YESSSSSSSS!!!!

[eric]

Funnily enough, I believe in fairness.

We just have a different concept of what "fairness" is.

[Etaoin]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Funnily enough, I believe in fairness.

We just have a different concept of what "fairness" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me eric, does your concept of fairness somehow use the power of the state (i.e. ultimately a gun) to effect your idea of a fair resolution?

If so, isn't that one step closer to the gulag?

[eric]

Hang on Etaoin, what was that about conservative ideas being supported normally by reason?

I have no problem with state involvement to effect fairness. I assume that you don't either. Are you opposed to prisons? Are you an anarchist?

Unless you're an anarchist, I'll assume that, like most sensible people, you believe the state should play some role in the lives of its citizens. That eliminates the idea that any state intervention is "one step closer to the Gulag". It's a weak argument based on fear. The question becomes "how much should the state intervene?" At what point does state intervention become "one step closer to the Gulag"?

I don't believe that welfare is pernicious, but in fact the trappings of a healthy society.

[DoctorDoom]

Life isn't fair, kid, and government cannot do a farking thing to change that.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're an anarchist, I'll assume that, like most sensible people, you believe the state should play some role in the lives of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]
That might appeal to the wild-eyed Big Brother lefties, but the fedgov has no business intruding into the lives of the citizens beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. The fact that it is now a bloated, omnivororous, uncontrollable, unaccountable behemoth that dominates and micromanages every aspect of life is due entirely to the fools who think, "The government should do this because it's only..." "Well, the fedgov should do that because it's only..." "Obviously, the gov should do the other because it's only..."

Incrementalism is the handle that fits every destructive tool of the left.

Entitlements cannot be found in the Constitution. They didn't exist until FDR opened Pandora's box. Now the majority of the US fedgov budget is entitlements of one type or another. It will eventually destroy us.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
From Courage to Liberty
From Liberty to Abundance
From Abundance to Selfishness
From Selfishness to Complacency
From Complacency to Apathy
From Apathy to Dependency
From Dependency back into Bondage"

--- from "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" by Alexander Fraser Tytler Lord Woodhouselee (1748-1813), Scottish judge and historian at Edinburgh University

Look at our history in terms of that list. The pattern is unmistakable.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, those of us on the left have a long way to go if we're to create a healthier society.

[/ QUOTE ]

A long way, like never. Today's leftists are border-line totalitarians at best and full-bore totalitarians at worst. There is no way that leftist totalitarianism can ever create a healthier society. The only way that society can ever be made healthier is with increased freedom from government controls and in today's world ONLY we conservatives are for such freedom.

[eric]

"Today's leftists are border-line totalitarians at best and full-bore totalitarians at worst. There is no way that leftist totalitarianism can ever create a healthier society" - Tex

You're correct that totalitarianism can never achieve a healthier society, but wrong to suggest that liberals are totalitarian in nature.

"The only way that society can ever be made healthier is with increased freedom from government controls and in today's world ONLY we conservatives are for such freedom"

Well, if that were true, there would be no need for political discussion. Of course, that's your worldview although it's deeply flawed.

The US has many ills (there are many good points).
American students are underperforming. Inequality is rife. The US has a greater proportion of its citizens in poverty. Social mobility is lower than in other western nations. Americans are unhealthier. Many have no health insurance.

What are the solutions to these problems? Why does the US lag behnd? You either have to say that it doesn't matter, or you have hope that these problems will magically disappear without government intervention.

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
You're correct that totalitarianism can never achieve a healthier society, but wrong to suggest that liberals are totalitarian in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of the phrase, "a living wage"? Not minimum wage, but the guarantee that advocates like ACORN & National Worker's Unite want for all people, to be able to give flat screen TV's to all people and jacuzzis to the working class into perpetuity.

They want to force & to cram their undebatable ideas upon all businesses, large and small, forcing them to carry the lazy upon their shoulders or else be evicted from their leases at gunpoint. Under the guise of "we'll take care of you", they want to **** and tear away the rights of the people who provide opportunity in the community, the very people who, when they decide to transact business in a local economy/community raise home values, add to state and local tax coffers tidying up the neighborhoods etc. are punished, told to leave or submit to the wishes of a small motley crew of vile drifters with an agenda.

Perhaps you didn't read the Wal Mart thread. I suggest you get educated about you totalitarian brethren in arms.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
You're correct that totalitarianism can never achieve a healthier society, but wrong to suggest that liberals are totalitarian in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern American liberals are clearly advocates of BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROLS over the lives of the American people, over the economy, over everything - they are obviously border-line totalitarians.

IMO, if modern American liberals thought that they could get away with it, they would tear up the Constitution, dissolve Congress, and establish a totalitarian dictatorship. There are at least 3 things that prevent thenm from doing just that - the Constitution, the military, and the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the individual's right to keep and bear arms. The last is the main reason that liberals have been fighting to eliminate those 2nd Amendment rights because that right is the MAJOR obstacle standing in the way of the liberal goal of imposing totalitarianism in America.

[Etaoin]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
"Today's leftists are border-line totalitarians at best and full-bore totalitarians at worst. There is no way that leftist totalitarianism can ever create a healthier society" - Tex

You're correct that totalitarianism can never achieve a healthier society, but wrong to suggest that liberals are totalitarian in nature.

