Thread Rating:
03-08-2012, 07:30 PM
judgementday Wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the federal government have more money than each individual state? Isn't that why you apply for disaster relief? IMO, if it were left up to each state to organize their own relief efforts, you would think it would not have the monies budgeted for such an expense and even if it did, that is more money taken away from state programs and universities.OK, you are wrong. Most states are required by law to balance their budgets, so none are deep in debt. The federal government ran a record deficit of $229 billion in February alone, which was a record 41st consecutive month of deficits. (The previous record was 11 months.) Fiscal Year 2012 will be the fourth straight $trillion+ federal deficit under Obama and as long as he is in the White House, there is no relief in sight. Every state in the country has more money or a smaller deficit than the federal government.
I think that we all agree that FEMA is broken and hopefully one day they correct the issues because on paper, FEMA has the necessary tools to really make a difference.
Like Beetle said, the states are not currently set up to take on FEMA's responsibilities immediately but could do so with a little time, but if the federal government has any legitimate role to play in natural disasters, it should be very limited.
(Sorry to pile on. I should have caught up on my reading before posting. I thought that I would be the first to correct your impression that Washington has more money than any individual state but I was too slow on the draw.)
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
03-08-2012, 07:31 PM
Wasn't it FEMA that shot throught billions of donated aid money in Louisiana as a result of hurricane Katrina?
ARTICLE EXCERPT
154,000 cases under review account for less than 10 percent of the $7 billion that FEMA has given to victims of the 2005 hurricanes through its individual assistance program. The recoupment effort doesn't apply to other big-dollar disaster aid programs, like Road Home, which was financed by a congressional block grant.
END EXCERPT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01...69584.html
I must admit, the Huffington Post is one of my favorite sources. BTW, the total amount FEMA is accused of wasting is FAR more than 7 billion. They gave money to people who weren't even residents of Louisiana, much less property owners, LOL Of course the state in question should be in charge of these matters. Not saying Kentucky in any way has their ducks in a row enough to actually do it, but they should.
ARTICLE EXCERPT
154,000 cases under review account for less than 10 percent of the $7 billion that FEMA has given to victims of the 2005 hurricanes through its individual assistance program. The recoupment effort doesn't apply to other big-dollar disaster aid programs, like Road Home, which was financed by a congressional block grant.
END EXCERPT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/01...69584.html
I must admit, the Huffington Post is one of my favorite sources. BTW, the total amount FEMA is accused of wasting is FAR more than 7 billion. They gave money to people who weren't even residents of Louisiana, much less property owners, LOL Of course the state in question should be in charge of these matters. Not saying Kentucky in any way has their ducks in a row enough to actually do it, but they should.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-09-2012, 01:21 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:OK, you are wrong. Most states are required by law to balance their budgets, so none are deep in debt. The federal government ran a record deficit of $229 billion in February alone, which was a record 41st consecutive month of deficits. (The previous record was 11 months.) Fiscal Year 2012 will be the fourth straight $trillion+ federal deficit under Obama and as long as he is in the White House, there is no relief in sight. Every state in the country has more money or a smaller deficit than the federal government.
Like Beetle said, the states are not currently set up to take on FEMA's responsibilities immediately but could do so with a little time, but if the federal government has any legitimate role to play in natural disasters, it should be very limited.
(Sorry to pile on. I should have caught up on my reading before posting. I thought that I would be the first to correct your impression that Washington has more money than any individual state but I was too slow on the draw.)
Then I stand corrected...
03-10-2012, 05:33 PM
First thing first, my county continues to pray for all of those that are in need and many are donating to private charities.
I want to know one thing and one thing only no opinions on this one... the money coming in right now helping the people in need right now, what percentage of that is coming from private organizations such as the red cross compared to that of FEMA... Remember money helping those people right now, not on assessments, not on estimates, but money going to people...
I believe that this should prove my point...
I want to know one thing and one thing only no opinions on this one... the money coming in right now helping the people in need right now, what percentage of that is coming from private organizations such as the red cross compared to that of FEMA... Remember money helping those people right now, not on assessments, not on estimates, but money going to people...
