# Where do WE go from here?



## Robert A. Langager

Ok, so I've had a few days to cool off. Been trying to heed my own advice.

Been reading the Drudge Report, reading FOX news, in addition to listening to Air America radio.

So where do we go from here? The repubs have COMPLETE control now. Do they push their agenda while thumbing their nose at the other 50%? Or are we all going to sit down and have some real dialogue? I want to hear what you have to say.

What do you see as the next important issue for you? How do you want to see it addressed? Would you compromise? Why is it improtant to you?

Toss it out and lets see where we can take it.

Politics is becoming addicting.

RC
Who is listening and challenging you to listen too.


----------



## Bobm

> Ok, so I've had a few days to cool off. Been trying to heed my own advice.


Good for you, it will help your heart. By the way my conservative dog does not have cancer and is getting better so I'm having a great week.

I think that one of the most frustrating things about politics is that when we elect someone that has clearly stated his adjenda like Bush has (or Clinton did for that matter) that the other side does everything they can to undermine it. Tom Daschle is famous for this and thank God hes out of the picture , as a result of his obstructionism.

What I would like to see happen is that when we elect a president and he wants to accomplish certain things that the other side supports him and we let the chips fall where they will. If Bush trys his ideas and they don't work then the other side can then reasonably state that hes wrong with certainty. And the next elected President could then make whatever corrections in the course of the country that he campaigned on and was elected for.

I would of liked to see Clinton get his mandate passed because while I don't agree with it I also don't think that he was ever PROVEN wrong and so it remains an open ended debate. I hope the Dems really do this, he won and with that win should come an admission that the majority of the country wants to see his adjenda tried. IF it works we would all be better off and if not the Dems would then have a good shot at pointing out why and winning control and trying their ideas.

And we still don't really have the ability to push anything thru the Senate because it requires 60 votes and there is always the RINO's working against Bush.


----------



## mr.trooper

Here is my opinion on this:

People all over are saying that Bush needs to appoint democrats and "reach across the table". We tried that 4 years ago. we reached across the table, and they "slap our hand.", not only that, but during the entire term the Dems thanked us with the most horrendous display of Sheer, frothing, hatred known since times long past. They literally hated us more than we hated the Nazi in WWII. That's what we got from them when we Reached across the table.

This go around its time for the Dems to reap the seeds of the hatred that they have been sewing for 4 strait years. Why should we help them out only to be abused, and incur more hate?


----------



## jamartinmg2

Here are some things that I wouldn't mind seeing addressed:

Tightening the border and curb illegal immigration.

Serious tort reform.

National ID card for all future votes.

Serious social security reform.... quit talking and start doing. Option to invest a % of ones SS into personal savings accounts?

Tax reform


----------



## pointer99

jamartinmg2 said:


> Here are some things that I wouldn't mind seeing addressed:
> 
> Tightening the border and curb illegal immigration.
> 
> Serious tort reform.
> 
> National ID card for all future votes.
> 
> Serious social security reform.... quit talking and start doing. Option to invest a % of ones SS into personal savings accounts?
> 
> Tax reform


i like them thar ideas too.

pointer


----------



## mr.trooper

I whole heartadly agree on all of those issues EXCEPT the I.D card. whatever good it would do is out weighed by privacy i my view. If im not doing anythng wrong then you'v got no reason to know who i am, and its none of your buisness.


----------



## jamartinmg2

Trooper.... yes the privacy issue bothers me some too. Maybe I should ammend that by saying "standardizing voting rules and procedures..."


----------



## Robert A. Langager

mr.trooper said:


> Here is my opinion on this:
> 
> People all over are saying that Bush needs to appoint democrats and "reach across the table". We tried that 4 years ago. we reached across the table, and they "slap our hand.", not only that, but during the entire term the Dems thanked us with the most horrendous display of Sheer, frothing, hatred known since times long past. They literally hated us more than we hated the Nazi in WWII. That's what we got from them when we Reached across the table.
> 
> This go around its time for the Dems to reap the seeds of the hatred that they have been sewing for 4 strait years. Why should we help them out only to be abused, and incur more hate?


Someone will have to enlighten me on this. Although this may have happened, give me an example of what you see as hand slapping.

So, given that, you take the point of view of the "nose-thumbing" that I alluded to in the beginning of this forum? Do you find that to be a productive way to proceed or rather an "I told you so" or revenge?

How is this hatred that was sown by the Dems so different then the perceived hatred sown by the Repubs for Clinton. I am not asking for a justification of the hatred by either side, so don't go off on how Clinton was/is a liar (partisan one-liner. Against the rules) But rather, if it is wrong to hate Bush, then the logic would follow that is was/is wrong to hate Clinton.

The hate being sown by both sides is part of the wedge driving us apart, right? My goal here is to find some understanding between us and show us what we have in common, not to amplify our differences. Enough of that has been done already.

RC


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Bobm said:


> By the way my conservative dog does not have cancer and is getting better so I'm having a great week.


The liberal cat is doing great as well, the wonders of a good old enema and sticking your finger up your cats arse. Who'd of thought that I would have to "bond" so closely with my cat. (There is some good fodder for y'all later.)



Bobm said:



> I would of liked to see Clinton get his mandate passed because while I don't agree with it I also don't think that he was ever PROVEN wrong and so it remains an open ended debate. I hope the Dems really do this, he won and with that win should come an admission that the majority of the country wants to see his adjenda tried. IF it works we would all be better off and if not the Dems would then have a good shot at pointing out why and winning control and trying their ideas.


I like it, sounds fair. What do you mean by the Clinton mandate though. I was a political illiterate then

RC


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I actually expect Bush to become more moderate, and possibly even tolerable.


----------



## mr.trooper

In Response Robert: No, it is not alright to hate. period. I think Repubs went over the top with Clinton, but not to the level the Dems went with Bush. Its like Stair case. Every 4 years one party or the other goes up another step, and the other thinks it has to out do the last. :eyeroll: The funny thing is, both Dems and Reps preach some form of "tolerance" but BOLTH sides are becoming less and less tolerant. we need to stop this now. So we have different political views? Why does that mean we need to call each other names? I'm sick of this, and I'm guna try and do my part to fix it.

i came across these two verses in my Devotions: Proverbs 24:17&18--"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see it and be displeased, and turn His anger away from him."

i have not mesured up to that since iv been posting here! When people who have attacked me were refuted, or proven wrong, i has happy and in some cases openly mocked them when they "fell". for this i apologise.


----------



## Bobm

Robert Clintons adjenda was primarily socialized medicine, fighting tobacco, and ceeding US soverinty to the UN. He also was arm twisted into signing welfare reform and Nafta which he claimed to support in his campaign but really didn't want to deal with until he was forced to by Newt Gingrich ( another man that shot himself in the foot with his lack of discipline). You don't have to look at it too hard to guess where I stand on these issues but my point still stands. IF a president is elected by a true majority I think that he should be able to appoint judges, make policy and get the cooperation from the congress to get his adjenda accomplished.

I guess the obvious argument will leap to anyones mind that Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote but I still was frustrated to see that almost everything he tried was shot down by the congress. Clinton was a smart charismatic man who just didn't have the disipline to stay out of trouble so he kept shooting himself in the foot.

