April 02, 2015
Apparently it is time I left society!
I never thought I would grow old. I still remember, when I was in sixth grade (12) the teacher tasked us to “calculate” how old we would be in the year 2000.
It turned out that I would be 28 Years old then. I was stunned! I thought “Ha I will NEVER get that old! NO one is THAT old… I mean that’s OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now here I am 43 years of age and another birthday racing at me like a speeding semi.
Recently I went into a local “convenience” store. I wanted to buy something in particular. I was sent to a self help area. BUT when I arrived at the self help point I ended up just staring at the kiosk for 10 minutes unable to figure out how to get what I wanted, before I just gave up and left.
See the problem here is twofold.
1. I am, apparently, “old”, actually to my 12 year old self I am ancient, and thus set in my ways and unable to adapt to this new environment. And/or
2. The model businesses are using are foreign to me, AND
3. Because of the time of day, there was a volume of traffic that made it difficult to get what I wanted because other customers occupied what few employees remained on site.
I am sure that these are effective cost cutting measures. For all them young’uns out there. I bet it also helps people to get things that might embarrass them. (Hey need some condoms/cigarettes/whatever but don’t want to feel the judgmental glare of a clerk? Use this machine and you need not be embarrassed!)
The thing is that I walked out of that convenience store because it was NOT convenient! It was, in fact, most IN-convenient!
So their “cost cutting” measure COST them a sale, possibly more than one even since I decided that if I couldn’t get the thing I wanted I sure wasn’t going to hang around to try to get anything else.
As for the “embarrassment issue, frankly, If you are embarrassed to buy something then maybe that is something you should not be buying.
But it is not the same to be embarrassed by the fact that stores are adding machines and automation that are confusing to work. That is a different story entirely.
I mean come on;
If you are embarrassed to buy alcohol maybe you ought not be drinking!
If you are embarrassed to buy cigarettes maybe you should not smoke.
If you are embarrassed to buy lottery tickets maybe you shouldn’t be gambling.
And If you are embarrassed to buy condoms maybe you shouldn’t be having sex.
If these kinds of things are embarrassing to you than you should not be participating in them.
March 28, 2015
The difficult truth about Global Warming
First a disclaimer, I hate the conspiracy theorists and the language they use but in this case I feel like I have no choice.
For the record this is not a conspiracy theory, this is observation of the facts around us and the inevitable conclusion a thinking person comes to when he or she really looks at all the REAL facts.
As for the usage of they in this article, it refers to the people who are pushing the global warming agenda on all the regular folks out there.
So, now for the actual Blog.
Global warming, excuse me, Climate change is an interesting subject to speculate on. Unfortunately I have a problem with the way they talk about it.
Here is the problem; they claim that everything proves their theory.
Why is that a problem?
This is a tactic that has been used time after time before. The technique is to try to convince people you or your product has the answer to the problems people are facing.
Or, if there are no problems, to manufacture a problem ala the Music Man.
This is a lot like the flimflam artist of yesteryear who would tell you that what just happened was what he expected, even though that is a lie.
In other words to lie your face off until you get what you want, namely the fleecing of the gullible rubes who are taken in by your slick patter and lies.
And when people catch on Re-brand.
For example; if you were trying to get people to buy what your trying to foist on them you would say that anything that happens proves you to be right. You would try to hide your deception with misdirection and you would twist facts to match what you claim.
And in the meantime as you make your claims you live in the lap of luxury that you are denying others. Sort of like a cult leader.
So how does this fit the Climate change debacle? Well let’s look at the facts.
First of all they made claims about what would happen. “All the coastal cities would be flooded! By 1995, oops 2000, oops make that 2010, oops ummm, well we will never ever see snow again ooops I meant that was the last year we were going to see snow, Oops."
Or how about...
"Well all the snow at the poles is going to melt away by _________." (The blank is a lot like the predictions about the flooding. They made multiple predictions involving multiple years and ALL of them have failed to come true.)
So these predictions have all reached their time limits and have ALL failed in detail. So they manufactured a problem to sell the people.
Second they, falsified the data using manufactured statistics to “prove” their point, or they skewed the data throwing out anything that proved them wrong. Then they got CAUGHT at it remember the emails that were intercepted that proved the scientists were making it up? They were falsifying data or using only data that would look like they were right. It was big news for a whole week… Oh yeah that’s right I forgot they pulled the Wizard of Oz trick. (“Pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain.)
"We have records showing global warming." "It is proven science."
Really? where would that be? Because real science has now shown the earth stopped it's warming trend 18 years ago!
When that began to fail and they thought people would start to see through it they went for the re-brand changing the title from Global warming to Climate change.
That gave them a second wind, then they started claiming that everything that happens proves them right, so they would be able to avoid that issue again.
“Oh Look, it is raining that proves what I said.” Two days later? “Oh look it is sunny that proves what I said!” wait a minute now if your claim is that RAIN is proof of your theory then a SUNNY day which is the opposite of a rainy day would DISPROVE your claim.
"Well but it is sunny and that causes evaporation which would mean more precipitation, besides there is drought in some parts of the country and you have to think globally and ignore local weather conditions."
Really? While you focus SOLELY on local conditions to "prove" your point? But I digress, The problem with your Precipitation point is that that would mean increased rain; but if everything were warmer as you claim, it would NOT be as cold as it has been this past few years, and there would NOT have been snow like there has for the past decade.
What else do they have?
“Well more storms prove Climate change, no wait it is fewer storms that prove it, no no Bigger storms prove it, NO it’s Milder storms, no wait It’s seen in the increases in drought, no it is localized flooding.”
Oh so anything that happens proves you right? Even when the so-called proof is the total opposite of the “proof” you referenced yesterday? “Yup that’s about it.”
And when you start to question that, they simply make it a statement. “ Global Warming, err Climate change is real we just have to accept that”. And then slander or threaten, “only idiots would deny global… um Climate change” or (as someone recently said) “We ought to behead all the global warming deniers. They are the real problem.”
So what is the payoff for the GW/CC folks?
Simple.
See for the world to be saved, YOU have to give up YOUR “luxury” items.
You may no longer have lights in your house because they use electricity. To make electricity we have to manufacture it through power plants, these create “greenhouse gases”. So if we are going to get this problem under control YOU have to give up your lights.
Also your food. “All food processing involves processes, which will produce greenhouse gases so…” and of course your car, which produces, uh huh that’s right.
Oh yeah and your heat and your entertainment and your family and your vacation and your…
You start to get the idea?
The first level of payoff is they get to tell you how to live. They tell you where you can go, what to eat and what you can do. Total control of your life. That kind of control is power! Of course it is all because they “care about you” and “know better than you what is good for you”.
Meantime they are getting to eat what they want and squander all those resources you saved by giving up your stuff.
Remember earth day? What do we do on that day? Give up an hour of our electricity! Who has been most notable about ignoring that hour? Al Gore. Chief Global Warming spokesman himself.
We give up our cars while Gore and others like him fly in private jets to meetings in exotic locations, and once there, they have convoys of gas guzzling S.U.Vs driving them around, producing more pollution in that one trip than your car would have made in a month.
Meanwhile, lucky you, you get to have a “staycation”.
What else? Well after all this they will also be able to be the elite, getting to own or have things that you and yours cannot have anymore because it just isn’t safe for you to have it.
They are attempting to make an elitist caste system for all of us and we are willingly going into it with our gullibility. They have actually convinced us it is a good thing to kill ourselves off for their pleasure.
Time to wake up and question the “facts” that they are showing us.
Consider what the New York Post had to say not too long ago.
(NY POST) 9-14-2014 -- According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NI
And there you have it folks from there own mouths.
Quick update,
Since I wrote this article it has come out that some environmental groups have declared that in order to stop global warming we would have to reduce ALL CO2 emissions to 0. in other words, Absolutely Nothing could emit any CO2 to "solve" this problem.
Let us think this through now...
That means we have to stop ALL volcanic Activity and literally KILL every single living creature on the planet that breathes out CO2. Complete extinction complete annihilation!
But wait! Plants breathe IN CO2 and breathe OUT Oxygen. So if you shut off ALL CO2 production eventually the plants will have nothing to breathe and at that point they all die too.
The "scientists" who are trying to fix the problem then would cause an extinction level event that would literally result in the earth being ultimately completely devoid of any life whatsoever? Are these the people you would trust to lead you through a disaster?
For the record this is not a conspiracy theory, this is observation of the facts around us and the inevitable conclusion a thinking person comes to when he or she really looks at all the REAL facts.
As for the usage of they in this article, it refers to the people who are pushing the global warming agenda on all the regular folks out there.
So, now for the actual Blog.
Global warming, excuse me, Climate change is an interesting subject to speculate on. Unfortunately I have a problem with the way they talk about it.
Here is the problem; they claim that everything proves their theory.
Why is that a problem?
This is a tactic that has been used time after time before. The technique is to try to convince people you or your product has the answer to the problems people are facing.
Or, if there are no problems, to manufacture a problem ala the Music Man.
This is a lot like the flimflam artist of yesteryear who would tell you that what just happened was what he expected, even though that is a lie.
In other words to lie your face off until you get what you want, namely the fleecing of the gullible rubes who are taken in by your slick patter and lies.
And when people catch on Re-brand.
For example; if you were trying to get people to buy what your trying to foist on them you would say that anything that happens proves you to be right. You would try to hide your deception with misdirection and you would twist facts to match what you claim.
And in the meantime as you make your claims you live in the lap of luxury that you are denying others. Sort of like a cult leader.
So how does this fit the Climate change debacle? Well let’s look at the facts.
First of all they made claims about what would happen. “All the coastal cities would be flooded! By 1995, oops 2000, oops make that 2010, oops ummm, well we will never ever see snow again ooops I meant that was the last year we were going to see snow, Oops."
Or how about...
"Well all the snow at the poles is going to melt away by _________." (The blank is a lot like the predictions about the flooding. They made multiple predictions involving multiple years and ALL of them have failed to come true.)
So these predictions have all reached their time limits and have ALL failed in detail. So they manufactured a problem to sell the people.
Second they, falsified the data using manufactured statistics to “prove” their point, or they skewed the data throwing out anything that proved them wrong. Then they got CAUGHT at it remember the emails that were intercepted that proved the scientists were making it up? They were falsifying data or using only data that would look like they were right. It was big news for a whole week… Oh yeah that’s right I forgot they pulled the Wizard of Oz trick. (“Pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain.)
"We have records showing global warming." "It is proven science."
Really? where would that be? Because real science has now shown the earth stopped it's warming trend 18 years ago!
When that began to fail and they thought people would start to see through it they went for the re-brand changing the title from Global warming to Climate change.
That gave them a second wind, then they started claiming that everything that happens proves them right, so they would be able to avoid that issue again.
“Oh Look, it is raining that proves what I said.” Two days later? “Oh look it is sunny that proves what I said!” wait a minute now if your claim is that RAIN is proof of your theory then a SUNNY day which is the opposite of a rainy day would DISPROVE your claim.
"Well but it is sunny and that causes evaporation which would mean more precipitation, besides there is drought in some parts of the country and you have to think globally and ignore local weather conditions."
Really? While you focus SOLELY on local conditions to "prove" your point? But I digress, The problem with your Precipitation point is that that would mean increased rain; but if everything were warmer as you claim, it would NOT be as cold as it has been this past few years, and there would NOT have been snow like there has for the past decade.
What else do they have?
“Well more storms prove Climate change, no wait it is fewer storms that prove it, no no Bigger storms prove it, NO it’s Milder storms, no wait It’s seen in the increases in drought, no it is localized flooding.”
Oh so anything that happens proves you right? Even when the so-called proof is the total opposite of the “proof” you referenced yesterday? “Yup that’s about it.”
And when you start to question that, they simply make it a statement. “ Global Warming, err Climate change is real we just have to accept that”. And then slander or threaten, “only idiots would deny global… um Climate change” or (as someone recently said) “We ought to behead all the global warming deniers. They are the real problem.”
So what is the payoff for the GW/CC folks?
Simple.
See for the world to be saved, YOU have to give up YOUR “luxury” items.
You may no longer have lights in your house because they use electricity. To make electricity we have to manufacture it through power plants, these create “greenhouse gases”. So if we are going to get this problem under control YOU have to give up your lights.
Also your food. “All food processing involves processes, which will produce greenhouse gases so…” and of course your car, which produces, uh huh that’s right.
Oh yeah and your heat and your entertainment and your family and your vacation and your…
You start to get the idea?
The first level of payoff is they get to tell you how to live. They tell you where you can go, what to eat and what you can do. Total control of your life. That kind of control is power! Of course it is all because they “care about you” and “know better than you what is good for you”.
Meantime they are getting to eat what they want and squander all those resources you saved by giving up your stuff.
Remember earth day? What do we do on that day? Give up an hour of our electricity! Who has been most notable about ignoring that hour? Al Gore. Chief Global Warming spokesman himself.
We give up our cars while Gore and others like him fly in private jets to meetings in exotic locations, and once there, they have convoys of gas guzzling S.U.Vs driving them around, producing more pollution in that one trip than your car would have made in a month.
Meanwhile, lucky you, you get to have a “staycation”.