"The only way that society can ever be made healthier is with increased freedom from government controls and in today's world ONLY we conservatives are for such freedom"

Well, if that were true, there would be no need for political discussion. Of course, that's your worldview although it's deeply flawed.

The US has many ills (there are many good points).
American students are underperforming. Inequality is rife. The US has a greater proportion of its citizens in poverty. Social mobility is lower than in other western nations. Americans are unhealthier. Many have no health insurance. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/trollhook.gif

What are the solutions to these problems? Why does the US lag behnd? You either have to say that it doesn't matter, or you have hope that these problems will magically disappear without government intervention. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/trollhook.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

O.K. The answer to your questions TROLL is that people are not perfect and will never be perfect despite all the legislation you would pass. One thing is damned sure though...government will NOT make them better. Only people working for their own benefit will bring prosperity to the masses.

[eric]

I take from your response that it doesn't matter that American students are lagging behind their competitors in Europe, or that Americans are less healthy, or that social mobility is lower in America than in Europe.

That's just trolling.

[Rhino]

Read his post again. He addressed those issues by saying they aren't a government responsibility. You must have missed it.

[eric]

Ok, my response was rather unfair. When we get down to the nitty gritty of the argument, we have two perfectly thought out ideas that are incompatible with each other.

Liberals/progressives believe that education and elimination of poverty should be one of the roles of the government. It's a perfectly valid political stance, and calling it totalitarian does nothing to attack the logical underpinnings of that belief.

Conservatives feel that education and elimination of poverty shouldn't overly concern the government. Again, that's a valid political stance.

On these boards, these two fundamentally different world views aren't really up for debate. What I really dislike is the Leninist-style campaign against liberalism that has been initiated by a number of conservatives, that so many have bought into. Were it no so sad, it would be funny.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:blah, blah,blah...What are the solutions to these problems? Why does the US lag behnd? You either have to say that it doesn't matter, or you have hope that these problems will magically disappear without government intervention.




[/ QUOTE ]

Can you, with a straight face, name three times government has done something outside the authority of the U.S. Constitution and been successful?

Life is NOT fair. If you work harder than me, you should be rewarded better than me. Otherwise, what exactly is the motivation to work hard?

Unless of clourse you want everyone to be sucking at the government teat and are afraid of hard work.

[eric]

Well, in answer to the first - well no. If the government has wanted to do something outside the constitution, it's had to amend the constitution.

Your second point has a certain logic, in a perfect society, where a meritocracy exists. However, in reality....

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Hang on Etaoin, what was that about conservative ideas being supported normally by reason?

I have no problem with state involvement to effect fairness. I assume that you don't either. Are you opposed to prisons? Are you an anarchist?


[/ QUOTE ]

Aww geez, you really are a flake. How can not wanting the government to take over fifty percent of my income lead you down the path to anarchy?

Prisons have NOTHING to do with fairness. Prisons have to do with punishing someone for committing a crime.

You'd rather they be rewarded for NOT committing a crime. Large difference there ace.


[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're an anarchist, I'll assume that, like most sensible people, you believe the state should play some role in the lives of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, anything SPECIFICALLY addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

[ QUOTE ]
That eliminates the idea that any state intervention is "one step closer to the Gulag".

[/ QUOTE ]

Horseshit. Anytime the government grants itself more power in the interest of "being fair", it is taking away more resposibility for one's choices and actions.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak argument based on fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bite me. It's a damned STRONG idea based on fear. It has been shown countless time throughout history that the more power governments have, the worse off the people are. When people become dependent on the government for handouts, the handouts get smaller and smaller until they vanish.

[ QUOTE ]
The question becomes "how much should the state intervene?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. The questions become why did the government feel that this is their job, why did we grant them this much power, and how can we stop it?

[ QUOTE ]
At what point does state intervention become "one step closer to the Gulag"?

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as an individual right is trampled by the government.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that welfare is pernicious, but in fact the trappings of a healthy society.


[/ QUOTE ]

Awww, what a nice uninformed, juvenile, utopic, belief. Too bad reality is much harsher. Can you explain why the "trappings of a healthy society" involve giving my money to you at gunpoint?

[eric]

TRL, it's a little confusing to argue with you.

At one point, you're saying that you think the State should intervene in the lives of its citizens, but only things "SPECIFICALLY addressed in the U.S. Constitution".


But then you say "Anytime the government grants itself more power in the interest of "being fair", it is taking away more resposibility for one's choices and actions".

Could you clarify your position?

You then go on to write

[ QUOTE ]
It has been shown countless time throughout history that the more power governments have, the worse off the people are

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a little misleading. Perhaps it's better to say that when governments obtain more power without democratic checks and balances and that power is abused, then people become worse off. To quote an obvious example, let's look at modern democracies.

Would you prefer to live in the 18th century, where a laissez-faire approach was applied to social problems, or a modern liberal democracy where at least a minimum level of support is offered to those who need it. Who would be better off?

It's a false dichotomy to posit freedom/non-intervention v totalitarianism/government intervention, as history clearly shows.