For instance, even though socialized medicine has never been successful anywhere its been tried I think that the only way the idea will be given up on is if we as a country suffer the ill effects of it. Americans are like the mule from MO. They have to be shown everything, it has to be rubbed in their face before they get it, they are all too interested in the Simpsons instead of the issues I talk about. Note the comments about being boorish if you write about anything wordly like th UN, this site is a microcosm of the entire US, a few take interest most and are informed most are clueless. Unfortunately these clueless are easily led and they can be herded to the voting booth, to the countries detriment.

Bush has recieved a true majority vote. If he was cooperated with most of his Ideas are actually very centrist or even left leaning. This is why I never could understand the lefts hatred of him, hes supported many ideas the left has championed. 
*If just once our congress quit maneuvering for power at the expense of the good of the country and truly applied themselves to the problems we face I think many of these problems would be behind us.*

I don't believe theres any chance of that happening until the people of this country demand it from their representatives and as I intimated above "the people" are really ignorant about politics most couldn't tell you a thing about their reps. positions or even their names. 
Its like the thread about the Fair tax Plan (no interest at all :eyeroll, it is without a doubt the biggest most reasonable idea thats come along and its impact on our country would be phenomenally beneficial at all levels of income. IF you get any comments at all they are indicative of the fact that the person didn't read and study the plan. 
Its kind of like posted land in ND theres little hope, I honestly believe the republic will not survive, our goverment has learned that they can buy votes though income redistribution and have created a voting block of people that believe, really believe, thats its their right to others property. Of course I'm not talking about the truly helpless among us, they definitely need our help we are a generous people and they will and should always be cared for. What I'm talking about is the politicians on both sides creating needy people as a form of job security each promise gets larger and the government and its burden on our economy continues to grow. The Republicans champion less government but in my lifetime its never gotten smaller and that fact alone can be traced to many of societies ills.


----------



## southdakbearfan

This is a democracy, with elected officials. Who were elected on their aggenda. Now we all know that both sides will have their say, but I seriously doubt there will be a lot of reaching across the isle after the last several years. When an official is elected 51% to 49%, do you think he should press 51% of his aggenda, then 49% of the opposing side? Absolutely not, especially when he or the party represented by him will be held accountable for 100% of the legislation accomplished now, in the coming elections.

Thats the great thing, if it doesn't work, we can change it in the future elections, but when someone is elected, no matter how close it is, their aggenda will be the ruling aggenda.


----------



## IAHunter

The on BIG issue in the next four years is

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM-- Bush is now safe. Doesn't have to run for reelection and needs to make a legacy for his presidency. Alot of high hurdles need to be crested for this one to get it by the...um...other party. The privitization of ss means putting federal dollars, or OUR money depending on your government beliefs, into the private sector and what companies should you allow them to support? I doubt if Sen. Shumer will allow Remington or Winchester on the list while the entire entertainment industry will be blacklisted by the guys on the right. A majority, not all, of the younger generations do not believe that there will be a SS for them and thus support this idea. Older generations are worried about retaining the solevency of the program because they made that money a big part of their retirement plan. So how do you cut monies to a program that you know is going to balloon out of proportions (I read last week that an independent group figures the federal YEARLY deficit will hit over $600 BILLION by 2014 no matter who was elected due to Baby Boomers starting to retire) while at the same time trying to keep some form of it for the current young working stiffs already paying for it? Big problem that needs to be solved and I think we all will be hearing alot of yelling and screaming from both sides of the aisle.

OF COURSE, this is all subject to whether or not we are attacked withing the four year time frame.

IaHunter


----------



## IAHunter

Bobm

Congress needs to counter the president. It is called checks and balances. If your concept actually was used, we would have 15 Supreme Court Justices right now. Why? Because FDR was getting ****** off with the newly elected Republican congress that was impeding his attempts at a massive reforming of the federal government to tilt it to the executive side. I believe he tried to use an executive order to increase the number of SCJ's so that congress couldn't keep going to court to get his ideas tossed out as unconstitutional. As for Clinton and the congress at that time, they both hold a very dear place in my heart. Clinton and his wife had all of these grand schemes about reform, fortunately congress was going to use every little dirty trick to stop them, and then Bill got caught with his pants down and everything went down hill. While at this very same time this thing, called the computer revolution, was driving America's economic engine through the roof because of little interference from the government. Of course that is my opinion on the last last sentence. Al Gore's opinion is that he created the World Wide Web. We do need to calm things down a little right now, especially for Social Security Reform. It will take both sides working in the spirit of the "good of the country" to solve that one.

IaHunter


----------



## Bobm

I fully understand the concept of checks and balances, my beef is that the checks are politically and emotionally, not factually, driven. We have some big problems SS among them and nothing gets done until its almost unsolveable why? Because of politics, on that issue( SS) the Dems are the culprits on others the reps are, but my point is the fix never occurs and we all pay the price for this. And the only reason that we pay this price ultimately gets back to my underlying theme that the US citizenry is stupid as a rock when it come to understanding the issues. Why are they stupid because they are educated in government schools. Its to the governments disadvantage to fully explain these issues. Economics is not taught. 
Why do you think most people are worried that the social security fund will go broke, whenever you hear someone say that you know you are talking to a stupid person. One more time for the dim bulbs among us, there is no money in the SS fund none, nada, not one dime. The government ( Like AL Gore and his lock box bull****t) does not want you to know that the entire ss fund is a bunch of IOUs in a 4 drawer file cabinet in Virginia. *The IOUs represent the money taken by our congressman and Senators for their favorite pork barrell projects which we all love*. All dispersions to old folks every dime is a direct income transfer where they tax workers to pay retired people their SS check. Thats right anyone one this web site could pick up the entire ss fund and put it in the trunk of their toyota and drive off. So what the politicians are worried about is that we are about to have a big bulge in the number of senior citizens and a relatively small number of younger people are going to have to be taxed to pay the benefits. *This group of poor saps( my kids your kids) is going to have the hell taxed out of them ( some estimates go as high as 50% of their income to pay these SS taxes.* 
All our politicians except for a few of the real idiots understand this but do you ever ever ever hear it from them?????? No they use it as a tool to scare the stupid and keep their power.
Same thing with corporate income taxes if you hear someone say raise the taxes on the evil rich fat cat corporations again you are lisening to a stupid person or a liar politician. This has got to be one of the biggest tricks that the congress has managed to pull on the public. Corporations don't pay one dime in taxes! never have and never will corporations are not human they are paper entities. Corporations only collect taxes 
What the congress has cleverly done is hide this fact in with rhetoric and class warfare. Corporations don't pay taxes so who does? The employees of the corporation ( average joe citizen),the stockholders of the country( average joe citizen 80% of the country has 401Ks or IRA) and the consumer in additional price for the product( harvard business school studies estimates the is 23% imbedded tax in everthing we buy. The short answer is we *the average joes of the country pay the corporate taxes *while sitting smuggly thinking we are sticking it to the evil rich, we are idiots.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Bobm said:


> that the other side does everything they can to undermine it. Tom Daschle is famous for this and thank God hes out of the picture , as a result of his obstructionism.


Isn't that his job as the leader of the other party? Didn't Newt do the same thing. That is the whole point of the system. Just as IAhunter says, to keep everything in check?

