Compassion and the Republican Party of the USA

[Stephen63]

I don't understand why people speculate about the differences between Democrats & Republicans. Haven't you heard both sides talk up the NWO?

 

[Ritter]

While poor people didn't give me a job, it was poor people who FOUND me jobs.

You obviously wasn't born & raised in da hood.

Psychologists will tell you people won't climb any higher than their surroundings in life. Not true. My daughter went to college to get a business degree. Now when she applies for jobs, they tell her she's overqualified or underqualified. Yet the one they give the job to is usually as dumb as a rock. Book sense, but no common sense. How did they get the job? Because of WHO they knew..... & guess how that person had so much influence........ Yep, rich.

If we are going to go by anecdotal evidence alone, I have some rags to riches stories that would knock your socks off.

Do they happen everyday? No, but until now there were few other countries on planet earth on which they could. That is the fault of progressives.

I don't understand why people speculate about the differences between Democrats & Republicans. Haven't you heard both sides talk up the NWO?

It is more difficult to determine the differences between the parties at the national level, but at the state and local level these differences become very important.

That and there are some good representatives left. Most happen to be GOP.

 

[Ritter]

And again I will raise the banner of Federalism and jurisdiction. Two ideas conveniently forgotten and trampled under foot in modern politics that are due for a comeback.

We have forgotten what the government should and should not (as well as can and cannot) do. We have forgotten that politics should be, in essence, local and not national. Important yet not riveted by sensationalism. Authoritative and revered, but not god-like in scope and function.

There exists a community around us which we are responsible to. Widows and orphans we have to take care of. Local representatives at arms length that rarely get a call because people are too focused on the dog and pony shows at the national level. Neighbors we only talk with twice a year if that. Police officers that send their kids to school with yours.

In short, we have nationalized and socialized our lives to the point that we think Washington DC is the only proper way to affect a change when it isn't nor has it ever been. No, among other things, Washington DC is an excuse.

Authority is God-given. Compassion is ours to exercise as individuals, religious organizations, and local philanthropists. Anything else is sinful.

 

[zone]

No poor person ever gave me a job.

you mean a paying job?

why is this about somebody giving you something?

O glib Uber-GOP-extremist retorts; why you so funnee?

I was a democrat, until I got a job.

democrats don't work?

or is there a conversion process one undergoes..like religion?

I have been asked what I do for the Lord before. I say it always can be improved and bring up Matthew 6. That's it.

No poor person ever gave me a job.

you ever give a poor person a job?

Was it this thread I posted the George Will article on how much more generous conservatives are? .

Re: Compassion and the Republican Party of the USA

is compassion about money?

Mostly, ideologically, liberals tend to think others, especially the evil rich, and we must also add, white guy,

why would you add that? are most rich guys white?

Mostly, ideologically, liberals tend to think others, especially the evil rich, and we must also add, white guy,should be charitable and they think they are compassionate by forcing that person to pay taxes.

you mean those off-white lazy people force you to pay taxes? how?
what color and how wealthy are the lawmakers who decide on taxation?

This is pure covetness..

ya, for sure.
an old man with broken teeth needing dentures is just lusting after your buick.

No poor person ever gave me a job.

does a poor person pack your groceries at walmart?
drive the schoolbus?
take out your trash?

is the poor person in the alley a former wealthy person that has something go wrong?

[video=youtube;kEBjbpWSy4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEBjbpWSy4Q[/video]

It is also the same practice Hitler used to unite his downtrodden defeated country to almost take over the world....unify by hatreds.

<insert hitler for maximum effect>

You cannot tax the rich 40% without making them an evil entity.

L............O...........L.

the rich are taxed 40%?

mkay. no dear, the poor are taxed 40%.

the rich pay nothing.

No rich guy being rich has ever made me poor.

O glib uber-GOP-extremist retorts; why you so funnee?

In fact its the opposite. People have to make the things they buy. The more they invest into their business, to make more money, the better the chance I have of getting a job.

how's dat going for ya down there since the GOP/Dem bird offshored everything?

You want to put a huge dent into poverty? Stop taxing the rich.

haha.
i reckon you don't know what rich looks like, Son.

You would see such a boom that all liberals would throw down their false idol, marxism, and see the light.

the rich pay no taxes already.
howzit goin' after the Too Big ta Fails helped ya?

 

[zone]

The destruction of Ronald Reagan's legacy was performed by

George Bush 1.

I have seen the enemy and its us

Ronald Reagan's legacy?

hardeehar.
what would that be exactly?


10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime

1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class
2. Tripling the National Debt
3. Iran/Contra
4. Reagan funded Terrorists
5. Unemployment issues
6. Ignoring AIDS
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants
8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class
9. Reagan raided the Social Security Trust fund
10. Endless worship and never ending praise

examiner.com

.....

(i'll add to the ridiculist:

Prez Reagan was an actor, dude.
a GE man...right til they end.
and then of course you have the sophisticated and brilliant: TRICKLE-DOWN (supply-side) ECONOMICS - ROTF!)

