Right wing/Conservatism/Authoritarianism=WAR... Left Wing/Social liberalism=PEACE?

KatAutumn · #41 28th June 2010, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by silence_dogood

Kat, you refuse to answer my questions or provide any evidence for any of your claim and you consistently, dishonestly twist my words.

I believe that anybody who reads my posts to you will see that I did make a sincere effort to try to speak to you respectfully and very patiently.

But now, I just don't see any wisdom in continuing this conversation with you.

You're hilarious. You do this any time your posts are met with opposition. You cry foul and claim people are twisting your words. I never accused you of being impatient or disrespectful, and I have extended the same courtesy to you. If you don't wish to continue this discussion, fine.

silence_dogood · #42 28th June 2010, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by KatAutumn

You're hilarious. You do this any time your posts are met with opposition.

No, actually, I don't. In fact, you met my posts several times with opposition and I answered you each time, respectfully and patiently, even though you refused to answer my questions, or provide any evidence, or even to represent my words honestly.

Believe me, I was looking forward to discussing this with you but at the same time, the Bible also calls me to show wisdome in such matters, and I just don't believe it would be wise to continue on with you in this conversation when you're just not sincere.

You claim people are twisting your words. I never accused you of being impatient or disrespectful, and I have extended the same courtesy to you. If you don't wish to continue this discussion, fine.

No, actually, you haven't extended the same courtesy to me. If you had, then you would have answered my questions, provided evidence for your claims, and not distorted my words.

KatAutumn · #43 28th June 2010, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by silence_dogood

No, actually, you haven't extended the same courtesy to me. If you had, then you would have answered my questions, provided evidence for your claims, and not distorted my words.

Please give an example where I distorted your word, personally. I was trying to paint with a broad brush to encompass a cluster of folks on the right, not call you out individually. I can only give as many examples as humanly possible and have them met with "give me examples" before I run out of examples. I gave the Roe vs. Wade example. I gave the example of those on the right wanting to add an amendment to the Constitution to criminalize same-sex marriage on a federal level. You've made it clear welfare isn't something you support and that the government shouldn't help people, but you've yet to prove that taxpayer funded entities such as libraries, roads, and schools don't help people. You also failed to inform me which types of roads are funded by the federal government.

silence_dogood · #44 28th June 2010, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by KatAutumn

Please give an example where I distorted your word, personally.

I'm sorry, but you forfeited your right to ask for examples when you repeatedly refused to answer my requests for examples.

I was trying to paint with a broad brush to encompass a cluster of folks on the right, not call you out individually.

Except that you were responding to me, personally, in response to things that I said.

I can only give as many examples as humanly possible and have them met with "give me examples" before I run out of examples.

Except that you never gave examples.

I gave the Roe vs. Wade example.

You made a claim about Roe v Wade having "Constitutional basis". When I asked you to show some evidence of that claim, you refused to do so.

I gave the example of those on the right wanting to add an amendment to the Constitution to criminalize same-sex marriage on a federal level.

Again, that is a claim, not an example. Likewise, you claimed that same sex marriage had a basis in the Constitution but, when asked to show evidence for this claim, you could not do so.

You've made it clear welfare isn't something you support and that the government shouldn't help people, but you've yet to prove that taxpayer funded entities such as libraries, roads, and schools don't help people.

First of all, why should I have to prove that when I never claimed that?

Second, two of us explained to you that (a) libraries, roads, and schools are run at the state and local level and not at the federal level, and (b) they are public assets that benefit all citizens.

You also failed to inform me which types of roads are funded by the federal government.

No, actually, I explained to you that the federal government helps to fund state highways, county roads, and local roads.

Because yours was the only response I felt should be personally addressed.

Then your claim that you were not addressing me, personally, is untrue.

There's a difference between not giving examples and not giving examples that meet your standards.

I agree. And you did not give examples.

If Roe vs. Wade had no Constitutional precedent it would have never even been heard by the Supreme Court in the first place.

That's very interesting logic, KatAutumn. The problem with it is that many things that are heard by the SCotUS do not have Constitutional precedent. That's why they're voted down and overturned.

For instance, just yesterday, the Court struck down laws banning guns precisely because they have no Constitutional precedent.