[Etaoin]

Eric, the /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/trollhook.gif

Government is a necessary evil.

Then why do we support a government?

Because people are not perfect, and government is our response to having an entity to which we delegate those functions and powers which we cannot permit to individual citizens. These limited powers are designated in the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is because the founders of this nation understood that history taught that the least government was the best government, and that the individual working for his own self interest would create the most prosperity that this nation has achieved it pre-eminence. The battle between the left and right is whether Freedom will continue to exist in this nation. The left seeks to constrain the genuine Freedom that demands individual responsibility, while promoting and supporting license without responsibility as being freedom.

[eric]

Etaion,

I'm not going to argue with your interpretation of the founding fathers on their beliefs. I think you're quite correct that those were of the views of many, if not, all the founding fathers.

Ponch explained it quite well in another thread when he wrote that liberals don't view the constitution as written by the Founding Fathers as the finished product. That's what makes us progressive.

The Founding Fathers were writing at the end of the 18th century, and they have been proven wrong on many issues by subsequent events. (Many on this site would disagree that their views on separation of church and state!) As the US became a superpower, their views on US foreign policy now seem outdated.

"It is because the founders of this nation understood that history taught that the least government was the best government" - Perhaps pre-19th century history!

I'm not going to apologise for my progressive views. I appreciate that it's a different world view, and from there, our views become irreconcilable.

[Chris]

There's nothing progressive about making the same old mistakes Eric.

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Etaion,

I'm not going to argue with your interpretation of the founding fathers on their beliefs. I think you're quite correct that those were of the views of many, if not, all the founding fathers.

Ponch explained it quite well in another thread when he wrote that liberals don't view the constitution as written by the Founding Fathers as the finished product. That's what makes us progressive.

The Founding Fathers were writing at the end of the 18th century, and they have been proven wrong on many issues by subsequent events. (Many on this site would disagree that their views on separation of church and state!) As the US became a superpower, their views on US foreign policy now seem outdated.

"It is because the founders of this nation understood that history taught that the least government was the best government" - Perhaps pre-19th century history!

I'm not going to apologise for my progressive views. I appreciate that it's a different world view, and from there, our views become irreconcilable.



[/ QUOTE ]



The Constitution was certainly not "a finished product," and I haven't seen any conservatives arguing that idea.

The document itself, however, provides the mechanism of change, via the amendment process, which requires a broad national consensus to effect changes.

The left, having failed in that, relies upon circumventing the democratic process by attempting to force changes through the courts, instead of through the constitution.

Your views aren't "progressive" in the least. They are good, old-fashioned leftist statism.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:

Conservatives feel that education and elimination of poverty shouldn't overly concern the government. Again, that's a valid political stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Federal government involvement in education and in eliminating poverty are unconstitutional. Education is a local issue, or at worse, a state issue and the closer the control of education is to the parents the better the education. The decline in the quality of American education can be traced directly to federal government involvement in education. For more details see:

The Declining Quality of Education and What to Do about It (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/186549/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1)

The best, and the only solution to the poverty problem (which is virtually non-existent under President Bush relative to what it was under Clinton: details here (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/314048/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1)) is to expand the economy to provide jobs for those in poverty. BTW, nearly 5 million more Americans are employed today than at the end of the Clinton Recession.

[ QUOTE ]
On these boards, these two fundamentally different world views aren't really up for debate. What I really dislike is the Leninist-style campaign against liberalism that has been initiated by a number of conservatives, that so many have bought into. Were it no so sad, it would be funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that you don't want to face the truth about the totalitarian bent of modern American liberals, but that is your problem, not ours. Modern American liberals have infinitely more in common with Nazism and Communism than with the principles of America's Founding Fathers.

[eric]

Tex, you're funny!

I'm not going to discuss education policy, because to be honest, I don't know enough about it, but you do seem to be playing hard and fast with the truth.

Federal government involvement in education and in eliminating poverty is not unconstitutional. The States have a primary role, but to say the federal government has no role is just plain wrong. The same can be said with regards to the elimination of poverty. Social Security is a federal program.

With regards to poverty, you write that poverty "is virtually non-existent under President Bush relative to what it was under Clinton". Oh, come on Tex! Let's have a look at the US census statistics.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov22.html

I won't explain the stats to you. Have a look at some other pages on the site.

Finally, you make the laughable claim about "the totalitarian bent of american liberals".

Well, you've made it before without supporting logic. I can safely assume that it isn't supported by logic this time. Maximum Sam showed you up on this in a previous thread.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
TRL, it's a little confusing to argue with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, should I use smaller words?

[ QUOTE ]
At one point, you're saying that you think the State should intervene in the lives of its citizens,

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed it, where EXACTLY did I say that?

[ QUOTE ]
but only things "SPECIFICALLY addressed in the U.S. Constitution".

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, have you ever actually read the Constitution? The Constitution is not a checklist of things the people are "allowed" to do, but a list of things the government is supposed to, and should not be permitted to do.

[ QUOTE ]
But then you say "Anytime the government grants itself more power in the interest of "being fair", it is taking away more resposibility for one's choices and actions".

