Socialist America

How's this for a concept:

The government forces us to pay them "protection Money" (they call it "taxes") at gunpoint......& then turns around & hands our hard earned money to rich corporate CEO's to go on million dollars golf weekends!!

That is no exaggeration!!

coalmeister wrote:Keep voting the bums out, and after a cycle or 2 they would get it.

Yeah, they'd get it ... they'd get their Congressional salaries and good health insurance for the rest of their lives. They don't care what they do when they're elected because they know when they go out they are going to get paid. They're only there for that and to collect as much lobbyist money as they can for as long as they can. It sickens me to think of how great this country could be if only the people who lead us sincerely cared, did the right things, and didn't fight with each other.

Devil505 wrote:How's this for a concept:

The government forces us to pay taxes at gunpoint......& then turns around & hands our hard earned money to rich corporate CEO's to go on million dollars golf weekends!!

That is no exaggeration!!

Yeah, AIG ... that blows my mind. And, how do you like the idea of people who lost their homes having their hard earned tax money handed over to the very financial companies who caused them to lose their homes ... bailout my butt!! Talk about insult to injury ... so sick.

swva wrote:Issues of laws regarding morality should be left up to the people themselves through referendum instead of letting the 'tail wag the dog'. Let the constituents decide it for themselves, by ballot.

100% - we'd probably have far less problems if constituents voted instead of so-called "representatives" that are bought off for the highest dollar.

swva wrote:What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is no concern of mine or the government's.
agreed ... it's none of their business, but when it is pushed on our kindergarteners in an attempt to desensitize them, then that's a different story altogether.

It has no more place in kindergarten than sex-ed does, but I cant answer the question of "when" either.

swva wrote:

djackman wrote:There should be a 100% separation of church and state, period.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of a "separation of church and state", and if you read Jefferson's correspondance in which this phrase is mentioned, it was said with the meaning of protecting the church from the government so that government couldn't restrict individuals from religious freedoms they had the God given right to.

True, it is not in the Constitution. Re: Jefferson, I do assume you're referring to the "Wall of Seperation Letter"?

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God;"

I'm aware of the religious interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, but I tend to take things at face value. I can go for the concept of preventing establishing a state religion but I do not see the validity of the argument that Christian values are supposed to pass into government. Goverment should not tell religions what they can and cannot say, at the same time religions should not be influencing the goverment. It goes both ways, not one.

The argument that if a government does not legislate from a biblical moral perspective it is therefor an immoral system automatically excludes any non-Christian ideals. The 1st amendment is almost as debatable as the 2nd (for the record, I'm pro-gun ownership - guns do not kill anything)

swva wrote:everything else was witchcraft or what not. Liberals like to spin this and use it to their advantage saying that the government is promoting a religion by allowing the Ten Commandments (a historical artifact/document) to be displayed or by allowing our school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the word "God" in it, and etc.

The Pledge of Allegiance didn't have "under God" added until the early 1950's. The 1st 3 changes to the Pledge were to clarify it's original meaning, not add meaning, which "under God" does. The majority of challenges to compulsory participation in the Pledge of Allegiance revolve around the "under God" phrase -- not someone's loyalty or love of their country. Nowhere does it say you must belive in God (or a god) to be a proud American, and I would prefer the Pledge not have a religious overtone to it.

I will argue to the end for someone's right to express and practice their religion, ANY religion, as long as that expression or practice is not influencing government policy or harming anyone.

swva wrote:Dare I say most conservatives are more tolerant and more rational than most liberals on issues of morality are religion?

If you mean TRUE conservatives, eg the types that are for personal freedom, liberty, and accountablity, less govm't interference in our lives, a non-Corporate or Social welfare state, then ABSOLUTELY 100% YES.

If by "conservatives" you mean the modern Republicans, no. They've allowed the infiltration of religious views into government policy - "Faith Based Initiatives", private (religious and nondenominational) school vouchers, funding abstinence only sex ed in public schools while promoting restrictions on abortion, allowing publicly funded schools to teach Creationism, etc. They are anything but small govm't

swva wrote:I'm glad that we agree there is no one to vote for this fall ... they're both as corrupt as can be and are not capable of straightening out this economy.

What's your solution? I'd like to hear from someone who realizes "none of the above" is the answer.

djackman wrote:If you mean TRUE conservatives, eg the types that are for personal freedom, liberty, and accountablity, less govm't interference in our lives, a non-Corporate or Social welfare state, then ABSOLUTELY 100% YES.

That's exactly what I mean, but it depends also on what you mean as "personal freedoms". Some personal freedoms cannot transcend the laws of morality ... some things are non-negotiable. True conservatives are few and far between in today's Congress.

djackman wrote:True, it is not in the Constitution. Re: Jefferson, I do assume you're referring to the "Wall of Seperation Letter"?

