An Amicable Divorce?

#76
#76
TrueOrange said:
I never really thought it was.

I have thought when those things get turned into something along the lines of Reaganomics that it can't work out
Click to expand...

Reaganomics DID work. Supply side economics worked for JFK first then Reagan then W. The problem with the last two was that Congress took the extra revenue and went on a spending frenzy with it.

If investors and businesses were given a tax break today, we would be under 7% unemployment and in firm recovery by the end of the year. Obama's stubborn dependence on socialistic/keynesian ideas creates a risk of a double dip recession because jobs aren't being created.

It is really pretty simple math. If you want a recovery and to reduce the debt/deficit then you need gov't spending to go down and private economic activity to go way up.
 
Last edited:
#77
#77
OrangeYankee said:
The Right Progressives feel that we need to adhere to a strict moral code along with the Bible: Abortion (which I will openly admit I still can't just say "my body my choice"), Gay Rights, and the percieved Manifest Destiny that democracy should be spread across the world by our hand (with force if necessary) are their weapons to progress their vision.
Click to expand...
Abortion isn't a moral issue with regard to whether it should be legal or not... it is a civil rights issue. If the unborn baby is "alive" then it should be have its right to live protected. ALL medical evidence says that it is alive.

I'm not sure I know to many people who want to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights. They simply don't want their rights trampled in the name of "Gay Rights".

FTR, you don't have a "right" to associate with those who don't want to associate with you. You don't have a "right" to be employed where the employer believes your behavior to be immoral or contrary to his/her religious convictions. You don't have a "right" to demand a license that has qualifiers. No license of any type is a "right"... all are based on qualifications.

I used to be on the Right but as I get older I realize I'm just as bad wanting my way forced in as the Left are really.
Click to expand...
That's the thing though. If you have a right to have your property and rights protected then you don't have to fear doing it to someone else or having it done to you.

I reject the notion completely that someone's ox must be gored. Max freedom + personal responsibility.
And I believe that major chunk in the "middle" may feel largely the same way and just want the Government out of our lives on both angles.
Click to expand...
Agreed. When was the last time you saw a conservative of any stripe try to outlaw homosexuals... or deny them their rights?

Again marriage is not a right and neither is being employed by someone who doesn't want you.

We are basically fighting over stuff that really should be left up to your own personal convictions or at the most your local municipality, NOT the Federal Gov't.
Click to expand...

Amen preach it. If an employer has a moral conviction against homosexual behavior than he should not have to hire someone who is engaged in it, right? Vice versa, a homosexual businessman shouldn't have to hire or do business with those they consider "haters", right?
 
#78
#78
sjt18 said:
I'm not sure I know to many people who want to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights. They simply don't want their rights trampled in the name of "Gay Rights".
Click to expand...

how are gays trampling on our rights?
 
#79
#79
sjt18 said:
I think you have deluded yourself into believing that our current path is sustainable.

About 35-40% of the country is conservative and knows what it believes and what kind of country it wants. About 20% of the country is liberal and likewise knows what they believe and want. The middle is largely moved by whether they feel good at the time or else if one party or the other has effectively demagogued the other or not.

It would seem that liberals should be at a disadvantage but they hold about 90% of the press, academia, and bureaucrats.

Those who vote without a solid understanding of political principles and foundation in some political pov are a huge, huge problem.

I can tell you this. From 1780 to 1900, the US went from being colonies to being a world power based on incredible economic prosperity and freedom. Since 1900 and especially since the late 60's, "Progressives" have gained enough traction to impose their ideals and agenda. From that point until now, our debt has exploded. We have seen the rise of a permanent "elite class" made up of politicians, business execs, academics, media types, and union leaders. We have seen the formation of a permanent dependent class. These were NOT products of our founding ideals.

I can all but guarantee that a country founded on the ideals of the Founders would rise from nothing to Superpower status in a matter of years.

Freedom works every time it is tried.

BTW, the current GOP is to some extent a coalition of formerly Democrat conservatives and the descendants of the conservative minority within the old GOP. The Democratic party of today has no real attachment to any American ideal of gov't or party in existence prior to about 1920. The philosophy and platform of the modern Dems is alien to our Constitution.
Click to expand...

And the dirty little fact that those who don't know their history don't realize is that socialism fails every time it is tried. We have over 100 years of history to demonstrate this. Whether a small socialist colony (Ruskin) or a giant socialist country (USSR), it all eventually fails.
 
