| 0 |
Subject: Conservative Living: The Key to a Successful Life
Posted by: azdbacker
- [65401412] Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 19:08
From my blog: Conservatism Today
A.J Sparxx at PoliPundit wrote a thought-provoking post last weekend that I've been waiting to comment on: Definition of a Conservative
In it, Sparxx quotes Lyn Nofziger, who got his start in politics under Governor Ronald Reagan, and helped campaign for Reagan, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. (It is Nofziger, not Nofgizer.) Nofziger was a part of Reagan's "Kitchen Cabinet," a group of Californians who rode Reagan's coattails to the national political scene. His definition of a conservative is the best, most succinct one I've ever seen:
“Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone.’
“Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort.
“Third, a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth.
“That’s about it.
“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable.
“One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.”
That's it. Sparxx asks in his column whether or not a person can be pro-choice and still be a conservative. The answer is: absolutely he can. The abortion issue hinges on individual morality, which for most Americans is dependent on their understanding of the Bible. I'm pro-life, in any case except where the doctor believes childbirth is likely to result in the death of the mother. I think it's unconscionable to abort a child while good families who can't have kids of their own sit on waiting lists to adopt. But reasonable people can disagree.
What a conservative cannot agree with is that abortion should be legal because five people in black robes think the Constitution says we have a right to do so. It clearly doesn't. The Constitution, as written, says that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is to be left to each individual state to determine. If the people of my state decide that abortion-on-demand should be legal, then I believe they have spoken. I can then either accept that fact, or (if what other people do bothers me that much) lobby to change people's minds, or move to a state where the people do not believe that abortion should be legal. That's the beauty of federalism.
Simple. If only the Democrat Party didn't fight so hard to suppress democratic ideals. If only liberals weren't so illiberal to dissenting views that they ceaselessly work to overturn the will of the people by unelected judges. If only progressives weren't so opposed to the most progressive constitution the world has ever seen. Democrats, liberals, progressives... I love how the words we use to describe leftists have no correspondence to the ideas they actually believe in. What fun would politics be if it weren't so damn confusing to average Americans? How would a leftist like Obama ever be elected to a PTA board, let alone President of the United States, if not for leftists stealing descriptions from those who actually represent them.
As Nofziger noted, conservatism is against government as the solution to problems in most people's lives. A conservative believes that people should help others who are less fortunate out of their own free will, not by having government play Robin Hood.
The main problem with most non-kooky liberals is that they equate government with charity. Giving is good, and as I noted earlier this week, conservatives give way bigger than liberals do. Stealing from people to give to others is bad. This is what liberals do through taxes.
Taxes are necessary for the common good (I mean that in a totally non-Marxist way), but I have a problem with taxes when the government asks for more of my money than God does. No American should ever pay more than a tithe of his increase (ten percent) to the government, except by his or her own free will. With over 80% of Americans calling themselves Christians, this should be pretty simple to pass. I don't know a Christian who thinks the U.S. government should be viewed as more important than God. An amendment outlawing taxes above 10% would be a great step to making Americans freer and more prosperous.
What does God do if a person decides to pay less than 10% to others? He forgives you. What does our almighty government do? Imprison you.
The fact is, nobody succeeds by living liberal values. Look at all the big liberals out there: Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Oprah, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin.... Every single one of them succeeded in highly competitive fields. They succeeded because they worked hard. They didn't succeed because of government handouts. A successful liberal is, by definition, a hypocrite.
What does success mean to you? Is it wealth or fame? We see plenty of liberals achieve these things, but they do it by competing better than others in a free market. Alec and Susan worked their asses off to get where they are today. Is that what they advise the rest of us to do? No, they tell us that the government is supposed to care for us. The only time we see successful liberals living their liberalism is when we see them struggle with drug abuse, divorce, poor family relationships, sexual deviancy, abusing their children (yeah, I mean you Alec) and general bad behavior. The successes come from living as a conservative, the failures from living as a liberal.
But Bill Gates is guilty. He has so much, and so many people have so little. Never mind that he earned his billions of dollars by providing technology that has made trillions of dollars for humanity. And Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin have an empty feeling because they've made millions by pretending to be someone they aren't (which, incidentally, is why we liked them in the movies. Can anyone imagine anything more annoying than paying to see these two jokers act like themselves?).
