Also, I do not donate money to politics. Who is stopping you from becoming an s-corp or the like and donating all over the place? You probably should incorporate in some form to remove some liability from yourself, but you're obviously much more intelligent than myself so i probably shouldn't make suggestions. Why have unions always been allowed to do what they want, but when the pac citizens united wanted to air an anti hilary documentary they were denied; which led to the supreme court case. I don't agree with it, but it's "the law of the land" as obama has stated many times about things like gay marriage and obamacare.
I know what Nazi stands for and it still doesn't make them socialists. It's just a name for a fascist political organization.
Your donations obviously aren't the ones that are destroying our government. You don't have enough money to make a difference. Your support for those that do have enough money to buy government and use that power to our detriment regularly is the problem. Without your support, these multi billionaires have no power. You give them that power. I don't.
Fascism and socialism are similar as the people have no say in how they are governed. America was built on freedom of choice. We wouldn't have that freedom if we hadn't fought for it . Unfortunately we are now governed by a dictatorship. The government as we know it today releases smoke and mirrors to keep the people confused. They have parties which tell you the people what they want to hear. Then they get elected by electors who really know the truth, but do the people really know who won. They take your so called donations promising to get your agendas accomplished. A smart man would keep his own money to live off of. After all he's the one who worked for it. Our government is as corrupt as it gets. They keep the people fighting against each other . Dividing them Democrats and Republicans, Black and White,Rich and Poor, Straight and Gay,Gun Owners and Gun opposers, Islamic and Jewish,Atheists and Christians,Unions and free workers, entitlement kids and people who believe you reap what you sow. We should all get along and work together to start a government that truly is for and of the people and beyond outside control.
Smoke and mirrors doesn't make a dictatorship. And if you think this govt is as corrupt as it gets, then you must not really be very aware of what's going on in the world. In reality I think you are just being bombastic in your attempts to blame someone else for our problems. Our problems go right back to the people and their superficial views of what is going on in our society.
It also really bugs me when people talk about the younger generation as thinking they are "entitled". If anything it is the baby boomers who deserve that label. The baby boomers grew up when America was making itself great. By the time they were well entrenched in the workforce, the govt had cracked down on oppressive monopolies, recognized that workers needed more rights and power to counter that oppression. Unions made it possible for the average person to make a living wage and still have time to spend with family. Blacks achieved their deserved civil rights nearly 200 years after the framers of the Constitution couldn't figured that out on their own. Even though people act like they were Gods.
But what did the boomers do with all of that? They felt entitled to more s**t to make their life great. They stabbed each other in the back out of greed and began to pit themselves against impoverished foreign labor to satiate their need for more stuff. They are leaving the children who represent our future with a country that is in debt, yet squeal like a pig at the thought of paying for their education. They have exported manufacturing to other countries leaving a preponderance of low paying service industry jobs that they mock with the cliche "want some fries with that" in an attempt to berate anyone who thinks they should receive decent pay for a hard day's work. It isn't corruption in govt that sucks. It's the people of this country.
It's not smoke and mirrors that makes them divided. It's the reliance on the most superficial principles that guide their beliefs instead of putting in the intellectual energy to see the big picture. Making society great is not an issue of convincing everyone to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and all become executives, doctors, and lawyers. It's the policies we adopt that shift the statistics of the entire population. Policies that both help guide young people into productive lives and give them opportunities to achieve at all levels of education and ability. You cannot achieve that by selling out your country to every 3rd world sh*thole that will make you something cheap.
Fascism - A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
Socialsim - A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
That is per the dictionary. Try picking one up some time. You might learn something. Are you ready to admit that you aren't as smart as your smugness would suggest?
Can't you see that economically they are very similar? Both systems don't recognise personal ownership of resourses, only collective ownership. They are both a long way away from the free market. (In the same direction)
To be clear from a citizens point of view, there was zero difference from living in nazi Germany and living in stalins russian. Except the germans had a better standard of living of course.
Can't you see that economically they are very similar? Both systems don't recognise personal ownership of resourses, only collective ownership. They are both a long way away from the free market. (In the same direction)
Dang it, Ralph, you got me. I've gotta respond.
