Episode 59: Forward or Forward-Reverse?
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
Strap in this one is going to be long and may require quite a bit of your time. I had recently read two articles as I'd been challenged by a friend on facebook though not directly. I will provide them here as well as my response. Please read these through thoroughly first and then my response. Afterwards you may respond as you see fit:
The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show A Conservative
The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show A Conservative Part 2
He has also promised to produce a part three which I may or may not cover but here are my responses almost point-by-point.
Gun Rights:
Points:
1. Universal Background Checks - Name a criminal that got his gun legally. Most of these Universal Background checks are already in place. I've been through three of them. Two to purchase handguns and one to purchase a shotgun. You tell me who with a felony record will proudly walk in and attempt to purchase a handgun from Federally Approved Outlets? Tying the hands of the citizen who abides by the law when criminals get their weapons by bypassing laws already in place makes less sense. It has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat in presidency leaning. Each of the presidents mentioned then failed in their duties to Protect and Preserve The Constitution of The United States to the best of their abilities if they actually supported such measures.
2. Banning High-Capacity Magazines - Yet another vague term that can be applied anywhere. What actually comes out of this one is simply this. Today let's say it's a 30 round magazine. Why ban that? You can cite a question of need all day long but consider whether or not you really NEED to speak out against a wrong somewhere in our representative(?) government. It's not called a Bill of Needs it's called a Bill of Rights and the magazine itself does one thing...it contains ammunition. That's all it does aside from feeding it into a chamber. Only one round of ammunition is all it would take to effectively end someone's life and in many of the stories we see in the news, there are no high capacity Magazines employed. Okay so let's ban the 30 round mags. Then someone figures out a way to terrorize the populace with 29 rounds. Did you know having a shotgun with a barrel that's less than 18 inches is illegal? This is why most of your shotguns purchased for home protection have 18.5 inch barrels. if I shorten it to an 18 inch barrel then it becomes a hair splitting match between me and law enforcement agents. What's the correlation? It's simple and almost quite literal: Give and inch and find a mile taken.
Even more simply put, I will decide what I need. As this is my right I do not need your permission or that of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
3. Assault Weapons - An Assault is defined as an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact in Common Law and is the same in Criminal and Tort law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
The problem is that ANY weapon can be defined as an assault weapon once it's employed in the ACT of an assault. The mere threat to harm is not an assault so therefore, those big scary guns in the gun shops you see in those states that allow for "Gun-Toting Maniacs" are NOT assault weapons. I can understand that no one wants some gang-affiliated thug running around with an AK-47 spraying rounds wantonly but the many people who go through the background checks (Reminder: They're Already There!!!) to purchase one have effectively taken the gun out of the hands of the thug and off the streets. It resides in the home of the law-abiding gun owner. Turning it into an argument over "need" again further proves that most of your anti-gun crowd have structured the argument against disarmament of the law-abiding citizen to never admit when they have a logical and even constitutional flaw in their argument.
The Same Sex Marriage Argument:
If it's one thing I can't stand it's the argument that's structured beginning with "I'm tired/exhausted with..." and ending with "X is Invalid. The End."
I'm sorry but who the hell are you? You've provided a lot of rather decisively endgame answers as though you were given authority but I still have no idea who the hell you are. That which puzzles me is that you've actually been published doing that literary hack-up job meaning you've just hacked away at the argument rather than actually saying something and settling the debate. Now I'm no authority. I am a Christian and I struggle with it every day. Every moment of my day is faced with the choices I have to make to either do the right thing or do the selfish thing and it's NOT as easy as you make it out to be. In terms of Same Sex Marriage the fact of the matter is that the states issue the licenses to marry and justices of the peace can marry anyone for any reason. It never once had to involve a church or a deity of any type, that much is true but let's approach this topic from a justice and even a logical perspective.