“Mafianomics”: From “Trickle-down Economics” to outright Financial Fraud
&#8220;Mafianomics&#8221;: From “Trickle-down Economics” to outright Financial Fraud | Global Research < click

........

lol. sorry...couldn't resist.

 

[zone]

And again I will raise the banner of Federalism and jurisdiction. Two ideas conveniently forgotten and trampled under foot in modern politics that are due for a comeback.

We have forgotten what the government should and should not (as well as can and cannot) do. We have forgotten that politics should be, in essence, local and not national. Important yet not riveted by sensationalism. Authoritative and revered, but not god-like in scope and function.

There exists a community around us which we are responsible to. Widows and orphans we have to take care of. Local representatives at arms length that rarely get a call because people are too focused on the dog and pony shows at the national level. Neighbors we only talk with twice a year if that. Police officers that send their kids to school with yours.

In short, we have nationalized and socialized our lives to the point that we think Washington DC is the only proper way to affect a change when it isn't nor has it ever been. No, among other things, Washington DC is an excuse.

Authority is God-given. Compassion is ours to exercise as individuals, religious organizations, and local philanthropists. Anything else is sinful.

outstanding.
you going to run for office ritter?
you should.

don't forget who owns and runs washington, though....Wall St.
you're going to have to tackle that thorny issue eventually.

that's when the prezes get their heads blown off.
dunno what to do about that.

 

[ServantStrike]

And again I will raise the banner of Federalism and jurisdiction. Two ideas conveniently forgotten and trampled under foot in modern politics that are due for a comeback.

We have forgotten what the government should and should not (as well as can and cannot) do. We have forgotten that politics should be, in essence, local and not national. Important yet not riveted by sensationalism. Authoritative and revered, but not god-like in scope and function.

There exists a community around us which we are responsible to. Widows and orphans we have to take care of. Local representatives at arms length that rarely get a call because people are too focused on the dog and pony shows at the national level. Neighbors we only talk with twice a year if that. Police officers that send their kids to school with yours.

In short, we have nationalized and socialized our lives to the point that we think Washington DC is the only proper way to affect a change when it isn't nor has it ever been. No, among other things, Washington DC is an excuse.

Authority is God-given. Compassion is ours to exercise as individuals, religious organizations, and local philanthropists. Anything else is sinful.

We're so far off from the original model it's painful to think about.

We were never supposed to have a large federal government. Our forefathers didn't trust anyone with that much power.

There's always the wording in the tenth amendment.Then again the bill of rights has been tramped on and made a mockery of under both the Reps and the Dems. Both parties only support the rights which they find convenient, while ignoring the others. But still, the tenth amendment says this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The detractors will say that's the tenth amendment and that it was written after the foundation of the United States, but it's very very clear from the writings of the founding fathers that they all knew the clear and present danger a large federal government presented to the American people.

 

[Drett]

outstanding.
you going to run for office ritter?
you should.

don't forget who owns and runs washington, though....Wall St.
you're going to have to tackle that thorny issue eventually.

that's when the prezes get their heads blown off.
dunno what to do about that.

I wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. 50 years ago there was a young guy full of dreams. Vetoed Operation Northwoods to simulate a terrorist attack on home soil to give them a trigger to attack Cuba, he did. He was unfortunately dismissed BANG.

 

[zone]

I wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. 50 years ago there was a young guy full of dreams. Vetoed Operation Northwoods to simulate a terrorist attack on home soil to give them a trigger to attack Cuba, he did. He was unfortunately dismissed BANG.

among other things he (and his brother, then his son) thought they could do.
his biggest mistake was sending bobby in to make the obligatory offer to LBJ....the viper.

but, young men like ritter have the right stuff seems to me.
consistently.

so..ya. maybe you're right.
ritter - don't do it.

 

[ServantStrike]

among other things he (and his brother, then his son) thought they could do.
his biggest mistake was sending bobby in to make the obligatory offer to LBJ....the viper.

but, young men like ritter have the right stuff seems to me.
consistently.

so..ya. maybe you're right.
ritter - don't do it.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing - source still unknown, but it wasn't Edmond Burke.


I'm not so sure JFK was completely on the side of the American people - or at least that he was trying to take down the federal reserve as some are claiming today (after all, executive order 11110 actually endouraged the use of FRN's or federal reserve notes). I think he was a lot more of a man than you'll ever see in office again, and that if he ran today, he'd be a Republican, but no one who has aspired to the position of president in the last 100 years is someone I can say I explicitly trust - unless they lost.

 

[SonInMe]

JFK would not recognize his party today.

 

[Stephen63]

JFK didn't recognize neither party back then....... that's what got him killed, remember?

 

[Ritter]

outstanding.
you going to run for office ritter?
you should.

don't forget who owns and runs washington, though....Wall St.
you're going to have to tackle that thorny issue eventually.

that's when the prezes get their heads blown off.
dunno what to do about that.

I appreciate the accolades, but I would never run for office. I've helped a few good people get in already though. My first go at a career was in political operations. I wasn't bad, but it is thankless work. Nothing there for me in the long term.