I believe that this should prove my point...
03-10-2012, 05:53 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
That includes it's people.
Here is the most common misrepresentation that some people make.
Provide for the general welfare....
well now what does that in compass...
healthcare, food stamps, medicare, medicade, etc
Some would say yes of course it does all American Citizens should be able to have the "right" to these things.
If that was the case why didn't our founding fathers include these "rights" in the bill of right... I mean it say clearly "general welfare", maybe they forgot these words...
or maybe, just maybe their interrpation is slightly different.
I do see up there to pay off the debts... that means nothing, it was a joke, at least you would think it was by looking at our congress.
I have learned a new chinese proverb though "it is better to teach a man to fish, than to give him one"... to bad we could not learn that lesson here in America.
As for my "heartless" self I will continue to brush up on these chinese sayings...
03-10-2012, 07:44 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:Here is the most common misrepresentation that some people make.Could it be you that's misinterpreting it? Whether you like it or not, or refuse to admit it, that clause allows the government to provide for disaster relief. You all, and Ron Paul might as well learn to accept it.
Provide for the general welfare....
well now what does that in compass...
healthcare, food stamps, medicare, medicade, etc
Some would say yes of course it does all American Citizens should be able to have the "right" to these things.
If that was the case why didn't our founding fathers include these "rights" in the bill of right... I mean it say clearly "general welfare", maybe they forgot these words...
or maybe, just maybe their interrpation is slightly different.
I do see up there to pay off the debts... that means nothing, it was a joke, at least you would think it was by looking at our congress.
I have learned a new chinese proverb though "it is better to teach a man to fish, than to give him one"... to bad we could not learn that lesson here in America.
As for my "heartless" self I will continue to brush up on these chinese sayings...
03-10-2012, 07:48 PM
Article 1, Section 8 -
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
•To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
•To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
•To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
•To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
•To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
•To establish post offices and post roads;
•To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
•To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
•To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
•To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
•To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
•To provide and maintain a navy;
•To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
•To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
•To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
•To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article one is really only talking about two things. Taxes and national defense. The "and general welfare of the United States" is in reference to the nation/union as a whole and refers to a peaceful and safe environment for the citizens, which is merely an expanded reference to "the common defense". The framers never intended for the federal govenment to govern the states. The states were to be sovereign entities and self governing. The federal government was necessary to establish rules of foreign trade, taxes, and national defense. Never was it suggested in any document that the federal government could give money to the states since the only money (and power) it would ever have, was to come FROM the states.
Every bit of this humanitarian aid, whether it be to Haiti or Japan or anywhere else is unauthorized by the constitution if you ask me. In principle I have no problem with the existence of the Federal Disaster Relief Fund. It's a good idea and obviously necessary. The managing federal agency over the fund, FEMA is a federal joke and should likely be done away with. Every state should have a managing agency to distribute emergency funds at the state level instead of the circus that is FEMA. But, I would like to ask one question. Why am I paying, sacrificially I would point out, for health insurance and home owners insurance, car insurance, etc? If it's a moral issue that the government is to protect citizens from real loss I'm getting hosed. And I would point out, the vast majority of property owners who suffered loss in hurricane Katrina were insured.
In the example about old people having to choose between insurance or food, or insurance or medicine. The government giveth social security but, it taketh back away in the form of taxation on social security. If we want to give folks a tax exemption based on need, why don't we exempt the old and sick instead of the young and healthy? What is it now, 53% of working Americans don't pay income tax? What's going to happen when they get old? Are they then going to pay taxes on social security? Young people don't have to choose between sex and abstinence these days. Matter of fact, thanks to your federal government they have a life long membersip in the carte blanche club. That's right kiddies! Live any way you want to, have as many out of wedlock children as you want to. You don't need to worry about a place to live or working or health care or food, heck we'll supply all of that stuff. Uncle Sam will even provide you with a cell phone so that you don't take any social backwater. The old people were responsible and worked for what they got and they don't deserve to live in misery during their old age. I guess the plan is to fleece them till they hit the grave.