I'm a citizen, not a Supreme Court Justice. I am not well versed enough in interpreting Constitutional Law to illustrate exactly how Roe vs. Wade has Constitutional merit

I see. So then, you're enough of a Constitutional scholar to make the claim, but not enough to back it up and show us where this "Constitutional basis" for Roe v Wade is actually found in the Constitution?

You said that schools, libraries, etc. benefit everyone, regardless of whether or not they utilize those services. I don't know about you, but I consider something that is beneficial as being helpful. In fact, according to Webster's Thesaurus, one of the synonyms of "beneficial" is "helpful" and you clearly stated that it's not the government's job to help people.

None of which demonstrates that I ever said that libraries, roads, and schools don't help people. In fact, I said just the opposite, that these things are public assets that benefit the community at large, and not just a few.

You're the one who claimed that schools do not benefit you.

Perhaps you're not really being dishonest, but are just not aware that these things are run at the state and local levels and not at the federal level.

So you admit they help citizens

Of course I do. In fact, had you bothered to read my posts, you'd have seen that I've said that all along, and even explained how schools are beneficial when you claimed that you don't receive any benefits from schools.

even if they are taxpayer subsidized at a state level, and yet you clearly stated "it's not the government's job to help people". You did not say it's not the "federal" government's job, just the government in general.

Sorry, I just assumed that you understand that when we talk about "the government", unless we qualify it by saying, "the state government" or "county or local government", that we're referring to the federal government.

Sometimes I forget that I'm on ChristianForums.

Actually you didn't, unless I missed it. I stated that I was of the impression that only interstates were federally funded and your response was a simple, "no, you're wrong" without offering up any further explanation of your rebuttal.

For what it's worth I did some research on my own and found that roads are partially federally funded under the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, but all maintenance and toll revenue are under the jurisdiction of the states.

Well, thanks for having the courage to admit that what I've been telling you all along is true.

If you really did your "research", then you would have also seen that funding for state infrastructure projects was a huge part of the recent "stimulus" boondoggle and that funding for state roads is routinely included in riders attached to unrelated bills in Congress.

So was 'ol Ike wrong starting this project so that states would receive partial federal funding for their roads and highways? Because, ya know, he was a Republican.

Yes, "Ol' Ike" was wrong. Not only was it Unconstitutional, it also destroyed countless small towns and businesses.

I have no idea what his being a Republican has to do with it but if you really want to get into that angle, although a Republican, Eisenhower was a Progressive, not a conservative.

KatAutumn · #45 29th June 2010, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by silence_dogood

I'm sorry, but you forfeited your right to ask for examples when you repeatedly refused to answer my requests for examples.

Never mind.

Except that you were responding to me, personally, in response to things that I said.

Because yours was the only response I felt should be personally addressed.

Except that you never gave examples.

There's a difference between not giving examples and not giving examples that meet your standards.

You made a claim about Roe v Wade having "Constitutional basis". When I asked you to show some evidence of that claim, you refused to do so.

If Roe vs. Wade had no Constitutional precedent it would have never even been heard by the Supreme Court in the first place. I'm a citizen, not a Supreme Court Justice. I am not well versed enough in interpreting Constitutional Law to illustrate exactly how Roe vs. Wade has Constitutional merit, only that it does according to the SCOTUS.

Again, that is a claim, not an example. Likewise, you claimed that same sex marriage had a basis in the Constitution but, when asked to show evidence for this claim, you could not do so.

I didn't say same-sex marriage had basis in the Constitution. Your claim is that states have sovereignty and that the Constitution should be preserved, and yet many on the right do not want the states to have jurisdiction over the issue of same-sex marriage to put it to a vote on the state level.

By the way, it's called the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently not everyone on the right feels the citizens of each state should have a right to decide whether or not they want their state to honor same-sex marriages.

First of all, why should I have to prove that when I never claimed that?

You said that schools, libraries, etc. benefit everyone, regardless of whether or not they utilize those services. I don't know about you, but I consider something that is beneficial as being helpful. In fact, according to Webster's Thesaurus, one of the synonyms of "beneficial" is "helpful" and you clearly stated that it's not the government's job to help people.

Second, two of us explained to you that (a) libraries, roads, and schools are run at the state and local level and not at the federal level, and (b) they are public assets that benefit all citizens.