Could you clarify your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the interest of bringing it down to your third grade reading level...If the government says it is passing a law that "It is against the law for Eric to poke himself in the eye with a sharp stick", and then goes on to form a government agency that enforces that law by punishing anyone that allows you to pick up a sharp stick, and fines you or them for picking up a sharp stick, they have taken your personal responsibility away.

As a real world example: Some time back, the goverment demanded that 'child-proof' lids be placed on medicines. Parents saw this as a way to not have to 'lock up' the medicines that they had always locked up. Now granted, the government MEANT to do something meaningful to protect children from being poisoned, HOWEVER, after the law was passed, and all medicines had a 'child-proof' cap, accidental injestion of harmful substances by children actually WENT UP. Why? Because the goverment had taken personal responsibility away from parents.

Same thing will, and is happening with gun locks.

[ QUOTE ]
You then go on to write

[ QUOTE ]
It has been shown countless time throughout history that the more power governments have, the worse off the people are

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a little misleading. Perhaps it's better to say that when governments obtain more power without democratic checks and balances and that power is abused, then people become worse off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh yes, lets use Roe vs Wade, Waco, clinton's use of pardons, clinton's use of executive orders, the SCOTUS as well as many of the appeals courts legislating from the bench, and any of various and sundry means that the liberals have used to get ridiculous laws passed (see eric and pointy stick above). BTW, those methods all circumvent the "democratic checks and balances". Just for the record, can you give an example of why, using those "checks and balances" the IRS needs a SWAT team?

[ QUOTE ]
To quote an obvious example, let's look at modern democracies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes, let's.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you prefer to live in the 18th century, where a laissez-faire approach was applied to social problems, or a modern liberal democracy where at least a minimum level of support is offered to those who need it. Who would be better off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were going to show us 'modern democracies'. Oh well, I guess you couldn't find one that met your criteria of 'modern liberal democracy where at least a minimum level of support is offered to those who need it.' Funny how you qualified it with 'a minimum level'. Too bad that welfare in America isn't applied like that. A) It's not a 'minimum level' and B) it's not only given to 'those who need it'.

Taking 50% of my income to support someone else is not a 'minimum level'. There are far too many people taking advantage of the system, and choosing to live a lifestyle that is not conducive to the health of a moden society.

Oh, by the way, your 18th Century example is pretty far off the mark. The 18th Century was only brought about because every century prior to that involved a bit of 'government' involvement. See serfs and vassals V nobility throughout history. When the nobles told the peasants that all their cares and worries would be taken care of by the nobles, the peasants no longer looked out for themselves. Eventually the grain stocks disappeared, and people died (well, people have a tendency to do that anyway, but I digress).

[ QUOTE ]
It's a false dichotomy to posit freedom/non-intervention v totalitarianism/government intervention, as history clearly shows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Have an example of a interventionist government allowing people to have total freedom (also for the record, freedom involves personal responsibility)?

Oh, BTW, did you ever answer my question about your pet website? The one with the question about a single party system?

You remember, the question that said that there were advantages to a single party system, and I agreed with it, because those WERE advantages. Did you ever get that sorted out?

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Tex, you're funny!

I'm not going to discuss education policy, because to be honest, I don't know enough about it, but you do seem to be playing hard and fast with the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything I have posted has been the absolute truth. I can't help it if you have been so brainwashed by left-wing Big Lie Propaganda that you can't recognize the truth when you see it.

[ QUOTE ]
Federal government involvement in education and in eliminating poverty is not unconstitutional. The States have a primary role, but to say the federal government has no role is just plain wrong. The same can be said with regards to the elimination of poverty. Social Security is a federal program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show us the exact words in the Constitution that gives the federal government a role in education or eliminating poverty. There are no such words. The only powers that the federal government have are enumerated in detail in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/constitution/). There is nothing there about education, poverty, or Social Security, so they are all unconstitutional.

[ QUOTE ]
With regards to poverty, you write that poverty "is virtually non-existent under President Bush relative to what it was under Clinton". Oh, come on Tex! Let's have a look at the US census statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted a link to the real statistics from the US Census, but you chose to ignore my link. I'll repeat it here to educate you.

Historical Poverty Tables (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

As you can see from the poverty tables, the percentages of people in poverty under President Bush is much lower than under Clinton, despite the fact that Bush inherited a recession and Clinton inherited a booming economy. For example:

Poverty Rates

1993-4 average = 14.8%
2001-2 average = 11.9%

Note: Latest data available is from 2002

EDIT:
You will also note that the poverty rates under President Bush are at or near historic lows.
END EDIT

So, you see that I don't makes claims that I can't back up with facts.

Did you ever stop to think that those who were brainwashing you for your entire life were lying to you? Well, they clearly were and you allowed yourself to be victimized by them.

[eric]

The only powers that the federal government have are enumerated in detail in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. There is nothing there about education, poverty, or Social Security, so they are all unconstitutional.

Well, you know how the constitution works. Go ahead, take the Department of Education or the Social Security Administration to court if you're sure you're right. What's the chance of it working?

As you can see from the poverty tables, the percentages of people in poverty under President Bush is much lower than under Clinton

Poverty Rates

1993-4 average = 14.8%
2001-2 average = 11.9%

Hmm, selective use of statistics Tex. Let's include all the figures.