First, a free nation is not always going to be a morally correct nation. EVERYONE has a choice they must make. Much like myself, how I deal with people each moment I run into someone gets my HUD going and there's that old menu that reads something like Identify Target Person: Assist Y/N? Then my subroutines kick in and I pick one. If I choose to help then morally and ethically I'm doing the right thing. If I choose not to then I may be doing the wrong thing. Sometimes it's a roll of the dice but at the end of the day, it's MY choice, right? Precisely. Now let's take that over to marriage. I would not choose to marry someone of the same sex but me getting irate at George Takei for marrying his husband Brad is like me getting pissed at my wife for eating a candy bar because I'm on a diet. See what I did there? I just pointed out how completely ridiculous the argument was without having to come across as an insufferable know-it-all. Now...here's phase two (and understand I'm doing a hell of a lot of work for you here, more work than I would normally do for someone attempting to bully me into a way of thinking) but let's take the straight marriage. Divorce in this country has turned marriage into a nightmare. I've been through one. To hear someone actually tell you that you have to give up most of what you've worked for and then pay someone because he or she has a life to which their accustomed while you get to starve...that's a hard as all get out pill to have to swallow. By telling someone who's gay, lesbian, transgendered, or bisexual that they can't marry, we essentially exclude them from that misery. Am I saying that it's done them a favor? No! I'm saying it's done straight people a huge disservice! Is this not a Justice System where things should be fair even in civil matters? Would allowing same sex marriage also not allow states to generate more revenue through marriage licensing? Yes! So I'm agreeing with your point that allowing the same sex marriage will not harm one living soul on this planet. Let them marry. If I have to go through all of that pain involved in divorce, so should they! I say Equal treatment all around. That is what you're arguing for if I'm correct. The Church doesn't have to support it. No one has to like it or agree that it's right. It is a Right (three basic inalienables: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness) and so, the true price of freedom is paid by simply allowing others to live as they wish without anyone else sticking their damn nose in it. They'll cohabitate anyway as many others including people who are straight. Much like criminals getting guns from the Rearovan Emporium, Back Alley, USA.
Republicans Are The Party of Small Government:
Let me start by quoting your article here
"Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
Unless that big government regulates:
What language to speak
Religion to follow
When life is created
Who can marry
Who can serve in the military
Invasive health procedures on women
That we have prayer in school
Mosques aren’t built in certain locations
Corporations are people
The Patriot Act
Unions don’t have rights
When alcohol can be sold
The requirement of an ID to vote
Then those government regulations are just fine. How “small government” of you, Republicans!"
You kinda forgot to throw in one thing...
How, When or even IF you may defend yourself against a threat against your home, property or persons.
Pot...Kettle. Kettle...Pot.
The thing is if you're not willing to protect the very thing that protects your freedoms then none of the others will matter. Eventually they will be taken and our formerly representative government will be...oh...right...FORMERLY-representative government. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Democrats are at fault on that. If you pay attention to your history here in America you'll see that both sides are clearly at fault in more ways than just one for that. If you doubt me use the Bill of Rights as a measuring stick against the voting records of your politicians and acknowledge their failures as well.
Abortion:
Okay I'm a pro lifer all the way. I believe that we are Endowed by Our Creator with the Right to LIFE. Hey notice how that one comes first when we declared independence? We also kinda acknowledged that it was sacred when we produced measures (called the Bill of Rights) to protect it but there again...let's go back to what I said previously. This nation is free not a moral nation. You've railed pretty hard in favor of a Constitutionally protected right and I'm going to show you something that will support what you're saying but you're not going to like it.
See as a Christian, I was taught that unless it threatens the health and safety of the mother, abortion was a sin. Let me tell you I've been privvy to a family having to make that decision and live with the guilt involved. Having to make that choice is never easy. I've had to be the comforter from time to time. If you can make that decision and never bat an eye then yeah that's plain wrong and I get to think that and thanks to my First Amendment (if they haven't recinded that one yet) I get to say it.
