One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: jay-are
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 139 next>>
Aug 17, 2014 13:30:52   #
PeterS wrote:
Partially true. Liberalism was a product of the Age of Reason and has it philosophical roots in Rationalism. Conservatism is the oldest ideology tracing to the dark-ages and has philosophical roots based in Irrationalism.

Rationalism defined is a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
"scientific rationalism"
PHILOSOPHY
the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.
THEOLOGY
the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.

Irrationalism defined is a system emphasizing intuition, instinct, feeling, or faith rather than reason or holding that the universe is governed by irrational forces.

The conservative reliance isn’t on government but institutions - the military and particularly religious. This is where they readily surrender their freedom


Quote:
Between the founding of the USA and the early 1900's Americans who supported the founding of the USA were considered liberals and those who wanted a larger, more powerful and more controlling federal government were considered conservatives. These conservatives were hated by the majority of Americans who cherished freedom and limited, small government. Therefore, these conservatives embarked on a political campaign to improve their image. They claimed to be liberals and promoted the "liberal" image so fiercely, that the true liberals who love the freedom that America represents were stripped of the "liberal" label. After being stripped of the honorable label of "liberal," these freedom loving Americans were tarred with the label conservative, as a political move to discredit them and to win the political battle for control of the federal government. Eventually the falsely labelled "conservatives" accepted the label and justified it because they had a strong interest in maintaining the constitution and the constitutional form of republic that the founders originally instituted. Maintaining the limited powers of the government is far from the original philosophical definition of conservative, but it is the current definition that applies to conservatives in America today.

I was with you until you flipped liberal and conservative. Liberalism is, and has always been, a progressive movement. Limited government primarily stemmed from the fact that the US was a agrarian economy. It’s impossible to rely on government when the closest “government” is hundreds of miles and weeks to months a way. It was population growth and the move from an agrarian economy to an urban based capitalistic one that prompted the need for larger government. To think that liberals would still be clinging to “small government” is bunk. And when you look at today’s conservatives it isn’t small government but no government that they are after. Again, the only institutions that are important to a conservative is religious or military- government they would blow up in a heart beat.


Quote:
Liberals in America today are the ones who are more wrongly mis-labelled. Those who want a large, powerful federal government, and who will sacrifice all freedom for the security that government promises (but most often fails to deliver) are the ones who claim the label "liberal" today.

Again, you have gone off the rail. Size of government isn’t important to a liberal. What is important, and this is same as it was from day one, is that government action is to benefit the quality of life of those who gave it the right to govern. Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, by passing congress to do so, for the express purpose that the act would benefit the citizens of this country. When you look at all liberal actions all follow the same pattern where the act of government is to improve the quality of life of its citizens. If our economic system would indeed, lift all boats, then for the liberal size of government would shrink. When our economic system fails to improve the quality of life of its citizen then government steps in and in the process grows.


Quote:
To the liberal in modern America, freedom means having everything given to them so they will be free to do everything anyone else is doing. But the liberals of modern America are actually conservatives in the original philosophical sense of wanting big government to control and secure everybody, and today's conservatives are actually liberal in the original philosophical sense of wanting more freedom and less government control.

This is simply coming from your imagination. You will find all stripes sucking from the teet of government. Whites form the largest group on welfare and more red states than blue states have people relying on government for a hand out. Liberals today have changed since 1776, they should have otherwise they would be conservative, but the basic philosophy has remained the same. This is also true for conservatives which is why I asked if anyone understood the actual philosophies behind their ideologies. Liberalism doesn’t predicate large or small government but one that it proactive to those it serves. Conservatism doesn’t predicate government at all but instead relies on church, the military, and community to insure quality of life.

These diametric positions of our ideologies trace to the philosophy behind them. Rationalism sees government as a tool to insure the quality of life of those who give it the right to govern. To the Irrationalist government is an impediment to quality of life and in any form or size one should be skeptical and down right fearful.
Partially true. Liberalism was a product of the Ag... (show quote)


PeterS

We can't have an intelligent discussion when you start out your comments on the basis of an untrue premise. Your starting premise was that

Liberal = rational
Conservative = irrational.

Whereas my starting premise was that

Liberal = freedom
Conservative = relinquishing freedom in exchange for security.

By your definitions, everyone is liberal, unless they are mentally ill.

But everyone does not agree that abortion is ok. Liberals think abortion is ok and conservatives think abortion is wrong. In that case which position is rational and which is irrational. Liberals claim thier case of freedom of the woman to choose to do what they want with something growing within their body is rational. Conservatives claim that their position that destroying the fetus is the same as killing a human being because all human beings come from fetuses is a rational concept. Both have a rational explanation for their position but one is liberal and the other is conservative.