What else? Well after all this they will also be able to be the elite, getting to own or have things that you and yours cannot have anymore because it just isn’t safe for you to have it.
They are attempting to make an elitist caste system for all of us and we are willingly going into it with our gullibility. They have actually convinced us it is a good thing to kill ourselves off for their pleasure.
Time to wake up and question the “facts” that they are showing us.
Consider what the New York Post had to say not too long ago.
(NY POST) 9-14-2014 -- According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NI
And there you have it folks from there own mouths.
Quick update,
Since I wrote this article it has come out that some environmental groups have declared that in order to stop global warming we would have to reduce ALL CO2 emissions to 0. in other words, Absolutely Nothing could emit any CO2 to "solve" this problem.
Let us think this through now...
That means we have to stop ALL volcanic Activity and literally KILL every single living creature on the planet that breathes out CO2. Complete extinction complete annihilation!
But wait! Plants breathe IN CO2 and breathe OUT Oxygen. So if you shut off ALL CO2 production eventually the plants will have nothing to breathe and at that point they all die too.
The "scientists" who are trying to fix the problem then would cause an extinction level event that would literally result in the earth being ultimately completely devoid of any life whatsoever? Are these the people you would trust to lead you through a disaster?
March 26, 2015
A response to Liberal Family members (part 2)
Yeah you knew this was coming. I did state that last post was part 1. So you shouldn't be surprised.
Anyway, I did get a response to my little explanation. Interestingly, "Billy" many times responded with "Well that's Debatable" to several of my points.
SO I want to post Billy's response as well as my counterpoints to Billy's points. Billy's points will be italicized, The points she was responding to will be in bold type, My new responses will be normal... well here goes.
I should say that my purpose in this conversation is to foster mutual understanding and familial connections--not to try to change your mind or your vote. OK? I do get passionate about my viewpoint, and at times get carried away, so if this comes across as rude, angry, or disrespectful, it is not my intention.”
Interesting, I am really REALLY not sure how this entire conversation isn’t about challenging and trying to convince someone to accept and follow your position. “changing a vote” or whatever. Your original position was basically, “the Republicans suck, they cannot do as well as the Democrats, Don’t vote Republican.” In fact the title of the piece to which I was responding was exactly that.
Well you asked me for Citations regarding my claim.
“I was really just trying to make a point...I don't always have citations or support for my thoughts or ideas either...and I really just like to make people think and I'm not looking for an argument or debate.”
What “point” were you trying to make? If you do not want to have an argument maybe you should not use inflammatory rhetoric.
First of all I will admit there is some exaggeration in my claim. However if you look at the articles cited, you will find I was not far off the mark.
It is my experience that most of the claims made on both political parties are somewhat exaggerated--the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Accepted
The original statement is B.S. We are technically both wrong. Government does not create jobs. It never has.
I cannot agree with this. Government runs schools, other entities, and itself. People work in these positions. These are jobs. I work in one of those jobs.
Yes they are jobs but the Government did NOT create them! Government only administers the jobs that already exist. These jobs exist because the PEOPLE need them, it would not matter if the government was there or not the NEED is still there.
Businesses create a product that people want or can use, this creates a market this creates a need for people to make the product this create jobs. Therefore Government does NOT create jobs, Never has never will! Businesses create jobs.
It taxes businesses but true value comes from Businesses creating value. That creates worth and that enables jobs.
Government can make a situation where businesses WANT to open up and create jobs. But it has to do that through lower taxes, less red tape or easier access to needed raw materials. (usage of federal lands, easing of restrictions on importing or acquiring supplies).
I agree with you that less red tape from government encourages businesses to open and to make money. I do think, however, that government entities do need to protect its citizens, and because companies do not always operate with the public's interests at heart, then these regulations are necessary. In particular, to me, the EPA is an example of necessary regulation. This doesn't mean that I agree with all of the EPA's actions (or other government regulations), but I do believe in its existence.
You believe in the existence of what? The EPA? Regulations? Of course you believe in them Duh they exist this is reality. Do you mean that you believe in need for regulations? I will humor you here, If a business treats it’s employees badly those employees can go elsewhere to work Only an utter idiot of a businessman will treat his employees badly because badly treated employees tend to make the business in-viable. I have seen this many times before. Every time the employer has treated his employees badly the business has failed because the employee either quits and there is no one to do the needed work or the employee turns around and treats the customer poorly leading to a loss of customers.
This is not a statement that needs any kind of citation to prove. This is simple common sense.
Most of my exaggeration comes from my responding in the heat of the moment, much as I remember Democrats doing 10 years ago. Still there is no excuse in that, I also overreacted because I am tired of all the lies, again, this is not a good excuse, so please forgive me for that.
I was not offended by your comment. Several times when I post political stuff on FB, it's to make people stop and think and to simply express my opinion--something I was not encouraged to do most of my life.
Already answered earlier.
However if you look at the links I have found so far they tend to prove my point.
Most of my “original sources” for information are not online because I use more information sources than online. I do not trust traditional American media to present all the facts, so I look all over the place.
Good for you. I do the same. You can't trust any news source 100%.
Partly this is due to the fact that ALL the news outlets have thrown away their journalistic integrity.
All you have to do is watch the debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and the “Independent Mediator’s” reactions to know that. Or for that matter the news that keeps coming out that they all refuse to admit too (it took MONTHS for any word about the NSA files the IRS harassment the Benghazi attacks, the Ebola mishandling and so on.
See I have a brain and I USE it to take in all the information available then I reach my own conclusions. I do not just parrot what others say as if it were true without some thought. Much like it has been done for Millennia!
So I listen to the radio. I watch the news, but take it with a grain of salt.
I look (and listen) for information from other countries, such as Israel, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada and England.
Then I look at what is going on in my immediate vicinity.
Of course you do. You were raised by a brilliant woman who taught you to do this, and you've always been bright. I do the same...as time allows. Sometimes, I just get sick of it and ignore it for a little while.
No comment
But this argument talks about a comparison. It compares to stuff from the past, what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush (W) did doesn’t matter. What is important is what is happening right now. You are using the past to justify why we should vote a certain way now in order to impact the future.
No, once again...I was using the image to ruffle feathers and get people to think---not to convince others to vote a certain way. Although I mostly disagree with the Republican platform, I don't think that there will be much change affected by this midterm election (or the 2016 Presidential election). I would hope that most people have come to their conclusions based on their own decisions. Unfortunately, this is not the case...I see blind followers among my students mostly, but they're young. They have yet to figure out why they believe what they believe.
Already talked about earlier.
O.K. Since that is the way we start I will oblige with a response in kind.
I have received seven decent raises since the day Obama became president. By decent I mean better than I ever got while driving for a government agency.
Yet the pay I receive now does not go as far as it did 10 years ago. My raises have been in line with any reasonable expectation for inflation so why the problem?
I, too, have gotten raises, but then they were taken away by the Wyoming Governor (R) who decided that community colleges needed less money, so my benefits have been chiseled away slowly, and I am finally making this year what I made 4 years ago. I don't put that on Obama--I'm paid by the State, so that's a direct result of the Wyoming Governor and some mishandling of the college administration where I work (but I won't go into that).
The schools run by the state usually recieve federal monies that are then used to pay employees. Not saying that Obama is directly responsible for your situation, however trying to separate all the different government agencies like they do not somehow all interact is a false position.
In that respect, Republicans have tried to do more to ease up on the burden of Businesses and Democrats have pushed more restrictions that tends to shut business (jobs) down.
That's debatable...
O.K. Here I want to make a point. You say “that’s debatable” I believe that if it WERE debatable you would have debated it. Therefore it is NOT debatable and you have conceded my point at each of these remarks.
The real problem here is that EVERY single point that I heard liberals griping about. Everything they said George W Bush did “wrong”, Barack Obama has doubled down on.
The high price of gas, that Obama himself said was a sign of the failure of the Bush presidency, was HALF what it is today. Obama, By his own description, screwed that up.
That's debatable...
So you conceded this.
The patriot act? Yeah NOT ONLY did Barack Obama reinstate it when it was due to expire but he expanded it so the NSA now stores all our communications “Just in case”.
Broken promises… Yeah like “if you want to keep your doctor, you can. If you want to keep your insurance policy you can.”
Or how about “the first thing I will do when I take office is I will close Guantanamo Bay [Prison].”
hem
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? We still have troops over there and when He did start to pull troops out he didn’t first make sure that the infrastructure was there to support the vacuum created by our pullout. Now we have had to go BACK in and all those things my friends fought for were lost.
The liberals claim that they want to help the poor. Well what have they done to help?
A lot of these problems cannot go away so easily, and I wasn't duped into believing Obama could fix them easily. It's also been an impossible situation because of the do-nothing Congress we've had. Washington does not really have a very good track record of listening to all sides and doing what needs to be done for the betterment of the public...it's mostly just concerned about politics, and many of the arguments are based on that concern rather than based in reality.
I’m glad you weren’t “duped” but if that is the case, assuming you DID vote for Obama, Why did you?
ACA??? I am poor by the standards set by the government itself.
I would have to increase my pay by half again what I am currently earning in order to be considered out of poverty.
But the only thing the ACA has done is said I HAVE to buy a product that I couldn’t afford in the first place, it is not cheaper, it is not easier. This does not help. But I am one of the “Poor” they claim to want to help. What they say is the opposite of what they do.
There are so many issues surrounding the ACA that have to do with state control...and honestly, I don't have the time or energy to debate this with you. I'm convinced that the ACA saved my life because life-time caps came into play just in time to wipe mine out just as I was getting close to meeting them during cancer treatment. If the ACA hadn't gone into action in 2010, then my insurance would have been cancelled just in the middle of my cancer treatments, and I probably would have died. So, you won't convince me to change my mind. It's not perfect, but it's a start. I'd rather have universal healthcare, but I'm sure I know how you feel about that. =)
Great! I am truly glad for you that a provision of the ACA seems to have helped you out. Out of curiosity though, Did the insurance company TELL you that this was the way it worked or are you assuming that they would have refused you coverage?
Next point You got helped; in return I am struggling for my life and my CHILDREN’S lives. So you got helped at the expense of the six of us. Is that a fair trade? Maybe for you but there are others out there who would disagree.
While we are on the topic, where was this amazing ACA for MY mom? Or for Jim? They were struggling to find a way to afford the treatments before Mom decided to let nature take it’s course. My last real conversation with my mom was her worrying that they could lose the house because of her illness.
I guess that means I can point to EIGHT people who were negatively impacted for your One assumed cure.
I want to be able to grow and improve myself. But what motivation do I have to do so when I see all these “occupy Wall street” idiots attack “rich people” like the Koch Brothers as if working for your money is somehow evil?
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that the Koch brothers, and many other rich people, have government officials in their pocket. They own the government, and this is what's wrong with politics. Yes, this happens on both sides.
Really? I watched the occupy Wall Street crowd VERY closely. That was EXACTLY the issue I saw. Regardless of whether you see that as an issue, I did and MY perception means I was convinced that under their ideal I would not want to build a business. Thus whether that was the goal or not it IS the result.
So if I improve my lot I will be vilified, if I create a fortune through some wonderful business practice or work ethic they will steal it from me?
(And what is up with that anyway? Why pick on just the rich conservatives? They already do more for charity than do any of the liberal rich.
What about the rich people like John Kerry, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, even Barack Obama Himself and so on? I mean come on they have one example of conservative rich I have nine liberals)
Again, you don't really understand the liberal perspective. It's not about being rich on its own...it's about getting rich off the backs of poor people (like you) or sick people (like doctors who make tons of money from sick people. I think this is so wrong!), and using money to buy politicians. All politicians are bought. I won't dispute this fact, and why you are so upset?? The image was not meant to attack you...yes, it was meant to ruffle feathers of Republicans like you, but I think that you're taking this a little personally...
First, why shouldn't I take it personally? I personally am being hurt by these issues!
Second, here is my challenge to this statement. List for me 5 doctors who have somehow “[Gotten] rich off of [my] back”. For that matter what rich person has done this? If the rich person is selling a product I want then he or she deserves the money I give him or her. It is the value that we agreed on for the product they are selling. If I do not agree it is worth it I just won’t buy it. That is MY choice why would you punish the rich guy for me saying this is the product I want?
And yes I do take this personally. I want to live in a country where a person can work to make his or her position better without having a bunch of blowhards trying to drag them down. I take it personally because this is trying to tear down the country I literally signed my life over to protect.
For so many of the people taking these stands I want to say, If you want to live in a socialist country, MOVE there are plenty of them out there but for God’
S sake leave MY Country, the one I have sweated for and bled for and SACRIFICED for, ALONE. At least until YOU are willing to stand up and defend her AS she is!
But to bring it up to the present. Why I cannot support the democrats is as follows…
1. Gun control. I think everyone should have the right to defend himself or herself against being raped, hurt, robbed or killed out of hand by bad people.
I agree, but I believe there are certain people who should not own guns--like the mentally ill. This needs to be regulated somehow, but law-abiding, mentally stable individuals should be allowed to keep their guns. Despite being raised around guns (and almost killing my brother with one), I do not wish to own one, so I won't.
That’s fine, that is your choice. Too many “democrats” are too quick to keep me from making MY choice. Maybe if Y’all would just live and let live there would be a hell of a lot less anger. As for the “mentally ill” I already added that exception later in this statement.