Here's the part you are not going to like: Killing someone in self-defense is a Constitutionally-Protected Individual Right whether assisted by a doctor or a gun with a high capacity magazine.
The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending:
Quotiong YOUR Article
"No, it’s not. The debt ceiling is about our government paying our bills on money we’ve already spent."
That we now owe by spending money we never had to begin with. Ommission of that fact doesn't make it go away.
"But guess what? Ronald Reagan raised it 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times."
Making it okay on both sides, I suppose?
The U.S. is in a financial hole and the thing is paying the debt with more debt makes as much sense as me eating burgers and drinking sodas to lose weight. The real problem we have is that those in office have spent us into oblivion and are now they are asking you and me to foot the bill when we have bills of our own.
I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life!:
"Did you drive today? Did you take your children to public school? Did you enjoy a safe commute as you traveled thanks to traffic signals and signs? Did you whisk through your city or state on an Interstate Highway? Did you enjoy running water and plumbing that properly, and safely, disposes of waste? Did you get a college degree at a public university because it was much cheaper than a private one?
Hey genius, that’s all government."
Did you allow federal agents in your home today? Did you have anything to hide? Do you have this vague if not weak assumption that you have a right to privacy?
Well since we're throwing compliments around, my fellow colleague, that wasn't the point. The point was that we would like to live our private lives without our (what are supposed to be) representatives telling us what to do and what not to do while claiming that they're looking out for our welfare when we know better. It's not all government it's beaurocracy. If you doubt me than go to the white house for your driver's license or state ID renewal. If water and waste disposal are all government then why am I paying private companies for that? Shouldn't that come with me paying taxes? Seems like someone's supporting an invasion of privacy AND making me pay for the privilege.
Tax Cuts:
This is one that I can agree with but your argument is completely wrong in it's structure (seriously can I get a job writing stuff like this? I could use one!) The Rich have never ever created jobs that would provide people with the means to raise themselves up and bolster the economy. The reason they're rich is because there's always more money coming in than going out. They didn't get rich by spending it, they got rich by keeping it. It's just too bad some of them are in office and they didn't want to pledge their fortunes protecting our way of life.
People don't really want jobs. I can get a job anywhere but what we want are Careers. I want to be able to get up and go to work in a field that I enjoy. I want to be able to get paid well to do things like that even if it is as banal as tech support. The problem is ...and here is the kicker...those jobs aren't here anymore. Back in 2004, I called Virgin Mobile's live support and actually got someone from here in the states. Problems were resolved in less than five minutes and that was with a brief hold time. Now, it takes at least double that time and that's without a brief hold because I can't understand the person with who I am working. The accent's too thick or they're following a script and when I go off script they panic. The argument has been that if a company pays higher taxes here to employ me to do something in 5 minutes then why can't someone in Dubai do it in 10 and they pay far less in taxes? That's only part of it. They also pay lower wages to people in other countries to do the same job. Then again...you get what you pay for.
On to Part Two.
Benghazi:
You know what? I think he has me there I mean what's four deaths in Libya right? Point is if it's wrong on one side then it's wrong all the way around...period. It's not that we didn't care about the deaths that were happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have hundreds of hours of footage about the atrocities that occurred over there and I know what I saw. My point is I didn't like it then and I surely don't like it know. I will stop "pretending" to care when you do.
The Second Amendment and National Defense:
Let's talk about giving aid and Comfort to enemies. CIA funded the Muhajadeen against the Russians in Afghanistan through Pakistan's ISI and thus Al Qaeda was created led by Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden. So those in our government created, nurtured, aided and gave comfort to an enemy. Nevermind that the bin Laden family were here as George W. Bush's guests during 9/11 and how he had them whisked out very quickly. Before that we depose the elected leader of Iraq and toss in Sadaam Hussein, yet another CIA asset. When he failed to do what we were telling him we found a pretext to go toss him as well. He went from Ally to "Evil Dictator" when what had been in office wasn't anywhere near Dictatorial status in the first place. That is two examples of our government CREATING enemies. So going back to the Civil War when the Second Armed Revolution really happened (Yeah you missed something in History here) how many of them were labelled traitors? None. After the defeat of the South, those that were left over were sent home. This is what I pointed out in my last blog about bullying. Now to just flat label anyone who won't support Gun Control Legislation an "outlaw", "Traitor", or "terrorist" is exactly the type of behavior that would stem from someone who loves writing articles screaming "It's My Way Or No Way!"