Are you just blanket making yourself the authority of what is rational and rejecting all conservatives as irrational. Your concept of the philosophical origins of the terms liberal and conservative is wrong and is not useful as a basis for a discussion that seeks to intelligently explain the realities of the world. My definitions form a useful basis to discuss our differences. Just because we are different doesn't mean one of us is irrational. Is there any way we can discuss the merits of our positions without outright discarding the other's argument before it is even uttered?
Go to
Aug 11, 2014 09:57:46   #
jay-are wrote:
PeterS

I sent you a private message explaining the philosophical origins of the terms liberal and conservative. You claimed that noone could exlplain them. I did. Please, at least, take the time to read my explanation, even if you don't respond.


For any of you others who are wondering what my explanation was, here it is:

Liberalism has roots in freedom from tyrannical government. Conservatism has roots in maintaining a government, even tyrannical, for fear of losing the security that government provides.

America's founders were liberal because they wanted to be free of Britain and the King's tyrannical hold on their personal and business activities. America's original conservatives wanted to maintain the connection to a large, established government for security. They wanted to exchange freedom for security.

Between the founding of the USA and the early 1900's Americans who supported the founding of the USA were considered liberals and those who wanted a larger, more powerful and more controlling federal government were considered conservatives. These conservatives were hated by the majority of Americans who cherished freedom and limited, small government. Therefore, these conservatives embarked on a political campaign to improve their image. They claimed to be liberals and promoted the "liberal" image so fiercely, that the true liberals who love the freedom that America represents were stripped of the "liberal" label. After being stripped of the honorable label of "liberal," these freedom loving Americans were tarred with the label conservative, as a political move to discredit them and to win the political battle for control of the federal government. Eventually the falsely labelled "conservatives" accepted the label and justified it because they had a strong interest in maintaining the constitution and the constitutional form of republic that the founders originally instituted. Maintaining the limited powers of the government is far from the original philosophical definition of conservative, but it is the current definition that applies to conservatives in America today.

Liberals in America today are the ones who are more wrongly mis-labelled. Those who want a large, powerful federal government, and who will sacrifice all freedom for the security that government promises (but most often fails to deliver) are the ones who claim the label "liberal" today. To the liberal in modern America, freedom means having everything given to them so they will be free to do everything anyone else is doing. But the liberals of modern America are actually conservatives in the original philosophical sense of wanting big government to control and secure everybody, and today's conservatives are actually liberal in the original philosophical sense of wanting more freedom and less government control.
Go to
Aug 11, 2014 09:51:27   #
PeterS wrote:
nothing ?


PeterS

I sent you a private message explaining the philosophical origins of the terms liberal and conservative. You claimed that noone could exlplain them. I did. Please, at least, take the time to read my explanation, even if you don't respond.
Go to
Aug 11, 2014 09:46:02   #
PeterS wrote:
Clinton didn't do anything? Saddam had nothing to defend against an American invasion. And just what sanctions was Saddam in violation of when baby Bush decided to invade?


Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
Go to
Jul 25, 2014 11:47:23   #
JMHO wrote:
In 1994, only 30 percent of Democrats considered themselves mostly or consistently liberal, but this number increased sharply to 56 percent of respondents in 2014.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/left-took-over-democratic-party-109348.html?ml=m_u1_1#.U9JbQ2O5j5w


First of all, I wish you would cease calling the Democrat party, the "Democratic party." The Democrat party is much closer to facist than democratic. So stop calling them the Democratic party. You don't call the Repuplican party the "of the people, by the people and for the people" party. Democratic is not a name of a party it is an adjective. The name of the party is Democrat. To call it the Democratic party is inaccurate and improper English language usage. If you want to use democratic, you would have to call the party the democratic Democrat party. But the party is the Democrat party, not the Democratic party.

Next, I don't accept that it is possible to be a Democrat if you are not liberal. Why would a conservative want to claim to be a Democrat? That makes no sense to me.
Go to
Jul 25, 2014 11:24:15   #
Floyd Brown wrote:
Life is fluid!

Truth is even more fluid. No more or less so from one set of views than another set of views.


Do you see that, Dave? Obama believers prefer deceit over the truth of reality. This guy, Floyd, approves of truth being fluid. And we all know that by saying "truth is fluid," you mean we all know that what Obama is saying is not true. But that doesn't matter to Floyd. He is like Elvis, he would rather go on hearing his lies than to go on living without Obama.
Go to
May 30, 2014 10:56:35   #
jay-are wrote:
I am telling you that I want to research the subject. If the doctrine and teaching exists, why can't you list some references where I can start my research?