2002 - 12.1%
2001 - 11.7
2000 - 11.3
1999 - 11.9
1998 - 12.7
1997 - 13.3
1996 - 13.7
1995 - 13.8
1994 - 14.5
1993 - 15.1

Now, I didn't think you'd be so sly Tex. Under Clinton (1993 - 2000) we see a gradual drop in poverty rates and we see an upturn in 2001 that continues into 2002.

Let's compare that to your statement about poverty being "virtually non-existent under President Bush relative to what it was under Clinton". Who was telling the truth there?

So, you see that I don't makes claims that I can't back up with facts. - Tex

Oh yes we do!

Did you ever stop to think that those who were brainwashing you for your entire life were lying to you?

Did you?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Until about 43 years ago I was as brainwashed as you are. However, after I began to expand the breadth and depth of my reading, I came to realize that I had been lied to during most of the first 29 years of my life. I only hope that you will do the same and I'm sure that if you do, you will come to the same conclusion that I did.

As for the poverty statistics, The only true comparison between the Clinton and Bush years is what happened at the beginning of each administration. Remember, Clinton inherited a booming economy and President Bush inherited the Clinton Recession, yet the poverty rates were much lower under Bush than during the corresponding Clinton years.

The boom in last 6 years of the Clinton Administration was a direct result of the Republican congressional majorities that were elected in 1994 and the continuation of the Reagan Boom. Consequently, the Republican Congress and the Reagan Boom were responsible for the reduction of the poverty rates in those last 6 Clinton years.

BTW, there is a complete thread that contains such economic data with references to document those data. It's located at:

Bush Economic Data Centralized (Updated 4/5/2004) (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/314048/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1)

I'm working on updates to the data and I'll post the updated version when I'm done.

[eric]

It's an interesting question over who is brainwashed here.

I'm fairly well read (although there's always plenty more to read), and I take a keen interest in reading things I feel are going to challenge my view points (hence why I visit FC, and don't idle my time away at DU).

My major new sources are the BBC and CNN. I read the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Le Monde, NYT and Washington Post. On my bedside table is a biography of Karl Marx and work by Roger Scruton (conservative philosopher). I make an effort not to visit sites such as say, WorldNetDaily or CommonDreams because I know they're heavily skewed.

Have you considered that you might be brainwashed? Where do you get your sources of information?

[eric]

TRL, to cut a very long story short, I assume you accept some government interference but want it limited. Fair enough.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on the medicine lid story. I can see why a gov't might want to create such a law - a mother can't watch her children all the time.

Regarding Waco, I'm not sure that the IRS used a SWAT team as normal procedure - there were some nutty people at Waco and it turned dangerous.

Now, according to Roe v Wade - well it was written that the SCOTUS would have the final say on the interpretation of the constitution. If you don't like it, elect someone who's gonna do something about it.

I'm not quite clear what point you're making about the 18th century, but I'm sure you'll agree that many of the problems (poverty, health, education) have been improved by the intervention of the State.
I'd take 21st Century america over (late) 18th century america, 21st century UK over 18th century UK. I think you would as well!

BTW, that website you refer to is nothing to do with me.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
My major new sources are the BBC and CNN. I read the Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Le Monde, NYT and Washington Post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those sources are all highly biased Big Lie leftist sources, especially the BBC, CNN, the Guardian, the NYT, and the Washington Post. Since those are your major sources it proves my point that you have been brainwashed.

My sources are so widely varied and so voluminous that it would be impossible to list them all, but here are a few: Houston Chronicle (liberal), Washington Times (conservative), Washington Post (liberal), Fox News (fair and balanced), National Review (conservative), Drudge Report (Drudge is a conservative, but he supplies links to news sources that run the gamut of the political spectrum from the left to the right), Rush Limbaugh (conservative), various columnists and online sources (mostly conservative), and many books from liberals like Bob Woodward and conservatives like Bill Sammon and Richard Miniter. etc., etc. I long ago stopped watching the news from major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and liberal cable news outlets like CNN, BBC (especially after its Big Lie coverage of the War on Terrorism), MSNBC, and CNBC, after I discovered that they were all lying to me.

In addition, I rely heavily on original sources like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, Office of Management and Budget, the Tax Foundation, NASA (for debunking the global warming scare), the George C. Marshall Institute (same reason), etc.

[Estragon]

eric, when the WP is your most balanced news source, you really need to broaden your horizons.

[Warlady]

eric if you care about your country you should really investigate Waco and I don't mean the NY Times. You need to rent the video "Rules of Engagement" Actually I think it's on cable right now. It's on my satellite. You are totally misinformed about what happened in Waco.

[eric]

Tex,

You've just gone and admitted that most of your news sources are conservative.

I'll run you through mine

Guardian (liberal), Telegraph (known as the torygraph -guess where it stands), BBC (centrist), CNN (centrist), WP (liberal - centrist), NYT (liberal), Le Monde (liberal).

Now I can't comment on the Houston Chronicle, but the WT is conservative, WP (centrist), National Review (conservative), Drudge (conservative), Limbaugh (you take that as a "news source", LOL). Most daminingly, you think Fox is Fair and Balanced!