I think, if anything, the government should be issuing handguns to everyone free of charge after they prove they took a class or course on how to use them safely. I am tired of a fear-mongering attitude about guns. They are no more dangerous than a power tool or a kitchen knife. If you want to stop people from using guns to cause harm treat the cause… the nutjob who wants to cause harm!
I agree that there should be help out there for "nutjobs" as you put it--which is why I believe we should have fully-funded medical care paid for by the government. This would be a better use of funds than buying everyone a gun.
Again this argument has been made. it is past the point for discussion. As for the fully funded medicare. That is a level of socialism that I do not agree with. The first thing we need to do is make Health care AFFORDABLE. Something the Democrats refuse to do. Maybe if they passed a law that ALL prices for services are to be listed IN ADVANCE at the doctor’s office so I can make an INFORMED decision, Stop giving special discounts to Insurance companies, open up the insurance companies to more competition….
2. Abortion. There is no question in my mind that abortion is murder. Plain and simple. I do not think the government should be condoning, let alone legislating, murder. Worse Obama declared that children were a mistake and a punishment when he said he wanted abortion available because he didn’t “want [his] girls to be punished for making a little mistake”. Well excuse me, MY kids are not a punishment OR a mistake and I do NOT want anyone telling them so because that will hurt them.
This is an argument that is very emotional for people. Just because some people may see having children as a mistake does not mean that all children are a mistake.
What I, or anyone else, feels about Abortion is not the issue in this statement except for one thing, I cannot support Obama or any of his cronies because that IS how THEY feel about it.
And I know that you'll never agree with me, and I will never agree with you, so there's really no point in engaging in this argument. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, abortion, just like gun ownership, divorce, & marriage, should remain legal. If you're not comfortable with abortion, don't have one...and don't encourage your girls to have one. I'm not comfortable owning a gun, so I won't own one. If I get pregnant, I will die, so I will choose to have an abortion if I have to. If this means I'll go to hell, so be it. It's about personal responsibility.
I think you are not understanding MY viewpoint on Abortion. There is ONE condition that I will agree abortion would be O.K. and that is to save a life. Now it is nice that you feel people ought to have a choice as to how they will live their own lives. Unfortunately your post was about Democrats and as a whole the Democrat party has come out stating, one way or another, that they do NOT want me to have a choice.
They want to FORCE me to buy THEIR idea of a good health insurance policy whether I want it or not.
They want to tell me that I cannot own a gun because they see guns as evil. They want to tell me what to do when to do it how to do it where to do it and why.
They want to tell me whether or not I can go to church and what church I can go to.
Many of my arguments with Democrats on Facebook and in other arenas have proven that.
Bill Nye came out just last month essentially saying that we need to abolish religion because it will hold us back scientifically. This is NOT rhetoric or hyperbole.
I'll take responsibility for my actions. To me, it's just that simple.
Good for you.
3. Freedom. I believe that freedom means I can make my own choices as to how I will live. This includes, but is not limited to, The food I eat, The school/s I or my children attend, what goods and services I will buy or use, Where I will worship, how I will worship, Whether or not I own a gun, what I read, What I say. That means I will have to face the repercussions for the bad choices I make. It also means I will reap the rewards of the good choices. An example of the problem for me? Michelle Obama has made it her mission to tell us all what our kids ought to be eating. It isn’t any of her business it is mine and my wife’s we are their parents. The former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, telling us that we cannot buy sodas over 16 oz.
I agree with you here. I think those things are ridiculous, and the school lunch program doesn't really make our kids any healthier, and if people want to ruin their bodies by drinking soda, then that's up to them--just like having an abortion should be up to individuals and their doctors.
I also believe in freedom of religion. That means ALL religion, including Islamic religions. So, for example, if we allow prayer in school, then we should allow ALL prayer in school. I know of several Christians personally who would argue that freedom of religion only means freedom of Christianity. Well, I disagree. Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religion, but if people are going to fight over who should be allowed to pray in public places and what religion should be represented (and many other issues), then we should avoid representing ANY specific religions in any public space. If people don't want Muslim prayer in school, for example, then we shouldn't allow ANY prayer in school or other public places.
Please see my last response to this missive.
4. Foreign relations. Our strongest allies are England, Canada, Australia and Israel. We ought to be supporting and backing them as they have done repeatedly for us. Instead we are caught eavesdropping on them and we are giving Palestine and Hamas more credence than we are Israel.
That's debatable.
Again, IF it were debatable you would have debated it thus you must be conceding my point.
5. Business and taxes. The claim I keep hearing from Democrats, is that we are going to tax the “greedy” businesses to punish them or to make things “fair”. But if the businesses really ARE that greedy all they will do is say one of two things. “We need to add this to our overhead costs and therefore raise our prices.” (which hurts me because I cannot buy as much). Or they will say “We have to cut costs somewhere else.” Which means more layoffs and, even if My job is not one of those cut, there are more people competing for what jobs remain which puts me in jeopardy anyway.
I agree with you. I don't have the answer to this. Greed is what bothers me about Capitalism overall. I wish that we could be more like Europe, but that's not ever going to happen.
You talk about greed as if it only applies to Capitalism. ALL people are greedy somehow PERIOD. So ALL human made governments or processes will have an element of greed to it. Look at the old Soviet Union. Yeah, the leaders there were not benefiting off the backs of the people were they…. Oh wait that is WHY the Soviet Union collapsed. But in a Capitalist environment ALL the people have the chance to benefit.
6. Hypocrisy. I keep hearing accusations of conservative hate towards Obama. I have not seen any of that, but I saw nothing but hate directed at George Bush from Democrats. They even accuse me of hating when I point out these issues. This is not hate this is pointing out the problems. But if they were really so worried about the issues and not just hating why do they give Obama a pass where they vilified Bush?
All people are hypocrites--especially if they change their minds, and I don't have a problem with that. Much of this is based on perception...you have a conservative perception, so of course you see the so-called "hatred" about Bush. Liberals see the so-called "hatred" about Obama. I do think that politics have gotten nastier since Obama was elected, but again, that could just be my perspective, and the fact that I'm paying attention more now than I used to.
No this was NOT a matter of perspective. I saw a woman’s face literally contort with pure HATE as she talked about George Bush. She hated him with a passion that I could not comprehend. I also saw a teenaged boy Celebrate that he was almost thrown in jail for disrupting an event that George Bush was speaking at in Flagstaff.
Nowhere have I seen ANY conservatives acting like that.
7. Racism. In line with the hypocrisy, I keep seeing and hearing top Democrats (Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Wasserman Schultz) saying things that, if I said them, would be derided as the most hateful, racist, rhetoric imaginable. My view on racism is you have to see color and make decisions based on color.
https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVj3jO1lUiYMAR2pjmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?p=racism&.sep= , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
The only ones I see really doing that are democrats. “they did this because of race, they are racist.” That statement starts by seeing race in the first place. But even more egregious. They declare white people to be racist because they are white. THAT IS A RACIST STATEMENT! (racism is to judge or have preconceived ideas about a person or people based on their race. Or to treat people differently because of their race. White is a race, to call all whites racist is to judge them based on their race. Therefore it IS racism.
Actually, white is not a race. It's called the "human race." White is a color. Black is a color. Brown is a color, etc. To judge anyone based on the color of their skin is racist. I wish everyone treated everyone equally...this does not happen, and I do think that we should not make decisions based on color. Decisions should be based on humanity and personal responsibility, not color. I do think that calling someone racist in political situations is often just a political ploy not based on facts.
While all of a sudden I want to talk about the proper pronunciation of the word Tomato, It is the Liberals who keep screaming about Race. Maybe before you try to define WHAT race is you should take your own side to task. Otherwise, I would agree with most of this statement on the face of it. As long as you are not going to redefine the meaning of the words you used (as I keep seeing other liberals do).
8. Ecological issues/ Global warming/ Climate change. The Democrats keep pushing this as an issue. I am not sure where I stand on the issue. I am not a scientist. However I have noticed that for every one who says it is real there is one who says it is not. Or there is proof that the people who say it is real are making things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/28/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-myth_n_6060734.html.
But for the sake of argument, Let us suppose that it is real. What are the solutions for it? Republicans are trying to develop a positive environment for business so they can come in and find a solution. Democrats are screaming that we must raise the price of gas (which will hurt me because I cannot afford to pay more), Force people to buy electric vehicles (studies, from Britain, now show that before an electric car even hits the dealership it has already put about as much pollution into the air as a regular car having driven 80,000 miles, most of that from the manufacture of the batteries alone,
http://www.productsandpower.org/2012/05/10/second-thoughts-on-electric-vehicles/.
they are making more ethanol which the United Nations has asked we stop doing because it is not helping and it is consuming food supplies needed for countries like Africa (plus creating Ethanol creates more pollution,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
then they tell me I am the one who has to pay for all this even though All the advocates of this refuse to do anything themselves to lower their carbon footprint even though mine is already smaller. In other words, again, EVERY solution the Democrats espouse makes the problem worse.
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2013-06-02/story/fact-check-al-gores-mansion-lot-less-green-george-bushs-ranch, http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/22/peoples-climate-march-hurt-by-questions-about-carbon-footprint/, http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/hulk-actor-questioning-gore-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-defies-the-spirit-of-the-climate-march/
I believe that climate change is real and based on scientific evidence,, and that we should have been trying to curb our dependence on gas & oil a long time ago. That's not going to happen. All I can do is what I can do to help: that means recycling and doing what I can to diminish my so-called "carbon footprint." It also means supporting the EPA and other legislation where I think it makes sense. Yes, it can go too far, but businesses and governments refuse to even have a conversation about it...instead, they want to keep arguing about the cause of it. So what?? If we can minimize human impact on our environment, then why not? If everyone would just do their part, then we wouldn't need regulations, but since they won't, then we need them.
Since we had this first conversation there have been a lot of interesting developments in this category. As a Christian I feel we need to be good stewards of the things of this earth. We need to take care of the things that God has given us to use. Part of that is conservation/not being wasteful. Part of that is to use the things we have.
However,
You talk about the cause of it as if the cause is unimportant. Here is the thing with that. If it is NOT man caused then it is part of nature. That means it is the natural course of the planet! to tamper with that is to commit the "Problem" you are claiming to try to fix. Ie: Man caused interference with the natural state of things. But we do need to be clear, the "solutions" everyone, like the EPA, is supporting are ones that will not "Stop man's impact" but actually cause an impact of an opposite degree. Most of the solutions are of the "we have to find a way to COOL the earth" variety. This is a no go.
We HAVE to determine if there is Global warming (i am seeing more evidence and proof that it is not) And if there is, we have to determine if this is really something man caused (needing repair) or Natural (leave it alone because it is part of a cycle and interference will cause problems.)
9. War on women/the family. Democrats keep using this hyperbole about some stupid war on women. But everything I see them doing is, at best condescending towards women at worst more vicious then any examples they have of others doing this. And again Hypocrisy enters in, Obama IN THE LAST WEEK, declared that he did not “want Americans to make that choice” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHIlbIWhgQ) about whether they were going to stay home and be a family. No the Democrats know best what I and my family ought to have and how we ought to live. My wife, based on that statement, is not smart enough to figure out for herself what she wants out of life she needs Obama to come along and tell her.
I look at the things that I DO know for a fact are going on. Then I look at what different people or groups are saying. Which ever side’s statement matches what I KNOW to be truth, are the ones I will believe.
Naïve? Maybe. Simplistic? I suppose. But that is the way we have to deal with our world.
There is no way to tax our way out of the hole we are in, there is no easy way to fix these problems but we do need to do something. And so far all I have seen or heard from democrats is a bunch of talk that means nothing. And a bunch of actions that have made My life and the lives of many people I know worse.
Is this Anecdotal? Yeah probably, for you anyway. But it is where I am right now. And really when I go to make my choices, that is what I have to use.
In short, As Ronald Reagan said, “are you better off today than you were?” And the answer for me is NO! Emphatically so! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ)
And I do NOT see the Democratic Party doing anything for me, the country, the world or for anyone else.
I never asked you to change your mind or your vote,
Again, yhes [sic] that was the point behind the words used in the post you made.
and that is not my intent in posting things on FB...mostly it's just to share what I think. Just because you disagree does not mean I think any less of you.
Nice of you to say, condescending, but nice.
You have the right to your opinion, as do I. Therefore, I can post what I want on my Facebook page.
Yes you CAN post what you like and you can also limit who gets to see it. BUT if you post it you have to be ready for people to respond to it. If it upsets you for someone to respond to you then don’t post it so those people can see it.
You can take it any way you want, but you shouldn't take it as a personal attack.
You are putting too much emphasis into this, certainly more than I did originally. The part I saw as a direct “attack” as it were was when you responded, tersely, with a “list your sources” rant that challenged me as being stupid or unable to defend my position.
I don't take your posts as a personal attack. I don't agree with many of them, but I understand why you believe what you believe--I used to believe them, too. You may never understand why I believe the way that I believe, and that's OK. That doesn't make you any less of a person, and it doesn't make me any less of a person just because we disagree.
