Glaucon

Slamming one's own grandmother would not be a nice thing to do, even if he did it and I didn't know his father, either.

Big Bass

Glaucoma and prog1 The same entity.

son of witless

Well Mr. Glaucon, unlike you I can fight back with f-a-c-t-s when someone challenges something I have said. You posted the following

" We all have our elusions and delusions that cause us to unfailingly choose politicians who lie to us and then whine when they lie to us. It is those true believing right wing fanatics who believe they are able to clearly the illusions and delusions of others and are totally blind to their own. They demand proof for the assertions of others and are unable to accept the proof proffered to them. They also read minds: "Obama so proud of his black half and so ashamed of his white half" and even Obama doesn't know what witless asserts that Obama is proud of and what he is ashamed of. witless is unable to even hear anything outside his party line talking points, so he impervious to anything that might disprove anything he has been programmed to believe. Never try to prove anything to a rock or a tree or a witless. "

In the book: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama tells of an incident with his White Grandmother. Pages 88 through 91 he recalls an argument between his two White Grandparents, who by the way were supporting him at the time. His grandmother had been hassled by a bum at the bus stop and therefore did not want to ride the bus anymore. The Grandfather was accusing his wife of racism because the bum was Black. Now Obama in typical Obama fashion writes in an unclear way, but the message is he agrees with his Grandfather. I believe his Grandmother's fears were justified and had nothing to do with racism. The two who come out of this looking bad are Obama and his White Grandfather.

As far as Barak Obama Sr, Obama's Father,

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/11/137553552/president-obamas-father-a-bold-and-reckless-life

Now you tell me where I was inaccurate in describing Barak Obama.

straightUp Loc: California

I'll interject here for a moment. First, I want to express my appreciation for your effort to take the high road here. I will try to refrain from those condescending remarks.

As for the past 30 years... I agree with you that many of our lawmakers and leaders have failed us, but I also recognize that many of them have improved our conditions, at least within the confines of what is possible given the greater influence of industry and population.


I guess I don't entirely agree that we all lost America and maybe this is one reason why I don't support Trump who campaigned on the idea that we did. On the domestic front I was actually quite happy with the direction Obama was taking us. So apparently, we have some different ideas about what we want America to look like.

I do understand what you mean by "every man for himself" and I agree with you there but I think that's a paradigm that exists on much broader sociological scale than the government. I have had plenty of confrontations with people who revere "individualism" while insulting "collectivism" and it seems to me this is an exposure of the kind of cultural perspective that encourages the "every man for himself" attitude, among many other influences of course.

I don't agree that we should punish the rich for being rich, either. I just don't like the way that many rich people abuse their wealth at the expense of those less fortunate and I don't see a moral problem with expecting them to contribute more because they HAVE more. Maybe that's the collectivist in me.

I certainly don't agree that the government has any money to steal. It's not the government that has an unlimited money supply, THAT my friend is the Federal Reserve which is essentially a cartel of private banks. The government actually borrows money from the Federal Reserve and is obliged to pay it back... plus interest.

Almost all the money in circulation is accumulated in private accounts. The only exception that I know of are the government managed trust funds like Social Security.


I have a different perspective. First of all... I have seen other governments provide healthcare with more success than we've had here with our private systems (cancer treatment being the one exception) so from a pragmatic standpoint, I know it's possible. If the limits you seem to suggest are based on constitutional ideology then I have another argument to make. I'll just start out by saying that I have yet to see anyone point out where in the U.S.Constitution it says the government shall make no law regarding healthcare. I'll let you take it from there.

I have a second point to make and that's the fact that the ACA is not an example of government provided healthcare, especially since the public option was taken out. The ACA is almost entirely market-driven capitalism carried out in the private sector by corporate providers and insurance companies.


Pompus perhaps but when I don't support my evidence, it's because doing so would require enough words to make me appear even more pompous. Nevertheless, I am usually prepared to back up my smack and more importantly, most of the time, I *do* provide explanations and evidence. I for the most part, I don't write anything without there being a point.

You mention you know computer languages... go ahead and write a program to scan my responses and see how many times the phrase "point being", "point I am making" etc... comes up. My "point here" is that I am very diligent in making sure I always have a point. Ya gettin' the point?

Also, I don't remember attacking the way you communicate. I remember tossing out a few rimshots after making a point. Like suggesting you "do some research before making ridiculous comments", but I thought I was being pretty light hearted there and seriously... think for moment about what I responding to. You were suggesting that a set of agreements on the conduct of warfare only applies in times of peace. I'm not trying to mean but c'mon... that's a rimshot moment. You can laugh... I slip up sometimes too. I laugh. Humor can help us get over the petty stuff.

straightUp Loc: California

I already do and I consider myself a successful man for it. So it seems we agree on personal philosophy at least.


Yeah, I'm not so much looking for utopia... I don't think that's possible. But I do understand the value of keeping your own house clean. It goes in line with our personal philosophy of taking control of your own reactions. I am a huge believer in taking responsibility for one's own destiny. My dad was a good father-figure (a Republican) who inspired me to succeed. He and my mother immigrated here, so they too were pioneers.

None of this means I think luck has nothing to do with it... I think it does. I think nature is random and I think luck is a reflection of that. So what that means for me is that I take personal responsibility for dealing with whatever cards I am delt... and I don't (seriously) judge others (as individiduals) because I don't always know what cards they have.