Maybe we should have a TRUE winner takes all system? If the Dems win then the WHOLE Govt should be Dem until the next election, and vice versa? No obstructionism at all then?

RC


----------



## Bobm

Robert,You asked me what his adjenda was and I answered it to the best of my ability from memory. As for Dashle I was commenting about the fact that the politicians don't work for the good of the country they vie for personal power at our expense.


----------



## zogman

> Remeber my initial statement? I am not moderating your forum and would not do that. I am moderating my thread. Which I have already cleared up with Mr. Hustad. I've already cleaned up some inflammatory stuff from MT.


So its my ball and I'll take it in the house and you can go home. I remember that from 2nd grade.

Dashle was the scarificial lamb and got what he desirved. All you have to do is look at his voting record.

Reading both about what Conrad and Pomeroy were quoted today in the GF Herald they still don't get it. As long as they have Hollyweird, Mike Moore, Alex Baldwin, Martin Sheen and the list goes on and on and on.............. leading the charge. No one in middle america is going to beleive a flippin word they say. Look at how fast they (the leaders in the Democratic party) put the lid on Tipper Gore when she started speaking up about morals and family values. That lasted about 3 days and she was sent to her room never to be heard from again. Same with Joe Leiberman. If the remaining Dems are truly serious they need to change there leadership completely.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

zogman said:


> So its my ball and I'll take it in the house and you can go home. I remember that from 2nd grade.


Fine, my bad. I was just hoping that both sides could sit down and have a discussion without it degenerating into a pissing match.

Forget I ever said it.

RC


----------



## zogman

Robert,

Lets dicuss the balance of my post. :beer: Is Mike Moore who you want in the forefront for the next 4 years?????????????????


----------



## Robert A. Langager

zogman said:


> Robert,
> 
> Lets dicuss the balance of my post. :beer: Is Mike Moore who want in the forefront for the next 4 years?????????????????


No, 
But he does make some good points. The thing is though, is that whoever is the voice of dissent is going to be demonized by the other side. We could say the same thing about (I don't really even know so take it easy here) country stars supporting W being inbred, yada yada yada.

Don't get me wrong, (although I don't listen to country anyhow) but anyone who voices opposition is going to labeled, right or wrong. That is part of the problem. There are rarely only two sides to any issue.

I really don't know how the Dems got labelled as the party without moral values. It was a stroke of genious though. For one side to paint the other as immoral and make it believable, wow.

I think the Dems do need to change. But I am not sure if moving further right is the answer.

RC


----------



## zogman

> But he does make some good points


Name one?????????????????



> I really don't know how the Dems got labelled as the party without moral values.


By keeping the lid on Tipper Gore etc,etc,etc,etc

"I think the Dems do need to change. But I am not sure if moving further right is the answer. "

Go further left and we conservatives have nothing to fear :beer:

Robert, Your way too easy :withstupid: :sniper: Soon you will be kickin and screamin like MT

Gotta go back late tonight. You got time for a long well thougth out response.


----------



## Bobm

The Democrats don't have the corner on immorality ( look what Newt did) thats media spin, there are some at the top that sell there morality for votes from far out groups which is the same thing I'm talking about in both these threads. 
These politicians are far more worried about political advantage than the good of the country. They will do things they know aren't right if they think its helps their party its discusting when it happens. And it will continue to happen as long as we as a voting public remain ignorant of the facts about the various issues.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

zogman said:


> Robert, Your way too easy :withstupid: :sniper: Soon you will be kickin and screamin like MT


Zogman,
Ok, I'll take the bait. Although I really doubt that you seriously want to discuss these issues with me, but rather try to discredit me by making "me kick and scream like MT." Sorry, I don't play that way.

Firstly, I'll bring up what I FEEL (note opinion here) is a good point made by Michael Moore. In Bowling for Columbine (sorry no Farenheit here) he questions why there is so much gun violence in the US. He compares the US to Canada, which actually has a higher gun ownership rate per capita than does the US, yet much lower rates of gun crimes. He doesn't blame the gun companies, the NRA, Repubs, or anything like that. In fact he really doesn't offer any answers to the question but rather leaves it up to the viewer to think about it. I think that is good point. Go ahead and repond with a bunch of :withstupid: emoticons if you like. It makes such a good case for you.



zogman said:


> By keeping the lid on Tipper Gore etc,etc,etc,etc


Secondly,
The Tipper Gore thing, this was a while back for me so bear with me. This was before I was paying much attention. The only thing I remeber about that is that she wanted to censor music albums? Is that right? I am sure there is much more to it than that. That is all I know about that.

Do you have an inside line on what the Dems did to Tipper? How do you know that she was silenced? Are you in the upper echelon of the party? Where do you get your info? Or was that your opinion?

Expound on "etc, etc, etc, etc".

Do I want Hollywood portrayed as the forefront of my beliefs? No. Does the average Repub want the religious right to portrayed as the same? No. I can't pick who is on my side anymore that you can yours. I can't defend the actions of MT, but I have to deal with him. It doesn't help.

We'll start with that. If you want to go further, then I expect an equally thought out reply, minus the :withstupid:

RC


----------



## SniperPride

Robert A. Langager said:


> Firstly, I'll bring up what I FEEL (note opinion here) is a good point made by Michael Moore. In Bowling for Columbine (sorry no Farenheit here) he questions why there is so much gun violence in the US. He compares the US to Canada, which actually has a higher gun ownership rate per capita than does the US, yet much lower rates of gun crimes. He doesn't blame the gun companies, the NRA, Repubs, or anything like that. In fact he really doesn't offer any answers to the question but rather leaves it up to the viewer to think about it. I think that is good point. Go ahead and repond with a bunch of :withstupid: emoticons if you like. It makes such a good case for you.


lol, hold on while I catch my breath, but that is a horrible point to anyone without a blindfold. Lets start off with Per Capita statistics, in which lithuania has the same, if not more then the USA, take into consideration lithuania bans guns. In addition most gun deaths in the US - 52% - are suicides. Also, murder via knives or somthing along those lines in countries where guns are banned is also very high. Hence, the true gun violence rate, when that violence is directed from one person to another, is not as much higher in the US as raw statistics would lead you to believe.
ps. lithuania is just 1 example of many.

Moore is an idiot.
:withstupid:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Where do you get your info? This is what I found:

% Household gun ownership

US 41% Canada 26%

Gun Homocide per 100,000

US 6.24 Canada 0.6

Gun suicide per 100,000

US 7.23 Canada 3.35

Total national gun death rate per 100,000

US 13.47 Canada 3.95

SOURCE:
Source: Coalition for Gun Control: International Context. 1996 - 2001 Coalition for Gun Control. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html

Disclaimer:

Before y'all go off and paint me as some commie pinko *** that is trying to take away your guns. I am NOT a gun control advocate, except in cases with machine guns, etc. Just like you Sniperpride. I am just trying to support what I said about what I think is a good point brought up by Moore. The fact that I have to cite gun control types makes me an easy target here. So have at it.


----------



## SniperPride

Robert A. Langager said:


> SOURCE:
> Source: Coalition for Gun Control: International Context. 1996 - 2001 Coalition for Gun Control. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/International.html


lmao nice source, coalition for gun control :lol: 
In addition to being outdated it could be questioned on its relevency. Hell its probly where MM got his info


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Where are your sources? Do you have any?