First, where is the market truly "free"? I mean its freest is where the regulation is the least, right? Where, precisely is that? Certainly not here in the land of Dod Frank and Sarbanes Oxley. A "pure" free market (the utter and complete absence of central control) basically gets you to Game of Thrones or Somalia.
Second, your understanding of fascism is just plain wacked. Fascists did not advocate for state ownership of the means of production. In fact, that's vocally rejected. Rather, they put industry in the hands of loyal cronies.
Takes two wings to fly. We all know that absolutes lead to absolute corruption. At the end of the day, you want the government to be the 10,000 foot view people who represent the peoples interest while allowing the people to compete and gain some wealth in a relatively free market. Once the free market becomes unfair or against the peoples interest, the government is supposed to step in and create fairness in the marketplace. Having absolute control of market share by a few in a monopoly. We know how those go for competition and market growth.
With that said, that is why I am against government control of industry (Healthcare for instance), the government is supposed to be the management team that keeps the higher view and moves in to help. If they are the supplier, they no longer have the higher level view and are as biased as a normal business.
To your point of many things we support are socialist in nature. You have to realize they now are fixed expenditures. They are also considered career jobs. That means they typically can not be the highest paid positions but are increasingly are becoming highest paid. If government is a concoction that is created by the people and lives by the revenue created by the people, then they government can not by definition be the ones with more payroll than private industry. The government does not have a product to sell except printing money. Then they are just reducing the wealth of the of public through inflation.
On a different note; if people are not allowed to compete their will to live will go away. Just like feeding the bears. Feed them and they will be trained to wait for the feeding. They forget how to hunt. People are the same. Give them handouts and they will stay on the handouts forever. They will forget how to compete and to innovate. People getting unproductive is the death of a government. Socialist governments will by definition go more radical due to survival. They step in and forces the peoplle to compete because the nation will be dying. That is why socialism is a death spiral for a country.
It is like this. You ever notice how do gooder groups get started for a great cause? They have a good message and everyone does it because it is the right thing. They do it for cheap and so on. The get some staying power. Make a name for the group. Get some donations and have created quite a little organization with some people on the payroll. Life is good. Then the cause they were fighting gets fixed or just is no longer a issue. They group is stunned but they are getting paid now so what do they do? They tend to go radical to capture some money from the fringes. Next thing you know, they are throwing animal blood on people or chaining themselves to things. They are survival mechanisms. That is why you want a neutral government that has the 10,000 ft view and let the people compete.
psudy is no doubt one of these guys who doesn't know what fascism is and doesn't know that fascism and socialism are polar opposites.
Good try. Whom ever was comparing a capitalist to a fascist, When you have a socialist running in your party. Thats what was funny to me. Two of the three are closer in theory.
You bet there are differences between socialism and fascism but when compared to capitalism, the differences become smaller.
Good try. Whom ever was comparing a capitalist to a fascist, When you have a socialist running in your party. Thats what was funny to me. Two of the three are closer in theory.
You bet there are differences between socialism and fascism but when compared to capitalism, the differences become smaller.
Which "capitalist" system are you comparing to? Let's use concrete examples not dictionary definitions that don't exist in the real world.
First, where is the market truly "free"? I mean its freest is where the regulation is the least, right? Where, precisely is that? Certainly not here in the land of Dod Frank and Sarbanes Oxley. A "pure" free market (the utter and complete absence of central control) basically gets you to Game of Thrones or Somalia.
Maybe I wasn't being clear, all I'm saying is economically you have a scale which runs from 100% planned to 100% free.
Both Socialist and Fascist are at the planned end and democratic at at the free end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy
Second, your understanding of fascism is just plain wacked. Fascists did not advocate for state ownership of the means of production. In fact, that's vocally rejected. Rather, they put industry in the hands of loyal cronies.
From a citizens point of view it doesn't matter if resources are owned by a collective or by a chosen few, the important point is they are prevented from owning them.
Maybe I wasn't being clear, all I'm saying is economically you have a scale which runs from 100% planned to 100% free.
Both Socialist and Fascist are at the planned end and democratic at at the free end.
OK, but of course Western Europe is all democratic and "more socialist" than us. So democracy and socialist institutions are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph
From a citizens point of view it doesn't matter if resources are owned by a collective or by a chosen few, the important point is they are prevented from owning them.
