Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I am listening to Obama's speech. This passage from Matthew 23 describes in part what I think about his program:

…the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is for men to see…

What could be more clear, soul man? This one's for you.

native wrote:I am listening to Obama's speech. This passage from Matthew 23 describes in part what I think about his program:

…the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is for men to see…

You could say that for ALL politicians, not just Democrats.

catamount man wrote:

native wrote:I am listening to Obama's speech. This passage from Matthew 23 describes in part what I think about his program:

…the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. Everything they do is for men to see…

You could say that for ALL politicians, not just Democrats.

True dat, C-man, for the most part, true dat!

But I did not use the word, "Democrat." Obama is the one making the speech today, and the one placing the heavy load on everyone's back.

I think hitler and pol pot tried to reform healthcare first too.

kalm wrote:I think hitler and pol pot tried to reform healthcare first too.

I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

I just like it when Obama said we are going to cut back on healthcare costs by simply "going to the doctor and getting 1 test instead of 5." Wow! You mean all this time diagnosis was that easy and those doctors lied to us about their knowledge of our EXACT illness? I'm dissapointed. Oh wait a minute, my grandmother died because the doctors couldn't diagnose her illness correctly after 1 test...and she's a part of a national health system in the United Kingdom....maybe I should sue the medical system in England because now I know, according to our President, that those doctors KNEW what she was suffering from?!

Is this guy serious? Really? Because I've always assumed as advanced as science has become, sometimes those questions lead to answers, and those answers only bring up more questions!

Congrats to all you who voted for this moron. It's great to be an independent! Screw the party system...and natioal healthcare of any kind.

(P.S. I got laid off AND I have no health insurance for me or my family..and I don't want this.)

native wrote:

kalm wrote:I think hitler and pol pot tried to reform healthcare first too.

I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

I like you Nate, but I'm not really sure what the founders opinion of a 21st century healthcare system was.

I do know that words like capitalism, free markets, socialism, and christianity were ommitted from the constitution.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:I think hitler and pol pot tried to reform healthcare first too.

I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

nope, you assume progressives are communists or are communist-sympathizers whose favorite leaders are Mao and Stalin instead of the reality in which progressives just have a few certain goals (not a totalitarian government) they want and their favorite leaders Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and the Kennedy-Johnson ticket

the founders got it right IMO

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

nope, you assume progressives are communists or are communist-sympathizers whose favorite leaders are Mao and Stalin instead of the reality in which progressives just have a few certain goals (not a totalitarian government) they want and their favorite leaders Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and the Kennedy-Johnson ticket

the founders got it right IMO

When we feel free to steal from our neighbors, then the Constitution has been rendered meaningless, and there is no civil society.

It is tragic that this is our situation in America TODAY. It is even more tragic that you knuckleheads can't recognize it and don't care.

Willful hubris, really.

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

nope, you assume progressives are communists or are communist-sympathizers whose favorite leaders are Mao and Stalin instead of the reality in which progressives just have a few certain goals (not a totalitarian government) they want and their favorite leaders Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and the Kennedy-Johnson ticket

the founders got it right IMO

Youngster, you have got quite a lot to learn...
This administration holds Mao and Communist rhetoric in high regard...

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other. In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, the Nationalist Chinese helped the cities, they had the army, they had the Air Force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you?" And Mao Tse-tung said, "You fight your war and I'll fight mine," and think about that for a second.

--Anita Dunn
White House Communication Director

We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political "power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

--Ron Bloom
White House Manufacturing Czar

“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

Van Jones
Former White House "Green Jobs" Czar

Baldy wrote:

youngterrier wrote: nope, you assume progressives are communists or are communist-sympathizers whose favorite leaders are Mao and Stalin instead of the reality in which progressives just have a few certain goals (not a totalitarian government) they want and their favorite leaders Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and the Kennedy-Johnson ticket

the founders got it right IMO

Youngster, you have got quite a lot to learn...
This administration holds Mao and Communist rhetoric in high regard...

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other. In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, the Nationalist Chinese helped the cities, they had the army, they had the Air Force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you?" And Mao Tse-tung said, "You fight your war and I'll fight mine," and think about that for a second.

--Anita Dunn
White House Communication Director

We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political "power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

--Ron Bloom
White House Manufacturing Czar

“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

Van Jones
Former White House "Green Jobs" Czar

I've already discussed Jones and Dunn and have not heard Ron Bloom...onward to research....

but my point isn't just the Obama administration but ALL PROGRESSIVES

Baldy wrote:

youngterrier wrote: nope, you assume progressives are communists or are communist-sympathizers whose favorite leaders are Mao and Stalin instead of the reality in which progressives just have a few certain goals (not a totalitarian government) they want and their favorite leaders Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and the Kennedy-Johnson ticket

the founders got it right IMO

Youngster, you have got quite a lot to learn...
This administration holds Mao and Communist rhetoric in high regard...

