I just read this "not political" exchange. Now I can't get the sound of banjos outta my head..

I always had the feeling that Obama's open "support" for Islam was a political move. (Not domestically) He does not appear to act on any strong religious motivations. I think he's been putting it out there to give the impression to the terrorist nut jobs out there that the USA is not just a nation of Ala hating infidels, that it us a place where all religions are respected including Islam. Making it known that the president himself has an Islamic back ground helps to make it seem more believable. There is no way to determine if this has had any sway in the minds of those who would want to attack the USA; probably not. On the other hand, it may enter the thoughts of those who are not so convinced that we need to be destroyed.

Unfortunately some people here, for whatever reason, think that it shows that he can't truely be American because he is Muslim.

Ethnocentricity can be obvious in others but very difficult to see in ourselves.

Squeal like a pig,'Wig!!

McFate wrote: I always had the feeling that Obama's open "support" for Islam was a political move. (Not domestically) He does not appear to act on any strong religious motivations. I think he's been putting it out there to give the impression to the terrorist nut jobs out there that the USA is not just a nation of Ala hating infidels, that it us a place where all religions are respected including Islam. Making it known that the president himself has an Islamic back ground helps to make it seem more believable. There is no way to determine if this has had any sway in the minds of those who would want to attack the USA; probably not. On the other hand, it may enter the thoughts of those who are not so convinced that we need to be destroyed.

Unfortunately some people here, for whatever reason, think that it shows that he can't truely be American because he is Muslim.

Ethnocetricity can be obvious in others but very difficult to see in ourselves.

Truth: U.S. Americans are one of the most ethno-, reiligious-, and nation-centric people in the world. I've spent much time working and living in southeast Asia, and traveled to Europe, and have many close friends in many different countries. This is truth in perception, and truth in reality.

As true as that is, set it aside for a moment and let's look at actions. A lot of questionable actions are being justified by the Opposite being accused as being racist or anti-religious. No other country allows non-citizens to pour over its border illegally like the U.S. But as SOON as someone objects, he is racist against Mexican Hispanics. Hmm, why aren't I called a racist toward Cambodian illegal immigrants, or Laotians? I have a problem with Anyone who invades (yes, I live in a southern border state, and Invades is the right word) my country, destroys our hospital care, raises our health care costs, causes car insurance rated to rise due to dramatically high uninsured accidents, etc. etc. Doesn't matter what color their skin is, what language they speak, or what religion they are. People who call Me a racist are playing a chicken-sh1t card, and somehow don't want to have a fact based debate.

Thr same racist (and parallel argument of anti-religion) has allowed many cities around the world to be heavily re-populated by Islam. At face value, we can argue that many places have transformed over history in similar ways, particularly due to war refugees. The resulting diversity has always been a positive thing, IMO. The question is, is it now? Is it really diversity, where EVERYONE (including the new residents) believes in love for all and acceptance of all peoples and religions? I can be convinced that the Mexican illegal immigrants to California ARE loving and accepting, and just want a better life. I know many folks both legal and illegal, and some are among the best people I know. I just wish our government had a better way to open the legal avenues a bit more, but still very controlled, so that people could come here legally and the costs could be above board. Anyway, ARE the Islam populations, citing a religion of peace and acceptance, like these other immigrants?

THAT is the question in my mind. Again, I've worked among largely Muslim dominated and mixed countries in southeast Asia, and a lot of my Muslim friends are solid folks. Really solid.

I don't know 100%, but I've never gotten a good vibe from our president in terms of honesty. He's a normal politician, so he lies and distorts to allow the betterment (in his mind) of the country. I don't know 100%, but I lean heavily toward believing that he has a longer term "good" in his mind, that slashes down the U.S. economically so that it sits humbly as a middle player. His college studies support this belief. I don't know 100%, but I lean toward him being a supporter (and apologist to) the extreme factions of Islam, despite his completing the hunt for Bin Laden, which I think was a sacrificial move for our president. I don't know 100%, but his bowing to Islamic cultures signals to me that he wants Islam to dominate the world population, maybe to keep down greedy non-Muslim capitalists from their "rule." I don't know 100%, but this president seems to dislike what America has become, and wants to give it a big haircut.