Is success having a loving family, one that will be with you through the best and the worst times? Liberalism has done more to destroy the family than any disease ever could. Like Hillary said, "It takes a village." Who needs a family, and what liberal would want the family involved when most good families tend to disagree with liberal solutions? Is success being content with your life? Has anyone ever met a happy, contented liberal? I haven't and I'm not holding my breath.
What about the trial lawyers, you ask? Yes, they are mostly liberals, and yes, they exist largely because of our government, and yes, many of them would be considered successful. But no, they don't live by liberal ideals. Do they sit around waiting for government to make them partner in their law firm? No, they work 60-80 hour weeks if they're good, until they reach the pinnacle. Then they donate money to liberal organizations that teach government dependency.
Hypocrisy sucks. So does liberalism. Conservatism is what liberalism is not. It is all that is right and good in this world.
Posted by Scott Martin on June 15, 2008 at 03:50 PM |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 129 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 19:48
|
Evidence for my thesis is right here, as a matter of fact, as those posters with the most balanced view, such as PV, are those with strong exposure to those with political views they may not share. - Bili
OK, how does PV have more contact with those who disagree with him than Jag, Boxman and me?
This is a liberal echo chamber for the most part.
For the record I am getting my information from the actual words of the philosphers of the 60's liberalism movement and their successors consciously and explicitly working to destroy the family. Not from anecdotal information.
|
| 130 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 20:16
|
I am getting my information from the actual words of the philosphers of the 60's liberalism movement...
They aren't all dead?
Have you stepped outside in 50 years? If you go outside, hunt-up, and chat with a liberal today, 98% will probably say "philosophers of the 60s?!? Just stay out of my bedroom and outta my stash, ya kook."
PV lives among one of the most socially conservative populations in the nation.
|
| 131 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 20:20
|
A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion. How does killing an unborn human life a way of showing that someone is pro family?
|
| 132 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 20:25
|
You apparently know less about liberalism than philosopher Baldwin.
|
| 133 | Tree
ID: 75532317
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 21:11
|
A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion.
do you consider me liberal?
just wondering, since, ya know, i'm not pro-abortion. in fact, i'd bet most of the folks here who you consider liberal, are not pro-abortion.
|
| 134 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 22:59
|
Bili
I refer to '60's liberalism' to distinguish the philosphy from 'classical liberalism'. The quotes I intend to show you come from think tanks and universities today and they form the framework underpinning legislation like GOALS2000 and the bills you liberals and your representatives will be supporting in the near future.
|
| 135 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:04
|
Tree
Yeah, there isn't anyone who holds human life sacred who will buy your 'I dislike abortion but I'll fight to the death to make sure the abortion mills keep grinding'. That is pro-abortion.
Can you even bring yourself to support making partial birth abortion illegal? Didn't think so.
|
| 136 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:10
|
It's funny that Baldwin is posting in a "The Key to a Successful Life" thread as his religion does not think one can even have a successful life in this world. He's just waiting for the next life, which he is certainly free to do, but if there is not one after all, what a waste...
This mindset explains a lot. Everything sucks and is getting worse. Don't get caught up in this life, it's pathetic compared to God's Kingdom. Just bide your time like it's a 78 year plane trip with no bar, just bad food.
|
| 137 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:27
|
It's funny that Baldwin is posting in a "The Key to a Successful Life" thread as his religion does not think one can even have a successful life in this world.
If you expect people to take you seriously you shouldn't make such moronic statements that show that you have no clue what Christians believe. I have personally taught bible classes on abundant living for the last five years. All of the top television, radio and book-selling preachers teach that living biblical principles and faith in God leads to prosperity.
I can see how you'd be confused though, having not seen sermons by anyone other than Reverend Wright recently.
|
| 138 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:29
|
You understand, don't you, that Baldwin's a JW?
|
| 139 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:30
|
SZ
Yes and no. I'd still follow this lifestyle and these priciples if it wasn't rewarded in the end with a place in God's Kingdom.
I'll give you an example from my personal life last Saturday. We were attending a neice's wedding and my family happened to be seated at the reception with my wife's old flame from her highschool days. I mean she hung on his every letter from VN and was very torn up when he proceeded to not marry her when he came home.
While I will admit to some jealous moments they were the first jealous moments I have ever experienced in 33 years of marriage.
The guy is available.
I am experiencing all kinds of financial stresses that impact the marriage currently.
I will be married to her until death and that is one stressor I do not need to worry about.
