an experiment. There was no other country with a government like it, and there never had been. As a matter of fact there is no mention of political parties in our Constitution....

Further, when the creators of our system / country spoke about them, they usually called them "factions" and when they DID speak of them, they warned about the danger in dividing a country with them.

 

[soj1057]

You walk the same path that you criticize, showing your face cards again Hypocrite.

Another rank and file/standard issue Obamabot, nothing more.

I'm wondering, was your response part of your indoctrination script, or did you dream that gem up yourself?

Keep calling names and stomping your feet, it will protect you about as much as the bible you thump and the tattered flag you use to conceal yourself with.

P.S. I didn't vote for Obama, Im not a democrat either, even without those facts, I can still see the writting on the wall better than you.

 

[RunninInGA]

Keep calling names and stomping your feet, it will protect you about as much as the bible you thump and the tattered flag you use to conceal yourself with.

P.S. I didn't vote for Obama, Im not a democrat either, even without those facts, I can still see the writting on the wall better than you.

Please show us the way to enlightenment, won't you?

 

[soj1057]

As Randy might say if you were of the opposing view of his: Do you have any suggestions or are you just gonna gripe about it and arm-chair quarterback the situation?

I don't have all the answers. I don't even know if it would work but I would like to do away with the parties and have a government that IS of, by, and for the people, democracy should be designed in a way that allows people to realistically engage in it.

Citizens need to participate in democracy by participating in their communities. Politics should not be so much about the actions of a distant government as about things people actually cared about.

If someone had an issue he was concerned about, he would discuss it with other community members and, if they supported his issue, it could be presented to the community as a whole. If the community supported it, the community representative would be responsible for advocating for it at the next level.

And on up the chain, each group responsible for holding the higher group accountable, you would only need about 4 or 5 groups by the time it got to a “federal level”. Communication could flow up and down the hierarchy with ease. Issues that are supported at each level would rise to the top and become policy, while those that are not would stall. It sounds daunting but in reality you are guaranteeing that big business and politicians have no sway. Its about what’s right for the people for the people.

On some level there will always be a "large government" we are a large nation. But there is no need for Republicans or Democrats as they currently exist in my opinion. They do not serve the community you live in, or you, they serve themselves as a name. Do you really think your opinion or "vote" counts in our current system?

 

[RunninInGA]

I don't have all the answers. I don't even know if it would work but I would like to do away with the parties and have a government that IS of, by, and for the people, democracy should be designed in a way that allows people to realistically engage in it.

Citizens need to participate in democracy by participating in their communities. Politics should not be so much about the actions of a distant government as about things people actually cared about.

If someone had an issue he was concerned about, he would discuss it with other community members and, if they supported his issue, it could be presented to the community as a whole. If the community supported it, the community representative would be responsible for advocating for it at the next level.

And on up the chain, each group responsible for holding the higher group accountable, you would only need about 4 or 5 groups by the time it got to a “federal level”. Communication could flow up and down the hierarchy with ease. Issues that are supported at each level would rise to the top and become policy, while those that are not would stall. It sounds daunting but in reality you are guaranteeing that big business and politicians have no sway. Its about what’s right for the people for the people.

On some level there will always be a "large government" we are a large nation. But there is no need for Republicans or Democrats as they currently exist in my opinion. They do not serve the community you live in, or you, they serve themselves as a name. Do you really think your opinion or "vote" counts in our current system?

I hear what you're saying and I can't argue with your fantasies, however this is all pipe dreams and will NEVER happen for the same reasons today's system isn't working.

All I'm suggesting is that you don't have any intelligent responses / solutions to the issues (no offense meant, even the people whose job it is to clean this up doesn't have any either) but you're demonizing others in this thread for having an opposing view than yours.