With the growth of the Tea Party movement, and the seemingly overall swelling of interest in the political, today might more, or at least, different significance than July 4th's of recent years. 9/11 brought about a patriotism based on a rejection of foreign tyranny and the feeling protecting the nation from it. Now, there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of domestic tyranny, manifested in bad legislation, appointments, judicial nominations and proposals still going through the process of forced feeding of an unwilling populace. More people, hopefully, are looking to our founders to remember what they had in mind for our country and our Constitution, and those who do are shocked at how far away from those ideals our leaders have tried to direct this nation.
We must resolve on this day to become even more involved, more vocal and more willing to take action as we get even closer to November. Stay on top of our representatives no matter what party they happen to represent. Make sure they understand that above all, they are to represent us.
Please keep the course and character of our nation in mind today. We must not let that course continue in the current direction. We must not allow the character of our nation to diminish any more than it has, but must insure that its character is refined and elevated so that our leadership amongst nations is again apparent.
In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers today. Enjoy the day, but remember why it's special.
218 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 218 of 218Marshall...
As to CD, you implied that our immigration laws cause harm. If you didn't mean that, you should have chosen your words better. Are you now saying that illegals are justified in ignoring our borders and immigration protocols, or aren't you?
Since you ask, I'll clarify.
I didn't say our immigration laws cause harm. What I SAID was, and I quote...
Our immigration rules don't pass the "harm to someone/something" test...
I had said earlier that one criteria that I have (as opposed to the whimsy approach you all seem to prefer) is, an action can be outlawed/regulated IF that action is causing harm to another.
What I said about immigration, then, was that immigrants coming to our country don't pass the "causing harm" criteria and, partially for that reason, I believe it to be a bad law.
I did not say our immigration laws cause harm, I said that immigrants were causing no harm as immigrants.
Now SOME immigrants (and SOME natives) DO cause harm, when they steal, for instance. But we have laws already covering stealing. But immigrants themselves coming here to seek work, they cause no serious harm.
THAT is what I said and intended. I'm sorry if it was not clear to you, hopefully it is now.
And, along with that, pretty much every conclusion you extrapolated from what I actually said has been wrong. I think that will be obvious to anyone who passes by and probably no amount of explaining will clear it up for you, so I'll let it go at that.
Here's one other, from what you just posted...
Same old whine, Dan. In this case, which "guess" has your panties in a twist this time?
No whine. No twist. Just a factual correction of your misstatements. I am sure you are an honest man, Marshall, and as such, I would think you'd be thankful for my pointing out the poor understanding and false representation, rather than get all defensive and emotional and presume to guess that I'm whining.
I believe you to be intelligent enough to understand the difference between a mere correction and a whine, right?
Marty,
Regarding your third article, I have to say first that there are those on the right who are not keen on the use of the term "socialist" being attached to the socialist, Barry Obama. You saw one on your link. Another is Bill O'Reilly. Just this past week, Michael Medved spoke against using the term "fascist". But as I've said througout this discussion (and elsewhere), it's a matter of degrees. And though Obama doesn't stand up and proclaim himself an marxist, and though he hasn't attempted to ram through distinctly socialist proposals, darn near everything he's done is a major move in that direction. This article describes why that is so and how it means Barry is what he is accused of being. It is wise to keep in mind that no extreme socialist, be it Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or others, began by murdering and oppressing. They made their way to the far left extreme one step at a time, as the article shows Barry is doing (and we're letting him as a nation). It's not even a matter if Barry is prepared to go the distance, ACTUALLY rounding up dissenters or kidnapping in the dead of night or totally taking over every private piece of property in the country. The argument I put forth is that one needn't go to that bloody distance to still qualify for the terms of socialist/fascist/marxist. And it's why anything center left is the first step toward it.
From the perspective of the socialist (and as the article says, there IS more than one manifestation of socialism), Barry is not quite left enough. But he has voted while US Senator in a manner that got him rated as to the left of Bernie Sanders, a proud socialist. (I wonder what Llewellen thinks of Sanders.) No outright socialist would have much chance to be elected president. No US president would get much support moving hard left as a socialist once elected. He'll go as far as he can and see what happens in 2012. If he manages to dupe the same amount of dupes he duped in '08, he might have a second chance to really be himself.
As to Palin, I offer this explanation for understanding why Llewellen is an idiot.
One thing I didn't like to see in the article was the tea party guy complaining about the gov't spending $500 on a hammer. I recall a similar story regarding a toilet on a new plane. The problem is that usually when we see this kind of story, it is based on cost for developing something new. But subsequent products go down in price. If the gov't is developing something new, such costs are unfortunate, but nothing the private sector does not also go through to develop something new. If this is tru or not for some $500 hammer, I can't say for sure. But the statement merely brought this to mind.
