Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you.
1. Jesus Christ
and
2. The American Soldier
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
I'm affraid they're no longer dying for our freedom, which has alot to do with this thread. We cannot keep putting the lives of our armed forces in the hands of corrupt men. War is big business and right now business is good. It is nothing for tyrants to throw away the lives of many for the profit of few.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you.
1. Jesus Christ
and
2. The American Soldier
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
I'm affraid they're no longer dying for our freedom, which has alot to do with this thread. We cannot keep putting the lives of our armed forces in the hands of corrupt men. War is big business and right now business is good. It is nothing for tyrants to throw away the lives of many for the profit of few.
wwestern I want to respectfully disagree with part of your statement. Though some of their lives may have been squandered, they still gave it for our freedom when they offered it up.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you.
1. Jesus Christ
and
2. The American Soldier
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
I'm affraid they're no longer dying for our freedom, which has alot to do with this thread. We cannot keep putting the lives of our armed forces in the hands of corrupt men. War is big business and right now business is good. It is nothing for tyrants to throw away the lives of many for the profit of few.
wwestern I want to respectfully disagree with part of your statement. Though some of their lives may have been squandered, they still gave it for our freedom when they offered it up.
I understand the point your trying to make here Al, but until we address the truth of it we're not going to be able to stop this non-sense. Just because you don't believe in multiple wars all at the same time doesn't mean your non patriotic, they've made us affraid to question the foreign policy with such rhetoric. If we don't start to speek out against these wars it's only going to get worse.
You can bet your bottom dollar I think the world of our troops, they lay their lives on the line daily for our protection. We owe to them to ensure that they aren't being misused. We should remember it's called the dept. of defense for a reason.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you.
1. Jesus Christ
and
2. The American Soldier
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
I'm affraid they're no longer dying for our freedom, which has alot to do with this thread. We cannot keep putting the lives of our armed forces in the hands of corrupt men. War is big business and right now business is good. It is nothing for tyrants to throw away the lives of many for the profit of few.
wwestern I want to respectfully disagree with part of your statement. Though some of their lives may have been squandered, they still gave it for our freedom when they offered it up.
I understand the point your trying to make here Al, but until we address the truth of it we're not going to be able to stop this non-sense. Just because you don't believe in multiple wars all at the same time doesn't mean your non patriotic, they've made us affraid to question the foreign policy with such rhetoric. If we don't start to speek out against these wars it's only going to get worse.
You can bet your bottom dollar I think the world of our troops, they lay their lives on the line daily for our protection. We owe to them to ensure that they aren't being misused. We should remember it's called the dept. of defense for a reason.
Over the past year I've really taken off my blinders and I think the "left"/"right" wing corners they have painted us into are what will be the eventual down fall of our great nation. Just doing some light research you can find out that the founding fathers warned us of all this. Don't dare quote them though, you'll be called a fringe lunatic for *** like that.
This is exactly so. I've had a number of thoughts on this subject, but not much time lately. I feel like I haven't done my homework here, since I'm behind on watching all these great clips you've posted. Let me see if I can summarize some things that are on my mind, and I'll be getting back to them with some historical perspectives I've picked up recently, and some I'll have to dig out.
1) There are those who profit from this left/right dichotomy, and they push the poles as far apart as possible.
2) Sheep, which are found on both sides of the fence
3) breaking down the categories: a: Liberals, 1. True Liberals 2. bleeding heart liberals 3. socialists 4. communists
b: Conservatives, 1. True Conservatives 2. Neo-Cons , who break into a couple of groups, but more on that later.
.
I spoke a little on the subject of "sheep" several pages back, so having finally found both a little time and a couple of the references I had in mind, I'd like to take up the subject of "Liberals" again.
Although it seems like only a short time ago, on thinking it over it was actually a couple of decades ago when I found myself in a conversation saying "I don't know why folks keep calling these guys Liberals, I'm a liberal and I disagree with almost everything the so-called liberals are saying most of the time". The person I was talking with, who happens to have been a long-time John Birch Society member, replied "Hmm, I've never heard you say anything that would really make me think of you as a Liberal". I'd like to present a couple of thoughts that others have had on the subject to clear up the defintitions both as I understood them, and as are now perceived by the general public.
First, some thoughts from one of the great Liberal minds of the early to mid 20th century, Bertrand Russell. "The principle of liberal democracy which inspired the founders of the American Constitution, was that controversial questions should be decided by argument rather than by force. Liberals have always held that opinions should be formed by untrammeled debate, not by allowing only one side to be heard. Tyrannical governments, both ancient and modern, have taken the opposite view...The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance is, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view (which reminds me of several current politicians and journalists, ie: Rick Perry, Nancy Pelosi, M. Bachman, Rupert Murdoch and others as well) is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action."
This had been exactly my thoughts on the matter when I described myself as a "Liberal" to my friend. How had this strange perversion of definition come about, wherein the term "liberal" has come to mean "authoratarian socialist"? Or, the Sean Hannity defintion of liberal which seems to equate to a six-year-olds meaning when he says "poopy-head"?
I found some instruction that seemed to fill the void in David Boaz's "Libertarianism, A Primer"
While describing the advent of Libertarianism, Boaz makes some similiar inferences as to it's origin as Russell did above: "...Today we know the philosophy of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill as liberalism.
But around 1900 the term liberal underwent a change. People who supported big government and wanted to limit and contriol the free market started calling themselves liberals. The economist Joseph Schumpeter noted, "As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." Thus we now refer to the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, and limited government--the philosophy of Locke, Smith, and Jefferson--as classical liberalism...(And in this era of historical illiteracy, if you call yourself a classical liberal, most people think you're a fan of Teddy Kennedy!)" Well, that's enough out of me for now, if I get a chance soon I'll add in some thoughts on conservatism, which is in my opinion generally about as damaging to our society as is modern "liberalism", thus I prefer to remain a Classical Liberal, or as it's said in the modern terminology; "Libertarian".