So you admit they help citizens, even if they are taxpayer subsidized at a state level, and yet you clearly stated "it's not the government's job to help people". You did not say it's not the "federal" government's job, just the government in general.

No, actually, I explained to you that the federal government helps to fund state highways, county roads, and local roads.

Actually you didn't, unless I missed it. I stated that I was of the impression that only interstates were federally funded and your response was a simple, "no, you're wrong" without offering up any further explanation of your rebuttal.

For what it's worth I did some research on my own and found that roads are partially federally funded under the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, but all maintenance and toll revenue are under the jurisdiction of the states. So was 'ol Ike wrong starting this project so that states would receive partial federal funding for their roads and highways? Because, ya know, he was a Republican.

Mr. Ripley · #46 29th June 2010, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by KatAutumn

You said that schools, libraries, etc. benefit everyone, regardless of whether or not they utilize those services. I don't know about you, but I consider something that is beneficial as being helpful. In fact, according to Webster's Thesaurus, one of the synonyms of "beneficial" is "helpful" and you clearly stated that it's not the government's job to help people.

So you admit they help citizens, even if they are taxpayer subsidized at a state level, and yet you clearly stated "it's not the government's job to help people". You did not say it's not the "federal" government's job, just the government in general.

It's not the government's job to be giving out handouts.

onemorequestion · #47 29th June 2010, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf

Obama = 2 Wars
Bush = 2 Wars
Republicans = 2 Wars
Democrats = 2 Wars
Hence, your theory is off base.

What political party dropped a nuclear bomb on the civiliam population of their enemy?

Which ideology introduced the killing of of hundreds of millions of unborn human beings for convenience sake?

Liberalsim has introduced every STD and drug plague that has ever harmed mankind. Liberals seem very much at ease with socialism and communism, which both limit freedoms of individuals in every place they are employed, and/or, kill off people in numbers that stagger the mind.

Conservativism is an ideology that has limits to what totalitarianism can do and conservatives have shown throughout history that they are willing to die for the freedoms of others. Liberalsim embraces an odd mixture of totalitarianism and unbridled excess full fold, which history has proven is thedeadliest form of implemented ideologies of all time.

Now, which is the most dangerous form of belief system?

When compared to stacked up dead bodies . . . how is liberalism not the most harmful belief system in history?

KatAutumn · #48 29th June 2010, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Ripley

It's not the government's job to be giving out handouts.

What are we considering a handout, though? Let's say a woman and her husband have three children and one day he leaves to "get cigarettes" and never comes home. She waits years trying to collect child support. Meanwhile she is working two minimum wage paying jobs that don't cover the expenses. One of her children is an infant, so she qualifies for W.I.C. to help cover the insane cost of baby formula (because she's working two jobs she doesn't have time to breastfeed, see). Her children also qualify for MediCaid to cover their basic medical needs or, perhaps, an emergency like Little Johnny falls at school and needs stitches. Is it wrong for her to be receiving the help she needs? Is it really a "handout"?

What about the elderly woman who finds herself widowed? She married young, has no formal education, no skills beyond domestic ones, because her husband always provided for her. She qualifies to be the beneficiary of his Social Security, because he did not have life insurance or a safety net due to him working a blue collar job his entire life. Because she is a senior, she also qualifies for MediCare to help cover the cost of her prescription medications. Are those handouts?

What about the middle-age man who is caring for a terminally ill parent? He works hard, but lives paycheck to paycheck. He is laid off and has trouble finding work because of his age and because he requires flexibility to take time off once a month to take his parent to the doctor. He ends up having to go on unemployment, but it isn't enough? He's an only child with no other surviving parent and he, so he's forced to put his sick parent in a state-run home. Is that a handout?

We live under this pervasive myth that everyone in this country has the opportunity to be as wealthy as Sam Walton or Steve Jobs if only we work hard enough and apply ourselves. This is not true. The reason these are highly publicized success stories is because they are an anomaly. My husband and I don't barely get by because we're lazy. We barely get by because sometimes life happens and things don't turn out the way we thought they would and you end up not having the same opportunity as others to do better.