Again nicely condescending. Thank you SOO much for lowering yourself to talk to my stupid self. Thank you for deigning to try to make me feel better with that last shot there.
I'm sorry if you were offended by my post.
Offended by your original post? No not at all. Although I bet if I tried, I could find some thing/s offensive in your follow ups.
So there you go. Unfortunately this is where this discussion ends since my Liberal family members have found that it is a losing proposition to argue with me and after a while they all just disengage. Apparently they have a real problem with being shown their misconceptions and mistakes for what they are.
Anyway, I did get a response to my little explanation. Interestingly, "Billy" many times responded with "Well that's Debatable" to several of my points.
SO I want to post Billy's response as well as my counterpoints to Billy's points. Billy's points will be italicized, The points she was responding to will be in bold type, My new responses will be normal... well here goes.
I should say that my purpose in this conversation is to foster mutual understanding and familial connections--not to try to change your mind or your vote. OK? I do get passionate about my viewpoint, and at times get carried away, so if this comes across as rude, angry, or disrespectful, it is not my intention.”
Interesting, I am really REALLY not sure how this entire conversation isn’t about challenging and trying to convince someone to accept and follow your position. “changing a vote” or whatever. Your original position was basically, “the Republicans suck, they cannot do as well as the Democrats, Don’t vote Republican.” In fact the title of the piece to which I was responding was exactly that.
Well you asked me for Citations regarding my claim.
“I was really just trying to make a point...I don't always have citations or support for my thoughts or ideas either...and I really just like to make people think and I'm not looking for an argument or debate.”
What “point” were you trying to make? If you do not want to have an argument maybe you should not use inflammatory rhetoric.
First of all I will admit there is some exaggeration in my claim. However if you look at the articles cited, you will find I was not far off the mark.
It is my experience that most of the claims made on both political parties are somewhat exaggerated--the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Accepted
The original statement is B.S. We are technically both wrong. Government does not create jobs. It never has.
I cannot agree with this. Government runs schools, other entities, and itself. People work in these positions. These are jobs. I work in one of those jobs.
Yes they are jobs but the Government did NOT create them! Government only administers the jobs that already exist. These jobs exist because the PEOPLE need them, it would not matter if the government was there or not the NEED is still there.
Businesses create a product that people want or can use, this creates a market this creates a need for people to make the product this create jobs. Therefore Government does NOT create jobs, Never has never will! Businesses create jobs.
It taxes businesses but true value comes from Businesses creating value. That creates worth and that enables jobs.
Government can make a situation where businesses WANT to open up and create jobs. But it has to do that through lower taxes, less red tape or easier access to needed raw materials. (usage of federal lands, easing of restrictions on importing or acquiring supplies).
I agree with you that less red tape from government encourages businesses to open and to make money. I do think, however, that government entities do need to protect its citizens, and because companies do not always operate with the public's interests at heart, then these regulations are necessary. In particular, to me, the EPA is an example of necessary regulation. This doesn't mean that I agree with all of the EPA's actions (or other government regulations), but I do believe in its existence.
You believe in the existence of what? The EPA? Regulations? Of course you believe in them Duh they exist this is reality. Do you mean that you believe in need for regulations? I will humor you here, If a business treats it’s employees badly those employees can go elsewhere to work Only an utter idiot of a businessman will treat his employees badly because badly treated employees tend to make the business in-viable. I have seen this many times before. Every time the employer has treated his employees badly the business has failed because the employee either quits and there is no one to do the needed work or the employee turns around and treats the customer poorly leading to a loss of customers.
This is not a statement that needs any kind of citation to prove. This is simple common sense.
Most of my exaggeration comes from my responding in the heat of the moment, much as I remember Democrats doing 10 years ago. Still there is no excuse in that, I also overreacted because I am tired of all the lies, again, this is not a good excuse, so please forgive me for that.
I was not offended by your comment. Several times when I post political stuff on FB, it's to make people stop and think and to simply express my opinion--something I was not encouraged to do most of my life.
Already answered earlier.
However if you look at the links I have found so far they tend to prove my point.
Most of my “original sources” for information are not online because I use more information sources than online. I do not trust traditional American media to present all the facts, so I look all over the place.
Good for you. I do the same. You can't trust any news source 100%.
Partly this is due to the fact that ALL the news outlets have thrown away their journalistic integrity.
All you have to do is watch the debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and the “Independent Mediator’s” reactions to know that. Or for that matter the news that keeps coming out that they all refuse to admit too (it took MONTHS for any word about the NSA files the IRS harassment the Benghazi attacks, the Ebola mishandling and so on.
See I have a brain and I USE it to take in all the information available then I reach my own conclusions. I do not just parrot what others say as if it were true without some thought. Much like it has been done for Millennia!
So I listen to the radio. I watch the news, but take it with a grain of salt.
I look (and listen) for information from other countries, such as Israel, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada and England.
Then I look at what is going on in my immediate vicinity.
Of course you do. You were raised by a brilliant woman who taught you to do this, and you've always been bright. I do the same...as time allows. Sometimes, I just get sick of it and ignore it for a little while.
No comment
But this argument talks about a comparison. It compares to stuff from the past, what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush (W) did doesn’t matter. What is important is what is happening right now. You are using the past to justify why we should vote a certain way now in order to impact the future.
No, once again...I was using the image to ruffle feathers and get people to think---not to convince others to vote a certain way. Although I mostly disagree with the Republican platform, I don't think that there will be much change affected by this midterm election (or the 2016 Presidential election). I would hope that most people have come to their conclusions based on their own decisions. Unfortunately, this is not the case...I see blind followers among my students mostly, but they're young. They have yet to figure out why they believe what they believe.
Already talked about earlier.
O.K. Since that is the way we start I will oblige with a response in kind.
I have received seven decent raises since the day Obama became president. By decent I mean better than I ever got while driving for a government agency.
Yet the pay I receive now does not go as far as it did 10 years ago. My raises have been in line with any reasonable expectation for inflation so why the problem?
I, too, have gotten raises, but then they were taken away by the Wyoming Governor (R) who decided that community colleges needed less money, so my benefits have been chiseled away slowly, and I am finally making this year what I made 4 years ago. I don't put that on Obama--I'm paid by the State, so that's a direct result of the Wyoming Governor and some mishandling of the college administration where I work (but I won't go into that).
The schools run by the state usually recieve federal monies that are then used to pay employees. Not saying that Obama is directly responsible for your situation, however trying to separate all the different government agencies like they do not somehow all interact is a false position.
In that respect, Republicans have tried to do more to ease up on the burden of Businesses and Democrats have pushed more restrictions that tends to shut business (jobs) down.
That's debatable...
O.K. Here I want to make a point. You say “that’s debatable” I believe that if it WERE debatable you would have debated it. Therefore it is NOT debatable and you have conceded my point at each of these remarks.
The real problem here is that EVERY single point that I heard liberals griping about. Everything they said George W Bush did “wrong”, Barack Obama has doubled down on.
The high price of gas, that Obama himself said was a sign of the failure of the Bush presidency, was HALF what it is today. Obama, By his own description, screwed that up.
That's debatable...
So you conceded this.
The patriot act? Yeah NOT ONLY did Barack Obama reinstate it when it was due to expire but he expanded it so the NSA now stores all our communications “Just in case”.
Broken promises… Yeah like “if you want to keep your doctor, you can. If you want to keep your insurance policy you can.”
Or how about “the first thing I will do when I take office is I will close Guantanamo Bay [Prison].”
hem
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? We still have troops over there and when He did start to pull troops out he didn’t first make sure that the infrastructure was there to support the vacuum created by our pullout. Now we have had to go BACK in and all those things my friends fought for were lost.
The liberals claim that they want to help the poor. Well what have they done to help?
A lot of these problems cannot go away so easily, and I wasn't duped into believing Obama could fix them easily. It's also been an impossible situation because of the do-nothing Congress we've had. Washington does not really have a very good track record of listening to all sides and doing what needs to be done for the betterment of the public...it's mostly just concerned about politics, and many of the arguments are based on that concern rather than based in reality.
I’m glad you weren’t “duped” but if that is the case, assuming you DID vote for Obama, Why did you?
ACA??? I am poor by the standards set by the government itself.
I would have to increase my pay by half again what I am currently earning in order to be considered out of poverty.
But the only thing the ACA has done is said I HAVE to buy a product that I couldn’t afford in the first place, it is not cheaper, it is not easier. This does not help. But I am one of the “Poor” they claim to want to help. What they say is the opposite of what they do.
There are so many issues surrounding the ACA that have to do with state control...and honestly, I don't have the time or energy to debate this with you. I'm convinced that the ACA saved my life because life-time caps came into play just in time to wipe mine out just as I was getting close to meeting them during cancer treatment. If the ACA hadn't gone into action in 2010, then my insurance would have been cancelled just in the middle of my cancer treatments, and I probably would have died. So, you won't convince me to change my mind. It's not perfect, but it's a start. I'd rather have universal healthcare, but I'm sure I know how you feel about that. =)
Great! I am truly glad for you that a provision of the ACA seems to have helped you out. Out of curiosity though, Did the insurance company TELL you that this was the way it worked or are you assuming that they would have refused you coverage?
Next point You got helped; in return I am struggling for my life and my CHILDREN’S lives. So you got helped at the expense of the six of us. Is that a fair trade? Maybe for you but there are others out there who would disagree.
While we are on the topic, where was this amazing ACA for MY mom? Or for Jim? They were struggling to find a way to afford the treatments before Mom decided to let nature take it’s course. My last real conversation with my mom was her worrying that they could lose the house because of her illness.
I guess that means I can point to EIGHT people who were negatively impacted for your One assumed cure.
I want to be able to grow and improve myself. But what motivation do I have to do so when I see all these “occupy Wall street” idiots attack “rich people” like the Koch Brothers as if working for your money is somehow evil?
No, that's not the argument. The argument is that the Koch brothers, and many other rich people, have government officials in their pocket. They own the government, and this is what's wrong with politics. Yes, this happens on both sides.
Really? I watched the occupy Wall Street crowd VERY closely. That was EXACTLY the issue I saw. Regardless of whether you see that as an issue, I did and MY perception means I was convinced that under their ideal I would not want to build a business. Thus whether that was the goal or not it IS the result.
So if I improve my lot I will be vilified, if I create a fortune through some wonderful business practice or work ethic they will steal it from me?
(And what is up with that anyway? Why pick on just the rich conservatives? They already do more for charity than do any of the liberal rich.
What about the rich people like John Kerry, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, even Barack Obama Himself and so on? I mean come on they have one example of conservative rich I have nine liberals)
Again, you don't really understand the liberal perspective. It's not about being rich on its own...it's about getting rich off the backs of poor people (like you) or sick people (like doctors who make tons of money from sick people. I think this is so wrong!), and using money to buy politicians. All politicians are bought. I won't dispute this fact, and why you are so upset?? The image was not meant to attack you...yes, it was meant to ruffle feathers of Republicans like you, but I think that you're taking this a little personally...
First, why shouldn't I take it personally? I personally am being hurt by these issues!
Second, here is my challenge to this statement. List for me 5 doctors who have somehow “[Gotten] rich off of [my] back”. For that matter what rich person has done this? If the rich person is selling a product I want then he or she deserves the money I give him or her. It is the value that we agreed on for the product they are selling. If I do not agree it is worth it I just won’t buy it. That is MY choice why would you punish the rich guy for me saying this is the product I want?
And yes I do take this personally. I want to live in a country where a person can work to make his or her position better without having a bunch of blowhards trying to drag them down. I take it personally because this is trying to tear down the country I literally signed my life over to protect.
For so many of the people taking these stands I want to say, If you want to live in a socialist country, MOVE there are plenty of them out there but for God’
S sake leave MY Country, the one I have sweated for and bled for and SACRIFICED for, ALONE. At least until YOU are willing to stand up and defend her AS she is!
But to bring it up to the present. Why I cannot support the democrats is as follows…
1. Gun control. I think everyone should have the right to defend himself or herself against being raped, hurt, robbed or killed out of hand by bad people.
I agree, but I believe there are certain people who should not own guns--like the mentally ill. This needs to be regulated somehow, but law-abiding, mentally stable individuals should be allowed to keep their guns. Despite being raised around guns (and almost killing my brother with one), I do not wish to own one, so I won't.
That’s fine, that is your choice. Too many “democrats” are too quick to keep me from making MY choice. Maybe if Y’all would just live and let live there would be a hell of a lot less anger. As for the “mentally ill” I already added that exception later in this statement.
I think, if anything, the government should be issuing handguns to everyone free of charge after they prove they took a class or course on how to use them safely. I am tired of a fear-mongering attitude about guns. They are no more dangerous than a power tool or a kitchen knife. If you want to stop people from using guns to cause harm treat the cause… the nutjob who wants to cause harm!
I agree that there should be help out there for "nutjobs" as you put it--which is why I believe we should have fully-funded medical care paid for by the government. This would be a better use of funds than buying everyone a gun.
Again this argument has been made. it is past the point for discussion. As for the fully funded medicare. That is a level of socialism that I do not agree with. The first thing we need to do is make Health care AFFORDABLE. Something the Democrats refuse to do. Maybe if they passed a law that ALL prices for services are to be listed IN ADVANCE at the doctor’s office so I can make an INFORMED decision, Stop giving special discounts to Insurance companies, open up the insurance companies to more competition….