This is how I interpret his actions thus far. Frankly, George Bush had many of the same moves, but less focused on enabling Islam and more on just redistributing to poor countries whose natural resources were "strategic." But this current president by far seems to have a long term goal of American political and economic and cultural disembowelment that goes far past anyone I've seen.

But I don't know 100%.

Manfred

Singh how should I interpret your silence?

Most conservatives are not smart enough to understand that a large segment of liberals don't give a crap about all of the things they constantly whine about. They simply want to be in power, and they will use whatever tactic, including character assassination of their opponents, to get there and remain there. It's easy to make a hypocrite out of a guy who claims to have strict principles. Yet, if you have none, no one can say anything about whatever you choose to do. This keeps most bible thumping republicans on the defensive all of the time, so therefore they never have a chance to mount any meaningful offense. The other segment of the party doesn't want to be branded as a racist, sexist, or whatever because so many sheep will hear it, believe it, and not spend their money at their businesses etc. The liberals in this country do a brilliant job of exploiting this.

Unfortunately for them, some of us understand this game, and really don't give 2 shits how we offend you. Personally, if you want to have an objective discussion about the "issues" I'm all for it. I welcome it. Give me an intelligent counter argument to all of the things I believe and you will get my respect.

Call me a racist, sexist, hater, bigot, or scream Halliburton and I will no longer have any respect for you. At that point you just become something for me to laugh at, and I will never again take you seriously.

Picking and grinning Wig! How's it sound?

@ Manfred re: "the big hair cut"

So as you've lined it out, Obama wants to degrade the USA from being the biggest kid, with the biggest stick to being on an even playing status with everyone else? In this model the USA, and every other country should sign on and be subordinate to the United Nations? Actions requiring "International law inforcement" should be handled by the UN in which each country can present their case and actions will be determined by due process?

There are reasons this is compelling. Not all of them are liberal either. This can be taken as way to reduce the USA's military spending and use more taxpayer resources domestically. The issue here is that maintaining the dominant status and clout is getting tougher and more expensive. The money spent on being the global police is bleeding our resources. It cost a lot to send the military into Iraq and Afganistan. How was that paid for? It was done without raising taxes but it did not come from thin air. The home mortage industry was one of the greatest power houses of the economy and was responsible for much of what was coming into the treasury. Actually, some of it also did come from thin air as fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve. The problem is that creating more currency devalues what is already in circulation. It actually "steals" value from everyone who uses/has/gets paid in dollars. Another issue is that the Federal Reserve Bank (a privatly owned business which is neither Federal nor a Reserve) takes 10% of every dollar brought into existance. This means that when the the Federal Reserve bailed out the banks from their failed mortage losses the owners of the Fed got to keep 1/10 of all of funds. (How would you like to get in on that?) Keep in mind that the home mortage policies were recommended by Alan Greenspan. (Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2) BTW; by coincidence the meetings that were called about funding the Iraq war and mortage policy seemed to happen on the same days. (I looked into this myself years ago and it could be wrong) The possible conflicts of interest involved are mind boggling.

So can the UN, or any similar organization be worthy of the USA's trust? In order for the UN to be effective, the USA would have to be okay with being neutered. Not likely.

The other route seems to be constantly driving our economy to grow enough to literally over power everyone else including the EU and China. How is this going to work? Is this a constant arms race? What are the trade offs?

