All Replies on War on traditional American values?

I disprove of any one pushing any one else around unless I’m doing the pushing – or getting paid from it. Then it’s all good.

So I’m sort of a fiscally conservative, libertarian, liberal with definite despotic tendencies.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

One apparent threat (not sure whether it was stated or implied) was the US might reduce or eliminate aid to countries that don’t go along. That might appeal to your fiscal side (lower govt spending).

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

I don’t know how I feel about the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.

Actually I know how I feel. It’s really none of our business.

While I’d love to see a world where everybody held hands and sung Koombyaahh it’s really just us shoving out morals down other people’s throats.

What if the people of a nation like Paupa New Guinea had the muscle to impose their morals on us. they take children into their beds to teach them how to make love. Are promiscuous as hell and generally pay little attention to the name of the person siring or mothering children.

Who says they are wrong or right? Who says we are?
Who gets to say?
Sounds like it’s the guy with the most weapons or biggest hammer. Just like always.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

Sounds like it’s the guy with the most weapons or biggest hammer. Just like always

Cr..that was what Roosevelt intended when he said “Walk softly and carry a big stick”. Which is why the US thinks it has to stick it’s nose into everyone elses business. I don’t think it’s necessary in this day and age. It’s time to take care of the American people, on our shores.

Greg, I agree.

Would we be in a recession if we weren’t p&^& away 10 billion a month in Pakistan,Afganistan or Iraq?

-- Don't rollerskate in a buffalo herd

I’m 100% with you, Greg, on the human rights aspect. What adults do in their bedrooms is their business. And I just don’t believe anyone chooses to be homosexual any more than they choose their gender or skin color.

On the other side of the coin, it’s a very thin line between standing up for human rights, and meddling in other countries’ affairs. My biggest concern is that, in general, it seems like the U.S. is a lot more likely to take a stand for human rights abroad when we have a financial stake in the region in question.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

I’ve always wondered just what “basic human rights” really are? Who defined them? Are they written down somewhere? Does everyone agree on them?

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.

Sawkerf, Here is a good definition/description/history of basic human rights . -Jack

what Charlie said

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sghwe4TYY18

Merry Christmas

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

Charlie +10

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

Greg, The people decrying this as ’a war on people of faith’ are the same homophobic bigots that lobbied African governments to execute their people for being gay. It could be said this new ‘diplomatic effort’ is only undoing some of the damage caused privately by extremist American religious groups. -Jack

I would guess that most people running for POTUS wouldn’t put stuff on their web site unless they thought it would appeal to a constituency that was in some way more important than the constituency it might offend. Ron Paul is a notable exception it seems. At any rate, I am definitely a member of the offended constituency in this particular case, and I’m curious to hear a bit from those on the other side of the issue.

It seems to me that different people have different ideas about the meaning of “basic human rights”. In some cases it seems that people agree on the general notion but not on all the details. Personally, I think we are still in a process of figuring out some of the details. In other cases it seems that someone has completely perverted the general idea for the specific purpose of supporting their own agenda.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

every single evil little person on this planet, has their own agenda and make no mistake about it

the more a person is educated, the greater the faith they have in mankind. Science removes doubt, opens doors, has proven again and again that the earth isnt flat, its actually a very round ball, very small and as per Carl Sagan, a very pale blue dot.

Tolerance is “faith”………..in something bigger then us.

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

Hey Jack,

It seems to me that the people decrying this as a war on people of faith are slandering an awful lot of people of faith. What little I remember of my upbringing as a Catholic was that while a great many things were sinful, not many were of a nature such that there was a desire to make them illegal also. I suspect most people who value religious freedom can understand that it can only be preserved if the standard for determining behavior that should be illegal is very different from the standards that distinguish behavior that is pious from that which is sinful. I suspect most people of faith can accept this also.

The next bit is deciding when private behavior of consenting adults comes anywhere close to the standard for behavior that should be illegal.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

Hey Moron – indeed I do have my own agenda. but at the moment it says, “go get some sleep”! And tomorrow I’m makin’ some box joints…

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

tomorrow, after a good nights sleep

the earth will not be “flat” when I open “my” eyes.

whats next, a pic of the “arc” with the koala bear on it, munching down on eucalyptus leaves ?

jesus has always taught, as his disciples have taught, that the enemy is the man who looks back at you, when you look in the mirror.

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

thank you liddle buddy

i wonder if the Shepard knows the koala is gay ?

or if the kid knows his parents are gay ?

and I dare ask…………”who gets a Christmas card “ ?……..the queer koala bear or the dog ?

who would ever start such a stupid tea time subject ?

