PDA

View Full Version : Understanding the "WHY" of it all.



Uncle Bill
11-23-2008, 11:44 AM
Being basically religeous...at least to the degree I'm a Christian...it's hard to understand what HIS plan is here. Especially when I see how many Catholics voted against their basic beliefs. Are there that many 'guilt-ridden' americans that voted their feelings above all else?

Or was it like Charles Barkley stated, "Poor black people have been voting Democrat for over 40 years, and they are still poor." Obviously that phrase fits more than black people, and this year they all voted. The 'why' I asked rhetorically, is quite simple. Here's one answer:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"

Or maybe this is the reason?


"THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENIUS AND STUPIDY IS THAT GENIUS HAS ITS LIMITS."---------ALBERT EINSTEIN


To amplify on that Einstein theory, is this:





Obama, King of Fools
by Ted Nugent (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29591)
11/21/2008



It is a defining indicator that the embarrassing, self inflicted dumbing down of America is all but complete when people vote against their own self-interest.


I'll say it: it is obvious that many Americans are not very smart. Quite dumb, actually. To listen to the Sirius radio interview with Obama voters from Harlem mindlessly cheering on Obama as the interviewer attributes McCain's policies to the Democrats is pathetic and an inescapable indicator of the blind leading the blind. Not Godbless or goddam America! God help America.


Trying to explain how our economy works and why lowering taxes is always better for them and their country, than imposing higher taxes is an economic bridge too far for many of the Obama sheep. Unfortunately there is no "See Spot & the Economy Run" book for the hooked on phonics crowd. Many of these numbskulls can't balance a check book or spell "e-c-o-n-o-m-i-c-s" but they sure know who will give them stuff. The lie is impossible.


Expecting these idiotscitizens to have analyzed the tax positions of Obama and McCain and arrive at a decision that truly benefits them and America is wishful thinking. The reason is that they know zilch about how the economy operates and worse, don't care. Bama will take care of us. Four very scary things-a sow grizzly with cubs at closerange, a coiled rattlesnake in striking distance, me in a rental car in the left lane, and dunces with credit cards.


And indeed they are dunces, products of a tax burning, failed public education system. That is, if they even bothered to complete high school. They don't read newspapers or books, and even if they did, I got twenty bucks that says they couldn't comprehend what they read. They are morons in the first degree. And clearly, they vote.


If and when President Obama attempts to impose his wrong-headed, punitive tax structure, their stupidity is going to come back to thump them upside their vacuous heads with a very painful crowbar of reality. The economy works in strange and wondrous ways and has a unique way of severely punishing fools. Rare justice is a beautiful thing.


These dunderheads have no clue how the economic mess was largely caused by Democrats, including Obama. But Obama, recognizing how gullible, naive and dumb many of his supporters are, drummed it into them that the economic mess was caused by President Bush and the Republicans and that he is going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when 40% of Americans don't even pay any federal taxes. Investing deception capital in the stupidity of his supporters was a very wise move on Obama's part. That is if you don't really care about anything except getting elected.


McCain had no marketable answer to Obama's charge because McCain knew that attempting to explain the economy to dumb people is impossible in 30 second commercials.


Fantasy driven clowns like the idea of believing they are getting something for nothing. What they receive, however, is always scraps from the economic table. They are too dumb to recognize this and thus condemn themselves to a pathetic life clinging to the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Their stupidity sentences them to a life of poverty and despair.


The President Obama tax plan punishes the producers -- the people who employ the majority of Americans. In Joe the Plumber terms, economic crap will quickly flow down hill and punish the employees. I mean former employees. The result of spreading the wealth around is spreading unemployment around.