----------



## SniperPride

Sources for what? The 52% of kills with firearms are suicides? I read in on a statistics page like a year ago. But i'll find it if you insist. Just because your sources arent credible doesnt mean you have to question mine, just use common sense. You being someone who thinks Mike Moore is a source :lol:
And hey, you say you arent a gun control advocate yet your source is a coalition for gun control. And what is your definition of a "machine gun".


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Hmmm,
Look what I found.



SniperPride said:


> Assault weapons should have some restrictions


What is your definition of an assault weapon? I was actually trying to agree with you.



SniperPride said:


> I read in on a statistics page like a year ago. But i'll find it if you insist. Just because your sources arent credible doesnt mean you have to question mine, just use common sense.


That pretty much speaks for itself. So, if I follow your logic, then I should just blindly accept what you think as the truth. One-way street I guess.

Here, I'll throw you a bone. The numbers I used are supported by, probably came from, this Department of Justice report that you can read here:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

If you look at the numbers I posted, the suicide rate is around 54% of the total death rate. So we actually agree. As far as my source, read the disclaimer.

You have a computer, use it. Trying to refute me by telling me I lack common sense only further proves my point.

The reason this whole thing came about is that Zogman asked me what I THOUGHT was a good point brought up by Moore. So I indulged him with some info supporting my claim. But I can't expect the same from those and their wholesale efforts to discredit me solely on who I am, not what I say.

I actually put some thought into my posts. Is it too much to expect the same in return? That is about all I am going to say on this.

RC
Burn the commie pinko ***


----------



## SniperPride

In 2001, gun-related completed suicides accounted for 16,869 (57%) of all gun related deaths in the U. S.: that's 46 lives every day that are lost to gun violence.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 52, No. 3, , National Center for Health Statistics(NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), September 25, 2003.

Ask and thou shall recieve :wink:

"What is your definition of an assault weapon? I was actually trying to agree with you." 
Actually? lol. And for your information assault weapons, and guns in general, should not be given to criminals or people without knowledge enough to use them imo. Thats my opinion about gun control, since you are trying to take me down with you  
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Let's take this a little further.

If you look at the numbers. Suicide accounts for 84.8% of gun deaths in Canada, with murder accounting for the other 15.2%.

Whereas in the US, you and I agree that the numbers are roughly 52% suicide and 48% murder.

So, I guess the premise that gun violence in the US is much higher than that of Canada rings true. Right?

So, going WAY back to what I said was an interesting point by Moore. It is interstesting.

You just refuse to listen because of the messenger, not the message. But expect the opposite from me.

Point proven.

RC


----------



## SniperPride

I dont seem to recall moore mentioning that 57% of deaths with guns were suicides...your flat wrong.
Here do me a favor and subtract those 57%, then figure the number into our per capita and include 10 other countries that dont have gun control 
How old are you btw?


----------



## Robert A. Langager

You are putting words in my mouth. All I said is that Moore brings up a good point as far as gun violence in the US is concerned. I have supported my claim as to what I see is a good point and am not going to go any further.

You want to prove my opinion wrong, then knock yourself out. It is an opinion. The burden is on you to do so, not me.

What does my age have to do with anything? If you were paying attention, I am 32. Can you make some blanket inferences with that little tidbit?

How old are you?

RC


----------



## SniperPride

Ok here goes, Moore stated how much gun violence was, he said how many people died compared to other countries, but failed to state that 57% of those deaths were suicides. Thats just twisting the truth and is a virtue of Moore's films. So your saying moore had a good point in what? Twisting the truth? Im 21 years old. 
:sniper:


----------



## mr.trooper

Moors films are stupid true...and he does twist pretty much everything he says, but yea, I found that an interesting point. True...the U.S.A has more gun violence. But there is more to gun violence than simply guns. Let's look deeper:

Gun Violence is contingent on several things:

* the type of violence (robbery, accidental & intentional homicide, Defensive shootings, or suicide)

* the number of guns present.

* The ease of access to said guns

* the type of person using the gun (I.E--Felons, misdemeanor convicts, or Joe shmoe who has never done worse than a parking ticket).

The problem is that Moore has lumped all types of gun violence together. By failing to make a distinction, he played off of the stereotype that all shootings are of Felony/murder. This includes suicide and self defense shootings--Two very different kinds of "Violence". Basically, it takes law abiding citizens defending their lives and loved ones and lumps them together with murdering drug dealers and the like under the title "GUN VIOLENCE" that thought makes me frown, but whatever.

The failure of Mike Moore (most likely intentional) to distinguish between types of "violence" has lead to confusion as to who is doing the shooting. Let me ask you: who is more likely to rob a gas station and shoot the clerk; the felon or the Average Joe? Who is more likely to turn to a gun as the solution to an argument; the guy convicted of several misdemeanors, or the law abiding citizen? By failing to distinguish who is shooting (not by category, but by previous actions) the viewers just ASSUME that since you didn't say anything about the shooter, there is nothing special about him, and that he was an average Joe.

The result (or at least intended result) is an inflated perception of gun violence, and assumptions about people with guns (I.E.-that they want them to kill other people). I'm not making stuff up, its just very, very basic Psychology. if some "Documentary" and its maker are lauded by politicians, given exorbitant attention by the press, and seen in periodicals attending the parties of all the social Big Wigs, the simple fact is that your average citizen is LIKELY to believe him.

Moore may be a Fool, but he is an intelligent Fool. There is simply NO WAY that he could have produced these underlying themes by accident. He knows that people will latch on to those ideas, even if he doesn't explicitly state them--and that's what they will remember if they remember anything, the underlying concepts of the film.

And then you've got the blatant stuff. My favorite is when he interviews Charlton Hesston, and you can see the clock in the background flips backwards and forwards mid-speech, resulting in him saying whatever Moore wanted him to.

Another good one was the bank scene, where Moore signs up for the account, and then says to the clerk "don't you think its a little dangerous to be handing out guns in a bank?" Notice the perplexed and slightly confuse look on the girls face. Why is that? 
A) They went passing them out. in order to get the Weatherby rifle, you had to sign up for a VERRY expensive account with a High minimum deposit $10,000 or something like that, and once you did, THEY GAVE YOU A VOUCHER which you had to take to a warehouse on the edge of town to trade in. Very nice that Moore came back with the gun, had the clerk hand it to him, and then ran out of the bank "victorious" pointing the gun at the camera with his finger on the trigger, and making shooting a noise.

Most of the film is subtle deception....but those two instances re quite blatant.

Basically, Its dumb to compare statistics between two countries with different laws, different size populations, different population density ( big one), and different social climates. Apples to oranges.


----------



## esox

The election results are a statement. The majority of voters said that they are sick and tired of liberal "values".
They are sick and tired of contract law that perverts the Constitutional form of justice while substituting it with a system of legality, (as opposed to lawfulness), that has nothing to do with justice.
They are sick and tired of money grubbing attorneys who suck up to a corrupt bench instead of being represented by lawyers who faithfully look after the interests of their clients.
They are sick and tired of commie judges who rely on the commie dogma dribble of the Jerry Springer European and Canadian societies instead of the U.S. Constitution.
They are sick and tired of judges who say that it's ok for ********* to "marry" each other and their deathstyle must be condoned.
They are sick and tired of judges who say it's ok to acidify, dismember, and vivisect live children.
They are sick and tired of judges who say that it's ok for porn/indecency to invade our homes, schools, libraries, and media, but the Ten Commandments must not be seen in the courts, schools, libraries, or public commons in general.
In other words, they are sick and tired of the liberal/commie philosophy of death.