The same could be true of the Billionaire Class, right? What does it matter if the Koch brothers own their empire as a result of fascism or some other ism, the end result is that the common man cannot own those assets. Shoot, even if you want to equate grandma's IRA with an index fund in it to ownership and control of large corporate empires, 45% of Americans can't afford to or chose not to even own any stock in anything.
OK, but of course Western Europe is all democratic and "more socialist" than us. So democracy and socialist institutions are not mutually exclusive.
Yes totally agree. That's why it is a scale or continuum if you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy
The same could be true of the Billionaire Class, right? What does it matter if the Koch brothers own their empire as a result of fascism or some other ism, the end result is that the common man cannot own those assets. Shoot, even if you want to equate grandma's IRA with an index fund in it to ownership and control of large corporate empires, 45% of Americans can't afford to or chose not to even own any stock in anything.
Agree again. Most people think corporations are fascists. They are not wrong IMO.
The only reason I made my point was because DenverRider stated socialism and fascism are polar opposites, I don't think they are economically.
Yes totally agree. That's why it is a scale or continuum if you prefer.
Agree again. Most people think corporations are fascists. They are not wrong IMO.
The only reason I made my point was because DenverRider stated socialism and fascism are polar opposites, I don't think they are economically.
When applied "perfectly" (i.e. according to their theoretical paradigms) fascism benefits the owner (dictator's crony) of means of production while in socialism that excess capacity is not "owned" by an individual. So they ARE different economically, but I get your point about them looking the same from the working class's perspective.
Either case, when the workers lose their motivation due to the systems inherent 'share the wealth' schemes, the gun is close behind to make sure the workers to prop up the system.
The systems go against human nature. You see it in unions. After a while, their is less and less motivation to do better because their is total lack of reward. Usually there are draconian rules to keep everyone "equal" so no one is motivated. Sometimes management can lite a fire but it does not last. Pretty soon production dips and the company is outsourced. In case up public service unions, they just don't perform at all. In the case of whole countries with no motivation, they are historically motivated by the gun because the population gets close to revolution at the point of least production. For the oligarchs to stay in power, they turn to violence. Rinse and repeat.
When you turn to the government ownership, you have lost your final cushion.
Either case, when the workers lose their motivation due to the systems inherent 'share the wealth' schemes, the gun is close behind to make sure the workers to prop up the system.
Yes true, but that has to be balanced against providing a safety net of looking after those that can't look after themselves.
Yes true, but that has to be balanced against providing a safety net of looking after those that can't look after themselves.
I agree and that is what we have had to a certain degree. The issue is that there are actually very few people who can not look after themselves and many more who chose not to look after themselves.
That is the crux of it all. You can not give to those who won't work. They will stay in that state until they die. Even if they are on the government dime, they should be doing public works jobs. Keeps the idol hands numbers down which ultimately cuts down on violence. If people chose to live off hand outs, then they should be treated like the socialist model where they will labor for their wage for the common good.
I agree and that is what we have had to a certain degree. The issue is that there are actually very few people who can not look after themselves and many more who chose not to look after themselves.
Some people have physical disabilities others have mental or spiritual, I don't really draw a distinction between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier
That is the crux of it all. You can not give to those who won't work. They will stay in that state until they die. Even if they are on the government dime, they should be doing public works jobs. Keeps the idol hands numbers down which ultimately cuts down on violence. If people chose to live off hand outs, then they should be treated like the socialist model where they will labor for their wage for the common good.
I have zero problem with strings being attached to assistance. Hand ups not hand outs. Giving people money doesn't help their issues in the vast majority of cases. In fact, in my opinion giving people money with nothing required in return hurts people more than helps them.
What happens here which drives me insane is having the low income bracket taxed in such a way as they require assistance to live. So the government takes money off people only to give it back to them as a benefit. Generations of people turned in to dependents where they could make there own way if they didn't have to pay tax. Started by the socialist party here to lock in a captive support base. Infuriating.
Some people have physical disabilities others have mental or spiritual, I don't really draw a distinction between them.
Many people I know, the mental part is drug induced. They would rather stay high than get a job. Actually, they will work but they won't stop getting high if the job requires them to be sober. I have an issue with that.