National Defense left in the hands of the people is how it was meant to be. Many groups formed militias of their own. Their philosophy is that they depend on themselves to defend their property, lives and families. They're thinking very locally. They get to know their terrain and they meet and train regularly. Before you think that they're paranoid I want you to ask yourself why we need a law requiring us all to wear seatbelts? Are you so paranoid you'll get into a car accident that you have to strap yourself down? Do you really have such a lack of faith in your own driving ability? To any sensible person the answer is no. If it seems like I've gone off topic it's because you've asked the wrong question. So the next question may be why not join the military? My answer: I do not trust anyone that takes an oath to protect and preserve the constitution to the best of his ability and then does everything he can to destroy it. And that's our current commander in chief and the ones before him.
The Sequester:
The question that I have here is how high is this ceiling going to go before we understand that we're broke and we have no one to blame BUT those in office for creating it. Past and present it's been tax, spend, tax, spend, borrow, spend, tax higher, spend more, borrow more and it snowballs. The problem is those elected officials do not want to pay it and they will pass that buck until there are simply no more bucks left to pass. I'm beginning to wonder if these articles are less about showing conservatives ANYTHING and blaming republicans for any fault in our country.
One Nation Under God:
Remove it if you want, I'll keep saying it anyway.
Constitutional rights:
Allow me to provide you with yet another example
The Second Amendment: Allowing me the right to choose my weapon, means of carry, training, amount of ammunition/lack of ammunition, etc doesn't mean you have to carry one or that anyone MUST carry one. It simply means you cannot prevent me from doing so. It means you cannot force me into a position to where I submit to a criminal and face a very high liklihood of probability that my life will end. It means I am able to tip those odds in my favor and possibly the right person will go home to their family. Since it is my right...I won't ask your permission.
Keep in mind one thing. I live in a state where gun laws are so strict they have failed to curtail murders that have happened very close to where I work. I Am Always Armed. Am I carrying a gun? Perhaps? What about a knife? Well anyone who comes into where I work will see me with a knife, cutting open boxes, possibly using the edge to pop something open, perhaps even using it as a screwdriver for slotted screws so yes, that's a possibility. I do carry a pen and I don't need a knife to stab when I can do it with a pen and yes I can even deal some pretty fatal blows with a solid ballpoint pen. Hell even my flashlight...that can do some damage if so employed.
It is the right to keep and bear ARMS. Not select magazines and guns that don't appear so scary.
See the difference?
Christian Values:
I hate to break this to you, charity, good will, caring for people, Jesus asked us to CHOOSE to do it. He never forced it. He clearly indicated this in every part of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke And John. You just spent half your article denouncing any involvement of Christian values in aspects of government however you now leverage it in the final part of part two as a means of attempting to further bully everyone into buying what it is you're selling.
So let me get this straight. Let's say I sell every armament I have and I give that money to charity. Good thing right?
Now let's say I do it because You say I must. Then where was the meaning behind that?
Perhaps you should ask the right questions before letting the sun go down on your anger not once but twice as you've indicated you will write a third part.
Final Question:
If you hate all the rhetoric so much why haven't you simply approached it with a more logical tangent rather than two missives filled with more holes than my last shotgun target at the range?