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other. In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, the Nationalist Chinese helped the cities, they had the army, they had the Air Force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you?" And Mao Tse-tung said, "You fight your war and I'll fight mine," and think about that for a second.

--Anita Dunn
White House Communication Director

We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political "power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

--Ron Bloom
White House Manufacturing Czar

“I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

Van Jones
Former White House "Green Jobs" Czar

It's nearly hopeless, Baldy. YT claims to stand for the price mechanism and a laissez faire approach to the economy (the Austrian School), yet appears incapable of criticizing progressive solutions or progressives themselves. He is willing to take even the most avowedly radical "progressive" at his or her word, while derisively dismissing without examination those who espouse proven conservative solutions. He fails to articulate any substantial appreciation of the integral importance of private property to Constitutional rights and economic success and seems untroubled by forced redistributionist schemes. To YT, "forced redistribution" is not the same as "socialism" because... well I cannot fathom why someone who supposedly subscribes to the Austrian School of Economics would exhibit such a glaring deficiency.

native wrote:
1)It's nearly hopeless, Baldy. YT claims to stand for the price mechanism and a laissez faire approach to the economy (the Austrian School), yet appears incapable of criticizing progressive solutions or progressives themselves.

2)He is willing to take even the most avowedly radical "progressive" at his or her word, while derisively dismissing without examination those who espouse proven conservative solutions.

3)He fails to articulate any substantial appreciation of the integral importance of private property to Contitutional rights and economic success and seems untroubled by forced redistributionist schemes.

4)To YT, "forced redistribution" is not the same as "socialism" because... well I cannot fathom why someone who supposedly subscribes to the Austrian School of Economics would exhibit such a glaring deficiency.

1) I criticize progressives all the time, just because I don't take it to a personal level as you do so passionately with such hateful rhetoric doesn't mean I don't criticize at all. Economically, I'm more conservative than you are. I believe in abolishing the income tax and NOT replacing it with anything and abolishing the welfare programs or at least privatizing them over time

2) I give people the benefit of the doubt meaning I won't call them communists when there is reasonable evidence to the contrary, this kind of bickering diverts from the actual issues and just because I see Beck as the king of this and I don't lust to be Beck's personal butt buddy as you do does not mean I'm not conservative (ASUMountaineer is the same way as he has shown)

3)I believe in private property, ALL Constitutional Rights, and am a huge fan of Free Market Capitalism and am very troubled by the welfare state's sustainability

4) I only use the terms "forced redistribution" when quoting you, though it is low grade socialism or social capitalism I understand that people are more likely to listen to the economic principles I stand for if I can simply explain to them why the welfare state system doesn't work not why it is "the forced redistribution of wealth"

you don't know me old guy, quit trying and STFU with your McCarthyism and the putting of words in my mouth just because I verbally put my foot up your tail on a daily basis

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
1)It's nearly hopeless, Baldy. YT claims to stand for the price mechanism and a laissez faire approach to the economy (the Austrian School), yet appears incapable of criticizing progressive solutions or progressives themselves.

2)He is willing to take even the most avowedly radical "progressive" at his or her word, while derisively dismissing without examination those who espouse proven conservative solutions.

3)He fails to articulate any substantial appreciation of the integral importance of private property to Contitutional rights and economic success and seems untroubled by forced redistributionist schemes.

4)To YT, "forced redistribution" is not the same as "socialism" because... well I cannot fathom why someone who supposedly subscribes to the Austrian School of Economics would exhibit such a glaring deficiency.

1) I criticize progressives all the time, just because I don't take it to a personal level as you do so passionately with such hateful rhetoric doesn't mean I don't. Economically, I'm more conservative than you are. I believe in abolishing the income tax and NOT replacing it with anything and abolishing the welfare programs or at least privatizing it over time

2) I give people the benefit of the doubt, Just because I don't lust to be Beck's personal butt buddy as you do does not mean I'm not conservative (ASUMountaineer is the same way as he has shown)

3)I believe in private property, ALL Constitutional Rights, and am a huge fan of Free Market Capitalism and am very troubled by the welfare state's sustainability

4) I only use the terms "forced redistribution" when quoting you, though it is such I understand that people are more likely to listen to the economic principals I stand for if I can simply explain to them why the welfare state system doesn't work not why it is immoral

you don't know me old guy, quit trying and STFU with your McCarthyism and the putting of words in my mouth just because I verbally put my foot up your tale on a daily basis

Although the target is big enough, you can't kick that high, youngster.