Those are some interesting points mcfate. Here's my question though: wasn't the un and nato created to police the world in the first place? If i remember correctly, it was supposed to be the place whereinternational disputes were to be handled without resorting to war and in the event that a foreign power was uncooperative the un and nato's military coalitions were to restore order. A fine idea, no doubt. But the problem therein lies with how after desert storm, the un's peacekeeping forces were continually defeated and humiliated,most notably by the notorious saddam hussein. It brings to question whether or not they are both properly equipped and trained, and whether or not they have the stomach for it. After the 24 pakistani soldiers were slaughtered in mogadishu, somalia in '93, it seems to me they lost their taste for it and turned instead to america to do their wet work for them. It just proves to me that an organization like that is doomed to fail just like the league of nations did.

Good points McF. I'd be a lot more compelled if the U.N. were purely about world peace. But it's not without its own political junk. No the U.S. isn't an innocent there by any means. I just mean that I don't trust the U.N., or any cross-national body, to do the right thing any more than I trust our government to do it.

Which always has led me back to less vs more. And I think you and I agree on some aspects of that.

Manfred

Well I think we should line them all up against a wall and tickle them with a feather..... .......Wait that didn't sound right... ..... Manny, Mc Fate, this sounds like something you two are better equipped and or versed to handle. I'll leave you two alone to tend to this.... Be gentle

Religion sure does cause a lot of hate doesnt it?

Hmmm, I don't remember the Bible or Qur'an saying anything about hating people... You know, besides saying to stone gay people and kill everyone who doesn't believe the same as thing you.

Maybe if people could stop killing eachother we could get some where as a species?

The Buddhists have it all figured out: end desire.

Greed takes over people, makes them invade countries for unnecessary resources, let others starve to death while they try to get another Ferrari...

I hope I don't sound like a hippie, but if saying "love thy neighbor" makes me sound bad, you need to rethink some things.

There will never be a form of government that wont be taken advantage of and eventually destroyed.

Socialism- a great idea, everyone works, everyone gets the same amount. Until, people slack off, make others work for them, their laziness and greed makes the system unfair

Capitalism- the one who works the hardest gets the most right? Until the super rich buy votes and politicians to make themselves richer

Totalitarianism- do I have to explain this one?

Democracy/republic- the people say what they want right? Unless the rich come in and bride people (politicians in republics and voters democracies) to vote for what betters them

Anarchy- there are categories of anarchy that still have the legal system, and without government, people have freedom

I'm sure there are types I'm forgetting, but my point is that no form of government will work with the current state of human nature. I might share my political views later, but I'll start with this.

Big C,

Short of anything else that might work, I'll pick the following, all working together:

Free capitalism
- Natural incentives for regular people to work harder and smarter to get more

Stop obvious corruption and conflicts of interest:
- Legislative reform, so pork doesn't create so much waste of tax dollars
- Campaign reform so corporations and rich individuals cannot buy and influence politicians
- Campaign reform so politicians cannot coerce corporations
- Investment reform, so that the SEC doesn't exempt elected officials from insider trading

Minimal government
- Military and intelligence for border defense, and some military to help with cross-national pressuring
- Fire fighting and disaster relief
- Law enforcement
- Legislation (a slim, lean, and mean version of today's legislation "industry")
- Judicial system, incarceration system
- Executive branch
- Social programs to help old, infirm, and the neediest of the needy
- Advanced technology funding, to motivate corporate investment in truly long-term ideas
(e.g. cancer research, truly advanced space exploration, and way-out-there science)
- Minimal regulation, to ensure health (e.g. FDA), environment (a much leaner version of what we have),
worker rights, civil rights, and fair corporate competition against foreign entities with less
enforcement of environmental and human rights than we have
- Bank the rest of annual tax revenues for spikes in disaster relief, military spending,
and periods of lower tax revenue / recessions

Did I miss anything? That's the backbone. If I started a new country, this would be the starting point.