"I believe you to be intelligent enough to understand the difference between a mere correction and a whine, right?"
Only when the correction (or your attempt to supply one) stands alone without whining about being slandered, misinterpreted or falsely represented.
As to immigration, illegals cause harm by the mere crossing of our borders without going through proper protocols and procedures. The harm is in the blatant disregard for our laws and sovereignty.
Putting aside actual criminals and terrorists, those poor unfortunates looking to improve their lives do so by first breaking the law in their trespass and that makes every dime they make ill-gotten gain in the same way as profits from any other illegal activity.
They cause harm in taking jobs that some in a country with a 10% unemployment rate might want to take. Further, because of their illegal status, they distort the dynamic of supply and demand of our free market system by accepting those jobs at a reduced rate of pay. For one who so often rails against the "greedy rich", the illegals provide them the opportunity to exploit their illegal status in order to make the most profits. They use and demand services to which they are not entitled and for which they are, by law, not refused. And of course, they ignore their duty to be good stewards of God's green (or in this case, brown and sandy) earth by leaving all sorts of crap and garbage througout the desert and private properties, which must be cleaned up by private individuals or those paid with tax dollars.
But you forgive all this, ignoring all this harm done by illegals, because they're "only looking for a better life", as if every other law breaker is breaking laws just for the mere fun of it.
I just thought of another way they harm others: many illegals get here by paying criminals to bring them, thereby enriching scumbags who prey on other individuals.
They're doing no harm? Of course they are.
Do you have any evidence or is this more whimsical guesswork on your part?
Your argument, "They cause harm by breaking the law..." is a circular reasoning.
Why ought we criminalize immigration? Because it's harmful, you say.
Why is it harmful? Because they're breaking the law...
Which just returns us to the starting point.
Might some people lose jobs to immigrants? Sure. And others might gain jobs or employees from immigrants. Is there any evidence, proof of net harm in total consideration, that would be what you need to prove in order to begin to make an actual case.
On the other hand, it is obvious and provable that mountaintop removal as practiced causes harm. The harm done is measurable and you can point to it.
And yet, that doesn't seem to be enough for you because of some whimsical unknown quantity that says such laws are "too much" to prevent harm or something. It's hard to say since you can't point to any specific regulation that is too much or that is NOT protecting from harm.
So, again, if you have actual evidence to support harm or to disprove harm, bring it forward. If you're only arguing that laws ought to be legislated that please your whimsy and emotional comfort, you'll have to fight that one out alone.
So Dan,
You get all bent out of shape when I don't respond to you, and you ignore it when I do.
No whimsy in anything I've said in this whole thread. Illegals are causing harm in all the ways I've stated and merely thinking it out can bring it all to light for you. You're too concerned over the plight of people outside our borders that you are eager to put our country forth to take blame for all the ills of the world.
But as I said, the harm isn't insignificant. I found this to help you understand. Though it does speak some of immigrants in general, it is focussed on the illegals of the type you seem so keen on helping at the expense of Americans other than yourself.
C'mon Marshall, we all know it's easier to dismiss others views by labeling them "opinion" or "whimsy" or "slander" rather than interact with said views and demonstrate where they fall apart.
I'm done with this discussion. There's no point in talking sense to the senseless.
If anyone's interested, I've posted a new entry over at my place, which should blow Dan's gaskets.
So, the sucking of billions of dollars out of our economy by paying illegals welfare benefits, hospital emergency room bills, free education, etc, isn't harmful?
No, because the assertion is horse manure. These people do not get welfare, and if they are paying rent, they are paying into the education system. If you want to hear a huge "sucking sound", just listen to what happens when you try to send 12 million purchasers of American goods and services out of the country.
"IF you truly agree with this article, you'll need to resolve the questions I've put forth here, as well as others I've not chosen to mention, in order to have a leg upon which you can honestly stand."
Either leg I stand on would be honest Marshall, but neither would be the right one for you. I do appreciate you reading the links and offering your counterpoints. It has helped me understand your position more clearly. I'm not really seeking to resolve your questions. I don't even think I can, nor do I have the time to even think on it right now.
But I would like to know if you support the privatization of education, postal service, water, social security, and medicare/medicaid.
Jim,
The amount of money said to be sent back to Mexico by immigrants illegal and legal is so large that by eliminating the portion from the illegals means that we lose very little if we could send them all back. That money paid to them by the jobs supposedly no American will take, WILL be taken and the money spent HERE, not sent out of the country. So I'm willing to take the chance on losing all you think those illegals are doing for us.