Stop wasting my time……………..please

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

nip it in the bud liddle buddy

the world no longer has room for racism of any kind……….end of story

if history hasn’t embedded that into your mind

then history is doomed to repeat itself .

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

This is all I can add

. We all are a Family . We all have Value .Many traditions

Don’t forget this one:

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

So now the west is righteous and gracious, educating the poor Africans Iraq’s Afghans et al. All those poor poor countries who know nothing about nothing. Ah bless!

We in the west have the greatest record of human oppression (perhaps the former USSR can lay claim to that title) – perhaps this is our way of extinguising the guilt from our acts of the past.

Let them live their lives their way, we are so busy pushing people around we often overlook our own failings.

One day we will push and the worm will push back, we may even get our backsides kicked!

-- No one plans to fail, they just, just fail to plan

”I’ve always wondered just what “basic human rights” really are? Who defined them? Are they written down somewhere? Does everyone agree on them?”

As a threshold matter Sawkerf, I think it’s fair to mention that your use of the phrase “basic human rights” was the first in this thread. GredD did not use the expression, nor was the term in either of his links.

The expression is used most of the time by people who are looking to impose their ideals onto others because the imposer believes that she is right in a supremely sanctimonious, self righteous, and arrogant way.

I usually look askance on all such claims about basic human rights. Because it almost always entails them looking to use the police power of the state to steal my property so they can then use my property to impose their will on third parties whom they have no “basic human right” to be imposing anything upon.

I find the expression typical of that sort of god awful person.

As to the question as applied to Rights. ( without all the excess verbiage which usually marks the speaker as a nut job busybody)
I guess we make ‘em up.

I like the “GOD GIVEN” routine well enough, but I opt for “Yours by birthright” instead of looking to some deity which I neither know nor understand.

And if indeed we make ‘em up then the people of other countries are free to make up whatever the hell they think of as their rights. If they don’t think their governments are protecting and enforcing those rights then they are free to unseat it and establish a new one.

I don’t understand why any one can think that it is the Provence of the USA to go around doing it for people of other nations while also deciding what rights they ought to be having. Seems to me that is none of our bloody damn business.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

I’d love to spread fuzzies here but my Capitalist Pig mentality wont’ let me. I’m definitely not proud of it; not embarrassed either; but I genuinely don’t care about much. Gay, Straight, Black, White, Catholic, Jewish, I honestly couldn’t give less of a rat’s ass. I could care less what my neighbors are up to unless it directly threatens me, either physically or in the wallet. There are very few causes I’m eager to “fund”. It takes a pretty awful foreign atrocity to really get my attention. I work hard, pay my taxes, and want to be left alone.

That being said, I have a soft spot for hunger. I’ve spent a lot of money feeding people, but I do it exclusively locally. In my experience, no matter how good your intentions, if you fund a remote cause, you have no control over how it’s managed.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

I was always taugt that you could pick out what is truly a RIGHT, by taking any claim and answering the question “At whose expense”

e.g.
someone says we have a right to an education through grade 12 – - – AT whose expense?
That is not against education but getting an education is a priveledge and something we have decided as a society is extremely important to our survival as a society/family and culture. BUT it is not a RIGHT.

Freedom of Speech IS a right. My ability to excercise free speech is not at the expense of society or others.

My right to keep and bear arms… same thing, it doesn’t require society to buy me a gun for me to have that right and I can CHOOSE whether or not to excercise it.

Freedom to worship as and TO whom I choose…same thing it is my RIGHT.

Now if we say Free healthcare is a right…. that is incorrect – because your “Right” must be funded by others to have such a system.
Again not arguing that single payer is good or bad but it is NOT a Right.

Nor is there a RIGHT to be free of hunger…that is something we make laws about and provide for civil society.

We always go to persecution but I think people have a RIGHT to feel however they want about other groups…there are CONSEQUENCES to that, but you have a right to be a racist bigot. That is why the klan ralleys are permitted, just like the wackos from the Westboro baptist church has a RIGHT to show up at soldiers funerals. Nobody SANE would do that crap but they are within their rights.

If you have a house with a basement rental unit, and two muslim college students (middle eastern decent but German passports) want to rent it out, cash up front. are you a Bigot if you say NO? What are your RIGHTS to decide who lives in your basement?
Sure the enforcment arm of the government only kicks in for commercial properties….but if you decide you don’t want to have a Black, Gay Muslim, Vegan student living in your house with you – - – because you feel uncomfortable, are you supposed to just SUCK IT UP and be a good global citizen? Or is it OK that you behave as a bigot and be selective?