Those that should be taken care of are left to their own devices. And, those that should be out there fending for themselves are national pets.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
•To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
•To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
•To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
•To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
•To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
•To establish post offices and post roads;
•To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
•To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
•To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
•To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
•To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
•To provide and maintain a navy;
•To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
•To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
•To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
•To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;
And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article one is really only talking about two things. Taxes and national defense. The "and general welfare of the United States" is in reference to the nation/union as a whole and refers to a peaceful and safe environment for the citizens, which is merely an expanded reference to "the common defense". The framers never intended for the federal govenment to govern the states. The states were to be sovereign entities and self governing. The federal government was necessary to establish rules of foreign trade, taxes, and national defense. Never was it suggested in any document that the federal government could give money to the states since the only money (and power) it would ever have, was to come FROM the states.
Every bit of this humanitarian aid, whether it be to Haiti or Japan or anywhere else is unauthorized by the constitution if you ask me. In principle I have no problem with the existence of the Federal Disaster Relief Fund. It's a good idea and obviously necessary. The managing federal agency over the fund, FEMA is a federal joke and should likely be done away with. Every state should have a managing agency to distribute emergency funds at the state level instead of the circus that is FEMA. But, I would like to ask one question. Why am I paying, sacrificially I would point out, for health insurance and home owners insurance, car insurance, etc? If it's a moral issue that the government is to protect citizens from real loss I'm getting hosed. And I would point out, the vast majority of property owners who suffered loss in hurricane Katrina were insured.
In the example about old people having to choose between insurance or food, or insurance or medicine. The government giveth social security but, it taketh back away in the form of taxation on social security. If we want to give folks a tax exemption based on need, why don't we exempt the old and sick instead of the young and healthy? What is it now, 53% of working Americans don't pay income tax? What's going to happen when they get old? Are they then going to pay taxes on social security? Young people don't have to choose between sex and abstinence these days. Matter of fact, thanks to your federal government they have a life long membersip in the carte blanche club. That's right kiddies! Live any way you want to, have as many out of wedlock children as you want to. You don't need to worry about a place to live or working or health care or food, heck we'll supply all of that stuff. Uncle Sam will even provide you with a cell phone so that you don't take any social backwater. The old people were responsible and worked for what they got and they don't deserve to live in misery during their old age. I guess the plan is to fleece them till they hit the grave.
Those that should be taken care of are left to their own devices. And, those that should be out there fending for themselves are national pets.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-10-2012, 08:00 PM
^History proves your interpretation wrong. I agree with half of what you say.
03-10-2012, 10:20 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:^History proves your interpretation wrong. I agree with half of what you say.
Wow! This is good news. You have closed the gap from being completely wrong to being only half wrong. :Clap:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-10-2012, 10:32 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:Wow! This is good news. You have closed the gap from being completely wrong to being only half wrong. :Clap:Are you a carpenter, or a constitutional lawyer? It means what it says, and history proves it.
03-10-2012, 11:32 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:Are you a carpenter, or a constitutional lawyer? It means what it says, and history proves it.
I was trying to be lighthearted RV. But, since you asked. When I went to school we studied civics. I was taught the constitution was written in clear and simple terms so that the average American citizen could comprehend the founding father's true meaning. It literally took a Philadelphia lawyer to wrangle and distort the meaning to the point where it is the jumbled mess interptretation wise, it is today. Hence, the liberal argues to redefine it, and in some cases, to rewrite it in order to facilitate their own ends. Just guessing here, I suppose you mean history from the Johnson Era forward?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-10-2012, 11:59 PM
I see where you say you have no problem providing relief in disasters, so I guess I really have no debate with you on this subject.
03-11-2012, 10:22 PM
Interesting... I believe in one way, people believe in another... I think they are heartless... because I say so... I dictate what others should do with their money... because I say so... this is why I strongly disagree with the left!