I have taught my children through the example of my own success and they are now both embarking on promising careers. One into tech and another into politics... Watch out! ;) They both have the ability to remain civil and constructive in a confrontation, I've seen it. The one going into politics will need to be extra careful about that. ;)


OK.


yup.


OK,... so we start with a calm exchange of information, right? Would you agree that we need to at least assemble the information to identify the problem before we can focus on the fix? In this case, I would like to further understand your definition of a failing health care bill. I ask because my assessment says the ACA is actually succeeding quite well.


Hmm... you mean the consequences of dismissing the principals still occur, right? As in the kind of attrocity that occurs when the principles are ignored or the blow-back that comes after that. Yes, I agree.

You are pointing to realty. As important as we all know reality is, it is nevertheless a mere snapshot in the sequence of time. The future does not exist in reality and intention doesn't either. Principals guide intentions with an interest in the future, sometimes through some crazy storms. In other words, reality doesn't always catch the drift. But even though in reality these laws are often disregarded by everyone on the Security Council, it is still worth noting the infractions and making a big deal out of it. If nothing else it reminds those who disregard us that enough of us *see* what's going on.


I agree.


I disagree. People and governments force other people and governments to do things they woudln't normally do... all the time. Maybe I'm missing the point, perhaps you can rephrase.


I disagree. I think it is entirely possible that you could present an argument that would convince me to change my perspective on something.


I like your approach. Sure, let start with something simple... You bring up an excellent example; family. We all want the same basic things for our families. At this level it is indeed very simple and maybe we don't recognize that common ground often enough.


Well, this isn't really an activist site... I think deiscussion boards are great for venting and getting it out there. To some extent for education and for me it's a a chance to excercise my writing, but to make things happen you need to direct the energy to activist sites and the offices of your representatives. That's what I do.


I want to raise my children in a diverse nation. Some people see that as being divided. *shrug*

...and to be honest, I'm really not all that scared about terrorists. In the last 15 years the average number of deaths caused by terrorism in the U.S. is six. The average number of deaths caused by respiratory disease over the same period is 200,000 and studies have been indicating a large percentage of that is from air pollution. The average number of deaths in the U.S. caused by errors in the healthcare system is roughly the same. Gun violence not associated with terrorism... roughy 3,000. Tobacco... around 8,000, much of it second-hand. Somehow, terrorism doesn't seem like the big deal the "politicians" are trying to make out of it. Obviously, they're trying to sell something.

As for Trump taking a different approach... I'm not going to say anything just yet... I want to ask you exactly how you think his different approach is going to make us greater than what we are. Maybe also explain what you mean by "greater".


nonsense


Well, I mostly agree with what you're saying here... Not sure what the "deal" is. You mean a civil discourse? Sure.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Now that we have established certain ground rules let me summarize.

I will now explain a point I have made and perhaps you didn't understand it and you asked me to rephrase, so here you go:

Every person born of woman, who call themselves human beings, are born with the inalienable ability of free will. This free will is seduced by many aspects of fear to be controlled. But as was seen with Jews, Christians, and Muslims, if a man refuses to accept a forceful train of thought, in other words is forced to think a certain way, the person can stand against it and in some cases, depending upon how extreme it is, will take it to the death. This is what brings me to the statement, "No man can force another man to do anything."

Now if we were to examine the use of force in general, many people died because of another trying to force a person against their own will. Samson, Jesus Christ, and many of the Muslim extremists have proved this principle to be true. So all we as human beings can do, since we all have free will, is attempt to convince each other through decent means to see the subjects as each individual engaged in the debate do.

You brought up a very excellent, lucid, intelligent principle, "The greater good"

Some would dissect the subject of the "Greater Good" by saying "the Greater Good is different from one person to another"

Fundamentally, and in practice, this statement is not true. Because the Greater Good, is common for all persons. And since the greater good not only applies to all people, it is accepted by all people.

This is the problem I have with everyone. How can one support the principles of the selling points of the Obama administration, and refuse to accept the criticism of their opponents with such hatred that they turn a deaf ear to any idea that is different from them. Then by their actions, they enforce this with the same principle that we all fight against, intolerance.

I have seen this before, I seen it with the older conservatives of this very same nation. I seen the same actions that the Obama administration used, by the Roman Catholic Church! In this country and in the Middle Ages it didn't work for the Catholics just like it didn't work for the Obama Administration as this form of intolerance is not working for the Muslim extremists either.

Know this, I am a two fold man, if you want to call it that. I am intolerant to ignorance, and intolerant to stupidity. For example, I believe if you stick your finger in a light socket, you deserve to be shocked, for you know better. As far as the ignorant, there is enough information out there, that if a person is ignorant about a subject they can look it up. In directly, it puts them in the same category as the stupid person shocking themselves purposely.

For this reason, when I review the facts, I use patience, and restraint. In this generation of society, there is intolerance, and there is instant gratification. These two things are what I have against the Obama administration, everything else is a smoke screen.

Now like I said, I am fair, that is why you heard my frustration when I asked for concrete evidence. I don't care if a person is a bully or not, but if that person harms in anyway another, then that person must be punished. If it is justified for one person to commit an act, in a particular situation, then it is equally justified for another person to commit the same act given the same situation. This is fair.

Mind you I brought up issues from 1988 to present, so I cannot be counted with, "Well you are just a trump, or conservative, or Republican supporter", the reason for this is because everyone is judge-able based upon the same rules that we set down for ourselves. If it is right for one person to do an action, it is right for all to do the same action, given all things are equal.