2. Abortion. There is no question in my mind that abortion is murder. Plain and simple. I do not think the government should be condoning, let alone legislating, murder. Worse Obama declared that children were a mistake and a punishment when he said he wanted abortion available because he didn’t “want [his] girls to be punished for making a little mistake”. Well excuse me, MY kids are not a punishment OR a mistake and I do NOT want anyone telling them so because that will hurt them.
This is an argument that is very emotional for people. Just because some people may see having children as a mistake does not mean that all children are a mistake.
What I, or anyone else, feels about Abortion is not the issue in this statement except for one thing, I cannot support Obama or any of his cronies because that IS how THEY feel about it.
And I know that you'll never agree with me, and I will never agree with you, so there's really no point in engaging in this argument. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, abortion, just like gun ownership, divorce, & marriage, should remain legal. If you're not comfortable with abortion, don't have one...and don't encourage your girls to have one. I'm not comfortable owning a gun, so I won't own one. If I get pregnant, I will die, so I will choose to have an abortion if I have to. If this means I'll go to hell, so be it. It's about personal responsibility.
I think you are not understanding MY viewpoint on Abortion. There is ONE condition that I will agree abortion would be O.K. and that is to save a life. Now it is nice that you feel people ought to have a choice as to how they will live their own lives. Unfortunately your post was about Democrats and as a whole the Democrat party has come out stating, one way or another, that they do NOT want me to have a choice.
They want to FORCE me to buy THEIR idea of a good health insurance policy whether I want it or not.
They want to tell me that I cannot own a gun because they see guns as evil. They want to tell me what to do when to do it how to do it where to do it and why.
They want to tell me whether or not I can go to church and what church I can go to.
Many of my arguments with Democrats on Facebook and in other arenas have proven that.
Bill Nye came out just last month essentially saying that we need to abolish religion because it will hold us back scientifically. This is NOT rhetoric or hyperbole.
I'll take responsibility for my actions. To me, it's just that simple.
Good for you.
3. Freedom. I believe that freedom means I can make my own choices as to how I will live. This includes, but is not limited to, The food I eat, The school/s I or my children attend, what goods and services I will buy or use, Where I will worship, how I will worship, Whether or not I own a gun, what I read, What I say. That means I will have to face the repercussions for the bad choices I make. It also means I will reap the rewards of the good choices. An example of the problem for me? Michelle Obama has made it her mission to tell us all what our kids ought to be eating. It isn’t any of her business it is mine and my wife’s we are their parents. The former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, telling us that we cannot buy sodas over 16 oz.
I agree with you here. I think those things are ridiculous, and the school lunch program doesn't really make our kids any healthier, and if people want to ruin their bodies by drinking soda, then that's up to them--just like having an abortion should be up to individuals and their doctors.
I also believe in freedom of religion. That means ALL religion, including Islamic religions. So, for example, if we allow prayer in school, then we should allow ALL prayer in school. I know of several Christians personally who would argue that freedom of religion only means freedom of Christianity. Well, I disagree. Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religion, but if people are going to fight over who should be allowed to pray in public places and what religion should be represented (and many other issues), then we should avoid representing ANY specific religions in any public space. If people don't want Muslim prayer in school, for example, then we shouldn't allow ANY prayer in school or other public places.
Please see my last response to this missive.
4. Foreign relations. Our strongest allies are England, Canada, Australia and Israel. We ought to be supporting and backing them as they have done repeatedly for us. Instead we are caught eavesdropping on them and we are giving Palestine and Hamas more credence than we are Israel.
That's debatable.
Again, IF it were debatable you would have debated it thus you must be conceding my point.
5. Business and taxes. The claim I keep hearing from Democrats, is that we are going to tax the “greedy” businesses to punish them or to make things “fair”. But if the businesses really ARE that greedy all they will do is say one of two things. “We need to add this to our overhead costs and therefore raise our prices.” (which hurts me because I cannot buy as much). Or they will say “We have to cut costs somewhere else.” Which means more layoffs and, even if My job is not one of those cut, there are more people competing for what jobs remain which puts me in jeopardy anyway.
I agree with you. I don't have the answer to this. Greed is what bothers me about Capitalism overall. I wish that we could be more like Europe, but that's not ever going to happen.
You talk about greed as if it only applies to Capitalism. ALL people are greedy somehow PERIOD. So ALL human made governments or processes will have an element of greed to it. Look at the old Soviet Union. Yeah, the leaders there were not benefiting off the backs of the people were they…. Oh wait that is WHY the Soviet Union collapsed. But in a Capitalist environment ALL the people have the chance to benefit.
6. Hypocrisy. I keep hearing accusations of conservative hate towards Obama. I have not seen any of that, but I saw nothing but hate directed at George Bush from Democrats. They even accuse me of hating when I point out these issues. This is not hate this is pointing out the problems. But if they were really so worried about the issues and not just hating why do they give Obama a pass where they vilified Bush?
All people are hypocrites--especially if they change their minds, and I don't have a problem with that. Much of this is based on perception...you have a conservative perception, so of course you see the so-called "hatred" about Bush. Liberals see the so-called "hatred" about Obama. I do think that politics have gotten nastier since Obama was elected, but again, that could just be my perspective, and the fact that I'm paying attention more now than I used to.
No this was NOT a matter of perspective. I saw a woman’s face literally contort with pure HATE as she talked about George Bush. She hated him with a passion that I could not comprehend. I also saw a teenaged boy Celebrate that he was almost thrown in jail for disrupting an event that George Bush was speaking at in Flagstaff.
Nowhere have I seen ANY conservatives acting like that.
7. Racism. In line with the hypocrisy, I keep seeing and hearing top Democrats (Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Wasserman Schultz) saying things that, if I said them, would be derided as the most hateful, racist, rhetoric imaginable. My view on racism is you have to see color and make decisions based on color.
https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVj3jO1lUiYMAR2pjmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?p=racism&.sep= , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
The only ones I see really doing that are democrats. “they did this because of race, they are racist.” That statement starts by seeing race in the first place. But even more egregious. They declare white people to be racist because they are white. THAT IS A RACIST STATEMENT! (racism is to judge or have preconceived ideas about a person or people based on their race. Or to treat people differently because of their race. White is a race, to call all whites racist is to judge them based on their race. Therefore it IS racism.
Actually, white is not a race. It's called the "human race." White is a color. Black is a color. Brown is a color, etc. To judge anyone based on the color of their skin is racist. I wish everyone treated everyone equally...this does not happen, and I do think that we should not make decisions based on color. Decisions should be based on humanity and personal responsibility, not color. I do think that calling someone racist in political situations is often just a political ploy not based on facts.
While all of a sudden I want to talk about the proper pronunciation of the word Tomato, It is the Liberals who keep screaming about Race. Maybe before you try to define WHAT race is you should take your own side to task. Otherwise, I would agree with most of this statement on the face of it. As long as you are not going to redefine the meaning of the words you used (as I keep seeing other liberals do).
8. Ecological issues/ Global warming/ Climate change. The Democrats keep pushing this as an issue. I am not sure where I stand on the issue. I am not a scientist. However I have noticed that for every one who says it is real there is one who says it is not. Or there is proof that the people who say it is real are making things up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/28/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-myth_n_6060734.html.
But for the sake of argument, Let us suppose that it is real. What are the solutions for it? Republicans are trying to develop a positive environment for business so they can come in and find a solution. Democrats are screaming that we must raise the price of gas (which will hurt me because I cannot afford to pay more), Force people to buy electric vehicles (studies, from Britain, now show that before an electric car even hits the dealership it has already put about as much pollution into the air as a regular car having driven 80,000 miles, most of that from the manufacture of the batteries alone,
http://www.productsandpower.org/2012/05/10/second-thoughts-on-electric-vehicles/.
they are making more ethanol which the United Nations has asked we stop doing because it is not helping and it is consuming food supplies needed for countries like Africa (plus creating Ethanol creates more pollution,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
then they tell me I am the one who has to pay for all this even though All the advocates of this refuse to do anything themselves to lower their carbon footprint even though mine is already smaller. In other words, again, EVERY solution the Democrats espouse makes the problem worse.
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2013-06-02/story/fact-check-al-gores-mansion-lot-less-green-george-bushs-ranch, http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/22/peoples-climate-march-hurt-by-questions-about-carbon-footprint/, http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/hulk-actor-questioning-gore-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-defies-the-spirit-of-the-climate-march/
I believe that climate change is real and based on scientific evidence,, and that we should have been trying to curb our dependence on gas & oil a long time ago. That's not going to happen. All I can do is what I can do to help: that means recycling and doing what I can to diminish my so-called "carbon footprint." It also means supporting the EPA and other legislation where I think it makes sense. Yes, it can go too far, but businesses and governments refuse to even have a conversation about it...instead, they want to keep arguing about the cause of it. So what?? If we can minimize human impact on our environment, then why not? If everyone would just do their part, then we wouldn't need regulations, but since they won't, then we need them.
Since we had this first conversation there have been a lot of interesting developments in this category. As a Christian I feel we need to be good stewards of the things of this earth. We need to take care of the things that God has given us to use. Part of that is conservation/not being wasteful. Part of that is to use the things we have.
However,
You talk about the cause of it as if the cause is unimportant. Here is the thing with that. If it is NOT man caused then it is part of nature. That means it is the natural course of the planet! to tamper with that is to commit the "Problem" you are claiming to try to fix. Ie: Man caused interference with the natural state of things. But we do need to be clear, the "solutions" everyone, like the EPA, is supporting are ones that will not "Stop man's impact" but actually cause an impact of an opposite degree. Most of the solutions are of the "we have to find a way to COOL the earth" variety. This is a no go.
We HAVE to determine if there is Global warming (i am seeing more evidence and proof that it is not) And if there is, we have to determine if this is really something man caused (needing repair) or Natural (leave it alone because it is part of a cycle and interference will cause problems.)
9. War on women/the family. Democrats keep using this hyperbole about some stupid war on women. But everything I see them doing is, at best condescending towards women at worst more vicious then any examples they have of others doing this. And again Hypocrisy enters in, Obama IN THE LAST WEEK, declared that he did not “want Americans to make that choice” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHIlbIWhgQ) about whether they were going to stay home and be a family. No the Democrats know best what I and my family ought to have and how we ought to live. My wife, based on that statement, is not smart enough to figure out for herself what she wants out of life she needs Obama to come along and tell her.
I look at the things that I DO know for a fact are going on. Then I look at what different people or groups are saying. Which ever side’s statement matches what I KNOW to be truth, are the ones I will believe.
Naïve? Maybe. Simplistic? I suppose. But that is the way we have to deal with our world.
There is no way to tax our way out of the hole we are in, there is no easy way to fix these problems but we do need to do something. And so far all I have seen or heard from democrats is a bunch of talk that means nothing. And a bunch of actions that have made My life and the lives of many people I know worse.
Is this Anecdotal? Yeah probably, for you anyway. But it is where I am right now. And really when I go to make my choices, that is what I have to use.
In short, As Ronald Reagan said, “are you better off today than you were?” And the answer for me is NO! Emphatically so! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ)
And I do NOT see the Democratic Party doing anything for me, the country, the world or for anyone else.
I never asked you to change your mind or your vote,
Again, yhes [sic] that was the point behind the words used in the post you made.
and that is not my intent in posting things on FB...mostly it's just to share what I think. Just because you disagree does not mean I think any less of you.
Nice of you to say, condescending, but nice.
You have the right to your opinion, as do I. Therefore, I can post what I want on my Facebook page.
Yes you CAN post what you like and you can also limit who gets to see it. BUT if you post it you have to be ready for people to respond to it. If it upsets you for someone to respond to you then don’t post it so those people can see it.
You can take it any way you want, but you shouldn't take it as a personal attack.
You are putting too much emphasis into this, certainly more than I did originally. The part I saw as a direct “attack” as it were was when you responded, tersely, with a “list your sources” rant that challenged me as being stupid or unable to defend my position.
I don't take your posts as a personal attack. I don't agree with many of them, but I understand why you believe what you believe--I used to believe them, too. You may never understand why I believe the way that I believe, and that's OK. That doesn't make you any less of a person, and it doesn't make me any less of a person just because we disagree.
Again nicely condescending. Thank you SOO much for lowering yourself to talk to my stupid self. Thank you for deigning to try to make me feel better with that last shot there.
I'm sorry if you were offended by my post.
Offended by your original post? No not at all. Although I bet if I tried, I could find some thing/s offensive in your follow ups.
So there you go. Unfortunately this is where this discussion ends since my Liberal family members have found that it is a losing proposition to argue with me and after a while they all just disengage. Apparently they have a real problem with being shown their misconceptions and mistakes for what they are.
March 24, 2015
The real issue of homosexuality
Here is the whole issue as I see it.
Some people claim that Homosexuality is “not about the sex”. The thing is that is a lie.
Of course Homosexuality is about the sex that is why it has SEX in the name.
Look if you want to hang out with a friend of the same gender and you watch a movie and get dinner, maybe you go over to their house or they come to yours, and maybe they even spend the night. That is just a couple of friends hanging out. No Biggie there. Still not Homosexuality! I have done those things, as a kid and as an adult. So have (and do) thousands of other people all over the world Every day.