-- "_If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves_." Edison

DrDirt: You had me thinking you had the perfect criterion to decide what is a right and not a right. Then I got to the last paragraph and said “uh-oh”. That one seems to be a bit of a gray area for me.

I can go along with the Klan march being a right, because it only involves an expression of opinion. But if I advertise my basement for rent, then refuse to rent it to a Muslim student, would I not be exercising my “right” at someone else’s expense?

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

I agree entirely that there should be a much higher priority for us working on our own failings than pushing our preferences on other countries. I’m proud of my country, but it isn’t perfectly wonderful in every possible way. I am most proud when we keep trying to get better.

If the extent of “pushing preferences” is little more than diplomatic posturing, which it seems to be in this particular case at least so far, then I’m OK with that I think. Talk is cheap, and it’s OK if the response is “go stuff it”. Even then it might have some value in some situations. At least it can be a reminder to ourselves that we want to not be that way.

I try to take a live-and-let-live approach, significantly motivated by the self interest that I want to be left alone to do what I want. I see I’m not the only one. But when I see party A egregiously abusing party B, I get pretty motivated to impose my view of what ain’t right on party A. For me, the idea of human rights helps to differentiate between the “life ain’t fair” kinda situations that are best left to the parties involved to resolve, and the “hell no, that ain’t right” kinda situations where it is time for me to choose what sort of world I want to live in.

But my agenda is not, as Cr1 fears, an effort to steal his property. It is pretty common for politicians to make stupid and divisive statements in a cynical, self-serving effort to get elected. To the extent that we allow them to get away with this behavior, we deserve what we get. This is my pathetic little attempt to encourage ya’ll to help make your favorite candidate a better candidate by calling them out whenever they cross the line separating meaningful debate from male bovine generated fecal material (MBGFM). Advice from allies is often more effective than push-back from adversaries. At a minimum, can we at least keep them from inventing divisions and playing us against each other so that they can, in the confusion, have things their way? Not likely that outcome is going to be best for us.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

+1 on what DrDirt said.

Somewhere we need to draw the line between my right to be the way I want to be and your right to find me repugnant. It seems to me that it should probably be somewhere in the area described by DrDirt’s last paragraph. And that looks to be well within sight of a compromise acceptable to most everyone (even though we haven’t worked out all the details), no? Not at all the war with people of faith that my esteemed governor claimed it to be.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

I can go along with the Klan march being a right, because it only involves an expression of opinion. But if I advertise my basement for rent, then refuse to rent it to a Muslim student, would I not be exercising my “right” at someone else’s expense?

If I understand correctly this hypo is about the land lord’s home and it’s celler unit.
In all three states where I’m licensed and in every state I know about it is entirely within your lawful domain to make a discriminatory call based on race color alienage sex age or any other criteria you please. This because your home is a special carve out in discrimination laws.

But my agenda is not, as Cr1 fears, an effort to steal his property.

Well please allow me to take that apart so we all can have a look at it.

• Joe has something. It doesn’t matter what it is, whether he made it or earned it or maybe won it in a contest, but however he came by it, he did so lawfully so it’s his property. It might be his dinner or money in his mattress or real property or personal property it doesn’t matter what form it takes, it’s his property and it’s his.

• Harry wants something. It doesn’t matter what it is that Harry wants. He might want to feed the children in the inner city, to vaccinate homeless children, to wage a war in a foreign nation, or maybe harry is hungry, needs shoes, wants to send his children to school. It doesn’t matter what it is that Harry wants, he wants something.

• Harry does not have sufficient funds to accomplish his wants.

• Harry looks to Joe for support in his goal of achieving his wants.

• Joe tells Harry to bugger off.

• Harry forms a committee. This committee insists that it has the power and is entitled to take Joe’s property and distribute according to it’s own dictates.

• Joe blows the committee off.

• Harry and the committee use some of their pooled funds to buy guns which they
  use to coerce Joe into parting with his property.

Now please explain how this is not Theft.
How it is moral?
How is it anything other than gangsterism dressed up in the trappings of governance?

Tell me why it is that if you wouldn’t go into your neighbor’s house and steal their property ( because it’s wrong), but that it is some how legitimate to do so by getting a politician to do it for you?

I’m good with Christians claiming that the blood of the lamb washes their sins away. It’s no skin off my nose.

But what magical mystical event washes the evil away when instead of robbing me in person you get a government to do it for you?

Seems to me all you did was hire some one else to do your dirty work for you.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

cr!: The problem is that in our form of government, Joe himself has helped elect the members of Harry’s committee to steal his property.

