Monday May 4, 2015
Jump to content
Now Bachmann (sp?)....Next Huntsman. Maybe Perry. Will it end soon? Or will there end up being 39 :-) pretenders to the throne? Do you think anyone can emerge as a serious challenger to President Obama in 2012? By that I don't mean a serious candidate (many are!) but have a realistically serious chance of winning! Try to limit your "rosy-colored" bias (if any :-)) as it is no guarantee that a Republican will win JUST because they are a Republicrat :-) or share your ideology. Ask Mr. McCain :-)
If the economy DOES improve (even marginally) I expect it to be a difficult task (winning) for any of these clowns. Adjective used purposefully to try to fire up a few of you to respond :-) Where are the real statesmen anyway? Could Ron Paul really be elected? Food for thought.
Next maybe Texas Gov. Rick Perry and who knows maybe Sarah will "wink" her way in after all.
Did you notice Ron Paul won the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Council meetings in New Orleans? Quite interesting I think. Will the republicrats REALLY give him the nomination for 2012? That would certainly shake things up in DC. Or maybe it was just the myriad temptations of New Orleans talking.
No worries, folks, I'm quite used to debating/talking with myself.
Happy Father's Day to ALL Father's everywhere. Here's to leadership within your own families. Please take your role seriously. Our future may depend on it!
I thought I'd "bump" this thread back to the top to see if we can have some interesting (and civil) discussion on the Republican field of nominees, now that it seems set.
Cmon folks. I'm a tad slow but I do eventually learn the "sandbox" rules and I'm seriously quite interested in what some of you more "right-leaning" (politically speaking) voters think of the field you must choose from, and how (and why) you'd vote for them for President rather than our incumbent. Please, don't just throw insults at our President. I get how most of you feel about him. I want to know why you might think any of these current contenders to the throne are any better!!
Haven't you learned by now you vote for the person who you think will do the least harm?
I can't figure that one out at this time.
LOL! I'm pretty much with you this time.
My choice for President of the United States will be an individual that understands there is no free lunch. They will protect the fact that those who work and endeavor to make their families and themselves better off financially are not the enemies of our country but it's foundation. My next President will hopefully have the courage to say NO when some ask for a handout instead of a hand up, because those who do can no longer support those who don't, and shouldn't.
This world is not fair, nothing can make it fair, cry if we want to, survival is about individual effort and nothing else. My President will stop taking from the productive to give to the unproductive because they are " in need". My president will stop saying teachers must be fair to under priviledged children and bring down the level of education to lowest common denominator.
My next president will stop paying for higher education partying at universties and colleges around the country and require students who want to learn to get ahead by getting the best grades, actively participating in class and rise to the top......To be the best students they can be and take personal responsibility for their lives.
My President may or may not be in the running this time around, I have my hopes, but if they don't come forward soon, it will be too late and there will be no recovery from those who stand with their hand out and that will bring with it, the shackles that come with slavery.
Thanks for commenting. It is the type of response I was hoping for. Intelligent civil discourse. I have a question for you. It follows.
Herman Cain has been quoted as saying: "Don’t blame Wall Street, Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself. It’s not a person’s fault because they succeeded. It is a person’s fault if they failed. And so this is why I don’t understand these demonstrations and what is it that they’re looking for."
Do you agee with this statement?
Yes and here's why. From the time I was able to push the lawn mower across our front yard, I have worked. My parents explained that wants are accompanied by responsibility and effort, that they can be achieved. Around our home I had chores to do weekly and when I had done them satisfactorily, I was compensated. 25 cents a week was enough to help me save for my model cars. At ten, I began mowing neighbors yards ( no power mower then) for $1.50, $ .50 more for edging and weeding the flowerbeds. At 16 I worked weekends at a malt shop bussing tables during the day and did the same at Shakey's pizza at night. For forty years of my working life I was never without a job. It wasn't always the job I wanted, but it was a self satisfying, self fulfilling, and paying job. Many times it did not include so called luxuries, merely necessesities, but there were good times as well. Always it was because I was willing to work.
Once in the early 80s during another recession, I had to take unemployment compensation, there were no jobs. I used that money to purchase broken cars and parted them out, one part, one car, at a time for as much as 100 times my investment. Where there is a will to work, there is a way to earn a living. A decade earlier, I roomed with a friend who spent his days on the couch. I asked why he didn't have a job and his response was "...no one will pay me what I'm worth!" I told him he was getting paid exactly what he was worth and to find another place to live.
