Originally posted by Karnak:
mietla,
Whatever.
I'm not sure what you are trying to convey in this "sentence".
You gotta hate those evil, conniving Liberals. After all they are just out to intentionally ruin the country.
[/b]
Why would you use this kind of the hollow and ineffective "You disagree with me, therefore you hate me, therefore you are a bigot, therefore you are an idiot, therefore I win the discussion" type of argument.
No, I do not hate liberals (or anyone else for this matter). I do respect you and I do tolerate your views. Rejection is a more appropriate term. I do reject liberalism/socialism/communism and the rest of the self-proclaimed "progressive" ideologies, because I do think that (as you said in a quote above):
"they are just out to intentionally ruin the country"In any nation (or any social group for that matter) if you punish the achievement, self-reliance and initiative and reward incompetence, laziness and non-achievement, within 2-3 generations you'll get less of the former and way more of the later. People start actually think that the government owes them things just because they were born, and that those things must come without strings attached.
"I want it, therefore I need it, therefore I deserve it, therefore someone better provides it to me, and do it now damn it" attitude.
I've not only seen that with my own eyes, I've lived it.
I my view, no one owe anything to anyone else (except for the parent-child relationship). “You want it, earn it”, is my motto and believe it or not I practiced it all my life.
Thank God for the Noble Republicans who can't tell a lie.
[/b]
I don't think the reps are much better than libs. They also want/need a big government, they just want to piss away the loot a bit differently. Besides, they have no balls. If they really stood for what they claim to stand for, I might give them a look. As it is now, it is simply a lesser evil.
I can't believe anybody could fall for that crap.
[/b]
I don't fall for it. See above.
Both Bush and Gore want to improve things in this country, they just have different ideas on how to do that.
[/b]
Neither of them could care less about the country. They both want power, that’s all. Besides, it is not their business to improve things. The Constitution clearly limits the scope of the federal government. There are very few things the Constitution allows them to do, the primary being the defense of a nation. This includes a defense of the Constitution itself (remember the President's oath), the sovereignty of the USA, conducting the foreign policy for the benefit of
this nation, and yes the defense of the borders against the foreign invasion, armed or unarmed.
And yes, these are exactly the things the feds refuse to do. The Constitution is raped daily, US sovereignty is given away piece by piece, foreign policy benefits everybody and his uncle except the US citizens and borders are practically open to illegal immigration. The key word here is illegal. Try to immigrate to US legally, the feds will give you a snowball’s chance in hell to get a permit, but if you do it illegally, not only they’ll let you in, they’ll give you all the benefits that most of the US citizens do not get, heck, they’ll pay for the US lawyer, so you can sue the US for your “victimization”.
I happen to think Gore is closer to the mark and you happen to think Bush is closer to the mark. I don't see a problem
[/b]
Obviously I disagree with your choice, but I do agree with the “closer to the mark” justification.
1776,
Will you use that $20.00 to help pay off the National Debt? No? Didn't think so, so you can't have it.
[/b]
This is not your money to begin with. 1776 paid it in extraneous taxes already, and he just wants to (fraction of it) back. What gives you the right to decide “you don’t need your money, so I’ll keep it”?
Karnak,
I do not share your “I benefit = good, someone else benefits = bad” view. I think that although the world we live in is analog and gray, most issues (but not all) can be distilled to a black-white, digital abstract.
A theft remains a theft regardless of what the wealth of the person robbed is and regardless of how the thief intends to spend the stolen wealth.
A premeditated murder (I mean murder not killing someone) remains a murder regardless of the motive of the perpetrator and the age of the victim is. The very notion of a “hate” crime makes me cringe. As oppose to what, a “love” crime?
Karnak, clearly you do not mean to say that your views depend on how much money you make, do you?
mietla
P.S. What does Sisu in your signature mean? It makes me curious for a while now. If you do not mind me asking of course.
P.P.S. We live not that far from each other. I'd me more than happy to invite you to my place and fly AH and/or WB together. I promise not to talk politics
What do you say?
[This message has been edited by mietla (edited 11-07-2000).]