Manfred

EDIT: By the way, both the Bible and Quran say to fight the disbelievers. Extremist Christians had their Crusades, and I would have opposed that vehemently if I had lived in those times. Extremist Muslims have (present tense) their jihad, against people whose only sin is capitalism, arrogance, and self-centeredness. Ok, so westerners aren't terrific humanitarians. But I simply don't think Death is a proportional response to all that. So, actually living in these times, I oppose extremist Muslim views of what to do with disbelievers. And I have a problem with a president who pays any credibility toward those factions. Just saying. And again, I don't know that 100%, but it sure smells bad to this nose.

Don't forget the feather

Nice cartoon. This is part 1. Youtube the rest if interested.





Bible says fight the disbelievers? Where did that come from? I've read Bible only about ten times, so I might have missed a place or two.

If you take a verse away from its context you might get some crazy ideas. Like:

"and he went away and hanged himself."

"Jesus said, “Go and do what he did.”"

I personally do not interpret the Bible that way.

But it's incontrovertible that Christians in the past have interpreted passages to this meaning. The Old Testament books do it mainly through stories of what God has done, although Deuteronomy has some rather tough passages that can be interpreted as Quran-like in their order of proactive intolerance. I had mentioned this for both Bible and Quran to neutralize the argument that I'm biased in favor of the Bible.

My only bias here is against anyone who kills offensively in the name of religion. Religious freedom does NOT include anyone's right to harm me or my family and friends, just because we are disbelievers or live a certain way. My government has lost much of that perspective, with its apologetic stance. Just as I don't blame non-Christians for eyeing post-Crusade Christians with some skepticism, I think it's fully reasonable to wonder aloud about Quran followers in this day and age where it's so difficult to discern between peaceful Muslims and those of extremist ideology. Basically, I have to judge each individual to his or her own merit. Until a group truly separates.from extremists and actively disavows them, I don't have a general group to embrace.

EDIT: Super vid! Not everyone viewing might agree 100%, but I guarantee that you will learn something you didn't know if you watch it, and Part 2 as well.

Sorry to Intrude. I wanted to comment with all of these carefully placed thoughts, but after reading through all of this I am, well...I will just have the pic do the talking!

M4rtin wrote: Sorry to Intrude. I wanted to comment with all of these carefully placed thoughts, but after reading through all of this I am, well...I will just have the pic do the talking!

Well, Dr Dave (thats me) Posted this picture (thats on page one) of Obama standing in front of a Muslim prayer curtain where as some other presidents were standing in front of the American Flag (all in same picture) and asked the question, What do you think?

So. In short, Dr Dave put this BIG POT of something NASTY out of the front porch and then put this here BIG ol STICK in it and started stirring and stirring and stirring. And now the neighbors are a fighten over whos pot stinks the worst.....

I love my job

Allied......just read your scripture and must say good show old chap. Indeed the crusades were crucial..bear with me here...needless people died yes but I wasnt there and it wasnt anything to do with me. However, the greatest document on the planet was created out of it.....the magna carta (I live a mile from the site upon which it was signed) the place is called runnymede in england u.k. ......now this I know to be fact but a few of you may not? It is a very special ledger which many of its governing rules were copied for the u.s. constitution. So ok there were deaths (and that sucks) but in the end we wouldnt be here now without it...so because of that... we are all playing df and getting heated when really we all need to have a beer and thank those guys long ago who created the foundations upon which most of us rely. Sorry if it offends anyone...just being informative.

Magna Carta

This article is about the charter issued on 15 June 1215, and later modified. For other uses, see Magna Carta (disambiguation)."Great Charter" redirects here. For the Irish law, seeGreat Charter of Ireland.Magna CartaOne of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106, property of theBritish LibraryCreated1215LocationVarious copiesAuthor(s)Barons of King John of EnglandMagna Carta (Latin for Great Charter),[1] also calledMagna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin in the year 1215.Magna Carta was the first document forced onto aKing of England by a group of his subjects, thefeudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights.The charter was an important part of the protracted historical process that led to the rule ofconstitutional law in the English speaking world. Magna Carta was important in the colonization of America as England's legal system was used as a model for many of the colonies as they were developing their own legal systems.The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.It was preceded and directly influenced by theCharter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry Ihad specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.It was translated into vernacular French as early as 1219,[2] and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statutebooks of England and Wales.Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denningdescribed it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[3] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status",[4] the others being theHabeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which survived to become a "sacred text".[5] In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the power of kings, but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New England[6] and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[7]