Strap in this one is going to be long and may require quite a bit of your time. I had recently read two articles as I'd been challenged by a friend on facebook though not directly. I will provide them here as well as my response. Please read these through thoroughly first and then my response. Afterwards you may respond as you see fit:
The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show A Conservative
The Article Every Liberal Needs To Show A Conservative Part 2
He has also promised to produce a part three which I may or may not cover but here are my responses almost point-by-point.
Gun Rights:
Points:
1. Universal Background Checks - Name a criminal that got his gun legally. Most of these Universal Background checks are already in place. I've been through three of them. Two to purchase handguns and one to purchase a shotgun. You tell me who with a felony record will proudly walk in and attempt to purchase a handgun from Federally Approved Outlets? Tying the hands of the citizen who abides by the law when criminals get their weapons by bypassing laws already in place makes less sense. It has nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat in presidency leaning. Each of the presidents mentioned then failed in their duties to Protect and Preserve The Constitution of The United States to the best of their abilities if they actually supported such measures.
2. Banning High-Capacity Magazines - Yet another vague term that can be applied anywhere. What actually comes out of this one is simply this. Today let's say it's a 30 round magazine. Why ban that? You can cite a question of need all day long but consider whether or not you really NEED to speak out against a wrong somewhere in our representative(?) government. It's not called a Bill of Needs it's called a Bill of Rights and the magazine itself does one thing...it contains ammunition. That's all it does aside from feeding it into a chamber. Only one round of ammunition is all it would take to effectively end someone's life and in many of the stories we see in the news, there are no high capacity Magazines employed. Okay so let's ban the 30 round mags. Then someone figures out a way to terrorize the populace with 29 rounds. Did you know having a shotgun with a barrel that's less than 18 inches is illegal? This is why most of your shotguns purchased for home protection have 18.5 inch barrels. if I shorten it to an 18 inch barrel then it becomes a hair splitting match between me and law enforcement agents. What's the correlation? It's simple and almost quite literal: Give and inch and find a mile taken.
Even more simply put, I will decide what I need. As this is my right I do not need your permission or that of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
3. Assault Weapons - An Assault is defined as an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact in Common Law and is the same in Criminal and Tort law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.
The problem is that ANY weapon can be defined as an assault weapon once it's employed in the ACT of an assault. The mere threat to harm is not an assault so therefore, those big scary guns in the gun shops you see in those states that allow for "Gun-Toting Maniacs" are NOT assault weapons. I can understand that no one wants some gang-affiliated thug running around with an AK-47 spraying rounds wantonly but the many people who go through the background checks (Reminder: They're Already There!!!) to purchase one have effectively taken the gun out of the hands of the thug and off the streets. It resides in the home of the law-abiding gun owner. Turning it into an argument over "need" again further proves that most of your anti-gun crowd have structured the argument against disarmament of the law-abiding citizen to never admit when they have a logical and even constitutional flaw in their argument.
The Same Sex Marriage Argument:
If it's one thing I can't stand it's the argument that's structured beginning with "I'm tired/exhausted with..." and ending with "X is Invalid. The End."
I'm sorry but who the hell are you? You've provided a lot of rather decisively endgame answers as though you were given authority but I still have no idea who the hell you are. That which puzzles me is that you've actually been published doing that literary hack-up job meaning you've just hacked away at the argument rather than actually saying something and settling the debate. Now I'm no authority. I am a Christian and I struggle with it every day. Every moment of my day is faced with the choices I have to make to either do the right thing or do the selfish thing and it's NOT as easy as you make it out to be. In terms of Same Sex Marriage the fact of the matter is that the states issue the licenses to marry and justices of the peace can marry anyone for any reason. It never once had to involve a church or a deity of any type, that much is true but let's approach this topic from a justice and even a logical perspective.