I could also make the arguement against the right... people should live to my moral code... I dictate who can sleep with who... I can dictate who can buy what from whom... because I say so...
so much for liberty, personal responsiblity, personal choice... again because I am right and anyone who disagree's is just heartless
I could also make the arguement against the right... people should live to my moral code... I dictate who can sleep with who... I can dictate who can buy what from whom... because I say so...
so much for liberty, personal responsiblity, personal choice... again because I am right and anyone who disagree's is just heartless
03-11-2012, 10:27 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:I see where you say you have no problem providing relief in disasters, so I guess I really have no debate with you on this subject.
I want to point out that I have no problem providing relief in disasters, I give to the red cross for these things... it is a part of life and people do need a helping hand... however, I choose to do this... not forced.
Less bureacracy means more money for the folks that need it and not Bob who earns 50 to 60 thousand a year out of the money sent.
Has anyone found out which is helping people more right now... private donations or FEMA? I am still very curious on this.
03-12-2012, 06:59 PM
tvtimeout Wrote:Interesting... I believe in one way, people believe in another... I think they are heartless... because I say so... I dictate what others should do with their money... because I say so... this is why I strongly disagree with the left!
I could also make the arguement against the right... people should live to my moral code... I dictate who can sleep with who... I can dictate who can buy what from whom... because I say so...
so much for liberty, personal responsiblity, personal choice... again because I am right and anyone who disagree's is just heartless
You're assessment about the left is fair. I believe you are completely wrong about the right however. Listen, it is God's moral code. People on the right believe God to be the authority when it comes to morals. People on the right don't think they can tell others who to sleep with. The Lord has made Himself more than clear on the matter. In a nut shell, conservatives don't believe they have the right to tell anyone how they should live. God already provided that information in His Holy Word. Nor do conservatives have the right to judge others because of their lifestyle, again God has said, He is the Judge. We are to try to help others find their way to knowledge of the truth by pointing out the distinction of what He calls wrong, that men errantly call right. Even if the courts rule against the precepts of God. Why is there so much confusion on this matter?
tvtimeout Wrote:I want to point out that I have no problem providing relief in disasters, I give to the red cross for these things... it is a part of life and people do need a helping hand... however, I choose to do this... not forced.
Less bureacracy means more money for the folks that need it and not Bob who earns 50 to 60 thousand a year out of the money sent.
Has anyone found out which is helping people more right now... private donations or FEMA? I am still very curious on this.
I don't know who has given the most but, I know who gave first. Churches from our region stepped up first with goods and services.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-12-2012, 08:34 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:[B]You're assessment about the left is fair. I believe you are completely wrong about the right however.[/B] Listen, it is God's moral code. People on the right believe God to be the authority when it comes to morals. People on the right don't think they can tell others who to sleep with. The Lord has made Himself more than clear on the matter. In a nut shell, conservatives don't believe they have the right to tell anyone how they should live. God already provided that information in His Holy Word. Nor do conservatives have the right to judge others because of their lifestyle, again God has said, He is the Judge. We are to try to help others find their way to knowledge of the truth by pointing out the distinction of what He calls wrong, that men errantly call right. Even if the courts rule against the precepts of God. Why is there so much confusion on this matter?
I don't know who has given the most but, I know who gave first. Churches from our region stepped up first with goods and services.
I almost pissed my Pants. With the Bold.
But not everyone believes in God. Why should they have to obey his code? IF you lives in A Muslim land should you have to follow there religious Laws?
I know plenty of Non Christian Groups that have been out helping people Since Day one. And i KNow Churches that have been open since day one providing shelter and food for Everyone.
You do not have to be a Christian to be a great caring person that would help anyone.
03-12-2012, 09:02 PM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:I almost pissed my Pants. With the Bold.You know he is going to agree with any assessment against the left and disagree with anything that is said against the right. I don't believe in his christian god, and that code doesn't apply to me, or the government. "God's moral code" doesn't mean squat in the US, other than for christians.
