Like Archie Bunker said "would it make you fell better if they were thrown out a window"

If someone is going to kill, lack of a weapon will not stop them.

Ah, but there is this other saying: "Opportunity makes the thief"

Maybe we should all have our private nuke in the garden...

Hmm.. isn't the second thing you said there because of the first? Parents aren't taking very good responsibility, I should say some parents, so the child needs to tell another adult about what's going on there. Like sometimes, as the saying goes " it takes a village to raise a child." And In this country , part of the village is Mc Donalds which is a place for lazy, uneducated parents to send their kids to get terrible nutrition.

Well, isn't enacting laws to make people conform what the right does here? The right doesn't want me to be able to smoke dope, or have sex with a prostitute or marry another of the same sex? Or what about teen pregnancy and the fact that the right wants to advocate that we insist on abstenance when we know that's not realistic. So we refuse to educate children about sex and then disallow condoms. Or what about the right's unwillingness to allow stem cell research? Isn't that a law set that could save many lives? But we disallow it because, why, because some think it's unethical or un-Christian or whatever.

I don't really think change is something that "gets enacted" . Change, in my opinion, is something that happens when people are willing to open up their minds and hearts to the possibilities. Throughout history, if people feel forced to make changes or think thoughts they don't want to think, it almost always is rejected. The people that end up being considered great tend to be those that never picked up a gun and showed their courage through non -violent means such as Gandi or Martin Luther King. Their acts opened up hearts and minds. And in turn, that's what I see as the problem we have in Iraq, our acts were violent. Some will say 'don't forget about the good deeds we did over there as well" But I can come raging into your house, guns held high, and then promise to fix your plumbing. How are you going to react?

And when it comes to the idea of taking responsibility, why is it that the more powerful one is, the less reponsibility one is asked to take? When was the last time we heard the CEO of a company say, "yep, I did a terrible job of running the company, so that's why the bank is bankrupt or the auto company is bankrupt. Therefore I'm going to give up the multimillion dollar pay I was going to receive because I don't deserve it" Or when was the last time you heard a corrupt politician admit that he or she did it? And when folks like that do get convicted for crimes, they get way less time than criminals that had way less actual effect on society. The above wouldn't be because those are the same people that wrote the laws and are involved in setting the punishment, would it?

Neil

Most of what you said is accurate.. and it goes to how the Nolan Graph that I've mentioned is constructed. The right likes the tighter controls on things that are "outside" their norm.. which unfortunately tends to be very religious... as you said - the education of children, abstinence, science, abortion, etc. Limiting "Personal Freedoms". But the right also believes in the working american that starts their business, works hard at getting their foot up, and being able to keep the money they make.

While the left would allow freedom in the more personal choices listed.. but they want the .gov to micromanage our finances, our businesses, our economies. A man/woman works for years to start a company, feeding their spouse and kids on barely enough to survive.. until such time that he/she starts making enough he hires an employee to help - and then has to send the bulk of his earnings BACK into his business to upgrade equipment/get larger.. still feeding his/her family off of scraps. Then, after several years, they MIGHT get lucky enough to have their business become well-oiled enough that they can take a break and get some things for themselves or their family... but the left comes in and strips all their new money away to help feed those more "needy".

This is why I don't like getting in the middle of political left/right debates. I think they both suck. Both sides are hypocritical in their alignments somewhere. Anarchy, or Totalitarianism are the only two that ever made any sense to me. You either want to the .gov to control your life.. or you don't.

And you wouldn't consider Abraham Lincoln great? He brought war here on our home-front.. american's killed american's.. but without which MLK would have been hung for ever daring to think he had a right to "Dream".

The worlds 100 greatest people:
http://www.sybervision.com/People/

Lets look at the "Political Leaders" category, since both your arguments fit into there:
Constantine - 2 civil wars
Charlemagne - Numerous wars
Queen Elizabeth I - She was considered great for non-combat related things.
Oliver Cromwell - Military commander, numerous conflicts.
Benjamin Franklin - American Revolution, assisted with Declaration of Independence.
Catherine the Great - Also, numerous foreign campaigns and wars.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln - need no introductions.
Susan B. Anthony - Like MLK worked mostly through civil disobedience.. although, interestingly, when she voted (illegaly) - She voted straight Republican .
Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt - Also need no mention
Then of Course, Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

I find your claim that mostly people who avoid violence are the ones considered "great"... at best you've got what, 1/3rd?

Sometimes violence is necessary. Sometimes peace is necessary. To completely avoid one in hopes to procure the other is to fail at both. MLK was a great man, I don't disagree.. but I've said before - If it wasn't for the constant crimes, the attacks, and all the other more violent things going on around that time.. I highly doubt his movement would have been as effective as it was. So a bunch of people sat down in front of a store in protest.. so what? That does about as much good as the protesters screaming at the LDS temple's over the proposition against gay marriages is doing. But a bunch of people throwing explosive bottles of alcohol and shooting each other in the streets... obviously that demands attention. And that woke the world up to the fact that "Ok.. something has got to change here." At least, IMHO.

I don't see either of those popular sentiments as true.

Yes, they are the positions one side claims to be or accuses the other of taking, but I look beyond the wild inflammatory rhetoric and at the actual voting records, judgments, and related actions by so-called representatives.