Conversely, the McCain economic plan was based on tax cuts, which spur the economy forward, create jobs, and raise the standard of living for everyone. Pretty simple stuff, unless you are a stooge, comfortable in your ignorance who is easily manipulated and believes someone owes you something, such as healthcare and a job.As I've stated many times, people seldom get what they want, but usually get what they deserve. I'm very anxious to see our economy being built from the bottom up. There has never been a better time for that experiment. For the sake of my country, and my kids and grandkids, I wish you liberals well. You will have all the tools you need in the federal government, so there will be no excuses, no impediments.

You got the "change" you voted for, which is obvious by now with the many Clintonistas returning to power. And removing a few of those 'somewhat' conservative Democrats from their leadership posts, will further enhance your opportunity to move this nation into the socialistic camp.

Sorry Joe, et al, "hope" wasn't your reason for 'change'. No, the left's view of change was simply a total revengeful removal of Bush. It has to be gratifying to have achieved your goal. You and Bruce, Backpasture, Jeff, as well as all my East River libs, should be elated in your votes for 'change'. It's always enjoyable to watch folks receive what they wished for.


UB

Joe S.
11-23-2008, 12:56 PM
Sorry Joe, et al, "hope" wasn't your reason for 'change'. No, the left's view of change was simply a total revengeful removal of Bush. It has to be gratifying to have achieved your goal. You and Bruce, Backpasture, Jeff, as well as all my East River libs, should be elated in your votes for 'change'. It's always enjoyable to watch folks receive what they wished for.


UB

Well, Bill, you know a lot of stuff but you don't know squat about me. After the research was done it came down to voting for someone who told me that together we can make things better OR voting for a person that told me why I should be afraid of the other guy. The choice was clear.

For me, this wasn't about "a total revengeful removal of [President] Bush." All I know is President Bush will have to live with what he has done and in the end of days, he won't answer to me, so I clearly have no "vengence" for the man. Truth of the matter is, I wish him well. I'd like to think I would have done things differently were I the Great Decider but I'm not and won't ever be.

So, now you are trotting out Ted Nugent?

Be Well Regards,

Joe S.

YardleyLabs
11-23-2008, 01:21 PM
Why is it that in trying to sound profound conservative emails and blog posts always seem to begin with with quotes from sources that on inspection prove to be false? Tytler, not "Tyler" existed but there is no record of a book titled the Fall of the Athenian Republic or the Rise and Fall of the Athenian Republic. The first record of this "quote" dates all the way back to 1959 but it was made famous when quoted and mis-attributed by Reagan. (See http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp as one of many sources available).

Of course the notion of a state using its power to take the wealth of others and distribute it to others started not with democracies voting monies ofr themselves but with kings taking the products of their citizens to enrich themselves. They too found that when you pushed this approach too far the result was rebellion. If we measure the tendency of a government to use the power of the vote to suck the teat public largesse, I would suggest that the best measure is the extent to which a government incurs a deficit by cutting taxes without offsetting spending cuts, increases expenses without offsetting revenue increases, or both. For the last 50 years, the Republican party has made itself the champion deficit creator led by the efforts of GWB and followed by a narrow margin by Ronald Reagan (source: The Heritage Foundation).

The latter quote is more interesting since it bases its conclusions of stupidity on premises that are demonstrably false. Tax cuts are not always beneficial to an economy and in fact are harmful when pushed to extremes. A nation which does not invest in its infrastrcture will fail economically.

precisionlabradors
11-23-2008, 02:12 PM
UB-there are two sides to your post-the moral/ethical side, and the logical side.

it seems that you feel that they that support BHO are both immoral and illogical.

I cannot speak for anybody else, but will give you and idea of why I felt voting for him was both moral and logical. I know I don't know everything and won't insult your opinions, but welcome your opinion regarding what I think and feel.