(This was quoted by wikipedia)

Comin' atcha from my friend Publius (look it up):

Why is it that folks can't learn that what our founders said was that (in line with Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, etc.) we were all born free. Now, the degree to which that was a good thing was debatable depending on who you talked to, but for each the real effort was seen as how to get all these naturally free folks (with varying degrees of good/bad in each) to come together in a CIVIL society. Y'know, a social compact that we would yield some degree of our freedom to provide simple things like rule of law, democratic decision-making through representative (not popular) government, government charged with providing for civil and national defense, and for protecting individual and constitutional rights.

That's a mouthful, but doesn't even hint at all the gray that comes through 220+ years of our evolution. What is not gray is that any individual or group of citizens have the right or responsibility to take up arms against ANY democratically elected officer of OUR government. The ill-informed who think Jefferson's last word was in the Declaration of Independence with regard to taking up arms have intellect as thin as rice paper. By the early-1800's, Jefferson renounced that as one of his dumbest ideas...that elections were how to institute change in a democratic system. Even a reflective Jefferson was able to remember that this was an effort to bring democracy into effect in a physically large, diversely populated, CIVIL system of self government…an effort that until then had failed in each and every instance.

Ours is an imperfect system. We blatantly allowed the slave economies to exist and prosper for 80 years after the ink dried on our Constitution. We marched entire tribes of Indians out of territory we wanted for no other reason but greed. Hell, for a long time, the City of Boston was prohibited from hiring people of Irish descent as police officers. (Go figure...) It has taken us another 150 + years and we still have difficulty parsing out who is or is not entitled to those Constitutional protections and privileges. If nothing else, you would think that the tragedy of our Civil War would still serve as a reminder as to why taking up arms is no way to resolve conflicts.

Ours is an imperfect system. We the people have always elected a diverse set of representatives – whether in local government, states, or at the federal level. But remember, we elect them, and when we finally get pissed off enough, we can throw them out. More troublesome, perhaps, is the impact of a federal court that can have far-reaching impact without any oversight. Remember, we went more than seventy years living with the wisdom of a ruling (Plessy v. Ferguson) that rationalized that so long as treatment and facilities were equal, then separate but equal treatment under the law was OK. It was not until the 1950’s that the old thinking on the court finally realized that the idea of separate and equal is inherently unequal. Separate treatment – in schools, bathrooms, restaurants, hotels, hiring, etc. etc. etc – is unconstitutional. It is courts that finally imposed requirements that alleged felons deserved representation in court, that there were limits on search and seizure, limits on free speech, and yes, limits on gun possession. Any and all of those rulings continue to have supporters and detractors, but in each case they’ve become law of the land.

Ours is an imperfect system. We allow money in politics to receive the same or better treatment than our free speech rights and the voting franchise. Look to who has the money to invest in political campaigns and you can look to the source of many of our problems (…and in my humble opinion this is not a partisan distinction!) I am not so crass to think money corrupts the politicians, but the money chases people with like interests. (By the way, that observation is supported by research: Please check it out if you wish.) Given how that warps the policy discussions, it’s not surprising Americans look for someone to blame. Once again, we need to look in the mirror. If you’re pissed about money in politics, write your representatives. Join like-minded groups to change how that works. Sitting on your ass and blaming everyone else for being corrupt may make you feel good, but accomplishes nothing.