BUT
If you want to go to bed with the person; Yeah THAT is when it becomes about homosexuality. Otherwise it is just friends hanging out.
So when they say “well, I can’t help myself, it is the way I was born/made.” What they are really saying is “I cannot control my lust.”
Now if someone were to rape another person or have sex with a child or an animal or whatever other deviancy you can think of, doesn’t it hold true that if we are going to give people a pass on their lustful behavior because they cannot control themselves because “that is the way they are made”, then don’t we have to give the same pass to everyone else?
THINK ABOUT IT!
I mean you can be friends CLOSE friends and you can love each other and care for each other no matter what gender or anything else.
That is the definition of love.
To want to have sex with, is the definition of LUST. To say I cannot control my lust is to say that I am inferior than all those other people who ARE expected to control their lusts.
If a guy were to tell about his conquest of a girl he met within the hearing of someone who would be offended that is sexual harassment. But if a GAY man talks about his sex life that is being proud, and we cannot judge him or accuse him because, after all, “he can’t help it, that was how he was made/born”.
I would actually think that Gay people would be even more offended by this than I am since it really belittles them.
Some people claim that Homosexuality is “not about the sex”. The thing is that is a lie.
Of course Homosexuality is about the sex that is why it has SEX in the name.
Look if you want to hang out with a friend of the same gender and you watch a movie and get dinner, maybe you go over to their house or they come to yours, and maybe they even spend the night. That is just a couple of friends hanging out. No Biggie there. Still not Homosexuality! I have done those things, as a kid and as an adult. So have (and do) thousands of other people all over the world Every day.
BUT
If you want to go to bed with the person; Yeah THAT is when it becomes about homosexuality. Otherwise it is just friends hanging out.
So when they say “well, I can’t help myself, it is the way I was born/made.” What they are really saying is “I cannot control my lust.”
Now if someone were to rape another person or have sex with a child or an animal or whatever other deviancy you can think of, doesn’t it hold true that if we are going to give people a pass on their lustful behavior because they cannot control themselves because “that is the way they are made”, then don’t we have to give the same pass to everyone else?
THINK ABOUT IT!
I mean you can be friends CLOSE friends and you can love each other and care for each other no matter what gender or anything else.
That is the definition of love.
To want to have sex with, is the definition of LUST. To say I cannot control my lust is to say that I am inferior than all those other people who ARE expected to control their lusts.
If a guy were to tell about his conquest of a girl he met within the hearing of someone who would be offended that is sexual harassment. But if a GAY man talks about his sex life that is being proud, and we cannot judge him or accuse him because, after all, “he can’t help it, that was how he was made/born”.
I would actually think that Gay people would be even more offended by this than I am since it really belittles them.
Who will Libs vote for next?
With Ted Cruz coming out and announcing his run for the candidate for president on the conservative ticket, I find myself wondering who the Liberals or Democrats will pick to run.
I know that Ted Cruz is NOT a given win for the Republican ticket, though it gives me a measure of hope that we will have some good choices this election cycle.
I think, The average Democrat/liberal is going to HAVE to vote for a minority this next election. They will “HAVE” to prove that a “minority” of their choosing can be a good president. Ted Cruz is technically a minority. I say technically because the only "Minority" that counts according to Democrats are ones who believe the same as them. If the minority does NOT agree then he or she doesn't count "because"!
They are also going to try to claim that Obama WAS a good president.
They just cannot admit they are wrong on anything. Even when it is so glaringly obvious that they were.
Still, That last part will be difficult considering Obama's track record.
But for those who have been burned by Obama’s policies will want to show that they are “still right” and so they will want to vote for another minority so they can be “vindicated”.
So I wonder who will get the vote on the Democrat ticket. I hope that it is someone that makes it obvious how desperate they are.
I know that Ted Cruz is NOT a given win for the Republican ticket, though it gives me a measure of hope that we will have some good choices this election cycle.
I think, The average Democrat/liberal is going to HAVE to vote for a minority this next election. They will “HAVE” to prove that a “minority” of their choosing can be a good president. Ted Cruz is technically a minority. I say technically because the only "Minority" that counts according to Democrats are ones who believe the same as them. If the minority does NOT agree then he or she doesn't count "because"!
They are also going to try to claim that Obama WAS a good president.
They just cannot admit they are wrong on anything. Even when it is so glaringly obvious that they were.
Still, That last part will be difficult considering Obama's track record.
But for those who have been burned by Obama’s policies will want to show that they are “still right” and so they will want to vote for another minority so they can be “vindicated”.
So I wonder who will get the vote on the Democrat ticket. I hope that it is someone that makes it obvious how desperate they are.
A response for my liberal family members. (part 1)
I got into a discussion last election cycle with a certain family member. It all started on Facebook.
This person posted a meme saying that Democrats have always been better than republicans at creating jobs and improving the economy.
Specifically it made the claim that Obama (and Clinton) has done better than ANY of the last 6 or so republican presidents. but it started with the claim that ALL Democrats did better than Republicans.
I instantly jumped in and said that what was posted was a lie.
I Stated that Government does not make jobs. And that the economy has improved under Republicans, at least as much as if not more than it did under Democrats.
Then it got messy.
I specifically pointed at how during Reagan's administration alone the country saw improvement like never before.I pointed out how we came out of a HUGE recession from the 70's, eliminated the ongoing "gas Crisis" of the 60's and 70's and so on.
This family member whom I shall refer to from now on as Billy since that is a nice gender neutral name and I do not want anyone to be too offended, went on to ask for citations.
I provided those for Billy and then I went on to break things down for Billy.
Billy responded that the post was just meant to spark debate and not really change anyone's mind. I called Billy out on that point as well. Why post something that would cause a response such as mine if you did not intend for it to?
But at that Point Billy stated that Government DOES create jobs. Billy's job was "created" by the government.
A little Background, Billy works as a college teacher, and Billy is very Liberal. But let's move on.
I wanted to share with you the main crux of my argument. Mostly I was thinking that there may be many other people out there who are as misled or misguided as Billy so, without further ado... here is my response.
Government does not create jobs. It never has. It taxes businesses but true value comes from Businesses creating value. That creates worth and that enables jobs.
Government can make a situation where businesses WANT to open up and create jobs. But it has to do that through lower taxes, less red tape or easier access to needed raw materials. (usage of federal lands, easing of restrictions on importing or acquiring supplies).
This is not a statement that needs any kind of citation to prove. This is simple common sense.
However if you look at the links I have found so far they tend to prove my point.
(See links at bottom of page)
Most of my “original sources” for information are not online because I use more information sources than online. I do not trust traditional American media to present all the facts, so I look all over the place. Partly this is due to the fact that ALL the news outlets have thrown away their journalistic integrity.
All you have to do is watch the debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and the “Independent Mediator’s” reactions to know that. Or for that matter the news that keeps coming out that they all refuse to admit too (it took MONTHS for any word about the NSA files the IRS harassment the Benghazi attacks, the Ebola mishandling and so on.)
See, I have a brain and I USE it to take in all the information available; then I reach my own conclusions. I do not just parrot what others say as if it were true without some thought. Much like it has been done for Millennia!
So I listen to the radio. I watch the news, but take it with a grain of salt.
I look (and listen) for information from other countries, such as Israel, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada and England.
Then I look at what is going on in my immediate vicinity.
But this argument talks about a comparison. It compares to stuff from the past, what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush (W) did doesn’t matter. What is important is what is happening right now. You are using the past to justify why we should vote a certain way now in order to impact the future.
O.K. Since that is the way we start I will oblige with a response in kind.
I have received seven decent raises since the day Obama became president. By decent I mean better than I ever got while driving for a government agency.
Yet the pay I receive now does not go as far as it did 10 years ago. My raises have been in line with any reasonable expectation for inflation so why the problem?
In that respect, Republicans have tried to do more to ease up on the burden of Businesses and Democrats have pushed more restrictions that tends to shut business (jobs) down.
The real problem here is that EVERY single point that I heard liberals griping about. Everything they said George W Bush did “wrong”, Barack Obama has doubled down on.
The high price of gas, that Obama himself said was a sign of the failure of the Bush presidency, was HALF what it is today. Obama, By his own description, screwed that up.
The patriot act? Yeah NOT ONLY did Barack Obama reinstate it when it was due to expire but he expanded it so the NSA now stores all our communications “Just in case”.
Broken promises… Yeah like “if you want to keep your doctor, you can. If you want to keep your insurance policy you can.” Or how about “the first thing I will do when I take office is I will close Guantanamo Bay [Prison].”
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? We still have troops over there and when He did start to pull troops out he didn’t first make sure that the infrastructure was there to support the vacuum created by our pullout. Now we have had to go BACK in and all those things my friends fought for were lost.
The liberals claim that they want to help the poor. Well what have they done to help?
ACA??? I am poor by the standards set by the government itself.
I would have to increase my pay by half again what I am currently earning in order to be considered out of poverty.
But the only thing the ACA has done is said I HAVE to buy a product that I couldn’t afford in the first place, it is not cheaper, it is not easier. This does not help. But I am one of the “Poor” they claim to want to help. What they say is the opposite of what they do.
I want to be able to grow and improve myself. But what motivation do I have to do so when I see all these “occupy Wall street” idiots attack “rich people” like the Koch Brothers as if working for your money is somehow evil? So if I improve my lot I will be vilified, if I create a fortune through some wonderful business practice or work ethic they will steal it from me?
(And what is up with that anyway? Why pick on just the rich conservatives? They already do more for charity than do any of the liberal rich. What about the rich people like John Kerry, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, even Barack Obama Himself and so on? I mean come on they have one example of conservative rich I have nine liberals)
But to bring it up to the present. Why I cannot support the Democrats is as follows…
1. Gun control. I think everyone should have the right to defend himself or herself against being raped, hurt, robbed or killed out of hand by bad people. I think, if anything, the government should be issuing handguns to everyone free of charge after they prove they took a class or course on how to use them safely. I am tired of a fear-mongering attitude about guns. They are no more dangerous than a power tool or a kitchen knife. If you want to stop people from using guns to cause harm treat the cause… the nutjob who wants to cause harm!
2. Abortion. There is no question in my mind that abortion is murder. Plain and simple. I do not think the government should be condoning, let alone legislating, murder. Worse Obama declared that children were a mistake and a punishment when he said he wanted abortion available because he didn’t “want [his] girls to be punished for making a little mistake”. Well excuse me, MY kids are not a punishment OR a mistake and I do NOT want anyone telling them so because that will hurt them.
3. Freedom. I believe that freedom means I can make my own choices as to how I will live. This includes, but is not limited to, The food I eat, The school/s I or my children attend, what goods and services I will buy or use, Where I will worship, how I will worship, Whether or not I own a gun, what I read, What I say. That means I will have to face the repercussions for the bad choices I make. It also means I will reap the rewards of the good choices. An example of the problem for me? Michelle Obama has made it her mission to tell us all what our kids ought to be eating. It isn’t any of her business it is mine and my wife’s we are their parents. The former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, telling us that we cannot buy sodas over 16 oz.
4. Foreign relations. Our strongest allies are England, Canada, Australia and Israel. We ought to be supporting and backing them as they have done repeatedly for us. Instead we are caught eavesdropping on them and we are giving Palestine and Hamas more credence than we are Israel.
5. Business and taxes. The claim I keep hearing from Democrats, is that we are going to tax the “greedy” businesses to punish them or to make things “fair”. But if the businesses really ARE that greedy all they will do is say one of two things. “We need to add this to our overhead costs and therefore raise our prices.” (which hurts me because I cannot buy as much). Or they will say “We have to cut costs somewhere else.” Which means more layoffs and, even if My job is not one of those cut, there are more people competing for what jobs remain which puts me in jeopardy anyway.
6. Hypocrisy. I keep hearing accusations of conservative hate towards Obama. I have not seen any of that, but I saw nothing but hate directed at George Bush from Democrats. They even accuse me of hating when I point out these issues. This is not hate this is pointing out the problems. But if they were really so worried about the issues and not just hating why do they give Obama a pass where they vilified Bush?
7. Racism. In line with the hypocrisy, I keep seeing and hearing top Democrats (Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Wasserman Schultz) saying things that, if I said them, would be derided as the most hateful, racist, rhetoric imaginable. My view on racism is you have to see color and make decisions based on color.
(https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVj3jO1lUiYMAR2pjmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?p=racism&.sep= , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
The only ones I see really doing that are democrats. “they did this because of race, they are racist.” That statement starts by seeing race in the first place. But even more egregious. They declare white people to be racist because they are white. THAT IS A RACIST STATEMENT! (racism is to judge or have preconceived ideas about a person or people based on their race. Or to treat people differently because of their race. White is a race, to call all whites racist is to judge them based on their race. Therefore it IS racism.