Many of us have a life history that we could recite that would be similar to yours. My first experience at learning a work ethic was picking strawberries. It was for pennies a box. I agree with the comment "Where there is a will to work, there is a way to earn a living."
However, this attitude totally ignores the fact the MOST folks who work hard all their lives NEVER get rich or have the opportunity to get rich. It also ignores the FACT that many wealthy folks never earned it at all, rather were born into a rich family. The silver spoon analogy! Think George W. Bush here. His history is replete with business failures, some say he never did well at ANY of them. BUT he was born with that silver spoon.
Cain's comments are indicative of what I'd expect from a former (high paid) CEO. They are an "elitist" viewpoint. It is the same as saying that everybody who is poor deserves to be poor. It is completely untrue, arrogant and ignorant of the reality in this world. There ARE hard-working folks all over this country (and the globe) who will never have your economic means. Nevermind the fat cats like Cain or Romney or............(put in the rich Democrat of your choice)
Regardless of my libertarian leanings I think you are being callous and dismissive of those less fortunate than you when you agree with such "horses&^%&" statements. You constantly profess Christianity. Where is your Christian compassion in this belief of yours? You are dead wrong and are showing an elitist (I have and you don't so Na Na Na) streak. It is unbecoming. Sorry to be so blunt, but please rethink that attitude. Give those a hand up not a handout- - -
I agree with, but calling all the poor deserving of their situation is UNAMERICAN!
Remember PB, no name calling. (:
Thx!! But I certainly don't think Dan is unamerican- - - JUST the idea that all the poor deserve their plight. That concept I believe is unamerican. As well as against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I do appreciate the kindly meant warning, though. Wouldn't want to run afoul of Mr. Naughton, and join Ms. Steven in forumfreeland. THAT would make me have to concentrate on getting things done, rather than reading your humourous comments. :-)
The funniest thing on the forum is when people don't know the difference in my sarcasm or joking.
Sarcasm is sometimes hard to tell in print. It can get one in some hot water. I know personally! :-)
However, there is lots of funny stuff on this forum. Sometimes the poster doesn't even know how funny us readers might take a comment. (We need a wink icon here)
Nevertheless, I've observed a pretty dry wit on your part I sometimes find amusing. It occasionally lightens my mood so thanks!!
I read your comments just fine!!! Keep them coming!!!
I knew well a National motivational speaker named Zig Ziglar, I consider him a friend. Zig wrote a book called 'Biscuits, Fleas, and pump handles' If you can find it Papa, you should read it.
I put no one down for accepting a job for whatever wage is offered and struggle to make a living. I challenge, However, the notion that they cannot do better.
Consider this. Every American working for minimum wage or slightly more, (thank you government) should quit his or her job and say this is not fair and I won't work anymore.
Oh alright, maybe that's too harsh. Let's go back to school and tell all the students work harder
get a 3.0 average or you're out on your A%*. Maybe we should go back to high school and say pass this course or stay here until you do. Want a job, get smart.
Every American has the right, and I believe the obligation to learn to be the best that they can be.
There is no excuse for not excelling. Absolutely none. Be the big man on campus and fail your classes, get out of my way. Party tell the sun comes up and fail your final exam, sorry, go away.
From Birth there is an opportunity and in this country and obligation to be all that you can be. You can grab on and take it, or go play in the sand box, the choice is there.
Most of the rich who aquired wealth to pass on, were not rich when they started. Those who did not or have not earned wealth will waste their fortunes and die broke. My opinion. I welcome a response.
I'm going to add one more thing. SSI disability income. I know too many people who are recieving disability income that shouldn't. Some years ago it became easy to claim a mental or physical malady and get on the government handout dole. That should not have happened. The political party that believes we should have the right to kill unborn children but not take the life of murderes, also believes that people who want to work but find the thought to strenuous, should be given compensation by the people who get up and go to work everyday. The very people that earn the least pay payroll taxes from every check and they believe they pay taxes. When the year ends they file and get back money and think that's okay, but the rest of us pick up the tab because the elite in Washington believe we should help the poor. Blah, Blah, Blah.
Robert, my mantra is simple and here it is:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
And going a step farther, Responsibility is mine and mine alone. I can blame no one for my errors, faults or failings, It is me. Similarly, when I succeed, I must bless my creator for the gift of wisdom and the knowledge of when to act on thine inspiration. All things come from God.
Funny thing is here, I believe we agree on way more than we disagree, This statement of yours:
"SSI disability income. I know too many people who are recieving disability income that shouldn't."