I went ahead and started researching as you suggested. I googled "old testament believers go to paradise instead of heaven"

Here is one article I found:

http://www.reproachofmen.org/doctrines/where-did-the-old-testament-saints-go/

It states that paradise and heaven are the same, and proves it convincingly with scripture references.
Go to
May 30, 2014 10:44:54   #
jetson wrote:
I can't believe you did not know this. No one went directly to heaven until Christ died. Enoch and Elijah were taken up, but the Bible does not say where they were taken. Paradise was where old testament believers went. 1st Peter 3:19 states, Christ went there and preach to the prisoners there and He led captive free. He told the thief on the cross he would be with him today in paradise, not heaven. Good grief you need to study the Bible and do some research, if you can't understand this. Where did he lead them? Answer: To heaven
I can't believe you did not know this. No one wen... (show quote)


I am telling you that I want to research the subject. If the doctrine and teaching exists, why can't you list some references where I can start my research?
Go to
May 30, 2014 09:34:00   #
jetson wrote:
The stop over was in paradise, where all the old testament believers were taken too. They were not qualified to enter heaven. The blood of animals only covered sin. The blood of Jesus Christ removed the sin completely. This is what Jesus was talking to Nicodemus about, when He said you must be born again. The blood of animals could not perform the born again process. It takes the Holy Spirit to create this process. Again I say, if an individual could be born again, before Christ was sacrificed, why did He have to die? Also, why come the old testament saints didn't go directly to heaven after death?
The stop over was in paradise, where all the old t... (show quote)


Again, I ask, where is this teaching in the Bible that the Old Testament saints didn't go directly to heaven after death, but were taken to a stop over in paradise?

Give me the scripture references where this doctrine is taught. I have never seen or studied this idea before that Old Testament believers waited in paradise for Jesus to die before they went to heaven. You keep referring to it as if it is a given that everybody knows about. I don't know about it. Give me a reference, either scripture verses, or another book where you got that teaching from. Thanks.
Go to
May 27, 2014 11:02:39   #
jetson wrote:
The Bible states you must be born again to be saved. If the souls in paradise were born again, why did they have a stop over in paradise. They had only faith in God's word and thus God accounted this for righteousness. Remember what God said about Abraham's faith. Abraham had faith and God accounted that for righteousness. To be born again, they needed the blood of Christ. No one can be saved without this blood or born again. If Jesus had not come, they would still be in paradise waiting. The Bible says, the Spirit does the baptizing. No Spirit had not been given at this time for salvation. It came after Christ's death. No one was born again or received salvation until Christ's death. Believe what you like. The Holy Spirit was not given until Jesus Christ sent it, after His death.
The Bible states you must be born again to be save... (show quote)


Yes, only those who are born again will be saved, but born again is not another way to say "saved." Born again just means made spiritually alive. -John 3:6 If you are made spiritually alive, that doesn't mean you already will live eternally. People can be spiritually alive but still not saved or given the gift of eternal life. Once someone is born again, or born spiritually, they must believe to receive eternal life. - John 3:15

So, being saved, does not mean that you are born again, and being born again does not mean that you are saved. Being born again means you are spiritually alive, and being saved means that you are first born again, and after having been born again you have believed.

Where in the Bible is all this teaching about a stop over in paradise? I don't think you are correctly understanding what the Bible teaches on that subject.
Go to
May 16, 2014 09:41:53   #
Patty wrote:
In yet another quarter confirming that Walmart is merely a company that can beat analyst expectations when it cashes Uncle Sam's welfare checks and foodstamps, when the impact of Obamacare is ignored, and when the second it snows all bets are off, WalMart reported Q1 EPS of $1.10, below the $1.15 expected, even if the company was able to explicitly quantify what the impact of snow in the winter was: "Severe weather in the U.S. businesses negatively impacted EPS by approximately $0.03." Apparently the weather's impact on the top line was over $1 billion because revenues came in at $114.96 billion, below the $116.3 billion expected.

In fact the weather in the quarter ended April 30 (when as far as we can recall there was only snow in February because retail sales in March soared on the snow thawing) was so bad, the company dedicated an entire section to it:


"Walmart's first quarter net sales increased 0.8 percent over last year. Like other retailers in the United States, the unseasonably cold and disruptive weather negatively impacted U.S. sales and drove operating expenses higher than expected," said Doug McMillon, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. president and chief executive officer.