Noticed a headline yesterday, during Ron Pauls portion of an event the "social conservatives" got up and walked out. Closed ears, minds, and hearts, the fearful few who only believe in the "freedom" to believe as they believe, all others must obey their morals. Sounds a lot like the political side of Islam, doesn't it? What do you bet that these people consider themselves religious?
Come on Wes. Stretching it here a bit?. The first was just an example of the tactics we see from the left all the time. The woman with the *** milk was looking for a fight. The other? I don't know. If you had included a video of the TSA agents groping the large breasted woman, well, I may have had some sympathy.
When they have these Republican debates, the IQs of Ron and Newt in the same room exceeds that of the entire audience. And neither one of them has a chance in hell getting elected by the citizens of this country. We'll need a Manchurian candidate.
When they have these Republican debates, the IQs of Ron and Newt in the same room exceeds that of the entire audience. And neither one of them has a chance in hell getting elected by the citizens of this country. We'll need a Manchurian candidate.
Gonna go ahead and admit my eyes got a bit moist towards the end here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo It's getting close guys we have to get out and get the primary... our country is spiraling out of control and headed towards some dark times IMO. We have to restore fiscal sanity and liberty to our country if we hope to continue our excellence.
When they have these Republican debates, the IQs of Ron and Newt in the same room exceeds that of the entire audience. And neither one of them has a chance in hell getting elected by the citizens of this country. We'll need a Manchurian candidate.
so true. lol
+1-Unfortunately I believe Ron's simplistic isolationism simply will not work.
When they have these Republican debates, the IQs of Ron and Newt in the same room exceeds that of the entire audience. And neither one of them has a chance in hell getting elected by the citizens of this country. We'll need a Manchurian candidate.
so true. lol
+1-Unfortunately I believe Ron's simplistic isolationism simply will not work.
It's natural for countries to want to be able to defend themselves from other countries, which means having the same or better weapons... To think we have to police countries to keep their means of defense down is a pretty silly notion IMO. Also isolationism couldn't be a less acurate term, not fighting wars that don't involve our national security is anything but.
For some reason, not exhibiting a desire to take over or control the rest of the worlds governments gets labeled "isolationism". To believe Ron Paul is an isolationist, is to admit you don't know what he's talking about.
For some reason, not exhibiting a desire to take over or control the rest of the worlds governments gets labeled "isolationism". To believe Ron Paul is an isolationist, is to admit you don't know what he's talking about.
YES
Ron Paul is just living out what the founding fathers envisioned foreign policy. George Washington would say that we currently engage in too much "entanglement" ... and i tend to agree.
Comments
You can bet your bottom dollar I think the world of our troops, they lay their lives on the line daily for our protection. We owe to them to ensure that they aren't being misused. We should remember it's called the dept. of defense for a reason.
Although it seems like only a short time ago, on thinking it over it was actually a couple of decades ago when I found myself in a conversation saying "I don't know why folks keep calling these guys Liberals, I'm a liberal and I disagree with almost everything the so-called liberals are saying most of the time". The person I was talking with, who happens to have been a long-time John Birch Society member, replied "Hmm, I've never heard you say anything that would really make me think of you as a Liberal". I'd like to present a couple of thoughts that others have had on the subject to clear up the defintitions both as I understood them, and as are now perceived by the general public.
First, some thoughts from one of the great Liberal minds of the early to mid 20th century, Bertrand Russell.
"The principle of liberal democracy which inspired the founders of the American Constitution, was that controversial questions should be decided by argument rather than by force. Liberals have always held that opinions should be formed by untrammeled debate, not by allowing only one side to be heard. Tyrannical governments, both ancient and modern, have taken the opposite view...The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance is, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view (which reminds me of several current politicians and journalists, ie: Rick Perry, Nancy Pelosi, M. Bachman, Rupert Murdoch and others as well) is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action."
This had been exactly my thoughts on the matter when I described myself as a "Liberal" to my friend. How had this strange perversion of definition come about, wherein the term "liberal" has come to mean "authoratarian socialist"? Or, the Sean Hannity defintion of liberal which seems to equate to a six-year-olds meaning when he says "poopy-head"?
I found some instruction that seemed to fill the void in David Boaz's "Libertarianism, A Primer"
While describing the advent of Libertarianism, Boaz makes some similiar inferences as to it's origin as Russell did above:
"...Today we know the philosophy of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill as liberalism.
But around 1900 the term liberal underwent a change. People who supported big government and wanted to limit and contriol the free market started calling themselves liberals. The economist Joseph Schumpeter noted, "As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." Thus we now refer to the philosophy of individual rights, free markets, and limited government--the philosophy of Locke, Smith, and Jefferson--as classical liberalism...(And in this era of historical illiteracy, if you call yourself a classical liberal, most people think you're a fan of Teddy Kennedy!)"
Well, that's enough out of me for now, if I get a chance soon I'll add in some thoughts on conservatism, which is in my opinion generally about as damaging to our society as is modern "liberalism", thus I prefer to remain a Classical Liberal, or as it's said in the modern terminology; "Libertarian".
The first was just an example of the tactics we see from the left all the time. The woman with the *** milk was looking for a fight.
The other? I don't know. If you had included a video of the TSA agents groping the large breasted woman, well, I may have had some sympathy.
It's getting close guys we have to get out and get the primary... our country is spiraling out of control and headed towards some dark times IMO. We have to restore fiscal sanity and liberty to our country if we hope to continue our excellence.
Ron Paul is just living out what the founding fathers envisioned foreign policy. George Washington would say that we currently engage in too much "entanglement"
... and i tend to agree.