But not everyone believes in God. Why should they have to obey his code? IF you lives in A Muslim land should you have to follow there religious Laws?
I know plenty of Non Christian Groups that have been out helping people Since Day one. And i KNow Churches that have been open since day one providing shelter and food for Everyone.
You do not have to be a Christian to be a great caring person that would help anyone.
03-12-2012, 11:19 PM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:I almost pissed my Pants. With the Bold.
But not everyone believes in God. (1) Why should they have to obey his code? IF you lives in A Muslim land should you have to follow there religious Laws?
I know plenty of Non Christian Groups that have been out helping people Since Day one. And i KNow Churches that have been open since day one providing shelter and food for Everyone.
(2) You do not have to be a Christian to be a great caring person that would help anyone.
If you would try reading posts once in a while you might not embarass yourself so often. Here is what I posted---
(1) In a nut shell, conservatives don't believe they have the right to tell anyone how they should live. God already provided that information in His Holy Word. Nor do conservatives have the right to judge others because of their lifestyle, again God has said, He is the Judge.
By all means Wildcat, live any way you want. You will never see a post I ever made that would suggest you are bound to "have to obey His code". You have every right to contradict every part of God's law.
(2) tvtimeout is the one asking a question which I answered. The question was who had given the most, private donors or FEMA? All I was saying was that churches were the among the first to respond to the folks ravenged by the tornados.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-13-2012, 01:51 AM
TheRealThing Wrote:If you would try reading posts once in a while you might not embarass yourself so often. Here is what I posted---
(1) In a nut shell, conservatives don't believe they have the right to tell anyone how they should live. God already provided that information in His Holy Word. Nor do conservatives have the right to judge others because of their lifestyle, again God has said, He is the Judge.
By all means Wildcat, live any way you want. You will never see a post I ever made that would the you are bound to "have to obey His code". You have every right to contradict every part of God's law.
(2) tvtimeout is the one asking a question which I answered. The question was who had given the most, private donors or FEMA? All I was saying was that churches were the among the first to respond to the folks ravenged by the tornados.
1. Conservatives tell people how to live every day. They follow gods code. Which tells non believers what there allowed to do everyday.
2. You said churches was the first helping. Not among.
03-13-2012, 02:13 AM
If we could have one thread where religion doesnt come into play, and we actually look at whats going on in our government and how horrible this economy has become, than i think we'd be a lot better off.
Im a believer just like most Americans, Christian by faith, but all politics has become is religion talks, are the gays being treated fairly and who made a racist comment today.
Its no wonder were sinking.
Im a believer just like most Americans, Christian by faith, but all politics has become is religion talks, are the gays being treated fairly and who made a racist comment today.
Its no wonder were sinking.
03-13-2012, 11:49 AM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:If we could have one thread where religion doesnt come into play, and we actually look at whats going on in our government and how horrible this economy has become, than i think we'd be a lot better off.
Im a believer just like most Americans, Christian by faith, but all politics has become is religion talks, are the gays being treated fairly and who made a racist comment today.
Its no wonder were sinking.
I am a christian and even a deacon. However, I am also Baptist which believes in personal interpretation. I figure that my personal beliefs are just that personal... however, in discussing politics, most come by choosing upon those beliefs.Therefore they do become intangled.
Our country is about the same as it always was it except at the beginning...federalist anti-federalist, to republican to democrat.
I have stated many times that I am a libertarian a registered one in fact... Ron Paul appeals to me in this time and the stance on FEMA, federal reserve, foreign policy.
It address many of the issues that you are concerned with, I would recommend taking a look!
03-17-2012, 11:39 PM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:1. Conservatives tell people how to live every day. They follow gods code. Which tells non believers what there allowed to do everyday.
2. You said churches was the first helping. Not among.
Sorry to take so long to get back on this, had to take a little fishing trip.
Actually I said churches were the first to deliver GOODS and services.