I completely agree with you. I know of people on SSI because they "messed themselves up" on alcohol or some prescription drug they abused. This is garbage pure and simple. They don't deserve a hand out. They should be required to work and sweat (like most of the rest of us) and perhaps their own bodies might strengthen. Certainly there has to be a task somewhere they can do for employment!
However, the "silver spoon" bit I tend to disagree with. I think that most of the rich "inheritancees" (probably not a real word) these days didn't earn a dime. I don't care to do the research to discover how their ancestors originally made their fortune. But, history tells me that many of them were either in the right place at the right time, or (in many cases) made their fortunes through less than honorable means.
Remember 1968 when many of our cities were literally on fire due to a "race war". This "war" was caused by a sense of inequality on the part of the blacks (and other minorities too I suppose). Whether they were correct in their feeling (or opinions) is not important. What is important is they felt strongly enough to protest and riot. I've been saying (for years, ask my wife!) that the next civil unrest and wars will be economic. The less priviledged (financially) have had enough. They read about the CEO salaries (which ARE obscene). They see folks around them in million dollar homes while they work hard to squeak by. They think (right or wrong) that these people have loopholes and don't even pay as much tax (percentage wise) as they themselves do, AND they get frustrated and angry. The day may be coming where the rich are the targets. Those motorhomes I groused about earlier (somewhere) just may have a gigantic bullseye on them on down the line. The problem is greed. The wealthy have gotten a huge pass for decades. It's about to come to an end.
Finally, not everybody is gifted with your (or my) acumen and ability to succeed. Not everyone has your (or my) quick brain and learning ability. The "best that they can be" might not be what you (or I) can be and attain. They deserve some compassion and a helping hand up (NOT OUT). The wealthy among us have NOT (IMO) been doing their share. They have been hoarding their wealth, spending it on toys (motorhomes, million dollar 2nd home getaways in gated communities, etc). Basic greed. I fear the riots are coming. These protests (mostly bogus in my view) are just the very beginning.
As to your comment about abortion and the death penalty I'll put up a separate response. But, hey, thanks for responding in the manner you have. THIS kind of dialogue is what we all should be trying to achieve on this forum. You agree?
I'm going to stay away from abortion other than this statement. I have two daughters. I want the decision to be Mothers to be theirs. Not the governments. Not some religious folks of some denomination that they are NOT a member of. Not yours or mine. THEIRS!
As to the death penalty. I do know what I'd want to do to the &&*^%% who would physically harm my family. I suspect if I followed up on my anger it would be wrong. Feel good for a time probably, but morally wrong. Turn the other cheek and all that. I give no guarantees that I could live up to that principle, however. Harm my daughter, I'm liable to harm you. I don't profess to be a good Christian. Fact is I make no claim of Christianity at all. So the following is not necessarily my opinion!
"Three times in his 22 year career in Florida's corrections system, warden Ron McAndrew presided over an execution in the electric chair. Each time, his private doubts grew. During the 3rd execution he witnessed the condemned prisoner's head burst into flames, and McAndrew had to give the order to continue. 'This is wrong' he decided. McAndrew, now a prison consultant, joined a small group of ex-wardens turned death penalty abolitionists. These wardens say that participating in the planned cold-blooded killing of human beings has haunted them, and that it inflicts lasting trauma on corrections officers. 'The State dishonors us by putting us in this situation. This is pre-meditated, carefully thought-out ceremonial killing.' (His words)
This is from an item in a magazine called "The Week" (edition dated 10/28/2011)
An excellent writer (and thinker) I've met, whom I highly respect, has witnessed executions. He is a former journalist. He is no milk-toast mamby bamby harm no one wimp. After contemplation and witnessing the event (here in Arizona) he has decided that executions by the State are "State sponsored terrorism" (his words)
A political view that wants to sanctify all life from the moment of conception but that then wants also to condone State executions is a morally bankrupt position. My words! Keep in mind that it is cheaper (for the state) to imprison the condemned to life in prison (no parole!) than to execute. I believe your Christian code does not support revenge killing. Am I wrong?
I am going to sidestep the last few posts...far too incendiary for me to comment!!
I suspect that Papa Bear is more correct that many of us know in his assertion that "many of us have a life history...". However, that applies to those of us looking for or gaining intellectual stimulation by reading and/or posting on this blog. There are far too many people out there who cannot recite a life history that is rife with personal responsibility and accountability. People who don't know or don't care about the philosophy of "work hard to live well".