Marty,
You may THINK you'd have an honest leg to stand upon, but if your beliefs are based on flawed thinking or data, it's only honest in intent, but not in reality.
As far as your questions, I would prefer the federal gov't get the hell out of education. Locally controlled education is superior in my view for the fact that it is more accountable to the people of each locality. I don't have a problem with nationally recognized standards for education, but I don't think we need the federal gov't involved at all.
SS, Medicare and Medicaid sound like nice ideas, but they've failed to be what they were meant to be. The feds tap the SS fund any time they want, so that there really is no money there any longer. Worse, people think that's something upon which they can retire when it was only meant to be a supplement. I'd rather there be no such gov't involvement so that people are forced to be self-sufficient and plan and save accordingly. The same goes for Medicare and Medicaid. Both are major drains and have too much involvement of gov't idiots who dictate what is or isn't covered.
The postal service is a moot issue. With companies like FedEx, UPS along with the internet, there is plenty of methods of moving the post and among those, the Postal Service is the least efficient as they routinely raise their rates in order to keep up. However, I would not move to eliminate it, but privatizing it might be a better way to go.
Water is an essential need for everone and everything. This is something that should remain in the public sphere, but I don't know that the feds need to be involved beyond perhaps standardization. I don't really know how water is dealt with beyond the local level as it is, which is where it belongs.
All of the above was presented rather hastily. If you see these things as examples of acceptable socialism, I would say that that's true for some of it and I think you can tell which ones those would be by my response.
Ok...thanks Marshall.
I tend to lean toward democratic socialism myself. I don't see this country headed in that direction under Obama even in degrees. I understand why you think it is however, but the reality is...it ain't (much to my chagrin).
But the reality is...IT IS!!! That's the problem and that's what has provoked the sentiments of Tea Party type people and others. This has been going on for a long time and Obama has sped the process. It's astounding that you can't see it, even after I posted several items that should have spelled it out. And those are not the limits of commentary and evidence based opinion that is available. Obamacare alone is proof of his move toward a socialist national health care sytem, by virtue of limitations and controls on individual freedom within the 2000 page bill, as well as the impact on health care insurance providers as it all plays out. There will be no insurers in business as companies continue to drop their coverage, due to the burdensome nature of the bill, and default to the gov't controlled system, which cannot provide the quality and availability of private sector providers. This article illustrates the point very well. (I have something else I'd like to post, but my computer is acting squirrely right now.) All that right-wing people warned against is happening or will happen and the result is the very tyranny to which this blogpost referred.
The degree to which Barry is moving toward socialism might not satisfy socialists, as I have repeatedly said, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening, and one has to have both eyes tightly closed not to see the obvious.
"But the reality is...IT IS!!!"
Well Marshall...I certainly hope you are right.
"Obamacare alone is proof of his move toward a socialist national health care sytem"
Not to me. It only seemed to add more into the private health insurers coffers. But if it is a step toward Nationalized Health Care, then I'm all for it. Your linked article stated no one is refused medical care in this country. Not if they go to an emergency room, no. But what about life-saving medication? What if they can't afford to pay for their prescriptions?
Sadly, Marty, socialism isn't dependent upon YOU recognizing its existence. Perhaps you're not as familiar with its characteristics as you think you are.
"What if they can't afford to pay for their prescriptions?"
What if someone can't pay to eat? To be sheltered from the elements? To clothe themselves? When are people to be responsible for their own situations? How many people are unhealthy for lack of maintaining a healthy life-style? Do you realize that we were NOT created to die of disease? Do you realize that we were created to heal ourselves?
Do you also realize that under a socialist system that even fewer will find the medical care they need? Some will have to be left behind in order to provide for those the "health care professionals" in gov't have determined are more worthy? Do you realize that longer waits for medical service is more common under socialist medical systems? Do you realize that wealth creation that benefits society at large is more difficult under socialist economic systems? None of this is speculation, Marty. It's proven everywhere socialism exists, whether in part or in whole. Sweden is abandoning socialism, for pete's sake. Other European countries are telling US to abandon Obama's proposals. It. Doesn't. Work.
"Sweden is abandoning socialism, for pete's sake"
How can they abandon what they aren't? They most certainly are capitalist. There isn't any collective ownership that I'm aware of. Nor is there a dictatorship. No private company like IKEA could exist under a socialist state.
I guess you are talking degrees again.
Do you see a difference in social democratic economies like Sweden and socialist countries like Cuba or China?? Or is it all the same to you?
Post a Comment