The problem with everything today is intolerance intended to divide. This is the greatest enemy of the United States. If we are to remain a nation with an identity of freedom, then freedom as a whole, for the purpose of the greater good, should be the principle that governs our actions, and not the intolerance of being duped into the lies that have already been presented to us.

We all have been duped to believe that Obamacare is the best thing, since the New Deal. There is a danger in this frame of thought. Most of Congress, and most of the American Public suffered damages due to this legislation. Now, I believe in what Trump said, "We can do better." A lot of things I dismiss what he says, but he does have a valid point here, we can do better. We can write a healthcare legislation that appeals to all Americans, and not just the Democrats. This is one of many injuries from the intolerance of that party. If you disagree with the Democrat party of the United States, then you are an outcast. This is wrong, and it borders illegal activity from both sides. This way of thinking causes division and will eventually kill people. And the people who will lose their lives are the innocent people.

Did you ever ask the question, if Obama was the head of the executive branch, that has the power of the sword, then why did his people, which includes all of law enforcement from the beat cop all the way to the FBI, and NSA, why did his people kill Ferguson in St. Luis? Regardless if it was or wasn't racially motivated, why did the commander-in-chief refuse to obey the order of the president, but rather spark an attack on police? And what did the president do, to protect his sword? Nothing..... Now the problem of the racially motivated intolerance is solely the responsibility of the President. Matters got worse, when an army sniper shot and killed the domestic police officers, because of this intolerant division created by the same head of the same force that was attacked. And he did it in many other issues concerning the use of the sword of America. This is my problem with anyone who is in the office of the Presidency.

Donald Trump is going to run his course and do what he is destined to do and that is all. I am not worried about him, and neither should anyone especially the democrats, what I am worried about is we need someone who is part liberal, part conservative, part patriot, and part fair and loyal. To clean up this mess that has been created over the past 30 years. Could Trump do it? Yes, I believe he can. Could Obama do it? Yes, he had the ability, but not the drive. In the end he didn't do anything but be a yes man for his organization, his people.

Now lets start here, who could be a good person, who when put into the fire, stand up for the greater good? Let's start here. And let's discuss based upon the principles I wrote here, how we, on the local level could produce people of the character I am suggesting. We, as the majority of Americans know what we don't want, and most of us are divided on who we want, but we will get what we need. The first step is to work on the local level.

straightUp Loc: California

Well... I see your point but I still don't agree with your statement because although some people will choose death before compilance other's will comply to survive. In some cases, a man would rather die than comply but complies anyway for the sake of his child's survival. Don't forget how monsterous humans can be. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the statement is too general. Maybe if you said "Not all men can be forced." To that, I would agree.


The best way to answer this might be to use the example of how people on the other side do the same thing. They support the principals of the Trump Administration and refuse to accept the criticism of their opponents with such hatred that they turn a deaf ear to any idea that is different to theirs. You can't tell me that there's no such thing as an intollerant Trump supporter.

Now if you want, we can ditch the partisan flim-flam and get right down to the heart of the matter, common to both sides. Humans have a compelling need to identify with a group. This inate need is deeply set in what Freud would have called "the id" and Darwin, I'm sure would have considered this base human nature a mode of survival that allowed the species to propagate because if there is one thing that has allowed human to survive the jungles of the past it's the way we gather in groups. I think we all underestimate the power this need has over our ability to reason and to answer your question, I think for a person who exhibits this hipocritical "ok for me but not for you" it's the simply the emotional need for him to insist that his group is right and to accept anything else is an emotional defeat that quite frankly, few people, especially in the American "#1" culture, are capable of dealing with.


It's interesting that you mention "older conservatives" (no doubt the John McCain variety some of you call RINO's), the Obama Administration (of course) and the Catholic Church, leaving the group(s) I imagine YOU identify with unscathed. This in itself is an example of that emotional need for a person to insist that his group is right and the classic approach to doing this is to contrast with the the other groups that are wrong. Anyone who can't admit to the faults and fallacies of his own group, even his own person, is not being completely honest.


I wouldn't be so quick to assume ignorance is always avoidable. My father died of Parkinson's because there is no such thing as a doctor who isn't ignorant of the cure.


I can't tell you how many hotheads have told me the same thing. But yes, quite often patience and restraint is the antithesis of stupidity.


Wow... That's a pretty big statement there Ranger... Is this a fancy way of saying the Obama Administration was stupid?

Since we're on a higher plain here (or at least that's what you seem to suggest) I'm going to point out that there hasn't been an administration in U.S. history that hasn't catered to some elements of instant gratification and intolerance, whether intentional or not and that includes the Obama Administration. Certainly, you can't tell me that me that Trump's heavy use of executive orders isn't a form of instant gratifiication and there's no better word to describe his approach to immigration policy than intollerance.

One thing I would like to point out here is the reason why I said... "whether intentional or not". You have to understand that in politics an action may be intended for one purpose while at the same time benefiting the objectives of another. For instance, a president might make a move that he feels will improve conditions in the long term for everyone. But that move might also provide instant gratification for businesses that can take immediate advantaghe of the change. Opposition groups will no doubt put the two in juxtaposition, saying the only reason the president made the move was for the instant gratification of the applauding businesses.

I'm sure you can already imagine the examples.