-- Charlie M. "Woodworking - patience = firewood"

cr1 – that’s easy, it’s a Social Contract, and the basis for most modern governments. I’m certainly not happy with a whole lot of things about our current government, but the idea that any taxation is thievery is more than a bit far fetched. We all benefit from living in a society, and we all have to contribute to that society. That contribution should be made in a number of ways, including paying taxes. The society determines what is in ‘the best interest’ and raise funds to pay for that ‘fairly.’

Within that simple framework there is plenty to argue about, and lots of room for disagreement about what is in the best interest and what is fair. But sealing, really?

-- John

IDK about Harry, but what Greg wants in this specific case doesn’t cost any money. He is just looking for a little air time to ask people to reject the devisiveness that is often spewed by political candidates. The fact that money has already been stolen from Joe to pay Hillary Clinton’s salary and travel expenses so that she can fly to Africa and tell government officials there that the US might reconsider the terms of the money the US gives them if they continue to do things the US considers bad is kinda tangential to the current point and happened without any facilitation or advocacy from Greg, AFAIK.

But yes, indeed, I have other agendas that fit perfectly the Harry/Joe scenario. Still, the Harry/Joe scenario in the general case is far more interesting and important. Theft by Government. Taxes aren’t the only mechanism – eminent domian comes to mind. You probably know more than I. But it might be best to stick with taxes first, and only later move on to other mechanisms. How about a new thread?

That would be a fantastic topic for a presidential debate.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

Cr1, face it, Muslims are moving into your basement whether you like it or not, lol.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

The pictures of U.S. citizens were posted as a thought about ” traditional family values ” . These tend to vary depending on whom one is speaking to ,or about . ” Rights” are well defined by the laws that we,the people, institute. We are free to be as preferential as we wish within the boundaries of those laws. I just posted the picture of the dali because he’s cute . : )

cr!: The problem is that in our form of government, Joe himself has helped elect the members of Harry’s committee to steal his property.

I dunno about that.
I didn’t help elect a single person who rammed death care down the throats of the nation.
And they did it in secret and in total absence of even a tiny effort at by partisanship.

It was tyranny. The statement from the left was : “I have ideas about how you should live your life and I’m going to use the police power of the state to force you and take your property to pay to make you do it too.
They might as well have added “SO THERE” to the end.

Cr1 – that’s easy, it’s a Social Contract, and the basis for most modern governments.

Seems to me that intoning some talismanic phrase as if it somehow washes the evil from tyranny is like waving a dead cat over one’s head and claiming it cures cancer.

There is no theory of social contract that acts as carte blanche.
You are aware that the phrase social contract only refers to a theory, a mere proposition and not a real thing aren’t you?

There is no “contract” to which you can point. It’s just words with pretty much no meaning at all. The phrase is all too often used to try to draw the cloak of integrity over some god awful act of tyranny. There is no contract.
If you think there is, then please direct me to it.
Show me where I signed on for any of this crap.

We all benefit from living in a society, and we all have to contribute to that society.

Why? I mean why do we all have to have our property stolen from us for nothing of any value to us. Should not the money we pay toward the running of society have (a) limits and controls and (b) have some cognizable value to those who do the paying?

Look at the TN fire house that won’t put your fire out if you won’t pay.
If you want them to protect you, you pay. Simple as that.
I like that. If you live in a stone hut you shouldn’t need to pay for the firehouse.
If you prefer to purchase insurance then you shouldn’t need to pay for the firehouse.

The society determines what is in ‘the best interest’ and raise funds to pay for that ‘fairly.’

Fairly ? There is nothing fair about a tyranny of the majority.
That’s why we once had a constitutional republic with democratic processes: To protect us from that species of tyranny.
Now all we have is the tyranny of the majority. One party gets control and everyone else is royally screwed.

Greg wants in this specific case doesn’t cost any money. He is just looking for a little air time to ask people to reject the devisiveness that is often spewed by political candidates.

Oh well – - – - If that’s where you were going~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I got kind of caught up in the “spend my money to make other people conform” thing.

But you know me. I’m like that hornet’s nest, I get a whiff of communism and I’m locked loaded and coming in hot.

Cr1, face it, Muslims are moving into your basement whether you like it or not, lol.

Bring ‘em on. I treated for bugs by sprinkling Cobalt 60 dust around.
I’ll put a sign out that says Free rooms to Mooselims

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

We are free to be as preferential as we wish within the boundaries of those laws.
Preach it, brother. And you’re right, the Dali looked really content in that picture, almost festive;)

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

They might as well have added “SO THERE” to the end.