First, a free nation is not always going to be a morally correct nation. EVERYONE has a choice they must make. Much like myself, how I deal with people each moment I run into someone gets my HUD going and there's that old menu that reads something like Identify Target Person: Assist Y/N? Then my subroutines kick in and I pick one. If I choose to help then morally and ethically I'm doing the right thing. If I choose not to then I may be doing the wrong thing. Sometimes it's a roll of the dice but at the end of the day, it's MY choice, right? Precisely. Now let's take that over to marriage. I would not choose to marry someone of the same sex but me getting irate at George Takei for marrying his husband Brad is like me getting pissed at my wife for eating a candy bar because I'm on a diet. See what I did there? I just pointed out how completely ridiculous the argument was without having to come across as an insufferable know-it-all. Now...here's phase two (and understand I'm doing a hell of a lot of work for you here, more work than I would normally do for someone attempting to bully me into a way of thinking) but let's take the straight marriage. Divorce in this country has turned marriage into a nightmare. I've been through one. To hear someone actually tell you that you have to give up most of what you've worked for and then pay someone because he or she has a life to which their accustomed while you get to starve...that's a hard as all get out pill to have to swallow. By telling someone who's gay, lesbian, transgendered, or bisexual that they can't marry, we essentially exclude them from that misery. Am I saying that it's done them a favor? No! I'm saying it's done straight people a huge disservice! Is this not a Justice System where things should be fair even in civil matters? Would allowing same sex marriage also not allow states to generate more revenue through marriage licensing? Yes! So I'm agreeing with your point that allowing the same sex marriage will not harm one living soul on this planet. Let them marry. If I have to go through all of that pain involved in divorce, so should they! I say Equal treatment all around. That is what you're arguing for if I'm correct. The Church doesn't have to support it. No one has to like it or agree that it's right. It is a Right (three basic inalienables: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness) and so, the true price of freedom is paid by simply allowing others to live as they wish without anyone else sticking their damn nose in it. They'll cohabitate anyway as many others including people who are straight. Much like criminals getting guns from the Rearovan Emporium, Back Alley, USA.
Republicans Are The Party of Small Government:
Let me start by quoting your article here
"Big government regulations, they’re un-American! They’re unconstitutional and ruining your way of life!
Unless that big government regulates:
What language to speak
Religion to follow
When life is created
Who can marry
Who can serve in the military
Invasive health procedures on women
That we have prayer in school
Mosques aren’t built in certain locations
Corporations are people
The Patriot Act
Unions don’t have rights
When alcohol can be sold
The requirement of an ID to vote
Then those government regulations are just fine. How “small government” of you, Republicans!"
You kinda forgot to throw in one thing...
How, When or even IF you may defend yourself against a threat against your home, property or persons.
Pot...Kettle. Kettle...Pot.
The thing is if you're not willing to protect the very thing that protects your freedoms then none of the others will matter. Eventually they will be taken and our formerly representative government will be...oh...right...FORMERLY-representative government. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Democrats are at fault on that. If you pay attention to your history here in America you'll see that both sides are clearly at fault in more ways than just one for that. If you doubt me use the Bill of Rights as a measuring stick against the voting records of your politicians and acknowledge their failures as well.
Abortion:
Okay I'm a pro lifer all the way. I believe that we are Endowed by Our Creator with the Right to LIFE. Hey notice how that one comes first when we declared independence? We also kinda acknowledged that it was sacred when we produced measures (called the Bill of Rights) to protect it but there again...let's go back to what I said previously. This nation is free not a moral nation. You've railed pretty hard in favor of a Constitutionally protected right and I'm going to show you something that will support what you're saying but you're not going to like it.
See as a Christian, I was taught that unless it threatens the health and safety of the mother, abortion was a sin. Let me tell you I've been privvy to a family having to make that decision and live with the guilt involved. Having to make that choice is never easy. I've had to be the comforter from time to time. If you can make that decision and never bat an eye then yeah that's plain wrong and I get to think that and thanks to my First Amendment (if they haven't recinded that one yet) I get to say it.
Here's the part you are not going to like: Killing someone in self-defense is a Constitutionally-Protected Individual Right whether assisted by a doctor or a gun with a high capacity magazine.