I pity anyone without my religion going thru a weekend like that. I don't think they would be 'successful'.
|
| 140 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:32
|
#138 - oh, no I didn't. I retract what I said, except the Reverend Wright line, which was good.
|
| 141 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:32
|
Baldwin is a JW. I think he can speak for himself on his religion.
All of the top television, radio and book-selling preachers ...
Er, no they don't. Sure, some bestselling charlatans preach that God wants you to be rich. But Jesus, who caught a lot of flack for hanging around preaching to the the poor like Rev Wright does, was very clear that prosperity, measured in financial terms, is a barrier to entry into heaven, not a result of Biblical living.
|
| 142 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:37
|
Azdbackr
Spiritual prosperity is the only kind that matters. As even George Carlin pointed out, we don't get to take the other kind with us.
|
| 143 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:41
|
Jesus accurately reported the fact that many who acquire wealth do so to the detriment of their spiritual good.
The word 'poor' in the Bible is more accurately translated 'humble' or 'meek.' Jesus spoke to any who would hear him, including many wealthy people. By definition those would be the people who were 'humble' or 'meek' to receive His words.
No reasonably knowledgeable reader of the Bible could ever come to the conclusion that God wants those who love him to be weak, miserable or poor.
|
| 144 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 00:04
|
AZD
As I recall when he wanted them to work on his house of worship and his people wanted to put wood panelling in their houses instead, the materialism and self-gratification had to take a back seat.
|
| 145 | Tree
ID: 10532245
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 06:59
|
Yeah, there isn't anyone who holds human life sacred who will buy your 'I dislike abortion but I'll fight to the death to make sure the abortion mills keep grinding'. That is pro-abortion.
you're welcome to think that makes me pro-abortion, but it doesn't.
i am very much anti-abortion. i've had a couple of "scares" in my lifetime, and abortion was never even discussed as an option.
however, i believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.
|
| 146 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 14:51
|
Getting back to the original topic:
Why are Conservative Happier than Liberals
the reason for this happiness disparity can be distilled to the separate ideologies of liberals and conservatives.
The authors argue that a conservative belief acts as a psychological buffer in a world of increasing inequality. The idea is that conservatives tend to rationalize inequality as the result of a fair process in a meritocracy, whereas liberals tend to see inequality as inherently unjust.
Analyses with data from 9,000 people across 10 countries uncovered the pattern that, not only do right-wingers report greater life satisfaction across cultures, but the gap widens in those countries where quality of life is low.
Finally, the authors looked at U.S. data spanning the past 30 years, and found that increasing economic inequality is associated with the decrease in the nation’s overall happiness. But noted they found that liberals’ self-reported happiness decreased more steeply than that of conservatives.
|
| 147 | Razor
ID: 545172413
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:06
|
LOL, ignorance is bliss.
|
| 148 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:10
|
No, but not being a whiny bitch is.
|
| 149 | Perm Dude
ID: 33540241
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:11
|
The word 'poor' in the Bible is more accurately translated 'humble' or 'meek.'
Actually, it is more accurately translated as "poor." This was why Jesus told the rich man to give away his possessions. He wasn't "reporting" however. Jesus was forward looking (as opposed to some of his present-day followers, who are trying to mine and change his words to justify their own tendencies).
#147: Exactly. When you don't worry as much about the ethical or moral effects of your life, you do tend to be "happy."
|
| 150 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:36
|
When you don't worry as much about the ethical or moral effects of your life, you do tend to be "happy."
No, it's when you don't worry about the moral and ethical effects of OTHER PEOPLE's lives that you tend to be happy.
When I think about the moral and ethical effects of my life on other people's, I get even happier.
|
| 151 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:46
|
Apparently, liberals in America are going to keep getting less and less happy.
increasing economic inequality is associated with the decrease in the nation’s overall happiness. But noted they found that liberals’ self-reported happiness decreased more steeply than that of conservatives.
At some point, other than flat-out stealing people's money and giving it to others, I'd like liberals to explain how they expect to stop the increase in economic equality.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to tell you that the poorest person in America next year won't be much richer than the poorest guy this year is. But money grows if not squandered, so the richest person in America will nearly always be richer than he was the year before.
It must suck when such obvious realities make you sad.
|
| 152 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 17:01
|
Getting back to the original topic:
following the Baldwin school of demonizing an entire religion, and following the Baldwin school of changing the subject when you're wrong.
good job, young Jedi.
|
| 153 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 17:09
|
Tree
Considering that the Koran orders muslims to kill every Jew in the last days and claims even the rocks and trees would help them perform that task, you, a Jew, are remarkably charitible on that point. They are all going off the same book. It's not like I am unfairly generalizing when I say that is what every muslim is explicitly instructed to do.