Actually they did make the statement ”Elections have consequences” Pelosi -
or Obama scolding McCain durin the healthcare ‘Summit’ about the promise of transparency to the process being told “the election is over John”

Now all we have is the tyranny of the majority. One party gets control and everyone else is royally screwed.
I hear that – - – that is exactly why the founding fathers did not Set up a democracy, because it always becomes Mob rule…Segregation and voting rights were all a result of bipartisan decisions of what the constitutional republic really meant to citizens. If it were just up to the “Majority” in each southern state you would still see flagrant discrimination – whites only water fountains and rosa parks would have been lynched

-- "_If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves_." Edison

“I didn’t help elect a single person who rammed death care down the throats of the nation. And they did it in secret and in total absence of even a tiny effort at by partisanship. It was tyranny. The statement from the left was : “I have ideas about how you should live your life and I’m going to use the police power of the state to force you and take your property to pay to make you do it too.”

That simply means they are better than you at pushing ideas. You had an equal chance and you lost. Whose fault is this? If the left is so smart to mount such an overwhelming global liberal conspiracy, coerce world governments, media, scientists, Hollywood, elves, and fairies, than they simply deserve to be your powerful overlords.
But I do agree with you that taxes are theft and we should push anarchy as a societal model down everyone’s throat. If that doesn’t work we’ll just move to Somalia.

That simply means they are better than you at pushing ideas. You had an equal chance and you lost. Whose fault is this?

Sooooooo Ummmmmm If I use a gun and ram my ideas down other people’s throats will you also applaud me for stepping above the other guys ability to compete?

That’s what you advocated.

You are trying to apply what makes sense in a free marketplace to a form of governance and the two don’t mix.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

Did they put gun to your head at the voting booth? Did they stop you from speaking or convincing people around you? Really? Take some responsibility, will you?

PS. No, I was actually advocating anarchy today.

Did they put gun to your head at the voting booth? Did they stop you from speaking or convincing people around you? Really? Take some responsibility, will you?

you are talking out of all three sides of your mouth. My votes have been nullified by a party that took control for a brief period and went on a communist spree. They didn’t need to put a gun to my head. They ignored everyone but themselves.

Do you think I wasn’t vociferous?
Do you?

They ignored all dissenting voices.
That’s not how a constitutional republic should operate.
That’s how you impose the tyranny of the majority on a people.

You will notice that their majority was short lived.
That was because they are really in the minority. The majority of people don’t agree with the Pelosi Hussein Hoyer Reed commies.

PS. No, I was actually advocating anarchy today.

Well that’s probably a good thing.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

You will notice that their majority was short lived.

Yeah so was Pearl Harbor, but there sure is a lot of damage done – and took a while to get the right outcome.

-- "_If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves_." Edison

How is it a war on traditional American values, wouldnt it be a war on traditional African values?

Fellow Americans, particularly people of faith, I am curious. What are your values?

Well mine are NOT supportive of the Crusades, Inquisition, KKK, etc. mentality that many of the ”people of faith” in this country seem to drool over in their desire to control the actions of others.

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

Moment – just wanted to say thanks for the effort in posting all the pics…it truly demonstrates how diverse we are, and whether we like the way that other people do things is or not is often a matter of opinion only. The pictures say a thousand words.

-- Neville, Calgary AB

Neville - Thanks , and i agree .

Mike – I know a lot of “people of faith” that also aren’t supportive of the items in your list. Most of my siblings, inlaws, aunts, uncles and cousins for starters. So it is very important to me to be accurate when referencing the entire group or a subset thereof. I thought it was quite safe to expect that your values were not ones Rick Perry was defending.

Patcollins – the “war” characterization was from someone I suspect has no concern whatsoever about African values. I also suspect his only concern about American values is how to use these code words to win votes.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

How is it a war on traditional American values, wouldnt it be a war on traditional African values?

!!~ ROTFL ~!!

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

GREG: I thought it was quite safe to expect that your values were not ones Rick Perry was defending.

You have to forgive me, here in Texas I have had to endure living under Governor Rick Perry cronyism for the past 21 years PLUS under Governor George “W” Bushwacked-in-the-Head for another 5 years before THAT. I sure missed Ann Richards departure…

Don’t EVEN get me started on “W”s 8 years in the WH…

And frankly IMO, Pat is CORRECT in that you mis-titled your thread’s purpose to match that of Perry’s false accusation. Sounds too much like a FauxNews Headliner. Just sayin’...

-- HorizontalMike -- "Woodpeckers understand..."

I never understood what the organized religions had against gays. I mean of course to them its a lifestyle of sin, but they don’t treat other sinners like that. What about the guy that swears alot, what about the promiscous people, etc. How is this sin worse than others? Are they afraid it will spread and make them gay? I just don’t get it.