An eye for an eye. It's hard for us not to gravitate to this mode of thinking, especially when the initial offense is committed by "an opponent". Much, MUCH more a challenge for us to follow the advice of Ghandi or Christ and "turn the other cheek". The id in us wants to be bold and defiant and strikes because that's what the id does without knowing that it's ever so much bolder and defiant to turn the other cheek. This is not understood with the awe of seeing it happen or the courage to carry it out.


Well, conservatives and Republicans WERE around in 1988 so I don't know what immunity you think issues from that period give you. Still, I think I understand your point about the rules being applied equallly. In a purely legal sense I agree with you, but in a different context things change, for instance it would be right for a player at a black jack table with two kings and an ace to hold... that doesn't apply to the guy with three deuces. He needs a hit.

I choose this analogy to introduce an idea that's surprisingly ellussive... The idea is that a good hand can be an unfair advantage WITHIN a set of rules that are applied equally. Most of the world is ruled by a wealthy class and we are no exception. Our "fair laws" create a system where the wealth advantage is not countered. It wouldn't be so bad if it were really just a game but life we only get one deal... If we get a bad hand, the "fair laws" can be an inescapable form of oppression. A lot of our laws were established to protect us from this oppression and they will always be debated as "unfair" to those holding blackjacks in their hands.


mmm.... I think you mean the intollerance of lies, not the intolerance of being duped by them, right? I mean, you ARE quite literally saying we should not be guided by our intollerance of being duped.


Eh... speak for yourself on that one. I personally don't think it's THAT great and most liberals I know as well Obama himself seem to agree. I don't know if you listen when Democrats talk but if I could have a nickle for everytime I've heard them say "it's not perfect, but it's a start" I'd be rich. I mean obviously, I support it, you've seen me defend it but that's onlt because it's better than what we had before. What we find so impressive about the ACA is just that Obama actually rolled it out... Actual reform... Something presidents and legislators have been trying to do for decades.


Can you back that up? I personally see no evidence to support that claim.


OK... calm down... take a deep breath.

First of all, Trump isn't the first one to say "we can do better"... That's actually what Obama said... verbatim... AS he was INVITING the Republicans to HELP us improve the ACA. What really makes this hard for us is that we keep saying it's a work in progress and we keep asking the Republicans to help us build it... Heck the ACA is mostly based on ideas the Republicans came up with! If the liberals just did what they wanted they would have rolled out a single-payer system.

As it is, the small token of that concept that was written into the ACA (the public option) was removed in response to Republican demand. So, it's proven, it's in the records that Obama DID in fact compromise a LOT with Republicans and yet, the Republicans STILL wanted to kill it... They used every dirty in the book and STILL couldn't do it. Even after gaining control of the entire government they [b]STILL[.b] couldn't do it. You know why? Because the bottom line is the people need healthcare and no one has yet figured out a better way to do it and if the Republicans killed the ACA there wouldn't be anyway for them to hide or lie about the ugly consequences.


What? First of all it's "St. Louis", not "St. Luis", secondly, no one killed Ferguson... Ferguson is a city in the the county of St. Louis and finally Obama's "people" weren't involved in any of the killing. It was a local police officer that murdered a black kid in cold-blood.


Ranger... the Commander-In-Cheif *IS* the President.

I dunno man... it's getting late, I'm getting tired and despite your cordiallity, I feel like you post is turning into a long meandering rant. So I'm just going to fast forward to your final point.


Yes... the first step is to work on the local level. I'm glad we can agree on that.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I can say I do agree with you on many points, but I view other things very, very, differently than you do.

I think we both agree that a man(or woman) must work to provide for themselves. And that the profits in which one makes should be spent in the way the person wants to spend it. The joy of prosperity. However, when a friend, or a government begins to dictate how these profits shall be spent, then that friend, that government cheats the man who labored for that profit.

Many supreme court cases were heard because a mandate that forced people to get health insurance regardless of basically anything is wrong. See the case of Hobby Lobby.

I believe in the first amendment, which states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (I am moving on to another case but will return to hobby lobby). If the Supreme Court supports Homosexual Marriage, they prohibit the free exercise of those religions who call Homosexuals sinners. But if the Supreme Court does not support Homosexual Marriage, then Congress established principles of religion. This part of the first amendment is a double edged sword. As justice Sicilia, and Roberts both dissented on this issue, they also brought up an interesting point. Which and you know I can go on, but in the end, the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress of the United States, and the President of the United States should not dictate to the people on how to live. The Government should not judge any case concerning the morality of the people. This is a very big mistake which the high court failed in once before. Roberts brought up the Dred Scott case. If the Supreme Court's ruling is final, then the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1858, which stated, "...the negro is not a citizen of the United States and cannot sue a citizen."

Now over the years since 1858, it has been realized that this decision was improper because of various reasons of civil rights. I bring this up to prove my thesis, that the government does not have the power to decide the morality of the people. The Law in the ACA does just that. The mandate attached to the AHCA goes even further. And this is my objection to the AHCA. It is wrong to ask a Mormon to drink a caffeinated drink, just as it is wrong to make a devout Catholic to pay for abortions. To force one group to be pinned up against another is not helpful for the people.

People in different groups, govern these groups by rules that they set for themselves. Some of these rules are popular, others are not. If I choose to live a certain way by a certain set of rules, that in my mind have been proven to make me a better person, then I should be able to follow that rule. Unless that rule cause harm to another, that rule should stand. In a Supreme Court ruling, certain substances, or drugs, that are used in religious ceremonies were accepted. However, human sacrifice is not. If the belief, or rule causes harm to another person, then it should be restricted. But for example, the observance of Lent for Roman Catholics should not be attacked, because of the fasting for the faith. It cannot be manipulated to prove malnutrition to the faster by the prohibition of meat and meat products for one day, Friday. The governing body is not the government but the religion in which the tradition is held.