Exactly why you are instead upset at Christians is a mystery tho.
|
| 154 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 17:26
|
Tree-
I wasn't aware that returning to the subject of my original post was considered changing the subject in a negative way, and I simply pointed it out because we had been off the original post subject for about 100 posts.
I was shown to be wrong on something? I don't see it. You mean when I didn't know that Baldwin was a JW? That's all I see.
|
| 155 | angryCHAIR
ID: 561401810
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 19:05
|
AZD---(OT)I remember chatting baseball with you. My moniker then was: gibby88! BTW---what's up with B Webb!?
Sorry to get off-topic!
|
| 156 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 19:13
|
Oh, ok, I was wondering who you were.
Hopefully just a bad couple weeks for Webb. I don't worry about him too much.
|
| 157 | Tree
ID: 415132419
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 20:37
|
Considering that the Koran orders muslims to kill every Jew in the last days and claims even the rocks and trees would help them perform that task, you, a Jew, are remarkably charitible on that point.
i've got no problems with Christians, who if you believe their book, believe that they're onto a better after life, and i'm not.
i've got no problems with Christians, who's history and tradition is rich with persecution, and murder, of jews.
what's your point?
I wasn't aware that returning to the subject of my original post was considered changing the subject in a negative way, and I simply pointed it out because we had been off the original post subject for about 100 posts.
I was shown to be wrong on something? I don't see it. You mean when I didn't know that Baldwin was a JW? That's all I see.
you said. A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion.
and i wagered most liberals here are not pro abortion, myself included.
|
| 158 | azdbacker
ID: 475452317
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 23:04
|
you said. A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion.
No, I didn't. I'm assuming you have confused something Baldwin wrote for me.
|
| 159 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 23:09
|
Box said it.
|
| 160 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:06
|
Exactly how many years' unbroken string has it been that abortion has been the first plank on the Democratic platform? Is there any position more sure to be there till kingdom come? In what way is that not a key tenant?
|
| 161 | Tree
ID: 415132419
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:07
|
indeed. my mistake, and my apologies Azd.
|
| 162 | WiddleAvi
ID: 323531619
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:30
|
Boldwin - Considering that the Koran orders muslims to kill every Jew in the last days and claims even the rocks and trees would help them perform that task, you, a Jew, are remarkably charitible on that point.
And the religion you believe in says that all Jews (and everyone who does not accept Jesus) will burn in hell for eternity in the afterlife. Wow thats way more tolerant.
|
| 163 | Perm Dude
ID: 33540241
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:30
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "first plank" Baldwin. Freedom of choice has been a part of the Democratic platform since Roe v Wade, but abortion was first mentioned on the second last page of the 2004 platform. It was about 2/3 of the way in for the 2000 platform, about halfway into the 1992 and 1996 platforms.
All of them essentially said the same thing: "Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous."
Unlike the Republicans, Democrats actually followed through on this plank. As you know, abortions fell during Democratic presidential years, and rose during Republican ones.
|
| 164 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 01:07
|
Widdi
Well no it doesn't say that actually. But it does say that everyone who does not eventually accept the message will die forever. Which is what agnostics and athiests are expecting anyway.
The operative part for this discussion is that it does not call on Christians to kill anyone.
|
| 165 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 01:15
|
PD
So by your lights unborn babies are safer under liberal governance?
You are spinning so rapidly you are about to explode from the centrifugal force. This is the kind of thing that gives you the label of lacking all common sense.
Look into the eyes of a Planned Parenthood worker and tell yourself those are the eyes of a person that wants to make abortion rare.
If you can tell yourself that lie...
|
| 166 | Perm Dude
ID: 33540241
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 01:34
|
I'm just looking at the numbers. If an abortion stops a beating heart, then you should want fewer of them. Under Democratic Administrations abortions drop. Plain and simple. Maybe this is because of the emphasis on sex education and so on. Maybe not. Or maybe it is a combination of a number of things.
But it is a plain fact. You call it "spin" but you can't spin that fact--for you, let's call it an embarrasing truth.
Yes: Planned Parenthood would rather abortion be rare. You might not realize this, but PP does a lot more than abortion referrals, and if they can spend nearly all their time give sex ed counseling and pass out condoms they would be pretty pleased I believe.