I personally can tell the story of a perfectly able bodied younger middle aged couple right here in Payson. This couple have no physical or mental limitations; and yet they are collecting AHCCCS and Food Stamps! They both love the outdoors and are very good at building, landscaping and groundskeeping. I have suggested that they apply at Home Depot...whereupon I was told that "Home Depot wouldn't hire us, we couldn't pass the drug test cuz we smoke pot". Furthermore, when my husband approached the wife about doing weekly yard cleanup for us. He was informed that she charges $25.00 per hour!! To rake leaves and pine needles! See, it is far easier to collect a handout, than to accept a hand up.
I have said on here previously, and I am certain that I will say it again, it is all about personal responsibility and...wait for it, wait, wait, wait...CHOiCES!!! We ALL make choices in life.
Nice post. You are quite correct. There are MANY that abuse the system. Not all of them are poor. :-)
As for the "pot smokers" and Home Depot. They could be legal under our law, here in Arizona. Maybe they have a legitimate reason to use "the weed". The problem may be Home Depot's. What right do they have to ban employment for someone IF the reason is "someone's" legitimate medical usage. OFF job site of course. Ahhhhh, choices. Should our society keep "condemning" and punishing its citizens for expressing their individual rights to consume (in any fashion) and ingest whatever they choose? Do you think the government knows best what food works for your body chemistry? Do they have the right to prohibit obese folks from overeating? While I detest irresponsibility (many obese folks are obese because of their own eating CHOICES) I fear more the Government telling us HOW to live. THAT is obscene!
I have figured it out. People do not want a job, they want a position they did not earn.
Have heard people that were not working, collecting money from somewhere and say, I'm not flipping burgers at MacDonalds for $7.00 an hour. No they would rather take money they didn't earn or pay into like the rest of us.
Have you ever been parked in front of DES or AHCCCS or the food bank and watched the people who go in. First they have to finish thier cigarette. Some cost almost as much as $$6.00 a pack. Some have on the expensive Nike shoes and drinking a large cup of something. Wonder why they aren't spending that money on food or housing?
Kimmer, does that person have a town business license to do yard cleanup? Would deductions be taken out of her pay? Would you pay into SS for her, workmens comp and unemployment?
I already know the answer. (:
If everyone would quit hiring these kind of people where they get money from the govt. and us too without paying anything in they would finally have to get a real job.
I know how much cigarettes cost. I pay $118.50 for 2 cartons. that is 20 packs . Yes, my husband and I worked and never ever collected any unemployment or any other freebee.
When we sold our business in Tempe we paid enough taxes to keep a lot of familes living quite well. I know we could have done a better job with it than the govt. has.
Well said. You want fries with that Big Mac?
I started working at 13 serving hamburgers and other foods here in Payson at the Roundup Malt shop.
We had a chicken and egg farm in Mesa.
We owned a ranch west of Payson.
I worked in a clothing factory in Mesa.
I had a real estate license for 23 yrs. My husband had a brokers license for about 10 years, and a contractors license for many years.
We were part owners of a Ready Mix Plant in Tempe. No, Payson concrete was not involved.
I managed our trailer manufacturing plant in Tempe.
I did a little bit of everything in the restaurant and bar in Tonto Basin including scrubbing toilets.
Raised three kids.
Don't owe anyone a penny for anything.
Not bragging just stating facts that you don't need a college degree.
Not to bad for two kids with no college degree or high school diploma.
Congratulations. You have lived well and worked hard. Reminds me of my own Mother. She passed last year at 86. She also was an accomplished and hard-working woman. Did bookkeeping into her 80's. Used to own several businesses. Also never had a high school diploma. Times were different then. Don't think She could have gotten many of her positions these days without a high school diploma. Sometimes I wish we could go back to that simpler time. I've always thought I'd have fit in better back then. Take no quarter, give no quarter, etc. BUT, times have changed. hang in there, though. We'll all get through until we drop.
The only thing stopping the entreprenuerial spirit in the country is the Government. They want to protect us, keep us from harm from nasty inventions that could ????? whatever. Every roadblock to success is a stone of regulation from a group of people who would have us indebted to them so they can stay in power.
Another thought. The rich who have given their offspring all they didn't have. Have killed them. Just like the parks where people are warned not to feed the bears. Giving children all their hearts desire, doesn't teach them the most important part of life, how to make it happen, not buy the store.
And how about this, the Government controls education, what do they teach that allows us to experiment and come up with new solutions to old problems. ...don't get mad I'm just asking.
Here's the hardest rub. Where are the young people on this forum? Where is the future? Do they read this? Are they afraid to post? Does it not interest them and if so why not?