As you have already figured out, I will not "STFU," and I will continue expect you to include substance in your posts.

More importantly, thank you for the rich substance in this particular post, in particular for articulating a substantial appreciation of the integral importance of private property to Contitutional rights and economic success, as well as a concern with the lack of efficacy in redistributionist schemes.

Although you live in a sheltered environment, you must still understand that the forced redistributionist policies we disuss have life and death consequences. It is fair to consider the moral components of redistributionist schemes for a number of reasons, including their life and death consequences and the injection of the Gospel into recent discussions.

Interesting idea to abolish the income tax. I might be conveted to your point of view if you could show us how it could be done.

The word you seek is "principle," not "principal."

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote: 1) I criticize progressives all the time, just because I don't take it to a personal level as you do so passionately with such hateful rhetoric doesn't mean I don't. Economically, I'm more conservative than you are. I believe in abolishing the income tax and NOT replacing it with anything and abolishing the welfare programs or at least privatizing it over time

2) I give people the benefit of the doubt, Just because I don't lust to be Beck's personal butt buddy as you do does not mean I'm not conservative (ASUMountaineer is the same way as he has shown)

3)I believe in private property, ALL Constitutional Rights, and am a huge fan of Free Market Capitalism and am very troubled by the welfare state's sustainability

4) I only use the terms "forced redistribution" when quoting you, though it is such I understand that people are more likely to listen to the economic principals I stand for if I can simply explain to them why the welfare state system doesn't work not why it is immoral

you don't know me old guy, quit trying and STFU with your McCarthyism and the putting of words in my mouth just because I verbally put my foot up your tale on a daily basis

Although the target is big enough, you can't kick that high, youngster.

As you have already figured out, I will not "STFU," and I will continue expect you to include substance in your posts.

More importantly, thank you for the rich substance in this particular post, in particular for articulating a substantial appreciation of the integral importance of private property to Contitutional rights and economic success, as well as a concern with the lack of efficacy in redistributionist schemes.

Although you live in a sheltered environment, you must still understand that the forced redistributionist policies we disuss have life and death consequences. It is fair to consider the moral components of redistributionist schemes for a number of reasons, including their life and death consequences and the injection of the Gospel into recent discussions.

Interesting idea to abolish the income tax. I might be conveted to your point of view if you could show us how it could be done.

The word you seek is "principle," not "principal."

Private property is dire for Free Market Capitalism. A Government cannot predict what its people will demand and how much is needed to supply especially while politicians bicker over what to invest in, protect, etc. A true Free Market is perfect, what the people want they get, there is no need for government to invest in technology such as "green technology" because if the people truly want it they will spend their money on it. (however the poor and unemployed do need private charity)

The perspective of welfare is distorted by the income tax and its progressive nature. the idea that the government owns a certain percentage of my income is rather troubling especially if I'm rich, that kind of thinking echos the military draft standpoint in that the government owns you and can throw away your life if it needs to. Liberals are used to this viewpoint, I don't think they think of it much as they believe it is necessary for our country to work as if we've always had it(which we haven't). Mixed that belief with the belief (a noble belief I believe--not socialist, Maoist, etc.) that government should help those who can't help themselves they believe it is perfectly acceptable to raise the taxes on those who make higher income and raise the scope of government for welfare purposes to help those who can't help themselves, they do not do this as a jihad against capitalism, or individual right, etc but rather to help the little guy. It doesn't work because the inflation our Banking system (the Fed) enacts on our economy currency, the dollar, makes it harder for each individual to make a good living because the value of the dollar goes down, increasing the lower class, meaning government will have to raise taxes to increase the welfare state, slowing economic growth and increasing the lower class through unemployment (that happened due to taxes on the employers increasing) and the cycle continues until we have a basic socialist state of minimal growth and no middle class, only the rich who pay taxes and produce; and the poor who don't work, get a hand out and consume. Don't get me started on the Federal Reserve system.

The problem I have with you and Beck is that you misrepresent the other side's intentions. Beck said "Progressives want to control every aspect of your life." that is not true. They wish to provide a safety net. Instead of explaining why the safety net principal doesn't work as I alluded to he'd rather waste our time comparing people to communists, slippery slopes, etc instead of pointing out why their REAL philosophy is wrong. Rhetoric is everything, and once you make false comparisons and misrepresentations of others' views you lose the moral high ground. I have not disagreed with you on ideology but rather this purpose; people don't like us because the stuff Beck says about them

The income tax is 40% of our income or our budget in 1996. Abolish it and the welfare programs and we're out of debt.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:I think hitler and pol pot tried to reform healthcare first too.