Comp stores of -0.2% missing expectations of 0.0% were also due to, you guessed it, ther weather:


"Our comp of negative 8 basis points for the period was in line with our relatively flat guidance," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO. "A number of severe winter storms negatively impacted us during the quarter. A solid start to spring and a strong Easter drove positive comps in the back half of the quarter.

And then there were taxes:


Additionally, the company's effective tax rate for the quarter was higher than anticipated. The company still expects the full-year tax rate to range between 32 and 34 percent.

How long until WMT buys a Dutch company and reincorporates there to save on taxes?

Ok fine, weather (and taxes) were to blame for everything in the past. So what about the future? Well, WMT forecast a Q2 EPS range of $1.15-$1.25, below the $1.29 consensus, for the following reasons:


"We expect second quarter fiscal year 2015 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations to be between $1.15 and $1.25. This compares to $1.24 last year," said Charles Holley, executive vice president and chief financial officer. "Our guidance assumes incremental investments in e-commerce, headwinds from higher health care costs in the U.S. and increased investments in Sam's Club membership programs. We continue to expect our full-year effective tax rate to range between 32 and 34 percent. We expect our effective tax rate to be at the high end of this guidance for the second quarter."

So to summarize: weather, Obamacare and taxes. And of course, we expect that the lack of foodstamps will also be discussed on the earnings call.

Of course, the only reason why the company's EPS disappointed is that while WMT CapEx tumbled from $3.0 billion a year ago to just $2.2 billion this quarter, so did buybacks, as the company repurchased a measly $626 million of stock down from $2.2 billion a year ago. Judging by the stock reaction in the premarket, shareholders are anything but happy with this outcome.
In yet another quarter confirming that Walmart is ... (show quote)


Lower earnings and lower dividend payments means less tax money paid to the government, so it is not all bad.
Go to
May 15, 2014 10:43:01   #
cold iron wrote:
Strong Attendance puts Indianapolis as Second Largest Attended NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits!

The official attendance of 75,269 is the second largest NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits on record for the longest running shooting & hunting show in the world. With over 600 exhibitors, the exhibit hall was packed with NRA members the entire weekend, many of whom traveled from all over the country to attend the event. With all those guns and no one fired a shot.

The enthusiasm was contagious as freedom-loving patriots filed into the impressive exhibit hall to celebrate their Second Amendment rights. What awaited them was nearly every notable firearm and accessory manufacturer in the country. Thousands packed the Stand and Fight Rally and NRA-ILA Leadership Forum to hear some of the most influential political figures in the country discuss freedom and the right to keep and bear arms as well as hear music from Sarah Evans and ALABAMA! Fundraising events raised hundreds of thousands of dollars that will go to support the shooting sports, seminars and workshops were standing room only.
Strong Attendance puts Indianapolis as Second Larg... (show quote)


If guns are the problem and need to be controlled by special laws, there should have been lots of problems at this event.

What if it was a convention of gangs. Would the outcome have been so peaceful and safe?

It begs the question whether it is the guns or the people that cause trouble.
Go to
May 15, 2014 10:38:31   #
Anniem wrote:
Kindergarten student Ian Nelson, on the way back to class from the bathroom, was accosted by teacher Barb Williams in the hall and jacked up against the wall.


The teacher BARB WILLIAMS has been "suspended with pay"!!!!!


How about forwarding this message to everyone you know as well as the principal and superintendent. (email addresses below)


LET THEM KNOW YOU KNOW!!

FIRE TEACHER BARB WILLIAMS!!!!



VIDEO:


http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/05/14/teacher-gets-10-day-paid-suspension-for-bullying-6-y-o/



Riverdale Elementary School Principal:
Julie Spade
Email: jspade@riverdale.k12.oh.us



Superintendent of Riverdale Schools:
Eric Hoffman
Email: ehoffman@riverdale.k12.oh.us
Phone: 419-694-4994 ext. 1801



I have already sent MY email to the principal and superintendent!

How about YOU?
Kindergarten student b Ian Nelson /b , on the way... (show quote)


Did anybody ask what she actually was saying to the kid? What was she punishing the kid for? Is the kid totally innocent, or was he doing something he wasn't supposed to do? Does the kid have a history of breaking rules? Does the teacher have a history of being mean? Let's get the whole story!
Go to
May 15, 2014 09:28:38   #
Zemirah wrote:
jay-are, Pardon me for interrupting this spiel from which you are deriving such deep and abiding pleasure, but you just unraveled your entire hypothesis with this one line of scripture which you inadvertently included: "The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way."