This country has bought some time, maybe, that's all. Unless this slide towards liberalism/communism is stonewalled, we're toast. Bush has an opportunity to do this with a prudent selection of judges. Only time will tell.

Esox. Formerly known as Mr. Creosote.


----------



## mr.trooper

:withstupid:

oke:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

esox said:


> The election results are a statement. The majority of voters said that they are sick and tired of liberal "values".
> They are sick and tired of contract law that perverts the Constitutional form of justice while substituting it with a system of legality, (as opposed to lawfulness), that has nothing to do with justice.
> They are sick and tired of money grubbing attorneys who suck up to a corrupt bench instead of being represented by lawyers who faithfully look after the interests of their clients.
> They are sick and tired of commie judges who rely on the commie dogma dribble of the Jerry Springer European and Canadian societies instead of the U.S. Constitution.
> They are sick and tired of judges who say that it's ok for ********* to "marry" each other and their deathstyle must be condoned.
> They are sick and tired of judges who say it's ok to acidify, dismember, and vivisect live children.
> They are sick and tired of judges who say that it's ok for porn/indecency to invade our homes, schools, libraries, and media, but the Ten Commandments must not be seen in the courts, schools, libraries, or public commons in general.
> In other words, they are sick and tired of the liberal/commie philosophy of death.
> 
> This country has bought some time, maybe, that's all. Unless this slide towards liberalism/communism is stonewalled, we're toast. Bush has an opportunity to do this with a prudent selection of judges. Only time will tell.
> 
> Esox. Formerly known as Mr. Creosote.


Well at least we know where their/your priorities are, you feel that disallowing queers to marry is more important that getting out of the national debt, reforming health care, or fixing the education system. On C-span 2 today it was shown that people with higher educations voted for Kerry, and those with less education voted for Bush. I think Lewis Black summed it up quite well with "Last night the voice of the people was heard I promise not to imitate it out of respect to the mentally retarded... People are free to dream whatever they want to as long as it doesn't make midwesterners feel icky"


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Esox/Creosote,
Why the name change?


----------



## esox

Debt, education, and health are vital issues, but none are more vital than morality without which renders futile attempts to address/correct all other issues. 
Need proof? Early 20th century Munich was the cultural, intellectual, as well as one of the technological centers of the world, yet no morality. You tell me what happened. This is just one of countless examples.
Your own arguements indict you. Any idea how many trillions immorality has cost/costs? Any idea what aids/std's costs the taxpayers? How about illegitimacy? Crime? Drugs? All this, (and more), the result of immorality.
Take away the costs of immorality and there would be little or no debt. The vast majority of health problems would vanish and there would be more than enough money to provide a free education for all. A vacuum of morality/values is far and away the central issue.


----------



## esox

Robert, I switched isp's and got a new email add. I figured I couldn't post/register under the old. Maybe I should have tried first. Not tryin' to muck up the works. Sorry for any inconveinence.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

esox said:


> Debt, education, and health are vital issues, but none are more vital than morality without which renders futile attempts to address/correct all other issues.
> Need proof? Early 20th century Munich was the cultural, intellectual, as well as one of the technological centers of the world, yet no morality. You tell me what happened. This is just one of countless examples.
> Your own arguements indict you. Any idea how many trillions immorality has cost/costs? Any idea what aids/std's costs the taxpayers? How about illegitimacy? Crime? Drugs? All this, (and more), the result of immorality.
> Take away the costs of immorality and there would be little or no debt. The vast majority of health problems would vanish and there would be more than enough money to provide a free education for all. A vaccum of morality/values is far and away the central issue.


Does anyone else think that is absolutely ridiculous?


----------



## Plainsman

I think we are still being sidetracked by Michael Moore. We all fall victim to twisted statistics at one time or another. Tonight I am to tired to look for my references to back this up, but do any of you remember when CBS had a special on gun violence and they compared us to Canada, England, and Brazil. We looked bad. When I looked at the murder rate in these same countries we appeared to be comparable. The difference was the methods of murder. Violence is violence the tool is not the villain. Do any of you remember the old mafia cliché " make it look like an accident ". We are arguing about firearms, which we on this site all respect and wish to acquire more of, lets try find some common ground. As of late we are all so frustrated that we have good people arguing with good people. That will only perpetuate the type of politicians that tick us all off.

The politicians have played us like a cheap fiddle. I wonder if we can brake this cycle.

Robert, I think I have read your posts enough to know you are not anti firearms. I think you are a person that has been bitten by political curiosity. If Michael Moore left you to think about how the United States and Canada compare and gave no answers, then it is my premise that he made no point at all. It did however nourishing the paranoia of the anti gun crowd.

MT, esoxs makes some good points. I don't know about you, you may be perfect, but I know I am not, and it never hurts to be reminded from time to time that we all need to improve. I don't think there is any question we have morally decayed in this nation. We are each a part of the solution, or we are part of the problem. If you don't like what he says lets hear your logic not more of your making fun of people. It's better to make yourself look brilliant than spend all your mental energy trying to make others look stupid.


----------



## SniperPride

Morals are very important, yes even to us young people.
:beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"MT, esoxs makes some good points. I don't know about you, you may be perfect, but I know I am not, and it never hurts to be reminded from time to time that we all need to improve. I don't think there is any question we have morally decayed in this nation. We are each a part of the solution, or we are part of the problem. If you don't like what he says lets hear your logic not more of your making fun of people. It's better to make yourself look brilliant than spend all your mental energy trying to make others look stupid."

I'm sorry but if I was to say anything nearly that extreme or invalid I would be chewed out for it. Sorry for trying to keep things "fair and balanced". Could you back any of that up creosote?


----------



## esox

Already did. Strange that you, being of the exhalted intellectual elite that supported Kerry, overlooked it. I suppose that overlooking such trivialities is the price one must pay for being a genius.
Perhaps in your enlightened wisdom, you could explain to this poor, pathetic ignoramus where I err. After all, I'm merely one of those ignorant midwest dolts that voted for Bush.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

By "back it up" I didn't mean that I wanted your opinion. I want facts showing that our debt was caused by immorality.


----------



## esox

What I posted about early 20th century Munich was not opinion.
Munich is in Germany. The early 20th century encompasses a time span of roughly 1900-1930's. All their health, wealth, and education didn't prevent their destruction as there was no morailty. Fact. How about the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Mede-Persians, Greeks, Romans? All had societies with the highest health, wealth, and education, at least by the standards of the day. But no morality. What happened to them? They disintergrated. Fact.

If the costs of crime, i. e. prevention, law enforcement, incarceration, rehabilitation, courts, attorneys, lost productivity, property loss/damage, health care for victims, and on and on and on, had never existed, there would be no need to borrow money. That's just the costs of crime. Throw in the costs of illegitimacy, alcoholism, drug abuse, diseases such as std's, and the health care costs that accompany them as well as alcoholism, and drugs, and on and on and on, we have more money still. Since the birth of this nation, these have cost trillions which is equal to or more than the current debt. If you want numbers, do your own legwork and start researching to prove otherwise.