Moral/ethical: I voted democrat because I both see the D ideology as in line with my morals/ethics and because I see the R ideology as leaving a lot of room for immorality and unethical behavior. You didn't say it, but it seems that with your "catholics voted against their morals" quote you were implying that because Dems are typically pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I am a democrat, would vote for pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but am anti-abortion and very heterosexual. Why would I vote for such? It's about morals/ethics to me. By making the rights available, it does not force one to do it. My morals are personal and whether they are legal or not has not bearing on what I believe to be moral/ethical. Am I making any sense? What I'm trying to say is that morally (I'm Christian), I believe the plan is to let us have the rope with which to hang ourselves, not to take away any chance of error. It's part of the test. That's just my Christian view. Financially I feel the dem ideology is more in line with Christian principles as well. Taking care of the sick and needy, making ourselves available to serve others, recognizing our blessings from above as blessings and not rights and sharing such blessings seem more in line with the teachings of the new testament to me, so I chose to vote as a democrat. Now, does that mean some immoral people will not take advantage of others goodness and humility? Definitely no. They do. People take care of the welfare others provide all the time, but that is the error of the encroacher. It seems bitter to cut off the goodness because some take advantage. The republicans I have shared this with rebut my argument with "I will give of my goodness, but don't feel it is a governments job to tell me how and when to give of myself". I agree with that, but morally/ethically it provides a dilemma for me. Historically, they that reap the blessings of their hard work begin to feel they are entitled to it and forget that they were blessed from above. They begin to see those that are down and out as lazy and as making the choice to remain in poverty. They begin to judge the poor, sick, afflicted, etc and undeserving and trying to take what is not theirs. That seems to go against the new testament teachings. God is the judge. I will give freely to all and if they take advantage, so be it. I have enough for my means. If men were moral enough to be charitable, there would be no need for govt to force the wealthy to take care of the not so wealthy. That was kind of scattered, so I hope I made a little sense.

Logically-I voted democrat on a logical field as well because after the past twenty years of trickle down, we are all trickled out. Giving tax cuts to business owners in order to provide expansion of business and creation of jobs works great in theory (so does communism), but has us in a world of hurt. It does not work when the money saved by tax cuts is used to expand business in the foreign market, creating jobs in India and China where wages are cheap so they wealthy business owner, who has been trusted (Morality) to do the right thing, makes a decision on greed and exploits in order to further his personal wealth. I do not support that and the D ticket spoke to me there.

Also on a logical side, we are now, for lack of a better term, the world's bitch. Respect in foreign policy for the US is low. We need Europe to buy from us and ally with us...not Asia. We need to do some things to repair the damage the GOP leader has caused. We need somewhat of a salesman that is willing to please some of our "friends" because we have been being a brat in the sandbox for the past decade and everybody got sick of us and went home. So logically, I want someone that can repair a bit of foreign relations, not stand stern and say "we're right. go to hell." The D ticket spoke to me here.

Bottom line, not all democrats are lazy welfare-mongerers. They are people that want the best for others and are willing to give something to try and attain that in society. The references made to those that want a free lunch and assigning that sentiment to the whole party is not realistic. I grew up in WY and in about 1996 or 1997 some UW students chained a gay guy to a fence and beat him to death. CNN and other national news networks came out to Laramie and found the most belligerent drunks they could find in the local saloons saying things like "Hell yeah man, in WY we hate all faggots." and similiar things. The media insinuated that this was the common sentiment in all of WY, but it's not. That is what I think when I see youtube links to blacks thinking they won't have a mortgage anymore. Trying to assign an idiotic sentiment to an entire group.

ramblings of a post-church sunday afternoon regards
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

precisionlabradors
11-23-2008, 10:06 PM
posts #29 and #30 on this thread also depict why I voted democrat.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=28819&page=3

The condensed version is that welfare is going to exist regardless (or irregardless wink Joe S.), of the governing party. If we regulate it (democrats) at least there is some hope welfare money will spent appropriately. If there is no/little regulation (republicans), private enterprise and greed take over and more people are enabled to abuse the welfare system.
________
Expert insurance (http://xpertinsurance.com/)

K.Bullock
11-23-2008, 10:48 PM
Being basically religious...at least to the degree I'm a Christian...it's hard to understand what HIS plan is here. Especially when I see how many Catholics voted against their basic beliefs. Are there that many 'guilt-ridden' americans that voted their feelings above all else?

heh ...I don't know. Which party would God have voted for? I would like to think that He is above partisan politics.