My own thought is that Republicans' insistence on getting a complete ban or nothing at all on this issue has resulted in more abortions in the meantime. By insisting that sex education including contraception (for example) has no place being done by the government more abortions are being done as a result.
Penny wise, pound foolish. But that's OK: You feel good about yourself.
|
| 167 | azdbacker
ID: 5530253
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 05:41
|
My own thought is that Republicans' insistence on getting a complete ban or nothing at all on this issue has resulted in more abortions in the meantime.
Agreed. Not that short-term results necessarily reflect on the worthiness of the fight, or on the long-term effects of said fight, but agreed.
|
| 168 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 06:55
|
Republicans' insistence on getting a complete ban or nothing at all - PV
You mean like asking for a partial birth abortion ban? Abortion lovers are constantly bemoaning the fact that conservatives are trying to nibble away at 'women's reproductive rights', euphemism for murder.
Where did you come up with the idea we wouldn't outlaw any slice of the baby murder pie chart if we could? We just have to outlaw the whole pie or nothing at all? What are you thinking?
|
| 169 | Tree
ID: 41537256
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 07:41
|
The operative part for this discussion is that it does not call on Christians to kill anyone.
perhaps not. i don't know the new testament well enough to say whether it does or does not.
but what *IS* important is that regardless of what it says, there are many Christians - through time and history - who DO believe that it's "you'll either believe as us, or we'll kill you getting you to believe as us."
the examples of this are among the most famous of genocide and forced conversion known to man.
|
| 170 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 11:05
|
I absolutely agree with you but the problem is that not everyone in high places is loyal to God. Many of them have dual loyalties. And the other loyalty takes precedence.
False shepherds were predicted who would abuse people. False Christians who would only look like real ones until they were revealed in the end times.
In fact the entire history of the Biblical nation of Isreal is the perfect warning example as most of the kings and religious leaders were shockingly bad and apostate and abusive.
As the example of leading citizens eager to turn God's people back to evil religion, look no further than how quick they were to demand a golden calf. Those people demanding that may have claimed to be God's people but in fact they had infiltrated and carried the pagan contaminant of Egyptian/Babylonian religion and those mystery religions are still the leaven in the loaf ruining the whole thing.
|
| 171 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 11:31
|
I absolutely agree with you but the problem is that not everyone in high places is loyal to God. Many of them have dual loyalties. And the other loyalty takes precedence.
but this applies only to Christianity, and not to the Muslim religion?
|
| 172 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 22:55
|
Infiltration and corruption is their job. It's what they do. There is no organization they do not attempt to redirect slightly towards their ends. I expect they were deep into the recrudescence of wahabbi/salafist extremism after that sort of militarism had been quiescent for centuries.
|
| 173 | Perm Dude
ID: 4550267
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 08:51
|
Pot meet kettle.
|
| 174 | azdbacker
ID: 175212617
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 18:46
|
Somewhere back in this thread we were talking about health care.
Founder of Canada's Socialized government advocates more privatization, says current system in a 'crisis'
Back in the 1960s, [Claude] Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
|
| 175 | Boldwin
ID: 85241823
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 01:26
|
PD re:#173
In your mind have you risen to Tree's level of posting or dropped to it?
|
| 176 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 09:54
|
Infiltration and corruption is their job. It's what they do. There is no organization they do not attempt to redirect slightly towards their ends. I expect they were deep into the recrudescence of wahabbi/salafist extremism after that sort of militarism had been quiescent for centuries.
its funny to me that the more away from reality you get, the larger words you use to cover that fact.
the fact remains, that while there are certainly Muslims who will kill in the name of their religious beliefs, and there are even leaders who espouse it, the exact same applies to other major religious as well, such as Christianity and Judaism.
They may be smaller groups and smaller leaders, but that's because the United States - despite the best efforts of people like you - is a nation that attempts to separate religion from government.
Can you imagine if this nation had someone like Fred Phelps (Christian) leading a national movement?
|
| 177 | Boldwin
ID: 35615181
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 19:05
|
Obsessing about that bike she didn't need.
|
| 178 | Tree
ID: 41512710
Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 22:44
|
Obsessing about that bike she didn't need.
a 39 year old woman who believesthat she only has two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate and that at her current age falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck is certainly not a woman i, at the age of 42, would want to marry.
that statement alone shows me that the power of negative thinking owns her, and that probably has more of an impact on her love and marriage potentials than anyone else; no one wants to spend their life with a sad sack.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|