8. Ecological issues/ Global warming/ Climate change. The Democrats keep pushing this as an issue. I am not sure where I stand on the issue. I am not a scientist. However I have noticed that for every one who says it is real there is one who says it is not. Or there is proof that the people who say it is real are making things up.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/28/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-myth_n_6060734.html)
But for the sake of argument, Let us suppose that it is real. What are the solutions for it? Republicans are trying to develop a positive environment for business so they can come in and find a solution. Democrats are screaming that we must raise the price of gas (which will hurt me because I cannot afford to pay more), Force people to buy electric vehicles (studies, from Britain, now show that before an electric car even hits the dealership it has already put about as much pollution into the air as a regular car having driven 80,000 miles, most of that from the manufacture of the batteries alone,
http://www.productsandpower.org/2012/05/10/second-thoughts-on-electric-vehicles/.)
they are making more ethanol which the United Nations has asked we stop doing because it is not helping and it is consuming food supplies needed for countries like Africa (plus creating Ethanol creates more pollution),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
then they tell me I am the one who has to pay for all this even though All the advocates of this refuse to do anything themselves to lower their carbon footprint even though mine is already smaller. In other words, again, EVERY solution the Democrats espouse makes the problem worse.
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2013-06-02/story/fact-check-al-gores-mansion-lot-less-green-george-bushs-ranch, http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/22/peoples-climate-march-hurt-by-questions-about-carbon-footprint/, http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/hulk-actor-questioning-gore-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-defies-the-spirit-of-the-climate-march/)
9. War on women/the family. Democrats keep using this hyperbole about some stupid war on women. But everything I see them doing is, at best condescending towards women at worst more vicious then any examples they have of others doing this. And again Hypocrisy enters in, Obama IN THE LAST WEEK, declared that he did not “want Americans to make that choice”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHIlbIWhgQ
Make the choice about whether they were going to stay home and be a family that is. No the Democrats know best what I and my family ought to have and how we ought to live. My wife, based on that statement, is not smart enough to figure out for herself what she wants out of life she needs Obama to come along and tell her.
I look at the things that I DO know for a fact are going on. Then I look at what different people or groups are saying. Which ever side’s statement matches what I KNOW to be truth, are the ones I will believe.
Naïve? Maybe. Simplistic? I suppose. But that is the way we have to deal with our world.
There is no way to tax our way out of the hole we are in, there is no easy way to fix these problems but we do need to do something. And so far all I have seen or heard from democrats is a bunch of talk that means nothing. And a bunch of actions that have made My life and the lives of many people I know worse.
Is this Anecdotal? Yeah probably, for you anyway. But it is where I am right now. And really when I go to make my choices, that is what I have to use.
In short, As Ronald Reagan said, “are you better off today than you were?” And the answer for me is NO! Emphatically so!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ
And I do NOT see the Democratic Party doing anything for me, the country, the world or for anyone else.
Below are the original links I posted If they do not work please feel free to copy and paste.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249516/job-creation-bush-vs-obama-veronique-de-rugy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html
http://mysterypatriot.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-facts-obama-vs-reagan-on-job-creation/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/10/09/when-it-comes-to-job-creation-obama-doesnt-hold-a-candle-to-reagan/2/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61694
http://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2014/09/12/job-creation-same-as-reagan-not-even-close-says-economist
This person posted a meme saying that Democrats have always been better than republicans at creating jobs and improving the economy.
Specifically it made the claim that Obama (and Clinton) has done better than ANY of the last 6 or so republican presidents. but it started with the claim that ALL Democrats did better than Republicans.
I instantly jumped in and said that what was posted was a lie.
I Stated that Government does not make jobs. And that the economy has improved under Republicans, at least as much as if not more than it did under Democrats.
Then it got messy.
I specifically pointed at how during Reagan's administration alone the country saw improvement like never before.I pointed out how we came out of a HUGE recession from the 70's, eliminated the ongoing "gas Crisis" of the 60's and 70's and so on.
This family member whom I shall refer to from now on as Billy since that is a nice gender neutral name and I do not want anyone to be too offended, went on to ask for citations.
I provided those for Billy and then I went on to break things down for Billy.
Billy responded that the post was just meant to spark debate and not really change anyone's mind. I called Billy out on that point as well. Why post something that would cause a response such as mine if you did not intend for it to?
But at that Point Billy stated that Government DOES create jobs. Billy's job was "created" by the government.
A little Background, Billy works as a college teacher, and Billy is very Liberal. But let's move on.
I wanted to share with you the main crux of my argument. Mostly I was thinking that there may be many other people out there who are as misled or misguided as Billy so, without further ado... here is my response.
Government does not create jobs. It never has. It taxes businesses but true value comes from Businesses creating value. That creates worth and that enables jobs.
Government can make a situation where businesses WANT to open up and create jobs. But it has to do that through lower taxes, less red tape or easier access to needed raw materials. (usage of federal lands, easing of restrictions on importing or acquiring supplies).
This is not a statement that needs any kind of citation to prove. This is simple common sense.
However if you look at the links I have found so far they tend to prove my point.
(See links at bottom of page)
Most of my “original sources” for information are not online because I use more information sources than online. I do not trust traditional American media to present all the facts, so I look all over the place. Partly this is due to the fact that ALL the news outlets have thrown away their journalistic integrity.
All you have to do is watch the debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and the “Independent Mediator’s” reactions to know that. Or for that matter the news that keeps coming out that they all refuse to admit too (it took MONTHS for any word about the NSA files the IRS harassment the Benghazi attacks, the Ebola mishandling and so on.)
See, I have a brain and I USE it to take in all the information available; then I reach my own conclusions. I do not just parrot what others say as if it were true without some thought. Much like it has been done for Millennia!
So I listen to the radio. I watch the news, but take it with a grain of salt.
I look (and listen) for information from other countries, such as Israel, Russia, Germany, Australia, Canada and England.
Then I look at what is going on in my immediate vicinity.
But this argument talks about a comparison. It compares to stuff from the past, what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush (W) did doesn’t matter. What is important is what is happening right now. You are using the past to justify why we should vote a certain way now in order to impact the future.
O.K. Since that is the way we start I will oblige with a response in kind.
I have received seven decent raises since the day Obama became president. By decent I mean better than I ever got while driving for a government agency.
Yet the pay I receive now does not go as far as it did 10 years ago. My raises have been in line with any reasonable expectation for inflation so why the problem?
In that respect, Republicans have tried to do more to ease up on the burden of Businesses and Democrats have pushed more restrictions that tends to shut business (jobs) down.
The real problem here is that EVERY single point that I heard liberals griping about. Everything they said George W Bush did “wrong”, Barack Obama has doubled down on.
The high price of gas, that Obama himself said was a sign of the failure of the Bush presidency, was HALF what it is today. Obama, By his own description, screwed that up.
The patriot act? Yeah NOT ONLY did Barack Obama reinstate it when it was due to expire but he expanded it so the NSA now stores all our communications “Just in case”.
Broken promises… Yeah like “if you want to keep your doctor, you can. If you want to keep your insurance policy you can.” Or how about “the first thing I will do when I take office is I will close Guantanamo Bay [Prison].”
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? We still have troops over there and when He did start to pull troops out he didn’t first make sure that the infrastructure was there to support the vacuum created by our pullout. Now we have had to go BACK in and all those things my friends fought for were lost.
The liberals claim that they want to help the poor. Well what have they done to help?
ACA??? I am poor by the standards set by the government itself.
I would have to increase my pay by half again what I am currently earning in order to be considered out of poverty.
But the only thing the ACA has done is said I HAVE to buy a product that I couldn’t afford in the first place, it is not cheaper, it is not easier. This does not help. But I am one of the “Poor” they claim to want to help. What they say is the opposite of what they do.
I want to be able to grow and improve myself. But what motivation do I have to do so when I see all these “occupy Wall street” idiots attack “rich people” like the Koch Brothers as if working for your money is somehow evil? So if I improve my lot I will be vilified, if I create a fortune through some wonderful business practice or work ethic they will steal it from me?
(And what is up with that anyway? Why pick on just the rich conservatives? They already do more for charity than do any of the liberal rich. What about the rich people like John Kerry, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, even Barack Obama Himself and so on? I mean come on they have one example of conservative rich I have nine liberals)
But to bring it up to the present. Why I cannot support the Democrats is as follows…
1. Gun control. I think everyone should have the right to defend himself or herself against being raped, hurt, robbed or killed out of hand by bad people. I think, if anything, the government should be issuing handguns to everyone free of charge after they prove they took a class or course on how to use them safely. I am tired of a fear-mongering attitude about guns. They are no more dangerous than a power tool or a kitchen knife. If you want to stop people from using guns to cause harm treat the cause… the nutjob who wants to cause harm!
2. Abortion. There is no question in my mind that abortion is murder. Plain and simple. I do not think the government should be condoning, let alone legislating, murder. Worse Obama declared that children were a mistake and a punishment when he said he wanted abortion available because he didn’t “want [his] girls to be punished for making a little mistake”. Well excuse me, MY kids are not a punishment OR a mistake and I do NOT want anyone telling them so because that will hurt them.
3. Freedom. I believe that freedom means I can make my own choices as to how I will live. This includes, but is not limited to, The food I eat, The school/s I or my children attend, what goods and services I will buy or use, Where I will worship, how I will worship, Whether or not I own a gun, what I read, What I say. That means I will have to face the repercussions for the bad choices I make. It also means I will reap the rewards of the good choices. An example of the problem for me? Michelle Obama has made it her mission to tell us all what our kids ought to be eating. It isn’t any of her business it is mine and my wife’s we are their parents. The former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, telling us that we cannot buy sodas over 16 oz.
4. Foreign relations. Our strongest allies are England, Canada, Australia and Israel. We ought to be supporting and backing them as they have done repeatedly for us. Instead we are caught eavesdropping on them and we are giving Palestine and Hamas more credence than we are Israel.
5. Business and taxes. The claim I keep hearing from Democrats, is that we are going to tax the “greedy” businesses to punish them or to make things “fair”. But if the businesses really ARE that greedy all they will do is say one of two things. “We need to add this to our overhead costs and therefore raise our prices.” (which hurts me because I cannot buy as much). Or they will say “We have to cut costs somewhere else.” Which means more layoffs and, even if My job is not one of those cut, there are more people competing for what jobs remain which puts me in jeopardy anyway.
6. Hypocrisy. I keep hearing accusations of conservative hate towards Obama. I have not seen any of that, but I saw nothing but hate directed at George Bush from Democrats. They even accuse me of hating when I point out these issues. This is not hate this is pointing out the problems. But if they were really so worried about the issues and not just hating why do they give Obama a pass where they vilified Bush?
7. Racism. In line with the hypocrisy, I keep seeing and hearing top Democrats (Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, Wasserman Schultz) saying things that, if I said them, would be derided as the most hateful, racist, rhetoric imaginable. My view on racism is you have to see color and make decisions based on color.
(https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVj3jO1lUiYMAR2pjmolQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?p=racism&.sep= , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
The only ones I see really doing that are democrats. “they did this because of race, they are racist.” That statement starts by seeing race in the first place. But even more egregious. They declare white people to be racist because they are white. THAT IS A RACIST STATEMENT! (racism is to judge or have preconceived ideas about a person or people based on their race. Or to treat people differently because of their race. White is a race, to call all whites racist is to judge them based on their race. Therefore it IS racism.
8. Ecological issues/ Global warming/ Climate change. The Democrats keep pushing this as an issue. I am not sure where I stand on the issue. I am not a scientist. However I have noticed that for every one who says it is real there is one who says it is not. Or there is proof that the people who say it is real are making things up.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/28/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-myth_n_6060734.html)
But for the sake of argument, Let us suppose that it is real. What are the solutions for it? Republicans are trying to develop a positive environment for business so they can come in and find a solution. Democrats are screaming that we must raise the price of gas (which will hurt me because I cannot afford to pay more), Force people to buy electric vehicles (studies, from Britain, now show that before an electric car even hits the dealership it has already put about as much pollution into the air as a regular car having driven 80,000 miles, most of that from the manufacture of the batteries alone,
http://www.productsandpower.org/2012/05/10/second-thoughts-on-electric-vehicles/.)
they are making more ethanol which the United Nations has asked we stop doing because it is not helping and it is consuming food supplies needed for countries like Africa (plus creating Ethanol creates more pollution),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/
then they tell me I am the one who has to pay for all this even though All the advocates of this refuse to do anything themselves to lower their carbon footprint even though mine is already smaller. In other words, again, EVERY solution the Democrats espouse makes the problem worse.
http://jacksonville.com/reason/fact-check/2013-06-02/story/fact-check-al-gores-mansion-lot-less-green-george-bushs-ranch, http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/22/peoples-climate-march-hurt-by-questions-about-carbon-footprint/, http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/hulk-actor-questioning-gore-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-defies-the-spirit-of-the-climate-march/)
9. War on women/the family. Democrats keep using this hyperbole about some stupid war on women. But everything I see them doing is, at best condescending towards women at worst more vicious then any examples they have of others doing this. And again Hypocrisy enters in, Obama IN THE LAST WEEK, declared that he did not “want Americans to make that choice”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHIlbIWhgQ
Make the choice about whether they were going to stay home and be a family that is. No the Democrats know best what I and my family ought to have and how we ought to live. My wife, based on that statement, is not smart enough to figure out for herself what she wants out of life she needs Obama to come along and tell her.