Maybe I'll make a go for congress when I'm 70 or something.

We're so far off from the original model it's painful to think about.

We were never supposed to have a large federal government. Our forefathers didn't trust anyone with that much power.

There's always the wording in the tenth amendment.Then again the bill of rights has been tramped on and made a mockery of under both the Reps and the Dems. Both parties only support the rights which they find convenient, while ignoring the others. But still, the tenth amendment says this:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The detractors will say that's the tenth amendment and that it was written after the foundation of the United States, but it's very very clear from the writings of the founding fathers that they all knew the clear and present danger a large federal government presented to the American people.

In drafting the Constitution, the expanded powers of the central government were meant to introduce functionality and long term stability among the states. George Washington was one of the strongest proponents of this partially due to his experiences in the War for Independence.

Though he was one of the more fervent champions of Federal power, he was also a Virginian and knew the importance of local community. He also knew what it was like to deal with an overbearing and distant legislature, this is what propelled him to take up arms to begin with. As such, he loved the idea of the Bill of Rights including the tenth amendment.

We cannot confuse the intentions of the Founders with the goals of those who would have us worship at the altar of state power. Those detractors you mentioned are detractors not out of honest disagreement over the historical record, but are ideologues who wish to propagate a lie to achieve a political goal.

If America will ever be restored, the Tenth Amendment must make a comeback.

 

[Stephen63]

Oh, & about those rich men that gives us our jobs, here's something that might interest those as to "why" they do:

Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

IMO anyone who backs this political system knowing what it has become & works within its ranks anyways are also intellectual prostitutes.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Oh, & about those rich men that gives us our jobs, here's something that might interest those as to "why" they do:

Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

IMO anyone who backs this political system knowing what it has become & works within its ranks anyways are also intellectual prostitutes.

Basically, if you're not a Marxist you're a prostitute.

 

[jimmydiggs]

JFK didn't recognize neither party back then....... that's what got him killed, remember?

Oh noes! Federal Reserve conspiracy!

JFK was no saint, just as the Federal Reserve was no saint. It's all part of the same group.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Ronald Reagan's legacy?

hardeehar.
what would that be exactly?


10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime

1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class
2. Tripling the National Debt
3. Iran/Contra
4. Reagan funded Terrorists
5. Unemployment issues
6. Ignoring AIDS
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants
8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class
9. Reagan raided the Social Security Trust fund
10. Endless worship and never ending praise

examiner.com

.....

(i'll add to the ridiculist:

Prez Reagan was an actor, dude.
a GE man...right til they end.
and then of course you have the sophisticated and brilliant: TRICKLE-DOWN (supply-side) ECONOMICS - ROTF!)

“Mafianomics”: From “Trickle-down Economics” to outright Financial Fraud
“Mafianomics”: From “Trickle-down Economics” to outright Financial Fraud | Global Research < click

........

lol. sorry...couldn't resist.

Reagan was not someone I care for.

That being said, I'm not surprised a Canadian socialist doesn't like him either.


I just don't understand your politics. How can one be so heeby jeebied about government, but then advocate large government for welfare and government control of the economy.

I'm heeby jeebied about government, and that's why I want it so small I can drown it in a bathtub.

 

[Ritter]

Oh, & about those rich men that gives us our jobs, here's something that might interest those as to "why" they do:

Asked to give a toast before the prestigious New York Press Club, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession [it's worth noting that Swinton was called "The Dean of His Profession" by other newsmen, who admired him greatly]:

" There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. "

IMO anyone who backs this political system knowing what it has become & works within its ranks anyways are also intellectual prostitutes.

Basically, if you're not a Marxist you're a prostitute.

What we have at work here is belief in a logical fallacy that if the head of the New York Times is an intellectual prostitute, every other partisan must be. That is not the case.

All it proves really is that John Swinton and the writing staff of NYT are propagandists. That is a well-substantiated fact.

 

[Ritter]

I love this thread! Judgments on the life of Reagan AND Kennedy. The New York Times. A dash of political philosophy, and going on 14 pages! My, my this has been a joy.

The Kennedy legacy is mixed. I would be hesitant to hail him as a purified hero outside the norms of politics. He came from a family with ties to crime and fascist political entities. In terms of policy, he further nationalized issues where they needed no nationalization. He was not above dirty tactics to achieve national ends (see Chicago 1960). He allied with people he personally reviled in pursuit of power (Johnson anyone?). Foreign policy? Well there really wasn't any. Kennedy's administration would switch from being unduly bellicose to terribly weak.

That said, it appeared the man had the capacity to learn from his own mistakes. Some speculate that his second administration would have at the very least been more organized.

I think the Kennedy administration had its redeeming qualities. Some things that happened were out of his control too. He was no spotless lamb though.

 

[Ritter]

If we are to evaluate Kennedy's place on the political spectrum? Well that's tough. We also have to figure in the America in which he lived. A different America than the one today.

In action, he would be to the right of former Sen. Scott Brown. In rhetoric and personal belief? My guess is that he would be more along the lines of Bill Clinton; a little centrist but still liberal and willing to ally with other liberals.