That's what I'm referring to. The problem with Liberals using Jefferson as the authority on how government and church should co-exist is that Jefferson's name is not on the Constitution, and in fact he didn't support the Constitution. Very shallow argument, and a big leap, on the part of Liberals here, I have to say. I think it's also safe to say that Jefferson was athiest, or agnostic at the very least, but even he knew the dangers of government interfering with the right of all Americans to practice religion as they see fit. There is a reason why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights, and protection of our freedom of religion was a big part of that.

djackman wrote:I'm aware of the religious interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, but I tend to take things at face value.

This is why there is so much disagreement. Liberals like to call the Constitution a "living, breathing document", bending it and shaping it to match their ideology. No where did the framers of the Constitution say that as society evolves so should the Constitution. They never thought men would become so immoral in the future and thought it'd never be interpreted for anything more than what it is. As someone who's pro-gun, you can surely agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and not just the military, as some liberals are now trying to persuade us to think?

djackman wrote:I will argue to the end for someone's right to express and practice their religion, ANY religion, as long as that expression or practice is not influencing government policy or harming anyone.

When the government is in control of deciding our moral state for us it is inevitable that religion is going to influence their decision because the morality that most religions promote have been facts of life and pillars of cultures and societies for centuries upon centuries. And, just because government policy and religious teachings are coincidental at times does not mean government's policy was drawing from those religious teachings.

Gay marriage: in all the years that man has existed on this earth, there has never been gay marriage, but some in our society want it to be law now ... does that make it moral? The fact that, historically, gay marriage was not part of the mores of a society means that some level of moral precedence has been established. Precedence is surely something liberals will appreciate, since they use the precedence argument in Supreme Court cases all the time, right?

djackman wrote:What's your solution? I'd like to hear from someone who realizes "none of the above" is the answer.

I think the only power that we have to end the corruption and have accountability on Capitol Hill is to vote out the incumbent in all Congressional elections, and keep the checks and balances in place by making sure the no party has control of Congress and the White House at the same time. In conditions like today's, a little gridlock may be a good thing. It's when you have a situation as is with our current economic crisis and a party that holds the majority in both houses of Congress and the White House that the problems and corruption arise. Just as the Bush administration and Republican controlled Congress created fear through terrorism to promote their agenda, infringing upon our liberties, the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled Congress will sustain the fear surrounding the economy to promote their agenda and infringe upon our liberties.

Both parties are pushing us towards socialism, I don't argue that. Just as I said in another post, the Democrats of today are not your grandparents Democrats, and the Republicans of today are not your grandparents Republicans. Things have changed and there's more corruption in both parties than ever before.

there should be term limits in both houses. thats the only way to get things right in this country. some of those people been in there way to long. 2 terms and out the door. just think if bush wasn't leaving in 3 months.

ken wrote:there should be term limits in both houses. thats the only way to get things right in this country. some of those people been in there way to long. 2 terms and out the door. just think if bush wasn't leaving in 3 months.

Term limits would be great. I'd even be happy with giving them a full-salaried retirement package only after they've served a certain number of years in Congress, similar to servicemen ... say, after 12 or 16 years for Congressmen. Some of the Harvard Law grads and neurosurgeons that could make millions a year on the street might think twice before trying their hands in politics. The lobbyist money would draw some of them, but at least they wouldn't have that security net of the retirement/insurance package unless they performed to the level their constituents expect. This would give us at least something to use against these corrupt bastards.

George Bush not leaving in 3 more months is a scary thought. The damage he could cause if he had another year, or even 6 months, in office is unimaginable! Seeing him tell Henry Paulson he's doing a good job reminds me of when he told "Brownie" he was doing "one hell of a job" in handling Katrina. Paulson should have been fired long ago. I knew the man was weak and a crook last year when he took a trip to China where a mean looking female Chinese financial officer yanked him around like he was a little rag doll ... literally!

swva, as a favor, would you please stop dividing us into Liberal vs. Good? The label Liberal, as you use it, could easily be interchanged with "Spawn of Satan". I am a pro-gun, pro-death-penalty, pro-choice atheist who disapproves of a great deal that the federal government does but feels it should do MORE in other areas. So am I Liberal or Conservative?

ken wrote:there should be term limits in both houses. thats the only way to get things right in this country. some of those people been in there way to long. 2 terms and out the door. just think if bush wasn't leaving in 3 months.

I agree Ken. Two terms & then CYA! (no exceptions!)

rberq wrote:swva, as a favor, would you please stop dividing us into Liberal vs. Good? The label Liberal, as you use it, could easily be interchanged with "Spawn of Satan". I am a pro-gun, pro-death-penalty, pro-choice atheist who disapproves of a great deal that the federal government does but feels it should do MORE in other areas. So am I Liberal or Conservative?