One issue seems to be where we classify certain media outlets. What I would call centrist, you would call liberal, and you seem to classify Fox as fair, while I would call it conservative. Our political centers are obviously different. It would be interesting to see whose was more "accurate".

However, despite the fact that you read a majority of conservative news sources, and I read probably a majority of liberal news sources, the key test is whether we can read these with a critical eye. I'm confident in my ability to do so. Are you?

[Rhino]

eric said:
BBC (centrist), CNN (centrist)


http://www.freeconservatives.com/uploads/doggie.gif


What I would call centrist, you would call liberal, and you seem to classify Fox as fair, while I would call it conservative. Our political centers are obviously different.


Excellent point. It's a matter of perception based on our beliefs and paradigms. I wish more people would understand such perception issues. They're too often couched in terms of absolute black and white.

[TheRealLobo]

eric said:
TRL, to cut a very long story short, I assume you accept some government interference but want it limited. Fair enough.



Limited to the power granted it in the U.S. Constitution.


I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on the medicine lid story. I can see why a gov't might want to create such a law - a mother can't watch her children all the time.



You would let your child just wander through the medicine cabinet, unsupervised? Funny how you ignored the point about the government taking away personal responsibility.


Regarding Waco, I'm not sure that the IRS used a SWAT team as normal procedure - there were some nutty people at Waco and it turned dangerous.



You need to read more.


Now, according to Roe v Wade - well it was written that the SCOTUS would have the final say on the interpretation of the constitution. If you don't like it, elect someone who's gonna do something about it.



And every time we do, liberals piss and moan about "flooding the bench with conservative justices". Currently, the dems have a litmus test to determine whether a particular judge is suitable.


I'm not quite clear what point you're making about the 18th century, but I'm sure you'll agree that many of the problems (poverty, health, education) have been improved by the intervention of the State.



Excuse me? You're saying that without the State, we wouldn't have modern medicine, modern conveyances, modern appliances? As far as poverty, health education, the government has totally f*cked up those three particular issues. Can you name a sigle successful project?


I'd take 21st Century america over (late) 18th century america, 21st century UK over 18th century UK. I think you would as well!



I didn't say I wouldn't, and you apparently got it backwards. The 18th century was only screwed up because the governments continued to exercise continued control over the people, and do through this day.


BTW, that website you refer to is nothing to do with me.



You referred me to it.

[eric]

Excuse me? You're saying that without the State, we wouldn't have modern medicine, modern conveyances, modern appliances?

No, I didn't mention those, but as you brought them up, do you think you'd have your computer and as much modern medicine, were it not for government funding of research?

The 18th century was only screwed up because the governments continued to exercise continued control over the people, and do through this day

Are you saying that government involvement (big welfare state, public edcuation) was bigger in the 18th century? The century of Laissez-faire social policy?

You seem to be hinting you'd prefer the 21st century, but deny the advances made by government involvement. Social Security and Public Education are pretty big, don't you think. They may not be perfect, but would you scrap them altogether?

Finally, regarding the website, I wouldn't expect you to influence editorial policy at the Washington Times if you referred to a story there.

[Etaoin]

The thread has been hijacked by a /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/trollhook.gif

It should be terminated and put out of its misery!

[eric]

Well, I admit it's wandered a little. Sorry about that. My intention wasn't to troll, but I've just responded to people's points and it's gone on from there.

Tex mentioned Hitler earlier, so I assume we can apply Godwin's Rule and end the thread

[Warlady]

eric without Bill Gates the government wouldn't have had the software to run computers.

[eric]

You're right there Warlady. That's why a country needs a mixture of government involvement and free enterprise. Total government control would be a disaster (see USSR for details).

[Faithful_Servant]

The world according to eric...

L -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R

eric reality
CNN 0 -5
BBC 0 -7
WP -2 -9

I'd go on, but lunch is over and I've got work to do.
eric, your world is just a little too slanted for my tastes, but the good news is that the Oregon Vortex is for sale. You could buy it and then you'd feel right at home.....

[Warlady]

Good one Faithful.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Excuse me? You're saying that without the State, we wouldn't have modern medicine, modern conveyances, modern appliances?

No, I didn't mention those, but as you brought them up, do you think you'd have your computer and as much modern medicine, were it not for government funding of research?[\quote]

Snorf! Puh-leeeze. Are you implying that such conveniences are only brought about by government research?

And when the government DOES become involved, they frequently screw things up.

[ QUOTE ]
The 18th century was only screwed up because the governments continued to exercise continued control over the people, and do through this day

Are you saying that government involvement (big welfare state, public edcuation) was bigger in the 18th century? The century of Laissez-faire social policy?

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep mentioning laissez-faire, is this the week's new key catch phrase. Yep, laissez-faire as far as 'you do what you want to do, but then give 60% (or more) of the grain you grow to the landowner'. Sound familiar?

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be hinting you'd prefer the 21st century, but deny the advances made by government involvement. Social Security and Public Education are pretty big, don't you think. They may not be perfect, but would you scrap them altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

A) I would prefer the late 18th or early 19th century, hell even before that. Keep in mind a significant potion of my heritage is Native American. Putting an arrow through the chest of a European would be something to look forward to.