Sodomy and Adultery at one time were illegal in the United States. Society changed these laws. Now, I am speaking on the level, that one "sin" is equal to another "sin". Under this context, Sodomy, Adultery, Murder, and Theft, is all equal, and being just as equal the punishment should be equal too.

Now the thing about the Ten Commandments of the Jewish faith, and the Christian faith, is that care and patience must be administered when judging cases as vital as these. In time human beings become complacent. Through this complacency, the spirit of why the commandment was created is lost. This problem that both the Christians and Jews have, is the same problem that the Muslims have, and we Americans have. We support a bill that becomes law to stop a behavior of the human being that causes harm to self/or others.

The government should not dictate the health care of its citizens. The fear here is that soon the government will decide who lives and who dies. That is the problem with requiring all persons to pay for healthcare in an unequal way. Some may think that making all people pay for abortions, and contraception, is "preventative healthcare" but it is not. When one group says it harms the human person, self and others, it cannot be considered healthcare or preventative healthcare. Some may have been educated in a misrepresentation of the concept. This misconception is that "we cannot stop our children from having sex, therefore if they are going to engage in the act, protect themselves." This is a misrepresentation of the power of the parents.

Naturally speaking the Parents are like God to their children. If children do not honor their parents, then the above statement becomes an uncontrollable reality, and in some circles becomes a violent circle of genocide. To combat this circle, religions have preached the philosophy for centuries to refrain from such actions, until one falls in love and promises for life to band together with members of the opposite sex. Then a marriage is instituted for the purpose to starting a family.

Since the family is the first government a human being is introduced to, it is up to the parents to lay down the rules, so that the children can survive and start their own governments. Then through the family, nations are formed. But when the parents give up on their children, it is as if the government gives up on their people. This is the trap that causes us to fail. By destroying this marriage unit of a family, by destroying the identity of the family, we change the dynamic of the nation. Thus, if a father cannot control his family, and a mother cannot advise the father in matters concerning the family, the family falls apart. The same could be said about government and society. The government is like the father, and society is like the mother. In this dynamic the people are nourished and they grow.

In many families, especially the American family, children do question their parents. Just like we question our government. Parents learn from their children, just like government and society learn from the people. Ideas should always be explored. The father that is intolerant on new ideas, makes the family suffer. Just as if the father is open to all ideas. There must be a balance between the ideas. For the past 30 years we all have be indoctrinated into just one type of idea. That is the ideas from one certain type of view point. When that view point is not accepted, those who do not accept that idea are ridiculed and seen as outcasts.

Every group in the United States at one point or another has undergone this. Every group to date has been discriminated against, open your eyes. Every group, from the Roman Catholics to the Jews, to the Protestants, to the Irish Americans, English Americans, Native Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans, French Americans, to the Muslim Americans, from the Orientals, to the Blacks, to the Whites to any group in America, we were all discriminated against. The fact is, any group that comes here to live, is at first welcome, then they are hated then they fight and a new freedom is realized, and America becomes great again. We were great before and after the Revolution. We were great again when we fought the Mexican War. We became greater after the Civil War, and yet Greater again after the Spanish American War. The bond of Americans coming together began during the stock market crash of 1929, and we became even greater after World War II.

But this in my opinion, was just the beginning. With the greatest generation dying off, they leave behind a strong generation of Americans that learned about hard work, and the rewards thereof. They taught us about the evils of the world, the evils that threatened us, then they passed the torch to us. Korea and Vietnam taught us that a government filled with pride from hard work, forgets the work that was done, and squanders all the prosperity of their labor. Broken families began to surface. The old way no longer seemed to work. Then two groups emerged. One group that believes in the public and one group that doesn't believe in the public. Soon these two groups would trade power, from Nixon to Ford to Carter to Reagan to Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump.

From Ford to Trump we lived a life of free love, no responsibility, drugs, and now that three generations have gone by, we are now just sobering up. The ghosts of those who were injured from the discrimination of the past come forth as it is a problem today, sounding like the over sensitive child at the playground that gets picked on. Patience is taken over by instant gratification.

If we replace and repeal Obamacare, the idea that Socialism is better than Capitalism shall end. If we represent freedom in this country to the world, then Free Healthcare should be embraced. Free Healthcare is where we choose our benefits and our employment can handle the bill. Anything that the government regulates have proven to fail. The Highways, Aviation etc. have failed when the government's leash was either too short or too long. But if we the people start governing ourselves, not only is the government's job easier, but prosperity will return, without having to win a war. War will not be needed, under these circumstances that I speak of. But I can explain that in more detail later.

It is time that we Americans put away our differences and identify ourselves not as a divided group but as an American. If I were black, I would prefer to be called an American then to be called an African American, a Negro American, or a black American. I would want to be called an American. We should write legislation to embrace the fact that we are American and we are free. Rather than embrace the divided groups that we give so much money to.

If we really want to end a majority of the problems this nation faces, we would give money to America, and take away money from all the special interest groups. We in our freedom must look towards each other as Americans, nothing more. Each group fights in our wars. We all built this country. We all have voiced our opinions. The News is full of all of this and what I am writing about is nothing new.