The Debt Ceiling is About More Government Spending:
Quotiong YOUR Article
"No, it’s not. The debt ceiling is about our government paying our bills on money we’ve already spent."
That we now owe by spending money we never had to begin with. Ommission of that fact doesn't make it go away.
"But guess what? Ronald Reagan raised it 18 times and George W. Bush raised it 7 times."
Making it okay on both sides, I suppose?
The U.S. is in a financial hole and the thing is paying the debt with more debt makes as much sense as me eating burgers and drinking sodas to lose weight. The real problem we have is that those in office have spent us into oblivion and are now they are asking you and me to foot the bill when we have bills of our own.
I Want Big Intrusive Government–That Never Does Anything Good–Out of My Life!:
"Did you drive today? Did you take your children to public school? Did you enjoy a safe commute as you traveled thanks to traffic signals and signs? Did you whisk through your city or state on an Interstate Highway? Did you enjoy running water and plumbing that properly, and safely, disposes of waste? Did you get a college degree at a public university because it was much cheaper than a private one?
Hey genius, that’s all government."
Did you allow federal agents in your home today? Did you have anything to hide? Do you have this vague if not weak assumption that you have a right to privacy?
Well since we're throwing compliments around, my fellow colleague, that wasn't the point. The point was that we would like to live our private lives without our (what are supposed to be) representatives telling us what to do and what not to do while claiming that they're looking out for our welfare when we know better. It's not all government it's beaurocracy. If you doubt me than go to the white house for your driver's license or state ID renewal. If water and waste disposal are all government then why am I paying private companies for that? Shouldn't that come with me paying taxes? Seems like someone's supporting an invasion of privacy AND making me pay for the privilege.
Tax Cuts:
This is one that I can agree with but your argument is completely wrong in it's structure (seriously can I get a job writing stuff like this? I could use one!) The Rich have never ever created jobs that would provide people with the means to raise themselves up and bolster the economy. The reason they're rich is because there's always more money coming in than going out. They didn't get rich by spending it, they got rich by keeping it. It's just too bad some of them are in office and they didn't want to pledge their fortunes protecting our way of life.
People don't really want jobs. I can get a job anywhere but what we want are Careers. I want to be able to get up and go to work in a field that I enjoy. I want to be able to get paid well to do things like that even if it is as banal as tech support. The problem is ...and here is the kicker...those jobs aren't here anymore. Back in 2004, I called Virgin Mobile's live support and actually got someone from here in the states. Problems were resolved in less than five minutes and that was with a brief hold time. Now, it takes at least double that time and that's without a brief hold because I can't understand the person with who I am working. The accent's too thick or they're following a script and when I go off script they panic. The argument has been that if a company pays higher taxes here to employ me to do something in 5 minutes then why can't someone in Dubai do it in 10 and they pay far less in taxes? That's only part of it. They also pay lower wages to people in other countries to do the same job. Then again...you get what you pay for.
On to Part Two.
Benghazi:
You know what? I think he has me there I mean what's four deaths in Libya right? Point is if it's wrong on one side then it's wrong all the way around...period. It's not that we didn't care about the deaths that were happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have hundreds of hours of footage about the atrocities that occurred over there and I know what I saw. My point is I didn't like it then and I surely don't like it know. I will stop "pretending" to care when you do.