B) Name three SUCCESSFUL advances made by government involvement. By successful, it has to be profitable, quantifiable, and cheap.

C) If given the chance, I would scrap them in a heartbeat without a moments hesitation. The government should never have gotten into the business of entitlements.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, regarding the website, I wouldn't expect you to influence editorial policy at the Washington Times if you referred to a story there.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you STILL didn't answer the question about it. Tell the truth, doesn't a single-party system have the advantages that it doesn't have to worry about the democratic process?

[Tim]

[ QUOTE ]
Etaoin said:

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force.


[/ QUOTE ]


I'd just like to point out the fact that Muslims actually promoted religious tolerance. They allowed Christians and Jews both to continue practicing their respective religions.

http://muslim-canada.org/tolerance.htm

[DesertFox]

They prospered when they did that, too.

And that ain't the brand of Islam that's being preached today. Give us back the "good" brand that was tolerant and wise, and everybody will be happy.

You gonna do that? The world would truly be grateful.

[Tim]

True, Islam has significantly change from that time period. My point was not to defend fanatical muslims, but to point out a small historical inaccuracy. It goes with who I am, a future history major. lol

[DesertFox]

Um, what "historical inaccuracy," Tim?

[Tim]

That the muslim invaders forced their religion upon the conquered people. Its not true. They allowed them to continue practicing their own religions.

[DesertFox]

Mohammed killed those who wouldn't convert. His words say so in the Koran.

[Tim]

Well, im not an authority on the Koran, however, im not talking about Mohammad. The later muslim invaders allowed Christians and Jews to continue practicing their religions.

http://muslim-canada.org/tolerance.htm

Ex:

One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.

In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.

The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.

The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:

"Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols.

"A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the 'god' of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belaboured and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had "Muhammad" and all their Gods broken with iron hammers."

That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew - conversion to the Christian faith.

It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.



-Marmaduke Pickthall

[DesertFox]

Tim, need a link or, failing that, a cite for that quote.

All that's well and good, but are you suggesting that Osama bin Laden, Yassir Arafat, the homicide bombers and the Iranian ayatollahs are tolerant?

[Tim]

The link to that is in my first post. And i am not trying to say that Osama is tolerant. Because he isnt. My point is merely to correct the originial post that says Islam was forced upon the conquered peoples in the Muslim world.

[DesertFox]

Tim, I'm not going to go chasing down your links. Put it in your post now or I'll delete that post.

[Tim]

http://muslim-canada.org/tolerance.htm

[Estragon]

Tim, he meant go back and edit that post with the long quote, and put in the link.

If the material is copyrighted, our site rule is to only reproduce a representative part, and link to the original.


I suspect the "poet of Christendom" and the poem to which the article refers must be Percy Byssche Shelley's "The Revolt of Islam."

That work is a fantasy. Many poets of the Romantic period used mythological settings for their poems. It was in no way intended as an attack on Islam, and only a seriously disturbed individual could read it as one.

Of course, since the author does not specify what he is speaking of, we can't be sure.

[Tim]

Gotcha, sorry about the quote, ill be more careful in the future.

[Estragon]

No problem, it was an obvious case of misunderstanding.

Here's another hint: while Fox is a generally amiable fellow, when he tells you to jump, you need to snap to attention, salute, and say "How high, Sir?"

The cactus was a little slow. The rest is history.

[Tim]

haha, clear as the sliding glass door my dog tried to walk through today.

[Estragon]

Cats do better than dogs with that. A cat can run full speed into a glass door, fall down, get up, and walk away with tail in the air, projecting the attitude of "I meant to do that."

[Tim]

My dog just kinda looked around, and then decided to go to sleep right where she fell over. lol

[Etaoin]

Re: eric

[ QUOTE ]
What I would call centrist, you would call liberal, and you seem to classify Fox as fair, while I would call it conservative. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you aware that you have just called "liberals" closed minded bigots?

Fox goes to great efforts to see that both sides are presented, even though the some of the individuals may be recognized as leaning toward either conservatism or libertarianism.


Do you deny that Fox has hired known "liberals" to assure an appeal to the minority of the democRATS who prefer unbiased news. Greta Van Susterin and Geraldo Rivera being the most prominent and successful!!!

[Naturalized-Texan]

eric is so far out on the left fringe that even a wild-eyed leftist like Teddy Kennedy must look like a moderate.

[eric]

Etaion

Are you aware that you have just called "liberals" closed minded bigots?

Huh? Where?

Fox goes to great efforts to see that both sides are presented

That's your opinion. Equally, I could write that CNN is very balanced. You could say it's left wing. I could then say that you just called conservatives bigots. It's a rather pointless argument.

Tex,

Your center must be quite far to the extreme right, somewhere near Rush Limbaugh. I'm actually quite a moderate-leftist (one of those pesky third wayers).