#82
#82
Hmmm, a lame Gore... good point. :question:

But what about 9/11? I would imagine that we would have pursued the legal route with the accomplices we captured here, and we might have lobbed a guided missile or two at Bin Laden. I know that it can be argued that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have not delivered us from terrorist attacks, but at the very least they have crippled Al Qaeda's ability to plan, finance and coordinate another sophisticated attack of that nature.
 
#83
#83
I have thought about 9/11 and Gore a lot. I firmly believe we would have never entered Iraq but I am jilted if Gore would have hit Afgan.

In the end, I would trade Gore for W and Obama.
 
#84
#84
Daddy Gee said:
no question ... and the world would be much worse off for it ... w/o the buffer that the US represents in several troubled areas of the world, anarchy/despotism would surely break out ...
Click to expand...

Which isn't our job, we aren't the parents of the world.
 
#85
#85
no, it wasn't our job in the beginning, but that's how it's worked out ... I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but w/o the US, there are probably a lot of places in the world that would be much worse off if we weren't the world's policeman ....
 
#86
#86
I don't know if any of you have kids but I do.

For those who do, ever notice how kids become very mature when they're on their own or allowed to go visit someone else? When the parents are around, they'll fight and fuss constantly... If you try to break them up and discipline them, they both blame you for not taking their side...

People instinctively don't want to die... if we stop playing the world's policeman, they'll figure it out and won't have us to blame for everything. I'm not saying we don't support our allies and friends... just that we don't need our noses stuck in every mess.
 
#87
#87
sjt18 said:
Reaganomics DID work. Supply side economics worked for JFK first then Reagan then W. The problem with the last two was that Congress took the extra revenue and went on a spending frenzy with it.

If investors and businesses were given a tax break today, we would be under 7% unemployment and in firm recovery by the end of the year. Obama's stubborn dependence on socialistic/keynesian ideas creates a risk of a double dip recession because jobs aren't being created.

It is really pretty simple math. If you want a recovery and to reduce the debt/deficit then you need gov't spending to go down and private economic activity to go way up.
Click to expand...

oops
 
#90
#90
Daddy Gee said:
no, it wasn't our job in the beginning, but that's how it's worked out ... I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but w/o the US, there are probably a lot of places in the world that would be much worse off if we weren't the world's policeman ....
Click to expand...

As crazy as some of the ideas are, I heard Alan Keyes float around the idea that the United States has a duty to be in the middle east as bait for terrorists to come from other locations around the world -- Indonesia, etc. This is in contrast to terrorists coming to the United States assuming that they wouldn't come anyways.
 
#93
#93
bam15 said:
As crazy as some of the ideas are, I heard Alan Keyes float around the idea that the United States has a duty to be in the middle east as bait for terrorists to come from other locations around the world -- Indonesia, etc. This is in contrast to terrorists coming to the United States assuming that they wouldn't come anyways.
Click to expand...

Black ops should be any where and every where bad guys are.

Kill them and burry them in burlap..... we really need to catch up with the Russians.
 
#95
#95
sjt18 said:
Abortion isn't a moral issue with regard to whether it should be legal or not... it is a civil rights issue. If the unborn baby is "alive" then it should be have its right to live protected. ALL medical evidence says that it is alive.

That is why I put the parenthesis that I'm still struggling with that, because even with moral beliefs aside I view it the same way. IE I view abortion the same way as if they all of a sudden decided it was ok to Kill the elderly because they were a drain on society. However I do still stand by the fact that politicians use it as a weapon to get elected and are able to be worthless turdbags once in office.

I'm not sure I know to many people who want to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights. They simply don't want their rights trampled in the name of "Gay Rights".

But the problem is who cares if they have civil unions? How in the world is that infringing on your personal rights? Now honestly I think the fact that Government is so deeply involved what really is a religious ceremony in the first place is somewhat of a travesty but I think I'm alone on that one. Now if they waltz into a church and haul them off to court and ruin them financially because they have a hair up their butt against Christian beliefs and values that's a different story...
Click to expand...

Basically the TLDR of my original post is that we the people are getting played by these clowns on both sides, and the exception of a few people they both have done a pretty good job keeping this country on the track to ruin.
 