I look at the things that I DO know for a fact are going on. Then I look at what different people or groups are saying. Which ever side’s statement matches what I KNOW to be truth, are the ones I will believe.
Naïve? Maybe. Simplistic? I suppose. But that is the way we have to deal with our world.
There is no way to tax our way out of the hole we are in, there is no easy way to fix these problems but we do need to do something. And so far all I have seen or heard from democrats is a bunch of talk that means nothing. And a bunch of actions that have made My life and the lives of many people I know worse.
Is this Anecdotal? Yeah probably, for you anyway. But it is where I am right now. And really when I go to make my choices, that is what I have to use.
In short, As Ronald Reagan said, “are you better off today than you were?” And the answer for me is NO! Emphatically so!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EvFQLhqWPQ
And I do NOT see the Democratic Party doing anything for me, the country, the world or for anyone else.
Below are the original links I posted If they do not work please feel free to copy and paste.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/249516/job-creation-bush-vs-obama-veronique-de-rugy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html
http://mysterypatriot.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-facts-obama-vs-reagan-on-job-creation/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/10/09/when-it-comes-to-job-creation-obama-doesnt-hold-a-candle-to-reagan/2/
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61694
http://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2014/09/12/job-creation-same-as-reagan-not-even-close-says-economist
January 17, 2015
I was there first.
Months ago I came up with a thought. Either I expressed that thought to the right people OR someone else had the same thought. Either way I love to see it when My ideas happen in the real world.
“What is he talking about?” you ask.
Simple, I noticed that there were a LOT of kids AND adults these days who are totally clueless about how or society works.
They could not name the Vice President, (Joe Biden) their Congressman, or even the three branches of Government, which are, The Executive/President, the Legislative/Congress and the Judicial/Supreme Court.
Sadly that LAST example was a CONGRESSMAN (Democrat) who thought the three branches were the President, the House, and the Senate.
All of these were (are) CURRENT event issues they could not come up with correct answers for.
Unfortunately, it is worse when we are talking about historical events, their significance and what the legal documents are that govern our nation.
Well one day I was listening to someone talk about their frustration on the subject. During the conversation they offhandedly commented that Legal Immigrants who apply for citizenship have to pass an exam. Therefore many of THEM have a MUCH better understanding of the Constitution, our Government and how it works and the history of our country.
Tell you what, for fun, Here are a few sample questions that might appear on a citizenship test, let’s see how many YOU get right.
( )
Before you start in about Hypocrisy, Yes I took these tests, and more, just for kicks and giggles at the time, and yes I passed them… Easily.
In any case, that is when MY idea hit me.
If you want to be a FULL citizen of our country maybe you ought to have to pass an exam like that. You should at least show that you KNOW why our nation exists, and the responsibilities, rights and privileges you have as a citizen.
Last night, I was listening to the news on the radio and I heard that Arizona, MY home state I am proud to say, has now just passed a law that states, before any student can get their High school Diploma they have to pass a civics test. Basically what I was saying to begin with.
I want to detail MY thoughts/plan on the subject though since I took it further than they do.
First of all If you are born in the U.S.A. You get a partial citizenship. A sort of, “you are recognized as part of, and protected by the laws of, this nation,” thing.
You are recognized as being a ward, or in the care of someone else (your parents/guardians probably someone who IS a full citizen.) until you are “of age” to participate as a full member of the citizenry.
That age, By the way, is dependent on your own abilities! If you can pass the test and be personally responsible then you qualify no matter the actual, physical age you might be.
In order to gain full citizenship, you would need to,
(1) Take a test/show knowledge of the history of our nation, the values we hold and the way our government works to include the current leaders of the nation who represent you. (President, Federal congressman/senator of your state/district, local authorities like the Sheriff, Governor, Mayor, State assemblyman etc…) OR,
(2) Join the military or other Government programs, which put an emphasis on what it is to be an American and to be of service to your community (Local, County, State, or Federal) for a year.
Why should anyone want to become a full citizen?
In order to vote you have to have full citizenship.
In order to file taxes/get refunds, and receive certain Government benefits, you have to have full citizenship. (Remember, if you do NOT have full citizenship you are considered to be someone’s ward / in the care of another person. That would mean THEY could claim you on their taxes as a dependent).
In order to have any government job, run for political offices or certain other full time employment, you have to be a full citizen.
Anyway that is my thought on the matter. I know there would be people who would disagree with me, I can even hear their arguments already. But, really, I am not asking for the moon here. We need to find SOME way to cultivate an understanding of our homeland and it’s place in the world. Why we are who we are. Where we ought to go from here.
In short, I am tired of all the low information voters who are clueless about the way our nation is supposed to work and who vote based on popularity or selfishness, instead of what the NATION needs as a whole.
In closing I would like to ask you a few more questions, a few more things to think on. Do you know these?
1. Did you know that we are NOT a Democracy but rather a Democratic Republic? Every one always says this is just a Democracy. WRONG.
2. Do you know what document limits what our government can do to us? (The Constitution)
3. Can you name what person was one of the most influential in our nation’s founding he signed the Declaration of independence, but he never served in an elected position? (Benjamin Franklin)
4. Can you tell me which document this quote belongs in, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. (Declaration of Independence)
5. Who made that “famous ride” warning that the British were coming BESIDES Paul Revere? (William Dawes)
6. Who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence? (Thomas Jefferson)
7. How many men signed the Declaration of Independence? (56)
8. Can you name just any FIVE of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
(Button Gwinnett.
Lyman Hall.
George Walton.
William Hooper.
Joseph Hewes.
John Penn.
Edward Rutledge.
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lunch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton.
John Hancock.
Samuel Chase.
William Paca.
Thomas Stone.
Charles Carroll.
George Wythe.
Richard Henry Lee.
Thomas Jefferson.
Benjamin Harrison.
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee.
Carter Braxton.
Robert Morris.
Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Rush.
John Morton.
George Clymer.
James Smith.
George Taylor.
James Wilson.
George Ross.
Caeser Rodney.
George Read.
Thomas McKean.
William Floyd.
Philip Livingston.
Francis Lewis.
Lewis Morris.
Richard Stockton.
John Witherspoon.
Francis Hopkinson.
John Hart.
Abraham Clark.
Josiah Bartlett.
William Whipple.
Samuel Adams.
John Adams.
Robert Treat Paine.
Elbridge Gerry.
Stephen Hopkins.
William Ellery.
Roger Sherman.
Samuel Huntington.
William Williams.
Oliver Woolcott.
And Matthew Thornton.)
9. How many Amendments are there in the Constitution? (27)
10. When was the last Amendment added? (May 7th 1992) and What was it? (Limiting Congressional pay increases)
11. Which Amendment cancels out another Amendment and what are the two Amendments about? (21st and 18th. The 18th Abolished liquor in the U.S. passed on January 16 1919,enacted one year later, the 21st repealed the abolition on December 5th 1933).
12. How many articles are there in the original Constitution? (7)
13. What President served more than two terms? (Franklin Delano Roosevelt).
14. What caused us to become involved in World War 2? (the Attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii)
15. Who said “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”? (John Fitzgerald Kennedy)
16. Which was the 50th state admitted to the Union? (Hawaii?)
Just for the record I had the answers to ALL of these questions sitting in my head with the ONE exception that I could not have named all 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence cold. (I read the Declaration again to find the names. If I can do it then I think it ought to be possible for ALL Americans to do it.
“What is he talking about?” you ask.
Simple, I noticed that there were a LOT of kids AND adults these days who are totally clueless about how or society works.
They could not name the Vice President, (Joe Biden) their Congressman, or even the three branches of Government, which are, The Executive/President, the Legislative/Congress and the Judicial/Supreme Court.
Sadly that LAST example was a CONGRESSMAN (Democrat) who thought the three branches were the President, the House, and the Senate.
All of these were (are) CURRENT event issues they could not come up with correct answers for.
Unfortunately, it is worse when we are talking about historical events, their significance and what the legal documents are that govern our nation.
Well one day I was listening to someone talk about their frustration on the subject. During the conversation they offhandedly commented that Legal Immigrants who apply for citizenship have to pass an exam. Therefore many of THEM have a MUCH better understanding of the Constitution, our Government and how it works and the history of our country.
Tell you what, for fun, Here are a few sample questions that might appear on a citizenship test, let’s see how many YOU get right.
( )
Before you start in about Hypocrisy, Yes I took these tests, and more, just for kicks and giggles at the time, and yes I passed them… Easily.
In any case, that is when MY idea hit me.
If you want to be a FULL citizen of our country maybe you ought to have to pass an exam like that. You should at least show that you KNOW why our nation exists, and the responsibilities, rights and privileges you have as a citizen.
Last night, I was listening to the news on the radio and I heard that Arizona, MY home state I am proud to say, has now just passed a law that states, before any student can get their High school Diploma they have to pass a civics test. Basically what I was saying to begin with.
I want to detail MY thoughts/plan on the subject though since I took it further than they do.
First of all If you are born in the U.S.A. You get a partial citizenship. A sort of, “you are recognized as part of, and protected by the laws of, this nation,” thing.
You are recognized as being a ward, or in the care of someone else (your parents/guardians probably someone who IS a full citizen.) until you are “of age” to participate as a full member of the citizenry.
That age, By the way, is dependent on your own abilities! If you can pass the test and be personally responsible then you qualify no matter the actual, physical age you might be.
In order to gain full citizenship, you would need to,
(1) Take a test/show knowledge of the history of our nation, the values we hold and the way our government works to include the current leaders of the nation who represent you. (President, Federal congressman/senator of your state/district, local authorities like the Sheriff, Governor, Mayor, State assemblyman etc…) OR,
(2) Join the military or other Government programs, which put an emphasis on what it is to be an American and to be of service to your community (Local, County, State, or Federal) for a year.
Why should anyone want to become a full citizen?
In order to vote you have to have full citizenship.
In order to file taxes/get refunds, and receive certain Government benefits, you have to have full citizenship. (Remember, if you do NOT have full citizenship you are considered to be someone’s ward / in the care of another person. That would mean THEY could claim you on their taxes as a dependent).
In order to have any government job, run for political offices or certain other full time employment, you have to be a full citizen.
Anyway that is my thought on the matter. I know there would be people who would disagree with me, I can even hear their arguments already. But, really, I am not asking for the moon here. We need to find SOME way to cultivate an understanding of our homeland and it’s place in the world. Why we are who we are. Where we ought to go from here.
In short, I am tired of all the low information voters who are clueless about the way our nation is supposed to work and who vote based on popularity or selfishness, instead of what the NATION needs as a whole.
In closing I would like to ask you a few more questions, a few more things to think on. Do you know these?
1. Did you know that we are NOT a Democracy but rather a Democratic Republic? Every one always says this is just a Democracy. WRONG.
2. Do you know what document limits what our government can do to us? (The Constitution)
3. Can you name what person was one of the most influential in our nation’s founding he signed the Declaration of independence, but he never served in an elected position? (Benjamin Franklin)
4. Can you tell me which document this quote belongs in, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. (Declaration of Independence)
5. Who made that “famous ride” warning that the British were coming BESIDES Paul Revere? (William Dawes)
6. Who actually wrote the Declaration of Independence? (Thomas Jefferson)
7. How many men signed the Declaration of Independence? (56)
8. Can you name just any FIVE of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence?
(Button Gwinnett.
Lyman Hall.
George Walton.
William Hooper.
Joseph Hewes.
John Penn.
Edward Rutledge.
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lunch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton.
John Hancock.
Samuel Chase.
William Paca.
Thomas Stone.
Charles Carroll.
George Wythe.
Richard Henry Lee.
Thomas Jefferson.
Benjamin Harrison.
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee.
Carter Braxton.
Robert Morris.
Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Rush.
John Morton.
George Clymer.
James Smith.
George Taylor.
James Wilson.
George Ross.
Caeser Rodney.
George Read.
Thomas McKean.
William Floyd.
Philip Livingston.
Francis Lewis.
Lewis Morris.
Richard Stockton.
John Witherspoon.
Francis Hopkinson.
John Hart.
Abraham Clark.
Josiah Bartlett.
William Whipple.
Samuel Adams.
John Adams.
Robert Treat Paine.
Elbridge Gerry.
Stephen Hopkins.
William Ellery.
Roger Sherman.
Samuel Huntington.
William Williams.
Oliver Woolcott.
And Matthew Thornton.)
9. How many Amendments are there in the Constitution? (27)
10. When was the last Amendment added? (May 7th 1992) and What was it? (Limiting Congressional pay increases)
11. Which Amendment cancels out another Amendment and what are the two Amendments about? (21st and 18th. The 18th Abolished liquor in the U.S. passed on January 16 1919,enacted one year later, the 21st repealed the abolition on December 5th 1933).
12. How many articles are there in the original Constitution? (7)
13. What President served more than two terms? (Franklin Delano Roosevelt).
14. What caused us to become involved in World War 2? (the Attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii)
15. Who said “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”? (John Fitzgerald Kennedy)
16. Which was the 50th state admitted to the Union? (Hawaii?)
Just for the record I had the answers to ALL of these questions sitting in my head with the ONE exception that I could not have named all 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence cold. (I read the Declaration again to find the names. If I can do it then I think it ought to be possible for ALL Americans to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)