Quote:
I have zero problem with strings being attached to assistance. Hand ups not hand outs. Giving people money doesn't help their issues in the vast majority of cases. In fact, in my opinion giving people money with nothing required in return hurts people more than helps them.
I agree.
Quote:
What happens here which drives me insane is having the low income bracket taxed in such a way as they require assistance to live. So the government takes money off people only to give it back to them as a benefit. Generations of people turned in to dependents where they could make there own way if they didn't have to pay tax. Started by the socialist party here to lock in a captive support base. Infuriating.
This is another crux of the total argument. While the tax angle is troubling, if a few percent tax is the issue they most likely not going to make it anyway. While it would be helpful, that is such a tight margin for living.
Welfare is not a infinite bucket. Government is made by the people and the people are taxed to pay for the government. It is for the common good. It was supposed to be a support structure, not a ruling structure. It can only be a certain portion of the pie. More people that is on it, means less for each of them. The more money in the economy that is simply manufactured vs earned, means less and less buying power for those who do work. If your buying power is eroded so much, why would people choose to work if they have similar buying power? The way you fix it, is knowing that you have a short window then you will be working for it. Now all those supposed little projects that don't get done in towns will be taken care of. Those who can work will be looking for a better job in no time. There would not be young adults running the streets getting into gang violence and sure as heck stinks waking up for a labor job with a hang over so many may choose to get of the drugs and alcohol which ultimately may cut gang violence as well since gang violence is around the drug trade.
This is another crux of the total argument. While the tax angle is troubling, if a few percent tax is the issue they most likely not going to make it anyway. While it would be helpful, that is such a tight margin for living. .
It's not a few % here, income tax starts at 20k per year trigger at 24% plus universal sales tax @ 15%
So very low income tax famlies end up paying quite a bit of tax proportionally and then get some of it back as a benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier
why would people choose to work if they have similar buying power?
Because not working/being self sufficient leads to an unfulfilling life. The school system doesn't teach these life skills (amongst others....), imo this is where immediate improvements to our society can begin.
I don't think I have changed so much, I am not really a believer in left/right, more works/doesn't work. I try not to be judgmental about other peoples behavior and focus on my own behavior but it is easy to get a case of the "you shoulds" rather than the "I shoulds". It is becoming better as I get older and more pragmatic.
It's too bad Romney already blew his chances the last couple of years. I was never a huge fan of his, but he's far better than the top three republican stooges running this year.
Seriously? I spent hours reading this. I am a Constitutional Conservative so you might not agree with my values but I would ask anyone to post why Ted Cruz isn't the best candidate? Please feel free to express your opinion.
He went into the Senate and did..........
EXACTLY what he promised his constituents he would do. People say he doesn't "get along" with others there. Good. He actually did what he promissed. The only thing I hear is, "he is a liar". Really?
His camp passed along a news release.
Rubio has lied to voters and turned his back in the gang of 8.
Trump..... enough said
Kasich... too little too late.
To quote Hannity, I hope Hillary likes orange pant suits.
With this, said in with my friends/colleagues for months, Trump in unelectable and the longer the GOP rolls with him, it gives the Democratics the election. I've never seen so many of my hard Right friend rail on "I won't vote for Trump."
Even the GOP is wondering how they are going to deal with this. Nuts. He's splitting the vote outside the party. Where do they go?
Tell you who was electable, John Huntsman Jr. Too close to the middle and he didn't even throw his hat in.
Seriously? I spent hours reading this. I am a Constitutional Conservative so you might not agree with my values but I would ask anyone to post why Ted Cruz isn't the best candidate? Please feel free to express your opinion.
Because he's a religious fruitcake running on a platform of talking away constitutional rights and has no chance to win the general election.
It's funny how far Trump has come. All the while no one in the GOP supports him. The comment by EJ "Trump is un electable" that echo's threw out. He sure has a lot of support for being so Un electable. Even though I hate to admit your right. How many think the push back about trump is because Washington can't make him their puppet that he will not tow the line. How many think Washington is $hit scared that their dog and pony show is in Jepordy if Trump comes into office. I think Washington is happy doing NOTHING spinning the American public in circles and getting paid hansomely to do ZERO. Hell Rubio has one of the worst voting records in Washington, any yet he is a front runner for the highest office in the land? The hole politics is Game of Cards IMO. I hate to quote Alex Jones because he is a bit of a nut case but he has a great quote.