Our time is rapidly passing. We can pass on hope or doom but either way if someone doesn't pick up the banner and carry on, all is lost
Aaah, Dan, so, so true. Why I remember when I was growing up and they things we didn't have, as well as the things we did.
We didn't have seat belts, or bicycle helmets, or video games. We hung over the back seat, breathing down Dad's neck until he roared at us to "sit down on your butts". Of course we fell down on our bikes, but we got back up, dusted ourselves off and rode on, especially since we knew that if we went crying to Mom, she would squirt bactine or swab mercurochrome (ooooh did that sting!) on it, put a band aid on it and make us stay off our bikes for a day (oh the agony!!). And, who had time for video games? We were too busy building forts (that were cobbled together from scraps we scrounged, not bought at Big 5, and certainly not OSHA approved!)), or catching tad poles, or playing "Army".
We didn't have computers and cell phones and Ipods. We had Encyclopedia Brittanica, two tin cans and a string, and transistors. We had the knowledge that when we heard our Dad's whistle, it was time to go eat dinner. We knew that when the street lights came on, it was time to go in.
We didn't have car pools and tennis lessons and dance. We had our bicycles, physical education in school, and the freedom of the outdoors. We had the responsibility of "chores". The knowledge that our beds were to be made when we got out of them. That there were certain responsibilities that were expected of us as members of our household. Becoming old enough to do the dishes was almost a rite of passage. As was the nightly disagreement between siblings about whose turn it was to set the table and whose to do the dishes.
Now, I am not looking back with rose colored glasses. I realize that we also had bad things, but, all things considered, I think back to my childhood, and think that it was a pretty idyllic time.
As for Dan's contention that rich parents who give their children everything, have killed them? I completely agree. Look at the Hilton family. Those kids have been given the world and what have they done with it? 2 of them have been in serious trouble with the law and skated on all charges. They are famous for being famous. Then you have the Kardashian family...Yikes!! Spend $10 million on a wedding and less than 3 months later, file for divorce! These types of people don't understand the meaning of personal responsibility, or accountability because their family money has always rescued them.
I wish, Dan H. that I had the answers to the questions you pose. I don't know where the young people are, or why they don't get involved in this forum. And I am terrified for the future.
"Here's the hardest rub. Where are the young people on this forum? Where is the future? Do they read this? Are they afraid to post? Does it not interest them and if so why not?"
Very good questions! I have one for you. Could it be the way newbies (especially with different viewpoints from the majority right-leaning posters) are treated here? Or how about the generational thing? With maybe 1 or 2 exceptions (Pat pointed out to me) all us posters are well over 55. Except Tim F. :-) Roy Sandoval, too maybe, I don't know how old Roy is. I think He's timeless :-)
Oh and Kimmer! I deeply apologize. I have no idea of your age and it is definitely NOT my business!
Some reasons young people don't post.
A few are working, playing video games, texting. looking for drugs or the parents are giving them money to get them out of the house.
Please!! this is uncalled for- - - "looking for drugs" Not all young people are involved with illegal drugs. In fact I suspect just as many (or more) adults are abusing substances as our fine young folks. I'd hope (and bet) your Grandson is not out "looking for drugs" rather than posting here. Neither are my children. I'd appreciate it if you'd resist your penchant for negative generalization of entire population groups. (like young people and "border crossers") It will keep me from having to respond negatively to you, which I would really prefer not to do. Apparently nobody else will "call you out" on an inappropriate post. I will (when you go "over the top") BUT I'll try to do so as nicely as possible WITHOUT attacking you. Thanks in advance for your consideration!
At least for the last several years, I've watched a number of new posters come and go and I think most have had an interesting comment to add. The only posters I have seen go were those who seemed to be intolerant of other opinions.
Tom is an excellant example of a posting member who does his homework. It's easy to just express thoughts or opinions about any given subject, but then to back it up with historical recorded fact means the poster has to work. He knows not everyone agrees but accepts that in order to be agreeable. We all have the right to disagree but we shouldn't be disagreeable.
I sure would enjoy reading a post from a high school student on any topic they chose, or any young adult, working or not. Most of us have talked fondly about our past and how it was, but these days we are currently living (regardless of how we feel about them) will be good old days for these youth and I'd like to know what they think and what makes them tick, as we codgers say, and I'd like them to have the courage to stick with it and answer our polite questions.
Anyone out there know some young people they could encourage? Maybe we could double dog dare them.
Here's a thought, why don't we start a string called...are you ready...."ask an old fogey"... I'll join in and answer, could be a kick. Questions would have to come from the under 30 crowd not the over 30 crowd, we couldn't trust them remember?