[Wyatt_Junker]

Question. Is the picture below :

A) Disneyland
B) The Playboy Mansion
C) A Church
or
D) The Blue Mosque

http://www.naturaloutings.com/Turkey%20-%20Blue%20Mosque%20from%20hotel.jpg

If you guessed 'D', you are correct, but...wait... technically it also used to be 'C' at one time, before the Muslims slaughtered the Christians and added minarets. Perhaps they just wanted to save on contractor's costs, zoning and local taxes and throw on a few domes. No demo required. No permits pulled. A slight remodel. Perhaps they thought that the Christians wouldn't mind, seeing that the gentle 'slams, even then, were the first PC people, underwriters of multicultural sensitivites, that, being quite visionary, they were able to see the slick 1990's xenophobeless suck fest, the Rainbow Push operated morons with Mattel Toys' fist pumping action, the affirmative ackackackshun tribalists running skin cells onto lenses under high powered microscopes to determine outward worth, the appraisals of the ethnic priesthood? Perhaps, the 'slams were the first?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Oh boy! What are the odds? Here's another one with a very similar-looking 36 double D scooped out **WHAP** on top. Another church with a boob job.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/srweiss/israel01/1-08-dome-of-the-rock.jpg

[Wyatt_Junker]

Tim said:
Well, im not an authority on the Koran, however, im not talking about Mohammad. The later muslim invaders allowed Christians and Jews to continue practicing their religions.

http://muslim-canada.org/tolerance.htm

Ex:

One of the commonest charges brought against Islam historically, and as a religion, by Western writers is that it is intolerant. This is turning the tables with a vengeance when one remembers various facts: One remembers that not a Muslim is left alive in Spain or Sicily or Apulia. One remembers that not a Muslim was left alive and not a mosque left standing in Greece after the great rebellion in l821. One remembers how the Muslims of the Balkan peninsula, once the majority, have been systematically reduced with the approval of the whole of Europe, how the Christian under Muslim rule have in recent times been urged on to rebel and massacre the Muslims, and how reprisals by the latter have been condemned as quite uncalled for.

In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.

The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in the eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the Muslim believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of Eastern Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split in two, and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as Gibbon shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own form of religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow Christians who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out.

The Western Christians called the Muslims pagans, paynims, even idolaters - there are plenty of books in which they are described as worshiping an idol called Mahomet or Mahound, and in the accounts of the conquest of Granada there are even descriptions of the monstrous idols which they were alleged to worship - whereas the Muslims knew what Christianity was, and in what respects it differed from Islam. If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom, in those days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but utterly fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place, for they were based on a complete misapprehension. I quote a learned French author:

"Every poet in Christendom considered a Mohammedan to be an infidel, and an idolater, and his gods to be three; mentioned in order, they were: Mahomet or Mahound or Mohammad, Opolane and the third Termogond. It was said that when in Spain the Christians overpowered the Mohammadans and drove them as far as the gates of the city of Saragossa, the Mohammadans went back and broke their idols." A Christian poet of the period says that Opolane the 'god' of the Mohammadans, which was kept there in a den was awfully belaboured and abused by the Mohammadans, who, binding it hand and foot, crucified it on a pillar, trampled it under their feet and broke it to pieces by beating it with sticks; that their second god Mahound they threw in a pit and caused to be torn to pieces by pigs and dogs, and that never were gods so ignominiously treated; but that afterwards the Mohammadans repented of their sins, and once more reinstated their gods for the accustomed worship, and that when the Emperor Charles entered the city of Saragossa he had every mosque in the city searched and had 'Muhammad' and all their Gods broken with iron hammers."

That was the kind of "history" on which the populace in Western Europe used to be fed. Those were the ideas which inspired the rank and file of the crusader in their attacks on the most civilized peoples of those days. Christendom regarded the outside world as damned eternally, and Islam did not. There were good and tender-hearted men in Christendom who thought it sad that any people should be damned eternally, and wished to save them by the only way they knew - conversion to the Christian faith.

It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Therefore the difference evident in that anecdote is not of manners only but of religion. Of old, tolerance had existed here and there in the world, among enlightened individuals; but those individuals had always been against the prevalent religion. Tolerance was regarded of un-religious, if not irreligious. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an essential part of religion.



-Marmaduke Pickthall

Bullshit Marmaduke. B U L L S H I T

[Wyatt_Junker]

What a lopsided view of historical muslim apologetics Ransom.

What Marmaduke fails to acknowledge, quite carefully I might add, are the actions that precededed the Christian pushbacks.

I would suggest reading history, not someone who likes to blow camel dick.

[FluffyDoomBunny]

Wyatt_Junker said:What Marmaduke fails to acknowledge, quite carefully I might add, are the actions that precededed the Christian pushbacks.

Why, you wouldn't by any chance be referring to the "Religion of Peace" storming across Europe raping, pillaging and KILLING people, now would you?

How intolerant!

[Etaoin]

eric said:
Etaion

Are you aware that you have just called "liberals" closed minded bigots?

Huh? Where?

Fox goes to great efforts to see that both sides are presented

That's your opinion. Equally, I could write that CNN is very balanced. You could say it's left wing. I could then say that you just called conservatives bigots. It's a rather pointless argument.

Anyone who thinks that CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC are centrist is out of touch with reality. They are closed minded as they don't question the accuracy of the presentations. There is no need for them to do so as they are indeed bigots when it comes to considering things which might shake their certitude in their world view.

All debate with Socialists (liberals) is futile as they do not accept any standard by which they can be rationally judged.

[PrezLeefun]

the article makes pretty good sense to me.