In your original post you said that money, education, and health was more important than morality. Fact is, this has been consistently the best educated, healthiest, and wealthiest country in the history of humankind. Fact is, we are still plagued with these problems. Fact is, we will continue to be until morality takes precedence just as every other society before us. Even a lowly Bush supporter such as myself can understand this.

Unless your are a complete blithering idiot you too understand this. You are however unwilling to accept this so I'll spend no more effort trying to convince you against your will. As the old saying goes, one convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I was hoping for a few .gov sites with graphs and charts, but I guess I'm going to have to rely on your opinion as to why the great cities through time fell. Thanks anyway.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

MT our tax payer education system should have provided you this information in teaching world history. You can go to any library and find many historical books dealing with these.

Not Historical fiction like the things MM has tried to present as documentary's. Morality and the shift from self reliance to gov dependency follow parallel the cost of Gov for non productive services.

We see it today with defense lawyers arguing that the home life and environment that the criminal was brought up in is the cause of their behavior. Forgetting that the person made the choice to do the criminal act.

Once the people discover that they can vote themselves money from the Gov the democracy declines. Thank you FDR for setting us on this path.


----------



## indsport

Just have to pose some questions to all the posts. According to all the survey's, census information, etc, over 70% of this country considers themselves christian, and over 90% say they believe in strong moral values. However, as quoted here "Debt, education, and health are vital issues, but none are more vital than morality without which renders futile attempts to address/correct all other issues. Any idea how many trillions immorality has cost/costs? Any idea what aids/std's costs the taxpayers? How about illegitimacy? Crime? Drugs? All this, (and more), the result of immorality. "

Therefore, the general questions: Does this mean that < 10% of all the people are responsible for all the costs due to immorality? How come the most popular shows on television (that have been rated immoral, lewd, lascivious by Parentswatch and other watchdog groups) are watched by > 20% of the population? That would require 10% of all moral households are also watching. How come the rates for teenage aids, drug use, AIDS, are similiar and statistically not different regardless of race, ethnicity, religious background?

Somehow, I do not get the connection. If the morally righteous are so adamant on enforcing moral behavior, then how come children coming from these moral households continue to contribute to AIDS, 
teen pregnancy and drug use? Where were their "moral" parents and what did they teach their children? Even if they did teach their children their view of morals, do they themselves remember anything they did as children or teenagers that was immoral? Which morals are you talking about? Southern Baptist morals, Catholic morals, evangelical christian morals, buddhist morals, muslim morals? When the "Christian" starts talking about morals, which flavor? If they all agreed on morals, you would think there would be only one Christian religion. I know too many people who are agnostic or non religious who have raised children that think and act morally better as defined by Christians than children raised by supposed Christian morals and alternatively, I have seen many children raised by Christian families that have a good set of moral values but also the broadest religious tolerance of any other religion including Muslims. Finally, to my own point of view, the 1st amendment of the Constitution has a flaw. In addition to freedom of religion, it should also have had a clause of freedom from religion. What right should the moral view of a southern baptist be the law of the land and be pushed down my throat if I am some other religion (BEFORE SB GETS ANGRY, I WAS JUST USING YOU AS A LABEL, NOT ANYTHING AGAINST YOU OR YOUR RELIGION)

Before there can be a discussion of morals, you need to define what you mean by moral and also define where you determined the definition of that morality. Did you decide for yourself, or follow the Bible, Koran, Tao?

Just my 0.02.


----------



## njsimonson

Do you guys EVER go out hunting or fishing?!?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

It has been a poor year for both around these parts simon, and its been a rough year for politics. This is a way to vent and get your opinion heard.


----------



## indsport

To nj,

I hunt about 5 days per week. My dogs are mad at me since last Friday when they didn't get to go out all weekend.


----------



## zogman

Robert,
Sorry I haven't and still don't have time to respond to you, however it appears you are getting a lot of good feedback. Diane Feinstein is now the leader for the dems in the house. I guess we don't have to worry about them moving to the center. With that said it will be a battle with the mainstream media trying to drum up sympathy for the poor mistreated minority party. If that happens I hope the right rams their agenda thru. Keep the far left in the forefront and the right will gain more ground in the house in 2006. And Hilly Mae won't even want to stick her head up in 2008.


----------



## esox

Good points indsport though hardly original. It appears that you are making the old, "since everyone does it, including the so-called 'righteous' it must be ok", as well as the well worn, "You can't legislate morals 'cause whose morals do we legislate?" theme, and the "nobody has the right to tell me what's right and wrong" platitude. 
I might also add that there is no such thing as freedom from religion.

There are 2 religions. Liberalism, which has gone by various names/denominations such as communism, socialism, paganism, fascism, etc., is the second oldest religion. It's been around since before the Creation which makes it pretty dern old. It was started by a character who decided that, "I will rise above the Heavens...", "I will be the Most High...". This creature was apparently not content with the status quo in which he was indeed not the Most High nor was he qualified or deserving of the position. 
This status quo also included universal/eternal absolutes that didn't set to well with him either. In other words, he didn't like the game plan. In other words, he wanted to substitute the original/current game plan with his own. He wanted to be "liberated" from this first religion and start his own. Hence the religion called "liberalism" which is the antithesis of the first. 
By now everybody should understand where I'm coming from and who I'm talking about. "Myth", "old mens fairy tales" you say? Suit yourself, no facts are changed. 
As Bob Dylan said in a song he recorded many years ago, "your gonna have to serve somebody". Once again, there is no freedom from religion. There is no middle ground.

How we are to live, morals, has been spelled out to us plain and simple. Just because many if not most, don't live this way, at least in a continued/consistant basis, doesn't mean that they are irrelevant or subject to change. They never have, aren't, nor will they ever be. Since we are cognizant of these facts, that leads to the "A" word, accountability. This angers, no, make that, enrages as it smacks us where it hurts the most-our pride. We like being "liberated", it's fun, at least for awhile. Then the "C" word kicks in-consequences. The natural/inevitable consequences that always follow "liberation", which is one of the big reasons for the original game plan in the first place, to avoid the consequences of "liberation".

One says that they resent being told how to live by others who don't practice what they preach, which is certainly understandable. Yet the Perfect One who did practice what He preached got His butt spiked to a board and hung up to dry. So, what does this say? It says that we don't want to hear it no matter what the source. We prefer to be "liberated".

As I've been saying all along, (in so many words), God is who He says He is. God's word the Bible is exactly that, God's Word and it has a whole lot to say about the second, and only other religion, of liberalism and none of it good. Liberalism is the greatest oxymoron in the history of language as one is not liberated at all. One is enslaved.

God's word is what's right. Everything else is what's left, (over). Attacking those who may not practice what they preach does not change this nor make it any less relevant. We will each ultimately be accountable for our own choices. Indeed, the appointment has already been made for this accountability session. Trying to blame others for the choices we made ain't agonna fly. Others will be held accountable for their choices, not ours, just as we will be held accountable for our choices, not theirs.