So first we must stop dividing ourselves, and reinvent what it means to be American. We need to put away that one group is better than the other and embrace that we are all Americans. I would be happy if we had fifty groups than all the special interest groups. What right do I have to go to England and protest because they don't accept Muslims in their country. I have no right to protest England. Would England even hear me? Then why should America hear other nations?

Now let me ask you this question, since you are a writer: Define and describe the identity of an American. Not a special interest American, just define what it means to be American. In your research you will find that everything I have stated here in, should be the identity that many Americans are looking for and its about time that it is recognized.

Then after you identify what an American is, then look back on the past thirty years, and identify all the actions that both society did and the government did that was against that identity of America you came up with. Then and only then will you understand me, and many that follow me. We are not looking for an identity for we already have one, we want to be recognized for we are the ones who are persecuted in the cross fire of the liberal-conservative battle. The special interest groups vs the people. The faithful and the secular. The straights vs the Gays. The Trump supporters vs the anti-Trump supporters. We are the ones that pay. We are the ones that suffer.

Now if you can't see our group that is growing while you extremists continue to fight against each other, then you are blind to what really is happening. We must be Americans not anything other than Americans. We don't get handouts or entitlements because it is said as an excuse we don't qualify. If I had 1/10 of the benefits that were given out during the Obama Administration, I would have my doctorate in Electrical Engineering by now.

But since I am caught in the crossfire, I am labeled and I say enough is enough. I have a voice, just as boisterous as the man in the White House. I suppose the excuse for the extremists is this, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." So we must be like the grass on the other side of the fence? No. I am an American! And I will not concede to becoming something I am not. I live in a Democrat Republic, not a Socialistic Society. We must start thinking this way, and start using wisdom. Hitler got his power by taking over Germany's health care system.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

Sounds to me that a combination of your points mixed with straightUp points would bode well.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

and that's the foundation of compromise for the greater good, not destruction for all.

straightUp Loc: California

As a former businessman myself I agree with you. The manner in which profit is spent should not be dictated. But I think a lot of people misunderstand what profit is. Profit is not the entire sum of sales, but rather the surplus AFTER the balance of sales and obligation. Many things must be paid for out of revenue generated, such as payroll, materials and equipment, utility bills, licensing, leasing, sub-contracts and third-party services, lawyer fees, membership dues, advertising... and taxes. It's a classic but ill-informed assumption that taxes somehow stand alone and separate from all the other expenses as the ONLY infraction on profit. Taxes are just as much an obligation as an electric bill or a lease agreement. Any legal business is heavily dependent on laws for protection and stability, but like any other service it's not free. You have to pay for it.


The case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with that mandate. The law that Hobby Lobby was complaining about was the contraception mandate which applies to any profit driven business with 50 or more employees. The contraceptive mandate itself doesn't actually force anyone to get insurance as you seem to be suggesting but it does require that that insurance options that ARE provided by any such business, cover contraceptives (which is arguably the most effective method of avoiding abortions).


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't see the ACA establishing a religion, do you?
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I take the perspective that once a business dictates it's religion on others it is no longer "free exercise". While the 1st Amendment protects the right for religious business owners to worship it does not give them the right to enforce their religious principals on others, which is what Hobby Lobby was doing.

You seem to be so upset about the government dictating terms on business and yet you defend the business when it dictates terms to employees. I find that very hypocritical.


So then you disagree with laws against gay marriage?


I'm not sure what you are stating here. If the Supreme Court's ruling is final, then the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1858 is what?


First of all, being a negro is not a moral choice, so I'm not sure how you're drawing any kind of parallel between the 1858 ruling and your point about moral judgement. Secondly, the ACA is only mandating that employers provide an insurance option that covers contraception. It's not actually forcing anyone to USE contraception. That moral choice is entirely up to the employee. If anything, the ACA is protecting the freedom of choice from the dictates of oppressive employers like Hobby Lobby.

I challenge you to show me where in the Bible it says Christians have a right to force their morals on others.

It's been my experience that people who share your perspective on these matters find my responses exceedingly frustrating and perhaps offensive, but I invite you to think it over calmly and rationally before you counter. In the meantime, I'm going to pause here. I need to get some sleep and your post isn't exactly brief ;)

I will try to respond to the rest of it over the weekend. Please accept my apologies for the slow responses, but I consider your points worthy of thoughtful response which can be time-consuming.

straightUp Loc: California

I agree. The key being that you are making that choice for yourself. That is what qualifies as "free practice" and as long as everyone in that group is participating on their own free will there is no problem and they are indeed protected by the 1st Amendment.


Unless fasting is forced by the religious group on people who do not wish to follow the rules of the religion at which point the supremacy of government has the right to interfere. This is a secular nation where the government is ALWAYS the governing body under which religious rules are allowed to preside only within the confines of the law.


That always depended on the state. There has never been a federal law against sodomy, all such rules were established by the various states within their own jurisdictions. You're correct in saying that society changed those rules. Over time, from 1962 to 2003 all but 13 states struck sodomy laws from their books. In 1986 the Supreme Court did actually rule to protect the sodomy laws in Georgia in Bowers v. Hardwick on the basis that the Constitution does not specifically confer "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy." (even though the state laws in question prohibited all forms of sodomy, including heterosexual blow jobs.) This ruling was overturned in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws in Texas and by extension all of the remaining 13 states.

Adultery is still illegal in 21 states but for some reason it doesn't invoke the same level of hysteria that sodomy does and is usually punished as a misdemeanor.