Bob, I've never said that Liberals are evil, but there are fundamental differences between Liberals and Conservatives in issues of morality, and in those issues Liberals are flat out wrong ... the things most Liberals believe in nowadays goes against 5000 years of history. Abortion is a recent trend, pushing for gay marriage is a recent trend, and there are a lot of Liberals who'd say social Conservatives are radical in their thinking for opposing these things. Who's really the radical ones? I'm on the side of morality that has been established long ago and followed by most of the worlds cultures throughout history. When these mores start being overlooked and disregarded then all you're asking for is chaos. Don't take my word for it, just look at the ever increasing violence that goes on in the inner-cities and in our schools; just look at the overcrowded prisons; look at how 50% of all marriages end up in divorce within the first 2 years; look at how many fathers abandon their wife and kids; look how drug use has skyrocketed over the past 40 years. Do you think things have always been this way? You take God out of society and this is what you get. And the further down the rabbit hole we go, the more chaotic things will get. There has to be a moral authority and if you don't believe God is that moral authority, then it should be easy for you to believe that history itself is the moral authority with its long established traditions.

There are a lot of Liberals who don't believe there's such a thing as evil ... they like to call pedophilia a disease and alcoholism a disease, for example. Some of them like to believe that murderers have a disease that caused them to kill and that they can be rehabilitated. What you're asking me to do by keeping quiet is to be politically correct, and I won't be politically correct. Political correctness was ushered in by slick Willy Clinton, and in all due respect PC is for Liberals, by Liberals ... I won't be participating in this PC load of crap.

Regards,
swva

swva, I didn’t ask you to keep quiet, just to stop over-simplifying by using “Liberal” as a swear word. Black and white is nice – simple answers for simple minds. But most of the issues you mention are neither black nor white, they’re gray. Take abortion – many pro-choice folks are very opposed to abortion, after a couple months of pregnancy. But to condemn the morning-after pill, as some do, is as silly as to condemn condoms for preventing pregnancy. And to tell a woman who was raped that she must bear the rapist’s child is nothing short of sadistic. Gray areas. Subtleties. Am I pro-choice or pro-life? Somewhere between copulation and viability of the fetus is the cut-off point, and unfortunately it’s hard to agree where the line is. The devil is in the details.

Gay marriage? It’s a legal issue more than anything else – property rights, medical visitation rights, adoption rights. Gray areas and subtleties again. Whether we call it civil union or marriage, it’s the same thing legally, so who gives a sh*t what we call it? We just like to withhold the “marriage” designation because it makes us feel superior to “those people” and gives us the power to deny them something that we can have. Very un-Christian.

Rehabilitation of murderers? Nah! Won’t happen. So fry ‘em, in my opinion. Even if they’re insane. Especially if they’re insane, because then there’s no hope at all for rehabilitation. But, how about when we’re wrong, and we convicted the wrong person? It has happened a lot. Do we just say that’s an acceptable level of casualties, or do we go for lifetime imprisonment instead, in cases where there’s some doubt? Or what if, next week, a new drug becomes available that converts those insane murderers to stable Republicans? Now they are not even the same person they were when they did the murder, so what’s the point (or the justice) in executing them? Gray areas. Not black and white.

At this point i can not afford to be a Rep. Right now i am the little guy and unless i become independantly welthy, own my own business, i am born again or hit the lottery I will stay a Dem. People should vote for the party that will help them the most. I will not vote for a party that voted down a min. wage increse for 7 or 8 years.

I'm on 12 hour shifts so I haven't had an opportunity to read all of the posts. As the banksters meet in Washington they are talking amongst themselves of an international currency. The banksters love socialism because it provides more power to them. They already have control of all of they money, they now want the power. Centralized banking is the 5th plank of Marxism look up Marx + ten planks.

I suggest that the readers here look up a book named The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson. I don't always agree with the author but he has foreseen exactly what is happening today since the 80's, basically he has written about the accumulation of power into the hands of the central government enthusiast who wish to control you through the issuance of their illegitimate money. Is it too late to stop the socialist? Probably, because Americans and the world have been dumbed down to the point that they don't even know what rights are, or that right are issued by god and not government. That is why god is important to our form of government, god given rights can not be retraced by the laws of men who look to enslave you through fiat money.

Before the atheist chime in, think of it this way. Where would you rather derive your rights from? Man or god. Just for the record I'm a deist.

I dont want my president waiting for a answer from God on a important decision for the country.

efo141 wrote:I dont want my president waiting for a answer from God on a important decision for the country.

You won't have to if Obama's elected

He gets his from Allah