I have some very good friends that I know are faithful Christians and yet they chose to support Obama. On the micro level of things we agree, it's on the macro "big picture" level that we don't see eye to eye.
Though I think that they made a poor choice, I do not question their commitment to God. That is not for me to question anyway.


“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls... So then each of us will give an account of himself to God... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” Romans 14:1,4,12,22


The truth is the Republicans have lost a lot of credibility as far as the "Christian vote" is concerned. They usually don't come around until election time, then they start quoting scripture and kissing babies. It is not only Christians, but traditional conservatives too that are fed up with neo-conservative's.

Obama just had a whole lot of things going for him this time. And maybe it is not a bad thing. Maybe now Republicans will take a closer look at their values and we can recover some true conservative ground.

Bruce MacPherson
11-24-2008, 02:10 AM
Spilled milk, in my opinion. The Dems have the floor for the next two years at least. How they chooose to proceed will dictate what happens after that. I don'tagree with them philisophicaly, or monetarily but the majority has spoken. When you have a war weary public and a tanking economy it's easy for many to decide that change for changes sake is the way out.
We are all Americans, most of us want what's best for the country as a whole. Whether or not this President has the ability to inspire and lead through the turmoil ahead remains to be seen. Perhaps the majority has seen something in this man that has escaped me.
For all our sakes I hope so.
Mac

backpasture
11-24-2008, 10:15 AM
http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff350/backpasture/cry_baby.jpg

K.Bullock
11-24-2008, 10:58 AM
Funny, but not as good as:

http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee106/kbullock07/democratic_crybaby_seal.jpg:lol:

Buster Brown
11-25-2008, 01:58 AM
Being basically religeous...at least to the degree I'm a Christian...it's hard to understand what HIS plan is here. Especially when I see how many Catholics voted against their basic beliefs. Are there that many 'guilt-ridden' americans that voted their feelings above all else?

Or was it like Charles Barkley stated, "Poor black people have been voting Democrat for over 40 years, and they are still poor." Obviously that phrase fits more than black people, and this year they all voted. The 'why' I asked rhetorically, is quite simple. Here's one answer:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."

Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"

Or maybe this is the reason?


"THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENIUS AND STUPIDY IS THAT GENIUS HAS ITS LIMITS."---------ALBERT EINSTEIN


To amplify on that Einstein theory, is this:





Obama, King of Fools
by Ted Nugent (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29591)
11/21/2008



It is a defining indicator that the embarrassing, self inflicted dumbing down of America is all but complete when people vote against their own self-interest.


I'll say it: it is obvious that many Americans are not very smart. Quite dumb, actually. To listen to the Sirius radio interview with Obama voters from Harlem mindlessly cheering on Obama as the interviewer attributes McCain's policies to the Democrats is pathetic and an inescapable indicator of the blind leading the blind. Not Godbless or goddam America! God help America.


Trying to explain how our economy works and why lowering taxes is always better for them and their country, than imposing higher taxes is an economic bridge too far for many of the Obama sheep. Unfortunately there is no "See Spot & the Economy Run" book for the hooked on phonics crowd. Many of these numbskulls can't balance a check book or spell "e-c-o-n-o-m-i-c-s" but they sure know who will give them stuff. The lie is impossible.


Expecting these idiotscitizens to have analyzed the tax positions of Obama and McCain and arrive at a decision that truly benefits them and America is wishful thinking. The reason is that they know zilch about how the economy operates and worse, don't care. Bama will take care of us. Four very scary things-a sow grizzly with cubs at closerange, a coiled rattlesnake in striking distance, me in a rental car in the left lane, and dunces with credit cards.