The Second Amendment and National Defense:
Let's talk about giving aid and Comfort to enemies. CIA funded the Muhajadeen against the Russians in Afghanistan through Pakistan's ISI and thus Al Qaeda was created led by Saudi Arabian Osama bin Laden. So those in our government created, nurtured, aided and gave comfort to an enemy. Nevermind that the bin Laden family were here as George W. Bush's guests during 9/11 and how he had them whisked out very quickly. Before that we depose the elected leader of Iraq and toss in Sadaam Hussein, yet another CIA asset. When he failed to do what we were telling him we found a pretext to go toss him as well. He went from Ally to "Evil Dictator" when what had been in office wasn't anywhere near Dictatorial status in the first place. That is two examples of our government CREATING enemies. So going back to the Civil War when the Second Armed Revolution really happened (Yeah you missed something in History here) how many of them were labelled traitors? None. After the defeat of the South, those that were left over were sent home. This is what I pointed out in my last blog about bullying. Now to just flat label anyone who won't support Gun Control Legislation an "outlaw", "Traitor", or "terrorist" is exactly the type of behavior that would stem from someone who loves writing articles screaming "It's My Way Or No Way!"
National Defense left in the hands of the people is how it was meant to be. Many groups formed militias of their own. Their philosophy is that they depend on themselves to defend their property, lives and families. They're thinking very locally. They get to know their terrain and they meet and train regularly. Before you think that they're paranoid I want you to ask yourself why we need a law requiring us all to wear seatbelts? Are you so paranoid you'll get into a car accident that you have to strap yourself down? Do you really have such a lack of faith in your own driving ability? To any sensible person the answer is no. If it seems like I've gone off topic it's because you've asked the wrong question. So the next question may be why not join the military? My answer: I do not trust anyone that takes an oath to protect and preserve the constitution to the best of his ability and then does everything he can to destroy it. And that's our current commander in chief and the ones before him.
The Sequester:
The question that I have here is how high is this ceiling going to go before we understand that we're broke and we have no one to blame BUT those in office for creating it. Past and present it's been tax, spend, tax, spend, borrow, spend, tax higher, spend more, borrow more and it snowballs. The problem is those elected officials do not want to pay it and they will pass that buck until there are simply no more bucks left to pass. I'm beginning to wonder if these articles are less about showing conservatives ANYTHING and blaming republicans for any fault in our country.
One Nation Under God:
Remove it if you want, I'll keep saying it anyway.
Constitutional rights:
Allow me to provide you with yet another example
The Second Amendment: Allowing me the right to choose my weapon, means of carry, training, amount of ammunition/lack of ammunition, etc doesn't mean you have to carry one or that anyone MUST carry one. It simply means you cannot prevent me from doing so. It means you cannot force me into a position to where I submit to a criminal and face a very high liklihood of probability that my life will end. It means I am able to tip those odds in my favor and possibly the right person will go home to their family. Since it is my right...I won't ask your permission.
Keep in mind one thing. I live in a state where gun laws are so strict they have failed to curtail murders that have happened very close to where I work. I Am Always Armed. Am I carrying a gun? Perhaps? What about a knife? Well anyone who comes into where I work will see me with a knife, cutting open boxes, possibly using the edge to pop something open, perhaps even using it as a screwdriver for slotted screws so yes, that's a possibility. I do carry a pen and I don't need a knife to stab when I can do it with a pen and yes I can even deal some pretty fatal blows with a solid ballpoint pen. Hell even my flashlight...that can do some damage if so employed.
It is the right to keep and bear ARMS. Not select magazines and guns that don't appear so scary.
See the difference?
Christian Values:
I hate to break this to you, charity, good will, caring for people, Jesus asked us to CHOOSE to do it. He never forced it. He clearly indicated this in every part of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke And John. You just spent half your article denouncing any involvement of Christian values in aspects of government however you now leverage it in the final part of part two as a means of attempting to further bully everyone into buying what it is you're selling.
So let me get this straight. Let's say I sell every armament I have and I give that money to charity. Good thing right?
Now let's say I do it because You say I must. Then where was the meaning behind that?
Perhaps you should ask the right questions before letting the sun go down on your anger not once but twice as you've indicated you will write a third part.
Final Question:
If you hate all the rhetoric so much why haven't you simply approached it with a more logical tangent rather than two missives filled with more holes than my last shotgun target at the range?
posted by Lord Genocyde at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home