We are an imperfect people. We express this in fits of violence, ignorance, bigotry, and invective. We get pissed, we look for someone to blame. Presidents are pretty used to it. Bush II took his lumps as an intellectual lightweight and political dilettante. History will no doubt suggest he’s somewhere between the extremes. But, even with that dislike, Bush was never subjected to the vilification and outright misrepresentations our current president has seen. Birthers? Really, c’mon. You can do better than that. By what fount of logic can any mother foresee their kid’s greatness to attempt to hide their kids birthplace. Obama as anything but a practicing Christian. Sorry guys, unless I’m reading conspiracy literature, this is totally off balance. The Kenyan connection. A pretty blatant vote grabbing tactic in any era. I am sure that somewhere you can find a source that will describe his Mother with horns and a tail. Attack the guy’s ideas, great. Attack the guy’s policies, great. Suggest unsupported allegations that at this point are pointless at best, then something else is at work. (I would by the way, caution against those who plan to use Canadian birth of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as a campaign attack tactic should he plan to run in 2016. Remember, attack ideas, policies! Or perhaps we should suggest he is an agent of Mexico City.)

I'm pretty sure Obama has become this lightening rod for multiple reasons, but the intensity of it suggests the death throes of a particular political/social culture. There is a hard core, die-hard element of our population that continues to hold to values/ideas that have eroded ever since the New Deal. The notion that government has some responsibility for the public welfare was and continues to be a big shocker for many. Then, "Oh My God", we have the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights, the extension of Constitutional rights and protections to women and gays, and finally...God forbid... the notion that Americans dying in the streets without access to healthcare is unacceptable...

Again, I find this is gross confusion of our reason for being the democracy we are. The American dream is about liberty, yes. But it is just as importantly about living together with mutual respect in a civil society. Our political system was built to make decisions for millions of Americans and all the diversity that represents. We have always had a multitude of positions on what’s right/wrong/legal/illegal. And as votes solidify around those positions, the political system has ALWAYS come around to those same positions. When you are on the losing side of the equation, it’s hard to remember that a majority of American voters apparently disagree with you. Remember: votes count. There are always winners and losers, but we get better representatives, better policies, when our elected representatives get clearer signals from the voting public. If you disagree, then make your voice and your vote heard. You may still lose, but maybe it won’t drive you quite as nuts. It is perhaps most difficult when we hold positions with absolute certainty. Hate to bust your bubble, but for the most part that only happens in Churches, Mosques, or Synagogues. Democratic process requires a compromise on almost everything: speech; religion; taxation; privacy; economics; welfare; healthcare; food safety; you name it. We have NEVER been an absolute anything – not an absolute free market; not an absolute Christian nation; not an absolute welfare state; nada, zip, bupkus. Our policies reflect democratic attempts to address issues in degrees. When you can only accept positions that are absolute, you are bound to be frustrated by our political results.

So, we can continue with the inflammatory language, the scare tactics about big government dictating your healthcare, undermining our moral fibre, or taking away your guns. They can wave flags, wear funny hats and costumes, be openly hostile, or gin up false accusations that supposedly justify disrespect for the highest office in the land. But, while it may take awhile, Americans usually do finally come around on the big subjects. When my father was born, the notion of civil rights was unthinkable in real world terms. The idea of access to healthcare as a right of citizenship??? OMG! Don't get me wrong: We still have our race problems. We still argue over access to polls. We still harbor antipathy toward gays and the poor. But just think back 40 years or so, and look where we've come. And, shocker, an African-American president...holy shit! Yes, sooner or later, voters will elect enough folks to office that we may even have some common-sense gun control that seriously limits defective human beings from walking into public schools and freely opening fire on children... or movie theaters, or political talking events. We can be stupid, but hopefully history will show we're not totally ignorant.