Although I'm certainly lightyears from being perfect, I intend to stick with the original game plan, the first religion. I might add that I object to the efforts of those who prefer the second religion, "liberalism", to force their religion on me. Their religion means misery, destruction, enslavement, and death. As a matter of fact, death is the answer to everything in their religion. Whether the issues to be answered are "overpopulation", marriage, old age/infirmity, or intolerance for those who don't accept this second religion. Ultimately, liberalism answers them all with death. Sound far fetched? Liberalisms greatest denomination, communism, says it all.


----------



## indsport

esox, you make my point exactly. Assume for the sake of argument that I believed in Yaweh or Mohammed (which I do not). From my standpoint your god is a false god and has no power over me. So assume you are president (like Bush) with an agenda of your view of morals (which appears in your post) why should your religous and therefore moral views be forced upon me? My God says that I do not have to live by your precepts. The original discussion was about morals. You appear to believe that your religion is moral, but using the analogy above, to me your religion is immoral and impure.

as I pointed out in my first post, not having freedom from religion in the first amendment is a flaw.


----------



## esox

indsport, you say that your god maintains that you don't have to follow the precepts of mine which indicates that you do indeed have a god yet you failed to say just who/what your god is. Would you care to share with us just who your god is, as I did? Or are you ashamed/embarrassed to do so?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"There are 2 religions. Liberalism, which has gone by various names/denominations such as communism, socialism, paganism, fascism, etc., is the second oldest religion."

How you can tie the idea of liberalism, which believes in the natural good of the human nature, and the protection from arbitrary force to communism, fascism, socialism, which share none of the same values is beyond me.


----------



## esox

"Natural" good of the human nature? There is no such thing. A kid does not have to be taught to lie, or be manipulative for example. Unless trained/taught otherwise, humans grow into barbarians with little or no regard for any but themselves and a bonifide rebellious, enmity for their Creator.

Once we "liberate" ourselves from the original game plan, we eventually become incapable of being a society of citizens that can be governed. We become subjects that must be ruled. Each generation will increasingly come to believe that morals don't matter. Murder, rape, robbery, injustice, corruption, violence, will continue to increase to the point were ultimately an oppressive, (and unjust), central government will be required to provide some measure of protection from ourselves and maintain some degree of order. Although this form of government provides at least a modicum of order, it in no way protects from arbritary force. Indeed, arbritary force is it's basis. This has always been the case. Show me one exception. Just one. This has been the pattern for all the great societies of history. History books are simply chronicles of this perpetual insanity and the history books are there for all to see, beginning with Genesis. If one doesn't accept God's Word, then scope out the secular history books at the public library. 
If there was such a thing as "natural good", then these chronicles of insanity would paint a different picture. But they don't as there is obviously something terribly wrong with the human condition and that is because we have "liberated" ourselves from the ways of our Creator.
Deny God if you wish. Deny God's Word if you wish. However, one thing cannot be denied and that is the deplorable condition of the history of humanity. This obvious contradiction betweeb reality and so-called "natural good" is to great to ignore.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Although this form of government provides at least a modicum of order, it in no way protects from arbritary force. Indeed, arbritary force is it's basis. This has always been the case. Show me one exception. "

It protects from arbitrary forces such as those which choose to deny rights from law abiding citizens like the gays. It protects the weak, with government funded aid programs. It ensures that soldiers are not sent to war for and unjust and unnecessary cause.

Indeed Plainsman a child does have to be taught to lie, a child is born without instinct save that to cry when it has needs. It would be impossible for a child do be born with the capacity to lie, because it is not born with the capacity to speak. One cannot lie if one does not have a language. What is it exactly that makes you believe that all humans are evil?

"Deny God if you wish. Deny God's Word if you wish. However, one thing cannot be denied and that is the deplorable condition of the history of humanity. This obvious contradiction betweeb reality and so-called "natural good" is to great to ignore."

I am starting to question which god you are following. Your god seems like a violent and malevolent being who wants you to restrict all of those who you do not approve of. It seems to me that your god wants you to create a fascist nation which rules over everyone with an iron fist. Unfortunately for you I believe in Jehovah, and I will not bow down to your archaic form of stalinist like rule.


----------



## esox

You believe in Jehovah? This is a sentiment you share with the Egyptian Pharoah of Genesis, Hitler, and Mao, just to name a few.

The Evil One approached Jesus and said, "If you are the Son of God, turn these stones into bread." Mathew 4:3

Satan himself believes in God. Satan knows who's who.

Satan would never tempt us to turn stones into bread. That would be no temptation as we are incapable of doing so.

Only God can turn stones into bread.

Belief in God is really no big deal and merely shows that one isn't a complete/total fool.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Esox I am not trying to build up belief in my faith, I am pointing out that your god is obviously not my God.


----------



## mr.trooper

So quick to judge... :eyeroll:

Militant Tigre: i sugest that we change the subject so that you can retain whats left of your dignity. Honestly...calling your Christian Brothers Heathens just because they have different political beliefs? Even with all the differences WE have had, i have never resorted to calling you a heathen. You may not have a firm grasp of some of Gods word, but that doesnt mean your Damned to hell now does it? The same is true to Esox. just becase his views are different doesnt mean he is damned! th only requirement is that you accept Gods gift of his Son. The rest follows from there. Some times i just dont know where you get off-constantly attaking people personaly on the political forum. Its attitudes like this that have labeled the entire church "Hypocrites" because we dont follow the doctorine of love that we preach. Its fine to Disagree, even to disslike some ones actions or beliefs, but you MUST show love and respect for that persons spirit. thats not an option, its a command.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Militant Tigre: i sugest that we change the subject so that you can retain whats left of your dignity. Honestly...calling your Christian Brothers Heathens just because they have different political beliefs?"

Nay trooper, not because he has different political beliefs, I am judging him because he has different social beliefs. I have no love for someone who can tell me with a straight face (I assume) that man has no goodness in his soul. I do not mean to imply that he is a hethan, but his twisting of the ideals of the almighty disgusts me to no end.

"Its attitudes like this that have labeled the entire church "Hypocrites" because we dont follow the doctorine of love that we preach. Its fine to Disagree, even to disslike some ones actions or beliefs, but you MUST show love and respect for that persons spirit. thats not an option, its a command."

I see no love from you towards the ones that you judge either


----------



## esox

Both of you put word's in my mouth. 
One claims that I advocate a stalinist form of government, and the other says I'm damning those who oppose my views, although I never posted anything even remotely close to that effect in either instance.
I have explained my position on values, on whose values matter, and the results to society of rejecting these values. 
As a result I've been accused of being a stalinist and one who condemns. Both personal attacks, which is certainly no big, (or even little), deal. At least to me.

I'll admit that what I post strikes sparks. And I'm sure most of my posts are blithely ignored, which is fine. Some wish to contend, which is fine also. Troop, if you find this objectionable and our posts "undignified", (and I imagine one could guess that you consider yours dignified), you can always turn the channel. You don't have to read them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Don't shut off your allies esox, Bush did that and look what happened to him :wink:


----------



## mr.trooper

"And God Saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that eveory imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continualy."
--What part of that leads you to believe that man is partialy good? Again, you would do well not to bring God into our arguments. Simply having read some of the Bible isnt enought to understand it. its is an emencely complex, and DEEP book. it anot be understood mearly by reading through it.