And indeed they are dunces, products of a tax burning, failed public education system. That is, if they even bothered to complete high school. They don't read newspapers or books, and even if they did, I got twenty bucks that says they couldn't comprehend what they read. They are morons in the first degree. And clearly, they vote.


If and when President Obama attempts to impose his wrong-headed, punitive tax structure, their stupidity is going to come back to thump them upside their vacuous heads with a very painful crowbar of reality. The economy works in strange and wondrous ways and has a unique way of severely punishing fools. Rare justice is a beautiful thing.


These dunderheads have no clue how the economic mess was largely caused by Democrats, including Obama. But Obama, recognizing how gullible, naive and dumb many of his supporters are, drummed it into them that the economic mess was caused by President Bush and the Republicans and that he is going to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when 40% of Americans don't even pay any federal taxes. Investing deception capital in the stupidity of his supporters was a very wise move on Obama's part. That is if you don't really care about anything except getting elected.


McCain had no marketable answer to Obama's charge because McCain knew that attempting to explain the economy to dumb people is impossible in 30 second commercials.


Fantasy driven clowns like the idea of believing they are getting something for nothing. What they receive, however, is always scraps from the economic table. They are too dumb to recognize this and thus condemn themselves to a pathetic life clinging to the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Their stupidity sentences them to a life of poverty and despair.


The President Obama tax plan punishes the producers -- the people who employ the majority of Americans. In Joe the Plumber terms, economic crap will quickly flow down hill and punish the employees. I mean former employees. The result of spreading the wealth around is spreading unemployment around.


Conversely, the McCain economic plan was based on tax cuts, which spur the economy forward, create jobs, and raise the standard of living for everyone. Pretty simple stuff, unless you are a stooge, comfortable in your ignorance who is easily manipulated and believes someone owes you something, such as healthcare and a job.As I've stated many times, people seldom get what they want, but usually get what they deserve. I'm very anxious to see our economy being built from the bottom up. There has never been a better time for that experiment. For the sake of my country, and my kids and grandkids, I wish you liberals well. You will have all the tools you need in the federal government, so there will be no excuses, no impediments.

You got the "change" you voted for, which is obvious by now with the many Clintonistas returning to power. And removing a few of those 'somewhat' conservative Democrats from their leadership posts, will further enhance your opportunity to move this nation into the socialistic camp.

Sorry Joe, et al, "hope" wasn't your reason for 'change'. No, the left's view of change was simply a total revengeful removal of Bush. It has to be gratifying to have achieved your goal. You and Bruce, Backpasture, Jeff, as well as all my East River libs, should be elated in your votes for 'change'. It's always enjoyable to watch folks receive what they wished for.


UBAll you folks who worshiped Obama at the voter booth enjoy the chosen ones wonder and glory…. as you wait for your unemployment check and watch your 401K and retirement be taken over by Uncle Sam.

Remember the good ol' double digit inflation of the Carter years? And remember those glorious 10 and 15% mortgage payments???... and those wonderful long gas lines of the Carter years….well now you won't have to remember or wait to relive them...you can relive those glorious days NOW!!!

…sing with me now: "Happy days are here again. Those good ol' golden years are here again. Happy days are here again!"

luvalab
11-25-2008, 12:17 PM
Being basically religeous...at least to the degree I'm a Christian...it's hard to understand what HIS plan is here. Especially when I see how many Catholics voted against their basic beliefs. Are there that many 'guilt-ridden' americans that voted their feelings above all else?

To address the "Catholics voted against their basic beliefs" thought:

I work for a Catholic institution. There was a great deal of discussion regarding "sanctity of life" issues in relation to the platforms and candidates on both local and national levels. While the abortion part of the "sanctity of life" issues was, of course, a significant factor in the discussion, so too were the issues of the war and its troop and "collateral damages" sorts of losses as a sanctity of life issue, the death penalty, and--in a more general way--poverty and justice issues related to sanctity of life beliefs.