For those ready to paint me into some corner they find easy to understand, let me assure you, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. By some definitions that makes me a Libertarian, but I wouldn’t want to disappoint them. Unlike pure libertarians, I support a role for government in addressing issues defined by our democratic processes. I am as patriotic as they come, and with good reason. I know what alternative systems have to offer, and they pale by comparison. I have helped to balance public budgets and worked to limit taxation. I have voted Republican, Independent, and Democratic. I was a real Reagan Republican from the 1970’s through the 1980’s, and am disgusted by the pretenders of today. I support the rule of law and our efforts to promote a civil society. I hate paying taxes, but I understand that if I want clean water, good roads, better schools, safe food, and/or the protections of police, fire, or military organizations, I better shell out. In my lifetime I have been a hunter and black powder enthusiast. I support the Constitutional and legal protections that prevent government abuse of our Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. And, I support our democratic institutions. In the end, it is an extension of my respect for any and all citizens who choose to take ownership of our government, our representatives, and our policies and laws.

Folks, knee-jerk politics and ideology is real easy. Life is so much simpler when all you do is accept some particular dogma as the path to political nirvana (left or right, by the way) If you want to understand how the system really impacts you, question, research, compare. Facts and data are a hell of a lot better paths to understanding than Fox News or MSNBC. The talking heads have their own views and they love it when you unquestioningly buy into their version of accepted wisdom. Sure, life’s more complicated when you question accepted wisdom, but the rewards are incrementally greater. You might just start to feel like you’ve got some control over your own life.

That’s my piece. I doubt if it will disrupt the echo chamber, but it’s my attempt at reasonable discussion. I hope you find that for the most part it lacks invective, might include some germ of rational thought, is fundamentally sound in its interpretation of history and political theory, and just maybe helps you feel a bit better about this American system of self-governance we all love to beat on every once in a while. It is imperfect in an imperfect world. Often it is misinformed, misguided, mistaken. More often than not it means well, it strives to be better, it can reflect our better angels. And, it is ours, collectively. You may or may not agree with me, but my vote counts as much as yours and vice versa. The only time when that's not the case is when you don't show up at the polls. When we agree that majority rules, we better learn to get over it when we’re on the losing side of the issue. And trust me, I’ve lost more than I’ve won.

Publius

(Apologies to James Madison, but I can think of no more deserving author to emulate. If you really want to get into this, read The Federalist Papers, Common Sense, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States. Better to get a real handle on what our founding fathers really thought and did than rely on some present-day “face” on TV that wants to shift polls in some preferred direction.)

....The fact is America is not a "majority rule" system nor a "pure democracy"....we are a "Democratic Republic"....the fact remains the Founding Fathers set the "checks and balances" in place as I mentioned early to protect the minority views of people from the tyranny of the majority....What I mentioned earlier said that the current Obama administration and Democrat Congress have enacted some by Executive Order and others by changing rules to promote the tyranny from the majority... The fact remains the Founding Fathers wanted it difficult for government to enact policies because they knew that "absolute power corrupts"....There are ways to address all of those concerns Garbo without government always being involved and being involved in such a way that it hurts people from getting a job, raises the deficit and/or makes a nation to be less than full employment.


With regard to Bell, your picture seems to be an "over-generalization" of what the worst of a system can be that is currently not the case but it represents what "pure capitalism" is....."pure Capitalism" is not an ideal economic system nor "pure socialism"....Socialism is where government rules and dictates how much you make and earn and take away from those who hire workers....and is also a system that, if a nation doesn't have enough money, makes a country go bankrupt or at the very least can cause a nations economy to not be at full employment....Full Employment should be the goal of every nation's economy aka Greece, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc., etc. Even if a nation is not among those going bankrupt or hurting....it creates a greater possibility in the future of "less than full employment" for that specific nations economy.

Mad, interesting quotation you posted.

Just to clear things up, in case my post was misinterpreted, my point was that people wont be able to create a a system that works perfectly as long as some want to exploit it. I was not supporting any religion, I was trying to show how they all seem to inspire more hate than love. You might say that it is Islam that inspires hate, but why when someone points out that the Quran and the bible are very much the same, people get offended? Why when Christians hear something about islam they start talking about how they "need to nuke ery damned one of em"? (I'm not making that up, I've heard more than one person say that)

Both Jesus and Muhammad said "love thy neighbor" but people misinterpret what they say and turn it to hate.