Thanks. You made me chuckle. As far as I'm concerned, THESE ARE the good old days. I may not have a whole lot more left. It's time to make sure I'm enjoying them. I may be old but I want to think young. I'd like to thank you here in print. You and I view things from a different perspective (most of the time) and (mostly) we are going to disagree (example- abortion rights). However, I do appreciate the WAY you debate. Civil, respectful, and based on at least something. You've never been a bully or jerk to me (even when I got a bit confrontational, that started out as a bad joke though, I guarantee) or to anyone else that I've seen. I'd enjoy a long (beer fueled) debate-discussion with you. I bet we'd BOTH learn at least one thing from each other. Probably make us think through some long held opinions. That would be good for both of us. Cheers!
"I am going to sidestep the last few posts…far too incendiary for me to comment!!"
This statement of yours in reference to my post (in response to Dan H.). I was not attempting to be incendiary. Only to articulate my opinion in an understandable and sane manner. I'm disappointed that my post didn't spur some good (and civil) debate on two very important (and yes, contentious) issues that we face as a society and seem to (at least in the abortion case) cause divisions between the citizenry. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. Perhaps more so due to your gender. Us males spout off on this issue with a somewhat limited understanding in my view because well, we're not equipped to bear children! (Thank God!) We also are (normally) not as proficient at nurturing. I've always felt that IF this issue had to be decided by some popular vote (or other majority rules method) that the decision makers (voters, etc) should be ONLY the women. It is their bodies.Their lives spent (primarily) raising and nurturing the child.
The issue shouldn't really be incendiary (in a more perfect world, among thinking and civil adults). It is a personal rights issue to me. Does my daughter (either of them) have the right to decide when to become a Mother or is it the purview of the State? Or some group of believers? Or, for that matter, me or you. It's her body, her life. Why should others get to decide what SHE does with her body. In China they tell the individual (I think this is accurate) how many children they are allowed to birth. That is NOT freedom. Someone, anyone, Please (nicely) inform me where my logic is flawed? And yes I understand the global human over-population issue. But, governments regulating procreation? or the choice not to procreate at that moment in time? Really!! You (self labeled) Conservatives really want the government to have that kind of power? What happens when the government moves to limit your rights on some other important freedom you hold dear? History tells me you won't ALWAYS be in the majority thought on an issue. I thought that was one of the primary purposes of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. To protect the individual (who is in the minority on an issue at that time) from the majority. Otherwise, basic plurocracy (Is that a word) or Democracy without constraints is just mob rule. Is it not? Where am I going haywire? Dan H? Kimmer? Tom? anybody who sees it the other way!! I've thought about this for decades. I'm surrounded by women in my life. Good, strong women. I trust them to make responsible quality choices- - -NOT the freaking government or a religious dogma. Care to tackle this? Be brave! I'm not laying in wait with some secret bomb. Confuse me if you can :-)
I would prefer you not respond to me.
If you go back and read every word in my post I said a few. Do you need to look up the word few in the dictionary or did you see it?
Aaaah Papa Bear...Sorry to disappoint you, but...I totally agree with you! I consider myself to be conservative, however, I also have some liberal viewpoints on certain social issues. I agree that abortion should be solely a womans choice. (Sorry to all you would be baby daddies) In light of the fact that it is the womans body which is changed forever, she carries the baby beneath her heart and within her body. No matter what happens, she is irrevocably altered by that pregnancy. However, that is also why I feel that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control and should only be an option in the case of rape, incest, or some other traumatic action. Too many young women give in to the boys with whom they are having unprotected sex, and risk pregnancy, as well as various and sundry other unwanted problems. Women, as the bearers of the next generation need to accept more...wait for it, here it is again!!! PERSoNAL RESPONSiBILITY.
Women, girls. females, need to have enough respect for themselves and for the priviliege that we have been given to give life, to tell a male, NO!!, No protection, no sex!! Or better yet, No marriage, no sex.
Surprised you, huh?
Maybe we should go back to the old iron chasity belts with the locks and key.
Give the key to the parents.
Not surprised, no! And your post is "right on" I agree with every word. And I read them all!
Sorry I can't agree not to ever respond to your posts. I did read carefully. You said a "few" are working. Nowhere did you limit the "looking for drugs" comment. I don't need to look up few to know what it means. AND I did see it. And where it was used. That comment (about "few") directed at me is a perfect example of a "snide" comment. Please, can't we all just get along? I have no troubles with you!!! Just a "few" of your statements. Perhaps you don't really mean some of the things you type. I can't be a mind reader. Type carefully. Be more precise. THEN I won't have a dag gone thing to respond negatively to! Or you may stop posting here. It is a free country. However, I'm not looking for a dispute with you (or anybody). Just typing my opinions! Like you.