We didn't settle. My husband didn't expect chronic health problems would force him to quit college. I didn't expect to inherit a debilitating anxiety disorder from my mother's side of the family that would confine me to the house on any given day. We didn't expect to take care of his mother when she got Alzheimer's Disease. We didn't expect to lose our home to a fire and then one month later for my husband to be laid off from work. Fortunately, my parents were selfless and compassionate enough to take us in and give us a home. Without that support, we would be on welfare to cover the most basic of needs.

What happens to the people who don't have anyone to help them when they need it?

silence_dogood · #49 29th June 2010, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by KatAutumn

What are we considering a handout, though? Let's say a woman and her husband have three children and one day he leaves to "get cigarettes" and never comes home. She waits years trying to collect child support. Meanwhile she is working two minimum wage paying jobs that don't cover the expenses.

You're engaging in a logical fallacy commonly known as an "appeal to emotion". While such situations really do happen and are tragic, the issue is not how sad someone's story is, but whether or not government is to be involved in charitable outreaches.

One of her children is an infant, so she qualifies for W.I.C. to help cover the insane cost of baby formula (because she's working two jobs she doesn't have time to breastfeed, see). Her children also qualify for MediCaid to cover their basic medical needs or, perhaps, an emergency like Little Johnny falls at school and needs stitches. Is it wrong for her to be receiving the help she needs? Is it really a "handout"?

No, of course it's not wrong for her to recieve help. But it is both wrong and illegal for the government to be providing the help.

What about the elderly woman who finds herself widowed? She married young, has no formal education, no skills beyond domestic ones, because her husband always provided for her. She qualifies to be the beneficiary of his Social Security, because he did not have life insurance or a safety net due to him working a blue collar job his entire life. Because she is a senior, she also qualifies for MediCare to help cover the cost of her prescription medications. Are those handouts?

Social Security, no, because she paid into it. Medicare, yes.

What about the middle-age man who is caring for a terminally ill parent? He works hard, but lives paycheck to paycheck. He is laid off and has trouble finding work because of his age and because he requires flexibility to take time off once a month to take his parent to the doctor. He ends up having to go on unemployment, but it isn't enough? He's an only child with no other surviving parent and he, so he's forced to put his sick parent in a state-run home. Is that a handout?

Yes, but the state does have the authority to be involved in such things. It's the federal government that is not to be involved in these things.

We live under this pervasive myth that everyone in this country has the opportunity to be as wealthy as Sam Walton or Steve Jobs if only we work hard enough and apply ourselves. This is not true.

Let's say for a moment that you're right and it's not true. So what? That still doesn't make it the government's responsibility to take care of them.

What happens to the people who don't have anyone to help them when they need it?

They either reach out to someone who can help them, they help themselves, or they die.

Again, what happens to them is not the issue. The issue is who's responsibility it is to help them.

KatAutumn · #50 29th June 2010, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by silence_dogood

Again, what happens to them is not the issue.

It's very much the issue if you care about people more than how much Uncle Sam takes out of your paycheck. Life is partly effort and largely luck of the draw. On any given day my husband works five times harder than the average CEO making significantly less. We're talking peanuts to caviar, here. I'm not whining "oh, it's so unfair!", but it's likely that luck and profitable connections got that CEO his or her job, not honest to goodness hard work.

So, we can sit here all day long and talk about how handouts are so awful, because that means hard working people are losing money, when it's largely the hard working people who end up down in their luck and need handouts in the first place. So really all you're left with is a bunch of wealthy people taking advantage of their privilege and giving not a care in the world to what happens to the people who clean their toilets, cut their grass, do their hair, picks out their clothes, waxes their cars, keeps their corporations running smoothly, etc.

The issue is who's responsibility it is to help them.

Clearly some people assume it's their responsibility to simply help themselves or, as you put it, die. We're human beings, not wild animals. We have a great capacity for compassion, and yet we oftentimes fall so short when it comes to caring for others. You call my examples an appeal to emotion and accuse me of logical fallacy. I say it's all fine and good to tell people "let them eat cake" until you see them with your own eyes. Right now they're just degenerate scumbags who obviously don't work hard enough, because you can't put a face to the stereotype. It isn't until you see that single mother, or that widow, or that working class man (or even still, become that person) that it really begins to shed some light on how self-absorbed we are.