Also, the truth is, while some people like to point at democrats or point at republicans to blame, it's not one thats at fault. Sure, Obama signed the NDAA of 2012 that allows for the indefinite detention of us citizens in internment camps set out it the law, but NDAA was preceded by bush signing the patriot act. There isn't going to be a big political party that "represents the people" they represent themselves and let the media make it look like they're helping you.

What he said, yup.

Oh lord he said "common sense gun control". Actually even worse, he copied and pasted it in. I'd better keep moving along...

I could spend all night on the copy paste job. There are points I agree with, but much I don't. The most laughable line for me was to the effect that his mother didn't know he would be president. No kidding? Could it be immigration fraud then? No... No one ever does that....

And maybe we can handle that gun control like we have the war on drugs. Man, we sure showed those cartels who was boss... I think... Didn't we???

Oh well. I've come to terms with the fact I'm not gonna change anyone's mind, but it sure is entertaining to take potshots sometimes.

Ok. Back quiet. Can't wait to see what comes up next. Moon landings anyone?

Wow! You guys amaze me!! 5 pages all about a gold brocade curtain!........can you do a bath towel next...please.

Flyingmuck wrote: Wow! You guys amaze me!! 5 pages all about a gold brocade curtain!........can you do a bath towel next...please.

I'll bet that wimp even uses pink towels. I mean... What kind of a President would use a pink towel? Crap! We are never going to get any respect anymore if people around the world know that. This guy is ruining America with his stupid pink towel. I used to be proud of my country, but it is just a joke now.

How's that Muck?

We went away from Economics to religion....but on this additional subject matter I have a few cents.....I will say that I respect all peoples right to have their own religion. One of my best friends in dogfight is a Muslim and we get along VERY well... However, I will kindly and respectfully say that I do not believe that the Quran and the Bible are the same...if one reads both, in their entirety and in an unbiased way, one will see so many differences between the two...I also dont believe the Bible promotes hate if one reads the entire Bible. I also will say that all groups no matter who they are have extremists in their groups. I will also say that I do not believe any group should be defined by the extremists in such a way as to reject every aspect of the group when in fact those extremists could and many times should be looked at as being "outside" of the group. What I have found is that many people, who come in with certain predispositions, use the extremists within a "so called" group as an excuse to reject the group as a whole...(on a side note) I have even heard of extremist Buddhists as well... Every group has them and no group is exempt from them as well. There are also on the other side of the coin people labeled as extremists who in fact are not...The who extremist thing has therefore problems on either side.

Let me add a couple of books that are VERY good which address the very subject matters that are being discussed here...These books are written by a man who was an atheist/agnostic who went out on a journey to disprove the Bible and was VERY hostile to it as well...his name is Josh MacDowell and the books he wrote are "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"....and "More than a Carpenter"...Josh MacDowell independently and individually went out to disprove the Bible and researched with contrast and comparison many different religions as well... These books are a very interesting read and I think many of you would enjoy them as well. I post these books not to be disrespectful to agnostic/atheist's...I just believe we all need to have all of the information available so as to make an honest decision one way or the other and people should be open to change when the evidence presents itself... thats all...

I look forward to seeing everyone on the thread in the skies....I just want to say you all are fun to play with.

Swop, come on mate. You say you're not being disrespectful, and then imply that athiests are ignorant. I respect your faith, you know that. You should respect other philosophical positions. You're preaching to mostly mature and educated people who are already booted and spurred for salvation or oblivion. Perhaps you should invest in a more impressionable audience somewhere else.
By the way, I was really enjoying this whacky thread. Right on you raging right, and long live the looney left. Sorry it was hijacked for a moment. Swop, don't answer here. Pm me. Let normal service resume.


p.s. Edit. I posted this before my first coffee of the day. A bit of over reaction from Ronnie as usual. Apologies Swop. Still learning the rules here.