"I am judging him because he has different social beliefs. I have no love for someone who can tell me with a straight face (I assume) that man has no goodness in his soul. I do not mean to imply that he is a hethan, but his twisting of the ideals of the almighty disgusts me to no end."

--Also, i would that you see that my disagreeing with you, and others for that mater is not judging. wen i say something is wrong, its not because iv decided its wrong, its because God has. im sorry if that ruffles your fethers, but youv got to deal with it. God puts things in front of all of us that are hard to swallow.

"and the other says I'm damning those who oppose my views,"
BTW: Esox, i think you missunderstood my mesasge. i said that YOU are NOT damned, i never said that you were damning others.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> "
> Indeed Plainsman a child does have to be taught to lie, a child is born without instinct save that to cry when it has needs. It would be impossible for a child do be born with the capacity to lie, because it is not born with the capacity to speak. One cannot lie if one does not have a language. What is it exactly that makes you believe that all humans are evil?


MT, cool down, take a breath, and pay attention who you are talking to.

I had you misplaced I guess. You said on another thread you were 16? I thought you were going to an impressive college for the gifted majoring in engineering.

I also noticed on another thread that you consider yourself a good debater, and that people couldn't change your mind. Debate requires a judge to determine who the winner is. Isn't our task here to both be winners by finding the truth. Let's look at your contention that Bush lied about the WMD's. I say that intelligence was bad and neither Kerry or Bush lied when they said Iraq had WMD's. I think this is abundantly clear to everyone, but you refused to accept the obvious. That leads us to the second part of your statement that we would find it hard to change your mind, or something like that. That isn't good debating, that is simply denial in the face of insurmountable evidence. That may simply be adolescent stubbornness, or inexperienced first attempts at independence.

MT if your 16 I have wasted my time arguing with someone who in all likelihood will agree with me by the time the next election comes around.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I thought you were going to an impressive college for the gifted majoring in engineering. "

I'm not sure who told you that one, I have no plans on going into the engineering fields.

"MT if your 16 I have wasted my time arguing with someone who in all likelihood will agree with me by the time the next election comes around."

Pulling the age card, speak of the devil.

"I also noticed on another thread that you consider yourself a good debater, and that people couldn't change your mind."

It seems to me that you read what you wish posts said. I stated that because I consider myself a good debater, it will be hard for me to change my own mind.

" say that intelligence was bad and neither Kerry or Bush lied when they said Iraq had WMD's"

When that intelligence changed, Kerry ajusted his position as necissary. It seems that you want a candidate who is steady than one who tries to be right.


----------



## Plainsman

> Pulling the age card, speak of the devil.


Ya, I'll have to come clean and admit to doing that on purpose, just to see what your reaction would be. I knew it was your sore spot. oke:



> it will be hard for me to change my own mind.


I guess you would have to debate yourself to accomplish changing your own mind. Wait, Kerry was able to do that.

When the new and better intelligence came in Bush knew he had been wrong. He couldn't go to far admitting they made a mistake because the media would have had a hay day.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So he chose to continue on with an attack/plan that he knew was wrong, just so he wouldnt have to be chastised by the media. I can't believe we re-elected this guy.


----------



## Plainsman

You made my point. I don't think your dense MT, but you sure took that statement wrong. I think you took it wrong because you choose to. There may be someone partisan enough or dumb enough to believe the tact you took.

The mistake was that there were perhaps no WMD's. I am still not convinced either way. However, continuing the attack is exactly what I would have done to stabilize the middle east, and eliminate a person who was financing terror. Was it not Sadam that was paying families of suicide bombers in Israel. Bush made no mistake by a preemptive strike on Iraq, and it remains to be seen if he made a mistake on the WMD's. If you are sure he did then you must have inside information even our pentagon doesn't have.


----------



## mr.trooper

You guys have to try and understand how hard it is for someone like MT to judge maters. he just doesnt have the Experience yet. i know ill be Factoring tat into my responces form now on.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Well thank you trooper for pointing that out. If you dont mind I would like to go over why your observations are stilted and wrong. You see you are sheltered from the terror, the gays, the arabs and everything else that this election was voted upon. Because of this, you are distant and have no real grasp on the matters at hand. I will be factoring this into my responses in the future :wink:


----------



## indsport

Esox,

My original response was to point out that you do not have to be religious to be moral or have a set of morals. I am a strict constructionist for the seperation of church and state, regardless of the religion. Therefore, anyone who quotes their "religious" values as the only choice of moral precepts to me rings false. Within the entire breadth and depth of all forms of Christianity as well as most religions, there is a wide divergence of opinion of what is moral and what is not moral. Anyone may have a viewpoint, but I strongly oppose anyone to telling me what morals I must live by through action, deed, legislation or their particular religious creed. 
This is why I personally opposed the use of "moral values" during the recent campaign and basing ones vote on "moral values". I may agree with many of the moral values put forth by both campaigns, but have the tolerance to embrace all viewpoints and believe those viewpoints should be heard and not take precedence over any other viewpoint regardless of their majority in numbers.


----------



## mr.trooper

"Because of this, you are distant and have no real grasp on the matters at hand"
--the 16 year old is teling me i dont know how the world works. :lol: OK, whatever buddy. have it your way.

P.S. its a sign of your imaturity if you insult someone who is trying to defend you. :wink:

Indsport: YOUR 100% CORRECT! you dont have to be religious to have some sence of moral right and wrong. its called a consience, and your al born with them. for those of you who care, check out the begining of Romans chapter 1. it talks about how No one will have an excuse to not have believed in God by judgement day, because Nature alone should be enough For their inborn sence of morality( AKA consience) to realize that a Creator was needed for such a complex work.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"You guys have to try and understand how hard it is for someone like MT to judge maters. he just doesnt have the Experience yet. i know ill be Factoring tat into my responces form now on."

"P.S. its a sign of your imaturity if you insult someone who is trying to defend you. "

If your next tactic of defense is to call me retarded, please keep it to yourself. You are not fooling anyone.


----------



## mr.trooper

Again, calm down MT.

Quote #1) i tryed to get people not to be so hard on you with their statements. BTW: SAYING YOUR INEXPERIENCED ISNT AN INSULT AS IT WOULDNT BE YOUR FAULT NOW WOULD IT? This is an insult: "your a jeark". do you see the difference?( ...and if you try and say i just called you a jeark then your hopeless.)

Your responce: Attack the Conservative.

Quote #2) I say it is imature to fly off the handle at people who are trying to help you.

Your responce: Atack & Accuse the Conservative.

Whatever.

im tired of trying to reach across party lines. its obvious you dont want to make peace. so be it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Does anyone else think that this is absolutely ascinine?


----------



## mr.trooper

Back on topic:

I think we need to focus on the Defecit. we need to startpayig some of it back. FIRST I think we should rase taxes. While i do like the short term effect of Lowering taxes, i realize that the govrnment needs it to survive. rasing taxes is step one. second, I say we increase the number of our troops to 200,000 men. This is rediculous. we should not be having this much trouble with this. Our Generals said we needed 200,000 minimun to secure Iraq....we arnt using nearly that much, and guess what..ITS NOT SECURE. go figure.


----------