It wasn't as simple as a litmus test, and the election was discussed very thoroughly and seriously. Like, hopefully, the rest of the electorate, the Catholics I know voted because of their basic beliefs, not "against their basic beliefs."

I've been feeling guilt-ridden for not responding to this sooner...

mjh345
11-25-2008, 12:25 PM
I've been feeling guilt-ridden for not responding to this sooner...

You DEFINITELY are Catholic!!

luvalab
11-25-2008, 12:31 PM
You DEFINITELY are Catholic!!

Nope, not Catholic--

Neurotic.

K.Bullock
11-25-2008, 12:46 PM
To address the "Catholics voted against their basic beliefs" thought:

I work for a Catholic institution. There was a great deal of discussion regarding "sanctity of life" issues in relation to the platforms and candidates on both local and national levels. While the abortion part of the "sanctity of life" issues was, of course, a significant factor in the discussion, so too were the issues of the war and its troop and "collateral damages" sorts of losses as a sanctity of life issue, the death penalty, and--in a more general way--poverty and justice issues related to sanctity of life beliefs.

It wasn't as simple as a litmus test, and the election was discussed very thoroughly and seriously. Like, hopefully, the rest of the electorate, the Catholics I know voted because of their basic beliefs, not "against their basic beliefs."

I've been feeling guilt-ridden for not responding to this sooner...

This was my friends reasons. Interesting to note though, no where are we asked to help Caesar(the government) take care of the poor. The Church is responsible for the poor and widows around us. And when we compromise a basic belief such as the sanctity of life, in order to ensure that the government is more just to poor. We have stepped out on the edge of unsound doctrine. In that case the church has very little to do with who or how we choose.

The church has done very well in these areas and in some cases like Katrina, the church has proven much more efficient at getting help to those in need. So why do we need Caesar?

I believe your Bishop's are right in calling out the faithful that go against the church who are claiming it is because of their belief they are doing it.

I am not saying that the church should choose for you. I am only saying that they are right in not letting church doctrine be redefined simply because at the present time, the culture doesn't agree.

luvalab
11-25-2008, 01:14 PM
Kevin, too much to say--not "my" Bishop, and too much to say about everything. I'd say we'll talk the next time we bump into each other training, but I try to keep most talk about religion purely academic, and thus it's a bit dull unless you're as big a nerd as I am--and few are--so I just avoid it!

Just wanted to make sure one of Bill's points was responded to.

K.Bullock
11-25-2008, 01:58 PM
Kevin, too much to say--not "my" Bishop, and too much to say about everything. I'd say we'll talk the next time we bump into each other training, but I try to keep most talk about religion purely academic, and thus it's a bit dull unless you're as big a nerd as I am--and few are--so I just avoid it!

Just wanted to make sure one of Bill's points was responded to.

What is dull about old dead guys? I would love to hear your thoughts sometime.

If you have it in your plans to make it up this way that would be great. Jake has been looking through the Foster's and Smith catalog at sweaters ..I had better get him out of the house soon.:lol:

Off the hook you go. See ya out in the field.:)

luvalab
11-25-2008, 03:31 PM
Off the hook you go. See ya out in the field.:)

Whew!!! I get enough religion at work--can't let too much of it go on in my cyber or dog worlds! :)

Can't have the dogs going through the magazines--they may order something. I haven't been as diligent as I could be, either. Atticus is in his favorite chair by the heat register with a copy of Dr. Zhivago right now, which explains why he couldn't pick out a slot on a blind the other day...

Ed S., Marty B., me, Leslie, a couple of the flat-coat folks... we try, at least, to train regularly even in winter. Next time there's a group going out to Woodbury I'll give you a head's up, or if you want to go over by Delaware let me know, there might be someone training out that way.

--Greta Ode