That analysis shows that what the right really favors is wealth concentration in the upper few percent. The alleged suport of small business is a Big Lie-- the right actually supports the Walmartification of America at the expense of small business. Just look at the actions of the FCC and FTC under Bush.

And while the left certainly has faults of its own (speaking collectively), historically small business owners have fared much better in leftward sociopolitical environments than the converse. How ironic. The alleged micromanagement is a myth perpetuated by the strident Limbaughs and Coulters of the world. Around 25% of voters typically buy into that Big Lie, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Just goes to show how willing we are to be misled, marginalized, codified, segregated, categorized and labeled. Ironically, I had to resort to the latter to make the point. That shows how inescapable this is, and how successful this insidious campaign by the 2 major parties has been. Both have utilized sneaky evils like political "correctness" to control debate and discussion... and the populace smiles and nods through it all like cattle in a slaughter pen.

Either extreme brings evil. There is little rationality in fringes. But polarity appeals to Americans, who like to sum up political leanings into neat but flawed encapsulated packages like "pro abortion" and "anti freedom". Even my wife voted based on singular issues this year, and I thought she knew better...

I could probably get on board with most of that Tex.

Although, voting history or not - I've seen both sides confirm that the way the other sides presents them as being the way they "intend" to go. The right "intends" to support small business, while the left "intends" to distribute wealth.

I was very surprised the Bush administration signed off on the completely ridiculous "Bailout"... which just goes to show that either Bush and his Administration isn't as "right" as we all thought they were...

Or the "Right" isn't the "Right" we thought IT was..

Thanks for the posts fatalsaint and texrat. I liked texrat's response about the business issues. I can elaborate latter given time.

Yes, we consider Abraham Lincoln geat, don't we. I would just say about that that the South still appears to resent what happened there. It appears many there have been wanting to reinstall that Confederate flag. And it took a Herculian effort by Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Bill. And the South to this day tends to be a very conservative area. So, I'm not sure the civil war really changed a lot of hearts and minds there. I think maybe they mostly learned to live with it.

As far as the left right thing, I get that. There are some principles such as parts of fiscal conservatism that I agree with from the right. In a big way, I wish that that faction of the right had been in control in the last eight years. But I tend to think of things in lefty / righty terms because that's what prevails now. Yep, it would be better to get beyond that I think.

Neil

I wish the two extremes would stick to their declared principles. It would make things so much clearer to the American voter. But they don't want that, do they? Better to muddle things up, keep us off balance and at each others' throats...

Ah, here is a day to talk about the "needy"
Thanksgiving day. Happy Thanksgiving!

I think there are so many ways to go about talking about what Fatalsaint said here. I think he has outlined the way the 'right' or Republicans like to think about money. I can't help but wonder why spending huge amounts of cash on creating a safe place to do business, such as having a military, is not a form of 'distributing money'? We also have a dayly distribution of wealth in the form of human energy and time. Mostly that wealth flows in an upward direction doesn't it?

And why do we seemingly want to villify the needy? Perhaps because we are not wanting to offer help? I just think this kind of thinking is a way to insulate oneself from the pain. But that's just my humble opinion.

Yep, ultimately I think both sides like to 'distribute' money. I just am tired of some suggesting that the 'needy' are a waste and coorporations and huge military expenditures are OK. I would suggest that rather than say we shouldn't help the needy, we should be asking how we can more effectively help them. In some parts of the world for example, the idea of microloans is being used. A small loan is made to someone wanting to set up a small enterprise. In this country, I think that sort of support is hard to come by on a small basis.

I understand there is a difference between a hand up and a hand out. But I also think we do better to realize that some really do need a hand up and that we are all better off if those folks are given such. I've been there and it did help.



Neil

The point is it should be my choice to do so. You want to offer tax cuts, breaks, or other benefits to "donating" to charity or giving money that's one thing...

when you want to force me to give money to people I don't know, without my consent, and without my input - there's a problem there. I have no problems giving people a "hand up".. but that should be my choice.

I do have a problem with people making a complete living off of welfare. I myself have used WIC (women, infant, children) when I started out, married at 17. I was on it for a little less than 6 months - joined the military to care for my family (plus to serve my country)... I used it as it was intended. To give me a start.

To many use it for free food and board.. and have no intentions of ever paying it back.

If I so choose to save the homeless... I'll go pick some up; get him/her a hotel room to take a bath.. and drive them to job interviews till they land one. Too many times I've handed money to people only to see them leave the gas station 5 minutes later with beer and cigarettes. I'm sorry, those are not necessities. Therefore.. I would prefer to choose when, where and to whom, I give my hard earned money.

It would be great if everyone that needed a hand, used that hand to get ahead instead of abused that hand and took advantage of it to be lazy at every chance they get.

But.. it's no matter. The great Pres-elect Obama is going to save us all and deliver us from the evil within our hearts.. making the world a perfect place.

I guess that's why I'm not religious..... I've never bought into fairy tales of happily ever afters. I don't trust that my government actually cares for me, not under any wing, and I certainly wouldn't trust anyone asking me to give up my ability to defend myself - or that wants to take away my money for the "greater good". Double-plus-ungood.

ETA: And Happy Thanksgiving to you as well