That was the point that refutes your continual drumbeat that man is a powerless dummy, a puppet, who has no say, no choice, man being powerless to accept or reject God, the "truth" you have so steadfastly insisted was true.

Do you see it, Jay-are? God, in His infinite wisdom, said: The highway to hell is broad and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way."

God doesn't choose they go to hell, they choose.

Now, please do continue with your endless rant; type out twelve or twenty more posts on the subject.

Do try to consider the inclusion of everything God covers on a matter, rather than only those which agree with your preconceived hypothesis,

I have said what I believe on the matter.

You may talk to the forum, talk to God, talk to yourself, talk.......

Have a blessed evening, at the commencement of your talk.
jay-are, Pardon me for interrupting this spiel fro... (show quote)


Everybody is born cursed to be at enmity with God. That is the result of the sins of Adam and Eve. The only way to be restored to the original perfection that Adam was created with is for God to cause us to be born spiritually. In Adam's original state, he was able to choose between good and evil and he was able to communicate directly with God. After being cursed, he and all human descendants were cut off from God and were given a depraved nature that is only evil and only rejects God. Romans 3:10-18
10 As the Scriptures say,
“No one is righteous— not even one.
11 No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God.
12 All have turned away; all have become useless.
No one does good, not a single one.”
13 “Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave.
Their tongues are filled with lies.”
“Snake venom drips from their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “They rush to commit murder.
16 Destruction and misery always follow them.
17 They don’t know where to find peace.”
18 “They have no fear of God at all.”

All people are born initially with this depraved nature. To get to the kingdom of God, we must be born again spiritually. This is the only way to overcome the depraved nature that we are naturally cursed with. Jesus said, "you must be born again."

Being born again is a choice that God makes about who He chooses to give spiritual life to. This is done by God on an individual basis, not a mass act to choose everybody. Examples of individuals who God chose in the Bible include, Jacob, John the Baptist, Saul of Tarsus, and the Eunuch, and of course all the prophets, and everybody else who is described as someone who loved God. Once we are born spiritually by God's choice, our ability to choose between good and evil is restored and our original depraved nature is replaced with a new nature. This new nature is capable of doing good and loving God, and choosing to believe and follow. So, yes, I agree that people are saved by choosing to believe and obey, and people go to destruction by their own choice, but, the only ones who will choose to believe and follow have been chosen by God to be born spiritually first. Some who God has chosen will choose destruction over eternal life, and all who God has not chosen will choose destruction over eternal life. Thus, the understanding I believe is again consistent, and not contradictory. Many will go to destruction and few will find the narrow way to eternal life. That agrees with what the Bible teaches and what Jesus Christ taught. My belief results in consistent Biblical teaching, while yours results in the Bible contradicting itself.

Finally, how do you refute the teaching of Romans 9:14-16?

14 Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not! 15 For God said to Moses,
“I will show mercy to anyone I choose,
and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.”

16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

Are you saying it is your choice to believe that God is unfair if He chooses who will be saved, instead of letting men choose for themselves whether they want to be saved or not?
Go to
May 14, 2014 13:45:10   #
I believe in the same God that came to Abraham and told him to get up and go. I have the same faith that Abraham had to follow God without question.

Jesus also believed in that same God and lived according to God's will, and followed His leading in the same way that Abraham did. The apostles, who followed Jesus also believed in the same God that made the covenant with Abraham, and believed with the same faith that Abraham believed. I read and study the Bible and the Jewish texts and I believe them to be the word of God.

My real question is why is it more reasonable to believe that the truth is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, than it is to believe that the truth is consistent and understood with rational logic? Judaism teaches that Ishmael was not a descendent of Abraham because he was born to Hagar instead of Sara, but that all of Jacob's sons were true descendents even though 6 were born to one mother and the other 6 were born to three other mothers, two each. That is inconsistent logic.

Why is it not reasonable to believe that Jesus teaching was meant to untangle the twisted logic that the Jews had twisted the religion into? Jesus and the apostles teaching is that a relationship with the God of Abraham is not dependent on who your ancestors are. The story of Abraham is proof of that. He had a relationship with God just because when God came to him, he listened and believed and followed. It wasn't because of who his father was. The key to gaining eternal life and a relationship with God, is believing, obeying, and following. The talk about which religion you participate in is grasping at straws. There is no value in claiming to be a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim. That value has been added by men with their fleshly, sinful egos. It is not from God.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 139 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.