#96
#96
But the problem is who cares if they have civil unions? How in the world is that infringing on your personal rights?
Click to expand...
I have said consistently that if a state chooses to allow homosexuals to qualify for that license or even a marriage license I would disagree but it would be the right of the state to do that.

The rub comes when a homosexual shows up at a private business and demands that a person whose conscience is opposed to homosexuality provide them with a job and benefits for their partner. Or when a homosexual teacher in a school district where parents would object talks about his/her partner in front of impressionable children (this btw is why I think all schools must be privatized or returned with full rights and control to the local level).

I believe justice should be blind and should always fall on the side of NOT goring anyone's ox. Preserving the rights of all parties even if that means the supposedly aggrieved/disadvantaged party doesn't get what they want. Libs seem to think that justice must always fall on the side of the "little guy". That is completely wrong. Justice should be blind to everything except the narrow facts of the issue.

Now honestly I think the fact that Government is so deeply involved what really is a religious ceremony in the first place is somewhat of a travesty but I think I'm alone on that one.
Click to expand...
No. You aren't. I believe that some sort of license is necessary to protect women and children. However, before a state calls a homosexual union a "marriage", I would rather they dispense with sanctioning marriage at all and issue everyone "civil union license". But at that point, if justice is to be blind, you open up a legitimate argument for incestuous marriage, polygamy, animal marriage, and any other sort of perversion. For that matter, what should prevent two people who have no sexual relationship at all from marrying just for the benefits?

This is a very, very slippery slope.

If it isn't legitimate to draw a line that excludes homosexuals... where is the justification to exclude anything else?

Now if they waltz into a church and haul them off to court and ruin them financially because they have a hair up their butt against Christian beliefs and values that's a different story...
Click to expand...
If this were simply about "rights" for homosexuals then many more of us would just ignore it. The problem is that they want sanction and approval. They want to force people to accept them and change their sincere moral beliefs.
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
OrangeYankee said:
Basically the TLDR of my original post is that we the people are getting played by these clowns on both sides, and the exception of a few people they both have done a pretty good job keeping this country on the track to ruin.
Click to expand...

I guess in the amicable split of our country into two sides, you will have to be deported to an island somewhere. Maybe we could put you on Cayo Costa. :)
 
#98
#98
Agree that people are being played btw. Libs make promises that only big gov't can provide and people are fooled into believing it is good for the country. GOP pretends to be conservative but then doesn't make the stand.
 
#99
#99
Its always about the money...will always be about the money....until the economy explodes. Then it'll be about you have what you have because someone stronger than you didnt take it away today.
 
#100
#100
J-P said:
I guess in the amicable split of our country into two sides, you will have to be deported to an island somewhere. Maybe we could put you on Cayo Costa. :)
Click to expand...

LoL no I'd live with the righties as I really do completely agree with their views. I guess my problem is, is how can I force people to live by my version of a good life when I clearly see that telling me what to drive, how much power to use, and all of that is infringing on me?


have said consistently that if a state chooses to allow homosexuals to qualify for that license or even a marriage license I would disagree but it would be the right of the state to do that.

The rub comes when a homosexual shows up at a private business and demands that a person whose conscience is opposed to homosexuality provide them with a job and benefits for their partner. Or when a homosexual teacher in a school district where parents would object talks about his/her partner in front of impressionable children (this btw is why I think all schools must be privatized or returned with full rights and control to the local level).

I believe justice should be blind and should always fall on the side of NOT goring anyone's ox. Preserving the rights of all parties even if that means the supposedly aggrieved/disadvantaged party doesn't get what they want. Libs seem to think that justice must always fall on the side of the "little guy". That is completely wrong. Justice should be blind to everything except the narrow facts of the issue.
Click to expand...

We actually agree. I guess my point is this: Really outside of Abortion it's not my place to tell someone how they live in the bedroom what they put in their nose and bodies or anything along those lines. No matter how evil I believe those activities to be. And I am not accusing of you of thinking differently, the problem is the Moral Majority do come across as that way. Now your point on the Gays demanding from businesses and such, that is a completely different beast and I do believe (no matter how ignorant it is) any PRIVATE business can serve or not serve whoever they like. If a guy hates gays so be it his loss but if he chooses to not do business with them great. Same for a rabid Atheist. If he absolutely doesn't want a Christian in his sights that's his choice.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top