"People are always complaining about "The Right Wing" OR "The Left Wing" what they fail to see or need to be worried about is the Beak. It's mounted on the bird of prey, that feeds on the American public!!!
I think he is getting votes because there is a new media story on him every few hours. Like him or hate him, he's a marketing genius when it comes to this election. He is taking a page out of Dennis Rodman's playbook where any attention is good attention no matter if it is positive or negative. He's a master entertainer, not a politician. The hilarious part is that all of the other candidates are trying to copy him in some fashion instead of just sticking to being who they are. It's a very expensive game.
So Trump supporters think that he will actually not join the "dog and pony show" to further his own wealth/power? People really think he's a stand up guy who puts America's best interest first and foremost above everything else?
I see a lot of people trying to figure out how Trump has so much support. Some say he's pandering to religion or fear, others think it's his anti establishment stance, and others think that because he isn't a socialist that he must be anti government even though his fascism will push for much bigger government as well.
Apparently the answer to this was already well known. His rhetoric along with the help of almost all news sources has awakened authoritarianism from many Americans.
Liberals always call people who want to live by a code of law and order fascists. Nothing new here. I am absolutely for putting down all the ignorant race bating BLM, sanctuary cities, having boarder patrol not enforcing boarder, EPA making their own law and occupy garbage. I am for a return to the law and getting back to common sense. If I were to worry about fascism, I would be more concerned about leftists countries through out history. Historically those governments murder millions of their people to make sure they are politically correct (PC). What you may perceive as fascism would be people not afraid to pop someone in the mouth when they violate you like they do now or do things like burn down your town.
I am not a big Trump fan but of the candidates, he absolutely understands that trade deficit is what kills American jobs. He is not a spread American's wealth kind of guy like the democrats are. No treaties that put America in a position where our wealth is automatically spread to the world (NAFTA, Kyoto, PTAA) He is willing to address it.
He understands that you can not add in millions of people who are unvetted into a benefits system that is tax payer funded and the same millions are putting pressure on natural resources and middle class jobs. Yes, I said middle class jobs. Construction unions and other unions are full of illegals. The union officials know they will not be back for their pension. Trump is speaking about it at least.
I think Trump has a certain appeal that he is not worried about being PC. I personally don't care for the way he says things. He is no Ronald Reagan in his communication style, however it is refreshing to hear someone telling the PC crowd to get bent and live in the real world.
I think he will also stand up to the Iran's of the world. Trump knows how to negotiate. He does not negotiate to lose. That is where Reagan was at his best. People don't realize Reagan was actually a democrat at one time and was the union negotiator for the Screen Actors Guild during McCarthyism. I think Trump brings that type of toughness to America's defense.
deltahoosier
(denverd1)Join Date: May 2004Location: Tyler
03-09-2016, 2:58 PM
Eric, the chart is funny. couldn't read past that.
IMO hoosier nailed it. Just wish the GOP would stop killing itself. They're going to play the delegate game and try to nominate someone else, handing it to Hillary on a silver platter
The level at which you guys will go to justify your position is absolutely mind blowing. For anyone who couldn't understand how the Germans were able to follow Hitler down the rabbit hole - it's still not understandable - but it no longer seems like it should have been impossible.
Usually the first one to bring up Hitler, loses the argument.
I watch almost every military channel (now American Hero's channel) about the Nazi's that I can get my hands on. If you want to know how you end up like Nazi Germany, look up Rahm Emanuel's tactics. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste" and keep the propaganda going. Since Obama was put into office, we have had nothing but unrest in the streets. Why? Because it is the way to make radical shifts. Get the radicals in the streets and convince the middle people there is a issue that needs to be fixed. Now Obama could say the people wanted such and such and try and pass it. Same as the Nazi's.
Hitler was a radical first and then decided in order to gain any real power, he had to go into politics and try and get elected. He decided to put on a proper face to get into politics. Hitler's party was marginalized with only a few percent of the vote at first. What got Hitler into power was the US stock market crash. He was the only one who was preaching that the only reason Germany was doing well was because of American bank loans. He was correct. Stock market crashed and the German's had over 20% unemployment over night. He proposed the government would put the people to work and get more living space for the German people. It hit a great tone with the people. Eventually his party gained more and more seats. Went from an unknown group to in power in a short time. People were working so they did not care. They had peace and jobs for the first time in a long time. In the background, Hitler installed the SS and they had the night of the long knives and killed all their SA rivals in the party. Now only the real radicals were left.