The way I see it.
In the 1940's sex was drawings, some french photos, bragging amongst the males but not a subject for polite conversation in mixed company.
In the 1950's, young people were pushing the envelope, showing more skin, taking more chances and experimenting sexually. It was feel good time.
In the 1960's, Playboy Magazine was no longer taboo, Parents were too busy, Kids found recreation in sex, probably because it was tabooed, and drugs became a major player in the underground of society.
In the 1970's, It was free for all. NO rules, just do what feels good. Dress, customs, work, play, everthing changed. Feel good was the call of the wild and liberal education encouraged it. Then came a reality check. Double digit inflation. Double digit interest. The world taking America as being weak and attacking where they could, The Iranian hostages. Sexually transmitted diseases.
I'm going to stop here because some may not have seen it that way. But I will add this.
Sexual Intercourse between a man and a woman is supposed to result in another human. All of nature says that's the way it is supposed to be. When an Individual chooses to have sex for a purely self gratification reason, and it results in the creation of another human, they should not be allowed to kill that heart beat.
I understand your position. However, abortion didn't begin or "come of age" in the 1970's. It just became a safer procedure performed by legitimate medical practitioners. Women in the midst of emotional crisis no longer were faced with "backroom" procedures performed by ???????????
Their bodies were not subject to the damage inflicted by a procedure done in less than sanitary and competent manners. The earliest Female Humans used to eat Datura (and other things) to cause spontaneous miscarriages (Their form of Abortion).
Your beliefs are that of the Roman Catholic faith. I support your right to believe any way you wish. Many of us have seen the difficulties the Catholics have had with human sexuality. Their requirement that Priests be celibate hasn't worked out that well for 100's of altar boys.
The Pyschological community also differs from the concept that sex is ONLY for procreation. As I understand it, they have concluded that a healthy (Note--healthy not abusive) sex life between consenting adults in a committed relationship (i.e. marriage) is beneficial to a healthy mental state. My wife's entire family Is Roman Catholic. The sexual problems inherent in the "Church" has been discussed at length. I get the code. I just don't think it's possible, nor has it really been followed. It has caused secrecy and abuse. Surely you don't want anybody's religious code "legislated" on our Country as a whole, do you? You want a law requiring us to kneel and face east 6 times a day (or whatever) in Prayer like the Muslims would do if they had the ability (majority of legislators) to enact such a thing? Freedom of religion!! Not freedom of a dominating religion to insist that their "code of belief" be enforced on all!
Lastly, that heartbeat you mentioned. It wouldn't continue without the Mother's body. On it's own (outside the womb) it's not viable. It wouldn't survive. Until a certain maturity (so many weeks).
Your view is enslaving women to be "birthers" with no choice but to birth unwanted children. Every other Human condition would be secondary (or worse) to Pregnancy. That is unfair (in my view) for us males to inflict on the females. They have brains. They have a full range of human experience. THEY understand the sanctity of life and the importance of Procreation. If the heart beat is ALL that matters and we must preserve all heart beats, HOW do you justify execution?
Tough issue, this. Which is why it has caused so much trouble and divided us so fiercely. Please, I believe you do believe in freedom of religion. Why would you not grant other citizens the right to believe differently with their own LIVES and bodies?
Why would I not grant citizens the right to kill if it's in their bodies, but protest the right to kill if a criminal has abused society? Is that the question?
You can't put cows in a cage, feed them overly well, than kill them and call it 'Veal'
You can have sex with a stranger without protection, get pregnant and then kill the child because you don't want the responsibility of raising it.
What's the moral right here? Why is personal pleasure, sexual gratification, a stronger message than procreation. The Human sexual experience is solely for the purpose of making more humans. It's nice if it feels good, but that is secondary to the purpose. Who disagrees?
That obviously leads to the next question, that of homosexuality.
Personally, I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their
own homes. However, I don't want you to take it to the schools and
attempt to influence children that it's alright or even okay. Civilization
has rules and I don't think sexual activity should be openly a part of
Don't tell me that your sexual lifestyle is being descrimated against,
First, It has no business in the workplace, It has no business in the
schools, It has no business anywhere outside of the bedroom. If you
push it, you should probably be slapped.
If you swagger at work and fellow workers call you names, stop swaggering.