I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

not true at all. Jefferson HATED bankers and capitalism as well.

catamount man wrote:

native wrote:
I finally get why you guys hate Beck - and sometimes me - so much. You don't think the founders were right. You think their vision was wrong. I get it.

not true at all. Jefferson HATED bankers and capitalism as well.

no he just hated bankers

youngterrier wrote:

catamount man wrote:
not true at all. Jefferson HATED bankers and capitalism as well.

no he just hated bankers

What was the philosophical basis for Jefferson's distrust of bankers? Do you think it also stemmed from his rivalry with Hamilton?

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
1)It's nearly hopeless, Baldy. YT claims to stand for the price mechanism and a laissez faire approach to the economy (the Austrian School), yet appears incapable of criticizing progressive solutions or progressives themselves.

2)He is willing to take even the most avowedly radical "progressive" at his or her word, while derisively dismissing without examination those who espouse proven conservative solutions.

3)He fails to articulate any substantial appreciation of the integral importance of private property to Contitutional rights and economic success and seems untroubled by forced redistributionist schemes.

4)To YT, "forced redistribution" is not the same as "socialism" because... well I cannot fathom why someone who supposedly subscribes to the Austrian School of Economics would exhibit such a glaring deficiency.

1) I criticize progressives all the time, just because I don't take it to a personal level as you do so passionately with such hateful rhetoric doesn't mean I don't criticize at all. Economically, I'm more conservative than you are. I believe in abolishing the income tax and NOT replacing it with anything and abolishing the welfare programs or at least privatizing them over time

2) I give people the benefit of the doubt meaning I won't call them communists when there is reasonable evidence to the contrary, this kind of bickering diverts from the actual issues and just because I see Beck as the king of this and I don't lust to be Beck's personal butt buddy as you do does not mean I'm not conservative (ASUMountaineer is the same way as he has shown)

3)I believe in private property, ALL Constitutional Rights, and am a huge fan of Free Market Capitalism and am very troubled by the welfare state's sustainability

4) I only use the terms "forced redistribution" when quoting you, though it is low grade socialism or social capitalism I understand that people are more likely to listen to the economic principles I stand for if I can simply explain to them why the welfare state system doesn't work not why it is "the forced redistribution of wealth"

you don't know me old guy, quit trying and STFU with your McCarthyism and the putting of words in my mouth just because I verbally put my foot up your tail on a daily basis

Native just got his pwned by a 16 year old. YT, first beer on me when you hit 21 brah!!!

native wrote:

youngterrier wrote: no he just hated bankers

What was the philosophical basis for Jefferson's distrust of bankers? Do you think it also stemmed from his rivalry with Hamilton?

there's a quote somewhere I can find on that but am too lazy to look for, he didn't hate bankers per sea as he hated BANKING and the idea of a National Bank

catamount man wrote:

youngterrier wrote: 1) I criticize progressives all the time, just because I don't take it to a personal level as you do so passionately with such hateful rhetoric doesn't mean I don't criticize at all. Economically, I'm more conservative than you are. I believe in abolishing the income tax and NOT replacing it with anything and abolishing the welfare programs or at least privatizing them over time

2) I give people the benefit of the doubt meaning I won't call them communists when there is reasonable evidence to the contrary, this kind of bickering diverts from the actual issues and just because I see Beck as the king of this and I don't lust to be Beck's personal butt buddy as you do does not mean I'm not conservative (ASUMountaineer is the same way as he has shown)

3)I believe in private property, ALL Constitutional Rights, and am a huge fan of Free Market Capitalism and am very troubled by the welfare state's sustainability

4) I only use the terms "forced redistribution" when quoting you, though it is low grade socialism or social capitalism I understand that people are more likely to listen to the economic principles I stand for if I can simply explain to them why the welfare state system doesn't work not why it is "the forced redistribution of wealth"

you don't know me old guy, quit trying and STFU with your McCarthyism and the putting of words in my mouth just because I verbally put my foot up your tail on a daily basis

Native just got his pwned by a 16 year old. YT, first beer on me when you hit 21 brah!!!

It took a hell of a lot of work to finally get that substantive post.

native wrote:

catamount man wrote:


Native just got his pwned by a 16 year old. YT, first beer on me when you hit 21 brah!!!

It took a hell of a lot of work to finally that substantive post.

not really, just the one where you could some-what agree with me

youngterrier wrote:

native wrote:
It took a hell of a lot of work to finally that substantive post.

not really, just the one where you could some-what agree with me

Nope. I agreed with you a dozen times - but you were too pissed to notice.

Are you really only 16? Sheeeeeit! If so, I apologize for pushing you so hard. I thought you were a graduate student.

I'm just glad that there's a 16 year old out there that actually cares about politics. I was starting to lose faith in our youth.