I don't see anywhere that Trump is an unknown who was jailed at one point for an attempted overthrow of the government. I don't see him saying that only government can help the people. When someone is saying the government is the way, they are really saying that a small ruling class has the right to make decisions for you. That is the most dangerous people. Don't confuse someone who wants to enforce our immigration laws and not let in dangerous culture of death into the country unvetted as a Hitler wanna be. The laws are already on the books. He is saying we need to enforce them and he is correct.
" Now Obama could say the people wanted such and such and try and pass it. Same as the Nazi's."
Yes, we all know that wanting such and such is the first step to Nazis. Especially when that such and such is something like declaring all people of a particular religious persuasion as unwanted in your country.
Read a good portion of the link. Talking about biased. Everyone is either not authoritarian or is. If 99% of the answers are considered to be authoritarian, then for sure only authoritarians are voting for Trump. http://https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thum..._support.0.png
In the chart (if it comes up), states if people are considered very high in authoritarian they will vote for trump at the tone of 52%. Really? That is about how much he will get from all Republicans in general. Low and high authoritarians are only 38% and 42%. 4% difference. That is error bar stuff.
The author tries to paint Authoritarians as racists and clinging to that which they know. White people afraid of diversity. What a bunch of garbage. How about this alternative. We understand cause and effect. Simple things that should have happened in childhood. Also, we as tax paying adults with jobs understand money. If you make it more expensive for a US business to run and then open the same market to a place that is cheaper, the jobs will go to the cheaper place. Proven through history. If you have so a social network established and you are paying into it with hopes of getting your investment back. When they open the doors and give your paid for benefits to those who broke the laws to get into the system/ not paid in, people are going to want that stopped. Period. The government does not go to the illegals and ask for more money. They go to me, the taxpayer, the home owner, the business owners, or they print more money that makes my money worth less.
It has zero to do with diversity of color or even culture to a certain degree. Diversity of ideas kills countries though, if those ideas are about internationalism and not nationalism. Only way America works is our constitution and rule of law. You throw that out to those who only vote themselves benefits, the whole thing collapses.
Don't know who you are quoting John because no one ever said such and such religious persuasion is not welcome as a whole. When some people's religion say they can rape children and stone people for being gay, I say it is ok to keep those people out. They need to be vetted. I 10000000% agree they need to be vetted. All the stuff they are allowed to do and have done in their religion, will get them a 20 year to life prison term in the United States. I want to make sure that someone who comes from that culture absolutely does not have that tendency. Would you ask Putin to send us all their murderers from your prisons? No you would not. Just because some peoples religion accepts that behavior does not mean they should not be in jail. I don't want them in our society. We have too many people who have played by the rules and don't have that baggage. They need come in first.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
03-09-2016, 5:41 PM
Godwin's Law has been officially suspended for the duration of the 2016 presidential election cycle. That means comparisons to Hitler are allowed and nobody loses an argument as a result.
It has zero to do with diversity of color or even culture to a certain degree. Diversity of ideas kills countries though, if those ideas are about internationalism and not nationalism. Only way America works is our constitution and rule of law. You throw that out to those who only vote themselves benefits, the whole thing collapses.
Delta, America, at least the myth of America, has always supported diversity of ideas. The first amendment is before the second amendment, after all.
Diversity of culture has always fed us too -- as have those who protest against immigration. Irish, italian and asian immigrants certainly felt the brunt of discrimination, but have become a part of our culture.
The beauty (and apparently the peril, in your eyes) of the constitution and the rule of law is that if the process is followed, those who do "vote themselves benefits" are free to do so... That's what the rule of law means -- that we pass laws and we follow them. Las I checked we haven't had a coup or revolution in quite some time.