That "level" may be your opinion and/or the opinion of "puritans" but it's not the opinion of the law in ANY state as far as I know.


...and the Muslim faith. Try not to loose sight of reality here... (As much as Muslims are hated by some Christians, Islam itself *IS* an Abrahamic religion and they *DO* uphold the Ten Commandments.)


(And Muslims)


Sorry for interjecting like that but I wanted to make sure you understood my point about Islam and it's relevance to the Ten Commandments.

As for your point about the purpose of such laws, I take issue. I understand that the "argument" is to protect people (at least morally) but I suspect the ulterior motive is to control people (morally AND physically). There is no clear proof that the act of sodomy harms the self or others. I've probably had more than hundred heterosexual blow jobs in my life without any negative repercussions (you don't know what you're missing). Of course, like everything else there can be risks, depending on who you are sharing the experience with and where. But is it the job of the government to dictate your sex life?

I can't speak from experience but from what I can tell, homosexual sodomy isn't any different. Adultery is a little different because in most cases, someone is getting hurt emotionally, but there are also some happily married couples that "swing". This is something my wife and I aren't interested in but neither of us hold it against those couples that do.

This is a free country Ranger... I feel that fully grown adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own sex lives as long as it doesn't involve children or unwilling participants/witnesses.

Now, if you're posing your argument on the context of religious morality, then I respectfully withdraw my defiance. If you feel such acts will result in moral judgement by God then by all means contain yourself, but this a personal choice and should not be forced on others that don't share your belief. I realize this "need" to force others to comply with religious laws is deeply rooted in some strains of American culture that go all the way back to the first Puritans that arrived from England in the 17th century, but those Puritans were oppressive assholes that used to burn people for being "witches" and insisted that everyone should lead joyless lives. To use a modern phrase... "fuck that".

And honestly, what gives the Puritans and their uptight pious descendants the right to act like God's deputies? Isn't God capable of His own judgement? Won't He cast the sinners into Hell? Is that not sufficient punishment? Same goes for the counterparts in Islam that take it upon themselves to act on God's behalf by stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death.

Again, I'm going to pause here before responding to your points about healthcare.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

[quote=straightUp
The case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with that mandate. The law that Hobby Lobby was complaining about was the contraception mandate which applies to any profit driven business with 50 or more employees. The contraceptive mandate itself doesn't actually force anyone to get insurance as you seem to be suggesting but it does require that that insurance options that ARE provided by any such business, cover contraceptives (which is arguably the most effective method of avoiding abortions). [/quote]
Do you agree or disagree that the mandate is applied to both the individual and Hobby Lobby? Do you agree, that the money to be used to support services defined in the mandate, are from the American people, through the tax/penalty? Do you further agree that it is federal law in accordance with the American Health Care Reform Law that members of a religion must pay for services that are deemed a “Sin” in accordance with their religion?” Therefore, do you agree that the government is forcing people to violate their own constitutionally protected rights by following this law?
Please explain.



Do you believe that the constitution applies to all entities? Do you believe that this application should and ought to be applied equally, regardless if the entity is a person, business, Local, County, State, or Federal entity, or a private or public entity?
Do you believe that religion, say Roman Catholicism, Baptist, Methodist, or the Church of Latter day Saints, is an entity with the same rights?
Do you think it is just for the Government of the United States, to infringe upon the right of the above groups, by forcing them to pay for something they deem as a ‘Sin”? Therefore, go against the policy of the said religion? In the same manner, do you believe the Government has the authority to do the same to businesses when it concerns the ethical and philosophical natures of businesses as well as entities?
I agree that religions do not have the right to force their ethical and philosophical natures on anyone, but likewise nor does the anti-religion have the right to force their ethical and philosophical natures on anyone either. By forcing declared Religious organizations, and their followers to pay or provide a service that violates the rules of philosophy and ethics based upon their religious beliefs is called genocide and is a violation of the Constitution the first amendment.
The religious clause can only be limited when it causes harm to the individual, such as human sacrifice. It is true throughout our current history, that religious groups ran uncheck for many years. It is also true that these same groups were persecuted in the same manner. Therefore, It is unjust according to the constitution for a religious group, or an antireligious group, or anyone to force their philosophy on anyone.
The only logical and reasonable solution to this is the use of Logic and Reason. Again, there ought to be a free conscience amendment made to the first amendment. (Remind me to post my “Free Conscience Petition” I wrote in 2009-2010)


Personally, I do disagree with Homosexual, “gay”, marriage.
However, this country is not run by me. Therefore, I must utilize the rules set before me. I present the Constitution of the United States, The United States Code of Federal Law, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Protection of Freedom Act and the Ruling of the Supreme Court in 2015-16 as well as the ruling of the same court in 1858.
Since it is imperative for the survival of society to reproduce, conduct such as homosexual marriage defeats that purpose. However, acts of that matter do not violate the above Law. Remember, I believe in Freedom, and in certain extreme cases, mind you and the readers here, very extreme cases, I believe in guidance from others and above. For most things not in the extreme, I believe we can handle on our own without outside interference.
That being said, as I described in the case concerning Dred Scott. The Supreme Court declared that a slave is not a citizen of this country. I am also saying that the Supreme Court can only interpret the Law. Not make it or change it or enforce it. (see federalist paper 81, Hamilton). Since they can only judge, if there is a discrepancy in that judgement then the people must change the law, thus as a result of the Dred Scott decision, The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were ratified to the constitution.
In the same manner, the division on both the health care law, which forces religious entities against their will to pay for a sin is a violation of the constitution. Gay Marriage prohibits the free exercise of religion by allowing the government to overrule religious decision.