And they were among the first responders, and that's not to say there weren't volunteers there that were not associated with a church. Just making sure I was politically correct to satisfy my liberal friends.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-18-2012, 12:22 AM
TheRealThing Wrote:[/B]The scale of what the church can do to help these people rebuild and what FEMA is able to are worlds apart. The churches did good providing food and handing out clothing that was donated to them to give out. But, as far as helping these people find housing, and money to get back on their feet, you will see a non existence of churches when it comes to that aspect. They can't come up with funds to do that for people. They did a good job in what they were able to do, but their job is over now, for the most part.
Sorry to take so long to get back on this, had to take a little fishing trip.
Actually I said churches were the first to deliver GOODS and services.
And they were among the first responders, and that's not to say there weren't volunteers there that were not associated with a church. Just making sure I was politically correct to satisfy my liberal friends.
03-18-2012, 12:43 AM
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:If we could have one thread where religion doesnt come into play, and we actually look at whats going on in our government and how horrible this economy has become, than i think we'd be a lot better off.
Im a believer just like most Americans, Christian by faith, but all politics has become is religion talks, are the gays being treated fairly and who made a racist comment today.
Its no wonder were sinking.
I wasn't preaching RUTG. It does get a little tiresome reading how Christians supposedly try to tell other folks how to live. That's all I was responding to, and I pointed out that God is the One who tells folks how to live. I agree with much of what you said, and my posts reflect that. I'm comfortable citing the ultimate authority when it comes to moral issues, I hope that doesn't offend you. :biggrin:
I am very concerned about what is going on in our government. What once made our government dynamic and effective in recent years past has come under attack. When the liberal succeeded in making it taboo to mention Christian precepts in our persuit of governance we lost the authority on which we had based our notions of what was right and wrong. This argument centering around the so called seperation of church and state, as interpreted by the liberal, has had the effect of causing this nation to become nearly impotent.
On the national scene we hear Leon Panetta making the absurd assertion that the United States must now get permission from the United Nations to prosecute a military action in order to defend our own interests. Which, makes us subject to the UN, in other words we find ourselves in a position where we are not a sovereign nation any more. He suggests we have to now ask permission of the UN if we want to undertake a military action against Iran. We can't bust terrorists at the border because we are more concerned about racial profiling than national security.
Meanwhile at home, we see the US Senate in gridlock due to the fact that nothing can be settled anymore. Everything is debatable, there are no absolutes. In fact, colleges now push that very philosphy. They contend there are no absolutes, thusly rendering any subject based in social thought, such as humanities, a wasteland of endless debate. Liberals would much rather agrue about air quality and are more concerned about global warming than the spiraling out of control fossil fuels prices and other energy costs. If ever a man's own words were an indictment of his policies, Mr Obama's are, I will never forget this quote; "under my plan electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket" I don't know why it hasn't dawned on most folks but the American way of life cannot survive with European style high enery costs. This president has even said he would like to see gasoline get up to around $5 dollars a gallon.
There is only one way to win the argument, and that is to vote out Mr Obama and as many bleeding-heart liberals as possible this election cycle.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-18-2012, 05:26 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:I wasn't preaching RUTG. It does get a little tiresome reading how Christians supposedly try to tell other folks how to live. That's all I was responding to, and I pointed out that God is the One who tells folks how to live. I agree with much of what you said, and my posts reflect that. I'm comfortable citing the ultimate authority when it comes to moral issues, I hope that doesn't offend you. :biggrin:That is exactly what you all do. The bothersome part is that you want your voice on moral issues be heard in Washington, and interfere in peoples' personal business by way of laws(ex: gay marriage). If it was just on a local person to person level, it wouldn't be bad at all, the people could tell you to "screw off, go to hell, and mind you own business". But no, you have to try to delegate rules and laws at the governmental level.
I am very concerned about what is going on in our government. What once made our government dynamic and effective in recent years past has come under attack. When the liberal succeeded in making it taboo to mention Christian precepts in our persuit of governance we lost the authority on which we had based our notions of what was right and wrong. This argument centering around the so called seperation of church and state, as interpreted by the liberal, has had the effect of causing this nation to become nearly impotent.