To be honest, I think the whole diversity of ideas is a new saying. No one gave two craps about diversity in the making of America. What America needed was labor and they needed people to speak English. They did not have the luxury of ideas. Ideas grew organically from a free society (well until we saw what the Germans were doing in WW2 and imported all their scientists). Diversity of ideas when it comes to economics is dangerous. It absolutely starts shooting wars in a country. The war between the states was about economics. Many of the old labor vs the coal mine owners came down to shooting. Economic collapse will not be saved by diversity. The US for generations has allowed only certain type of individuals from certain areas come into the country. Why? Because the government knows that for the United States to stay solvent, you can not have everyone in the pool indefinitely. 4 times the US has actually stopped all immigration and many times amended who can come in.
This is just not a Trump thing. The US has a tax payer funded safety net now since the 1930's. The more items you add to that net, the more that system needs to be closed or it will collapse. You don't allow me to have access to your 401k do you? You should and get a second job while you are at it because I got bills. If we make it a democracy, all I need is another friend to vote for your money and we got you. You will collapse. If we follow history, me and my buddy pick up a gun and make you work because we need a new pair of Nike's.
Do you think that the pressure on those Irish, Italian and Asian immigrants helped them become part of the culture? When they came to the country they were documented and then had to pull their weight. They did so and now are successful. Most importantly they did not believe in getting handouts. There were no handouts at that time. Either you made it or you didn't.
I don't think anyone is anti immigrant. That is that dirty leftist turn of a word. We are anti ILLEGAL immigration. I am not anti immigrant however when we are proposing bringing in tens of thousands of men from a culture who A) has been at war with the Europe since the 800's. B) Stone women for allowing themselves for being raped. C) Throw gays off of buildings D) Have a religion that says to kill those who are not of that religion E) and so on........ I think that our government absolutely owes it to us to make sure that every single one of them are not of the Jihad types or stoning types. They kind of missed the boat on the recent shooters, the Boston Marathon bombers, the 9-11 high jackers and so on. I also would appreciate it if they don't allow the types that want to set up sharia law. Is that too much to ask? Look what is happening in Europe.
You absolutely stink of fear deltahoosier. You're so scared that your fears have become completely irrational. Your authoritarianism has been activated and you just can't wait to send some jack boot thugs to round up everyone that isn't exactly like you. If the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow Ted Cruz to implement the Christian religious policies that he wants to establish (and it doesn't), then how can a minority of Muslims possibly enact Sharia Law? Democrats generally don't want religion in politics or law in any way shape or form. Since we don't want Christianity influencing government, then we certainly don't want the Muslim religion influencing the law or politics either. Neither religion is allowed to dictate law or politics by the highest law of our country. The vast majority of Americans don't want Sharia law. A smaller majority of Americans don't want Christian law. You can climb out of your bunker and change into some pants that don't smell like urine now. It's much more safe than Fox News has led you to believe.
Eric. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You read one article that is biased as heck and now you know that everyone who understands cause and effect is now motivated by fear due to an assertion of authoritarianism. I study history. I study religion. I study economics. Not that I am an expert, however things in history are pretty clear when it comes to economics. Things are pretty clear when it comes to islam. Matter of fact your boy Bill Maher is soundly in my corner when it comes to Islam.
Of all the things you take away is sharia law in the whole discussion. Tells me you just want to argue unless you do want to bring in Gay Chuckers and such cart blanch into the country only to have to arrest them and keep them in the prison complete for the next generation. If you are as well studied as you like to think, Sharia law is allowed in Texas and other places. It is an allowable contract.
Weather you like it or not, the US government is influenced by religion considering majority of the people in this country are religious. Religion shapes the culture of the people and the people pass the laws.
Nice little talk of bunkers and fox news again. Trying to marginalize me with 3rd grade shaming is so 3rd grade. Do better, you are better than that.
The significance of the "Sharia Law" thing is it's a sign of being manipulated. You know when someone is worried about Sharia Law they are a tool of the extreme elements of the media. How ironic that it's the Christians that fear other religions while they cry that their religious rights are infringed when they pull the same crap.
Again of all the things, you want to focus on sharia law. Yes it is part of the puzzle. It is a huge issue in England and it is counter to the Constitution. Show me where Christian values are against the Constitution?
So again, you are just wanting to argue about something. I take it you are fine with chucking gays off roofs. Stoning women who were raped. marrying children. female genital mutilation. etc. etc. etc. Do you want people from a culture that thinks those things are ok in our society or at least screen them from that view point? Would you rather say we have 100,000 slots this year and we want to fill them with more people of like cultures such as Brazil, Germany, Japan or just say send us thousands of people that we know nothing about from a culture that is ok with loping off a head or two?