If you want to make a sexual comment in mixed company for the sake of humor,
don't, the law calls that sexual harrasment, Your kind made the law.
Freedom is about following the rules, not abandoning them. Freedom is about responsibility for
our actions, not excusing them. Freedom is being a part of society, and in some incidents not, Freedom understands that responsibilty is personal but it is not about denying Freedom to others.
In order for everyone to be free, we must unselfishly allow everyone else to be free and live within the rules of our society, and that is the hardest task of all. When we find that median, that middle ground, that place where we can all agree, We'll smile, laugh, wonder what took so long and live happily ever after. I hope.
For over 24 hours I've been considering whether (or not) to even respond to your last two posts. You show a tremendously one-sided view of Freedom! However, I've decided to not post (in response) to you directly until you answer some questions.
Just what exactly is "my kind"? Other than a "Chicken-s**t" way of name-calling, of course!
The rest of the questions are personal and I don't expect you to answer, as the answers would reveal the ridiculous nature of your views on sexuality.
Are you married?
If so, are you still trying to procreate?
If no, then are you claiming celibacy?
If so, I feel sorry for you, and more-so for your wife!
Your views on abortion and sexuality aren't really your views at all. They are the dogma of the Catholic church. I don't think you really think for yourself at all. You just follow the "talking points" of the "extremist" sector of the Republican Party, that portion who is succeeding in destroying the party, and with it attempting to take control and "legislate" their bigoted and intolerant attitudes on the rest of us. Keep supporting immoral fools like Gingrich and Cain. Eventually folks around these parts will realize the foolishness of your opinions! No matter how much incoherent babble you post in the attempt to justify your intolerance!
What in the Sam Hill has homosexuality have to do with abortion (or state executions)???
You just trying to link your intolerant anti-freedom views with an unpopular minority lifestyle?
Of course, maybe you just don't have the intelligence you pretend. After all, your rant about "freedom". It ignores the "fact" that Abortion is the legal right of our female citizenry so your statement that "Freedom is about following the rules, not abandoning them" apparently doesn't apply to you, if YOU happen to disagree with the rule. How completely hypocritical!
I note your silence. It's OK I didn't expect you to answer.
Besides, unless it has changed quite recently (if so we owe you congratulations) I already know your marital status. Which, (given your human sexuality views) would make it much easier to practice celibacy! :-)
Keep practicing, someday you'll have it perfected. Then you can become a priest :-)
One who I would have confidence in!
After reading your posts of Nov. 7th, I am asking you, again, to stick to your opinion and not attack others for theirs.... period.
I apologize. I was having a bad day. I used words I should NOT have used (hypocritical, foolishness, etc.) All I request is these rules be applied to all of us, fairly. I am attempting to use humor in my debate attempts these days, rather than being so well, confrontational. I failed on the 7th. I apologize to you and the RoundUp!!
In my own defense, I will state that I got "set off" by the usage of the words "your kind". Is that acceptable here?
I would have already been banned. (:
Perhaps, so. I really don't know. It's hard for me to fully comprehend what is acceptable and what isn't. Evans gets away with calling entire communities "racist" and referring to Gisela folks as "toothless" and inferring that they're inbred and DNA challenged. Calling people jerks, etc. I didn't mean to go over the top but in hindsight I realize that I did on my response to Dan. I'm blunt I know, but I don't intend to use attacking language. I wasn't around these parts to read what you did that got you banned. Hard to believe it happened, for me as you seem to just speak your mind, sometimes rather, "off the cuff". Me too and I think that's when I get in trouble. I rarely sit and consider before I type (1 finger at a time) I just try to respond with my honest take on things. I don't expect everyone to agree, but would hope that occasionally they get my point. Attacking them makes that far less likely, so I am trying!! So, pray for me and "when I run out of love I'll pray for you" I stole that line from Mr. Danny O'Keefe!!
PB, sorry this took so long to respond. I am not Catholic. I am a Christian who believes in the Apostles Creed. I believe that all "human life" is sacred and necessary for the survival of the human race. I trust my heart. I trust my Lord. I reject attacks on my person because they are not attacks on me but on my belief and that is God's concern, not mine.
And further, Robert Jones, ie: Papa Bear, I forgive your fruitless attempts to bring my personal life into your debate to make your point. We don't agree, that's obvious. but I will not go digging up
your life on the public records section of the world. I will not try to find a way to discredit who you are and I will not respond to you any further because I'm told I should not cast my pearls before swine.
That sir is a personal affront and I stand by it and will live with consequences.
Posting comments requires a free account