On the national scene we hear Leon Panetta making the absurd assertion that the United States must now get permission from the United Nations to prosecute a military action in order to defend our own interests. Which, makes us subject to the UN, in other words we find ourselves in a position where we are not a sovereign nation any more. He suggests we have to now ask permission of the UN if we want to undertake a military action against Iran. We can't bust terrorists at the border because we are more concerned about racial profiling than national security.
Meanwhile at home, we see the US Senate in gridlock due to the fact that nothing can be settled anymore. Everything is debatable, there are no absolutes. In fact, colleges now push that very philosphy. They contend there are no absolutes, thusly rendering any subject based in social thought, such as humanities, a wasteland of endless debate. Liberals would much rather agrue about air quality and are more concerned about global warming than the spiraling out of control fossil fuels prices and other energy costs. If ever a man's own words were an indictment of his policies, Mr Obama's are, I will never forget this quote; "under my plan electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket" I don't know why it hasn't dawned on most folks but the American way of life cannot survive with European style high enery costs. This president has even said he would like to see gasoline get up to around $5 dollars a gallon.
There is only one way to win the argument, and that is to vote out Mr Obama and as many bleeding-heart liberals as possible this election cycle.
03-18-2012, 05:51 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:That is exactly what you all do. The bothersome part is that you want your voice on moral issues be heard in Washington, and interfere in peoples' personal business by way of laws(ex: gay marriage). If it was just on a local person to person level, it wouldn't be bad at all, the people could tell you to "screw off, go to hell, and mind you own business". But no, you have to try to delegate rules and laws at the governmental level.
I agree with this statement 100%, however, you forget about the left that wants to force me to pay for their behavior, which is just as much of an assult on my personal liberties as the moral code.
03-18-2012, 06:03 PM
Telling other people how to live is exactly what liberals do and yet they are the most vocal to complain when the shoe is on the other foot. Liberals like Obama are constantly trying to control people's behavior for what they believe is the "greater good." They are not content with spending their own money as they see fit, they want to spend everybody else's money as they see fit and enact punitive taxes to accomplish their goals. They lecture us for driving cars that they believe are too big and for not car pooling or using public transportation that we are forced to subsidize.
There is no aspect of our persona lives over which liberals are not salivating at the prospect of exercising their control. Their can be no personal liberty without economic liberty and tyrants like Obama scheme every single day about how to shackle our free market system.
There is no aspect of our persona lives over which liberals are not salivating at the prospect of exercising their control. Their can be no personal liberty without economic liberty and tyrants like Obama scheme every single day about how to shackle our free market system.
03-18-2012, 09:17 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Telling other people how to live is exactly what liberals do and yet they are the most vocal to complain when the shoe is on the other foot. Liberals like Obama are constantly trying to control people's behavior for what they believe is the "greater good." They are not content with spending their own money as they see fit, they want to spend everybody else's money as they see fit and enact punitive taxes to accomplish their goals. They lecture us for driving cars that they believe are too big and for not car pooling or using public transportation that we are forced to subsidize.
There is no aspect of our persona lives over which liberals are not salivating at the prospect of exercising their control. Their can be no personal liberty without economic liberty and tyrants like Obama scheme every single day about how to shackle our free market system.
This is exactly right and there is a reason why they feel this way. The liberal loathes everything about the right. Therefore they delight in tearing down the house (America the beautiful) that conservatives built. Just having the freedom to achieve the American Dream isn't good enough for the liberal, he believes free housing, free food, free medical care, free education, free cell phones, free from responsibility, are human rights. In the mind of the liberal no matter what need may arise, from disaster relief to subsidizing and nurturing the sexuallly depraved, from the cradle to the grave, the government's role is to fund it all. And, if the funds begin to run short all they have to do is raise taxes to meet the entitlement demand. Liberals think the constitution guarantees the 'life of Riley' to one and all, due to a misinterpretation of this; The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Now, since the liberal loathes everything about the right the end always justifies the means with them. Lying to gain a political advantage means nothing to the liberal. The hatred the left has for the right is perfectly illustrated by a concept presented by John Milton in his epic poem "Paradise Lost". The lost Arch Angel Satan speaks, "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven". It's remarkable to me to watch the social currs argue against everything that makes sense. The residents of paradise pollute and destroy the alabaster temple for the thrill of vandalism. Like the book burners of Nuremberg, men's minds, once lit by knowledge and the light of freedom, now take a willing descent into darkness.