Last edited by deltahoosier; 03-10-2016 at 4:05 PM.
"Show me where Christian values are against the Constitution?
Louisiana just got shot down for trying to subvert women's legal right to abortion. Texas is on the burner for doing the same thing. I'm not going to argue whether it's "Constitutional" or not because that's a moving target. Same with gay marriage. Ever hear of Kim Davis? It is Christians who correlate with the infringement of American's legal rights.
Here's what I going to argue. All those things you listed are illegal, not being practiced by all Muslims, and are against the law in America. And nobody who is not "afraid" of the future is going to think that those things will be become legal. Like I said... the mention of fear of Sharia Law is evidence of being a tool.
All of those examples that you keep regurgitating are against the law regardless of religion. Freedom of religion has never included the freedom to infringe upon the rights of others. Sharia law AMONG PARTICIPATORS is legal as long as the parts you are following are legal otherwise. I'm sure there are many aspects of Sharia Law that are perfectly legal in our country but if you marry a child etc. you are going to jail no matter your religion. Xenophobes who are afraid of their own shadow always focus on the elements of Sharia Law that are completely illegal within the USA. Now go clean out your drawers before the "scary Muslims" come to stone your wife after you're done raping her.
The U.S. constitution prevents "Christian values" from being enforced in the 1st amendment where freedom of religion is guaranteed. I am not a Christian. I have my own religion and it does NOT include many of your so called Christian Values. You therefore cannot force me to participate in Christianity because the U.S. Constitution prevents you from doing so. The founding fathers were NOT Christians and they made sure that no matter what religion managed to come out of the depths of darkness to become dominant, that there would be no way to force that religion upon others. The writers of the U.S. Constitution were very smart. Too smart to be religious. They also made sure that it was very difficult to change the US Constitution so that a small majority with torches and pitch forks couldn't form a legal lynch mob and force their religion upon us that way either. I love the U.S. Constitution!
Yes, I heard of Kim Davis. Life long democrat. She was wrong.
Abortion as is currently defined is murder. We can start bringing out all the pictures of babies, live birth abortions, and so on. We will get know where today on this.
Yes. You are absolutely correct that the things I listed are illegal. They are however plenty legal in many of the countries that practice islam. Not all muslims practice those things however they do in the countries that Obama wants to bring in thousand cart blanch into the country. You are going to tell me that you can grow up into your 30's or older acting and believing one way, then pop up in America and turn a switch? Why do we as a collective have to worry about that? There are 7 billion people on this planet, why are you leftist so enthrawled with bringing in people from a area that is one common custom of their upbrining from being in jail for the rest of their lives, when there are 6 billion or more others to choose from?
You may call worrying about sharia being a tool, not believing there are cultures that are dangerous in the world is being a dick.
Maybe John. She was wrong. The law changed. She needed to enforce it. However, it is also wrong to force people who have a private business to participate in something they are against. Speaking of authoritarian, how about your parties affiliation with wanting christian business owners to put stickers in their windows to identify themselves. Nothing like a little 1933 Germany for you.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
03-10-2016, 4:53 PM
Talk to your kid about a presidential candidate smiling and laughing when asked why she allowed our people to be murdered or why she can not follow the laws of the land when it comes to security.
Trust me Wes, I have talked to my kids about much worse than Trump issues. It just may make you blush.
deltahoosier
(pesos)Join Date: Oct 2001Location: Texas
03-10-2016, 4:58 PM
I am pretty sure Christian values are in the beginning of our country.
George Washington
1st U.S. President
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.
John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.
"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer.
And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."
--Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.
"The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever."
--Adams wrote this in a letter to his wife, Abigail, on July 3, 1776.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.
John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.
Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.
"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;
"But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
"Speaking of authoritarian, how about your parties affiliation with wanting christian business owners to put stickers in their windows to identify themselves."
Haven't heard of it. Who's the Nazi that said that?
And Wes. If you are speaking of the Clinton thing. Yes, I am smarter than that. It is click bait material. I thought you were interjecting something serious into the discussion in reference to me.
No worries, those people won't be voting because they already did. 
Linear Mode