The bible, (and I have had this argument many times before, even against certain zealous Christians who preach through the sword and the bible, as well as many anti-religious), The bible only speaks of “Spreading the News”, just like we are having a problem with the Constitution and various of our laws here in the United States, human beings have a problem with a concept called free will.
All I can do is present the evidence to you, it is up to you to decide. Therefore, and henceforth, we have Free-will. However, when great effort is used in this sort of Persuasion and the person you are trying to persuade is not persuaded, then there is an anger and frustration that follows. I applaud your effort to refrain from calling me names, and sticking to the subject that is to be honored. And in an argument such as this where there is no perfect answer, I applauds you.
However, when groups such as the Seculars, the Christians, The Jews, The Muslims, the (pick any group for this principle applies to all groups, religious, political, etc) try to convince other groups of their idea, and fail in their convincing sometimes the frustration leads to war.
Before that war, division is made. The Bible only states for the Christian to spread the “Word of God”, in action, and speech as St. Paul writes. However, if you choose to join us, just like any other organization, you must follow our rules. Make sense. This is the basic command of fight the good fight and run the good race.
There is nothing wrong with this, and it does not “force” religion on anyone, it is just an advertisement of how one lives. However, when a law is written to force you to become baptized into a religion, that is forcing. When a person plaes a gun to your head, to forces you to become baptized or follow any rule of a religion you do not belong to that is “forcing”.

This argument is a solid argument: If the Court House is paid by me, and I choose to decorate this court house with a Christmas tree. I should be allowed to do so. The Christmas tree is a celebration of my belief not a “forcing “ to bring others to my religion. That argument is logically stupid because if my crucifix causes you any emotional distress, then what magical power does this inanimate object have?
No matter how many times I tried to convince the bullets into the gun, the gun did not move. No matter how many times I yelled and prodded the gun, the gun did not shoot me. But the moment I picked up the Gun and pulled the trigger the gun fired. Same as Religion. The objects of religion cannot force any one to do anything, they are just an advertisement of that Religion. And it the case of religion they advertise God.
So the argument of “Forcing a religion” fails and I am against those who force their religion on others as I am against those who force their antireligion on the religious.
However, I am speaking on the Constitution and the laws I listed above not on the religious content and philosophy.

I will post a petition where I explained all of this and how it would work in society if we wanted to change the world, I would start with this petition which will pull the floor out of most everyone’s arguments and restore the inalienable right to Free-will. There is a foundation to this that I also once wrote, which is the young must be educated before their opinion can be considered. This education should be done in a fair manner, meaning that the philosophy and principles can be disagreed to as well as agreed to. Only in that fashion can a person grow.
The problem of evil thought is too much restriction.
The problem with good thought is too much freedom.
However, with freedom, the restriction is destroyed. Freedom provides solutions to problems that may seem impossible to solve. Restriction provides for undesirable solutions. A combination of the two, provide for a beautiful life, and freedom is appreciated. Good night my friend.

Glaucon

You clearly want to fight and have conflict and have no interest in learning anything new.... or anything old. If you are fighting with facts, you are obviously losing the fight. You STILL are not listening.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

I admire your response here and you are keeping it real. I do believe in the philosophy of the Christian Church of Rome, also known as the Roman Catholic Church. But I also believe in the Constitution as the world's greatest document to enforce the moral and ethical points of the Church as well as other things. I am against the Westboro(spelling unknown at this point, tired) Baptist Church for example, in their protests. That goes too far. Just like I am against the Muslim extremists for the same reason.

Have you seen the Christian Slater film "Pump up the volume"? The points made in this movie point to the abuse of the law using the bible as a defense. Abuse of the law is a violation of the Biblical teachings, however to some it was justified. This is wrong. No religion, my included, should ever force through distress any human being for that in itself is a Sin.

Outside of my religious beliefs, I believe in freedom. Freedom for me is based upon the philosophy that sin enslaves and God frees. It is seen when Adam and Eve were enslaved by the serpant. It is shown when the sons of Cain and the Sons of Seth had their great Civil War. It is realized again when Abraham escaped Nimrod's rule. It was seen again when Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt. And yet again when Moses frees the Hebrews and they begin to form the nation/religion of Israel. It is seen again through the fight of the holy land(which is still underway). It was seen again when Babylon enslaved Israel, then were freed by Alexander the Great of the Persian Army. It was seen again when Herod the Great made peace with Rome, and then again when Rome attacked Israel in Jerusalem in 70AD. and Yet again when Rome was converted to Christianity, and yet again, when Christianity enslaved themselves with Charlemagne. Then again with fuedal Europe, until the Age of Enlightenment.

It was from this age of Enlightenment that a new nation came forth, America. America was a nation that embraces freedom. And because of this America cleaned house with its own slaves. but it didn't take effect until 100 years later in 1965. From thence we established a free nation until 2001, where security was a priority over freedom, 8 years later that freedom which was sent for security was abused until you have what we have today.

Now I very briefly went through the history of the world from the fall of Man until today. And did it very briefly following the line of Seth, through Israel to America. So just out of curiosity which Philosophy do you follow or ascribe to, Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle? A lot of your logical process of thought has element of these three.