Hoot, you've hit on a simple but profoundly impactful truth. The reason the liberal is "salvating at the prospect of exercising their control" is because they want to defeat the conservative, not just out vote them, they want them destroyed as a party and following that they want to control them. I keep saying, this stuff isn't politics, rather the liberal uses politics to influence lawmakers and the courts to LEGISLATE THE CONSERVATIVE INTO SUBMISSION. The willing legions of college grads, freshly belched out of the liberal brain washing factories which, at one time were respectable centers of higher learning, like robots, go out to spred their liberal humanism. There comes a time or a point, when as a nation, we cross one too many lines and it then becomes impossible to return to 'normal'. I believe it's possible this has already happened for America. However, if it isn't too late anybody who has any love of country at all, better get to the polls this election cycle and elect a new president to the white house. One that will give us a chance to at least, partially redeem ourselves. Of the three viable republicans remaining, any would be capable of filling the bill.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
03-18-2012, 09:38 PM
TheRealThing Wrote:This is exactly right and there is a reason why they feel this way. The liberal loathes everything about the right. Therefore they delight in tearing down the house (America the beautiful) that conservatives built. Just having the freedom to achieve the American Dream isn't good enough for the liberal, he believes free housing, free food, free medical care, free education, free cell phones, free from responsibility, are human rights. In the mind of the liberal no matter what need may arise, from disaster relief to subsidizing and nurturing the sexuallly depraved, from the cradle to the grave, the government's role is to fund it all. And, if the funds begin to run short all they have to do is raise taxes to meet the entitlement demand. Liberals think the constitution guarantees the 'life of Riley' to one and all, due to a misinterpretation of this; The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;The death of the conservative is a good thing. I hope how soon it happens. Yet, you all say you have the voting majority, how can we vote the conservative out of existence?
Now, since the liberal loathes everything about the right the end always justifies the means with them. Lying to gain a political advantage means nothing to the liberal. The hatred the left has for the right is perfectly illustrated by a concept presented by John Milton in his epic poem "Paradise Lost". The lost Arch Angel Satan speaks, "Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven". It's remarkable to me to watch the social currs argue against everything that makes sense. The residents of paradise pollute and destroy the alabaster temple for the thrill of vandalism. Like the book burners of Nuremberg, men's minds, once lit by knowledge and the light of freedom, now take a willing descent into darkness.
Hoot, you've hit on a simple but profoundly impactful truth. The reason the liberal is "salvating at the prospect of exercising their control" is because they want to defeat the conservative, not just out vote them, they want them destroyed as a party and following that they want to control them. I keep saying, this stuff isn't politics, rather the liberal uses politics to influence lawmakers and the courts to LEGISLATE THE CONSERVATIVE INTO SUBMISSION. The willing legions of college grads, freshly belched out of the liberal brain washing factories which, at one time were respectable centers of higher learning, like robots, go out to spred their liberal humanism. There comes a time or a point, when as a nation, we cross one too many lines and it then becomes impossible to return to 'normal'. I believe it's possible this has already happened for America. However, if it isn't too late anybody who has any love of country at all, better get to the polls this election cycle and elect a new president to the white house. One that will give us a chance to at least, partially redeem ourselves. Of the three viable republicans remaining, any would be capable of filling the bill.
03-18-2012, 09:40 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:The death of the conservative is a good thing. I hope how soon it happens. Yet, you all say you have the voting majority, how can we vote the conservative out of existence?
Get back to me on that AFTER this coming election.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)
