Politics

Just hope the damage to the economy and society as a whole is blocked or limited by the common sense of intelligent members of both parties before it is too late the next sixteen to eighteen months out of control politicians can do a lot of damage if they are not held in check…this immigration open border situation is salting the Covid virus throughout the country with transporting of illegals to every corner of the nation.
"intelligent members of both parties". You wont get that from the democrats, they are 100% lockstep shoulder to shoulder behind the vegetable-in-chief unlike the republicans (aka democrat-lites).
 
Back in March they gave the Kwack another award. (Quack is an insult to a duck)


This is interesting...
“It aims to foster universal values of excellence, creativity, justice, democracy and progress and to promote the scientific, technological and humanistic achievements that advance and improve our world.”
 
"intelligent members of both parties". You wont get that from the democrats, they are 100% lockstep shoulder to shoulder behind the vegetable-in-chief unlike the republicans (aka democrat-lites).
Cervus, I was being politically correct in my assumption of intelligent Dems, but I do hope that it may be interpreted as sarcasm of those members under the Pelosi, Schumer banner. The Democratic Texas Representative that travelled to DC and decided to go back home, has now returned to DC.
 
Sometimes I wonder is there any democrats on this forum and how do they respond?:E Confused:
 
Sometimes I wonder is there any democrats on this forum and how do they respond?:E Confused:
Democrat here, although probably closer to independent or libertarian-lite in a lot of ways. As with anything, if I take every comment personally, my head would never stop spinning so I pick and choose when I can best respond. Except for a few occasions, most here treat me with respect and civility, more so than I would say if I were to air my same opinions with those on the far-left.
 
Democrat here, although probably closer to independent or libertarian-lite in a lot of ways. As with anything, if I take every comment personally, my head would never stop spinning so I pick and choose when I can best respond. Except for a few occasions, most here treat me with respect and civility, more so than I would say if I were to air my same opinions with those on the far-left.
Saul, this is great news. I am not an American as you know, but I know first hand how much the USA affects the rest of the world. I am truly and sincerely interested in what you think because I want to understand what makes Dems tick, maybe try to understand why you wan't things done a certain way that seems nonsensical to conservatives. I am an African conservative, I live here by choice and I am not a racist. I just don't get why liberals see conservative values as a danger? We are just normal people wanting to live normally. But I have to say I do see how conservatives and Republicans in the USA see liberal views as a danger to them because they want to change how conservatives live. Some Democrats and liberals even went so far as to say they want Republicans 'abolished', or some such. Don't they realise that is very dangerous fighting talk? From out here I can keep a bit of an objective eye on things and it seems to me that the liberals and the Dems are going too far. And nobody on the Dem side seems to be calling them out! Maybe you will take that on??!! Maybe one day we can get around a fire and debate such stuff.
 
Saul, this is great news. I am not an American as you know, but I know first hand how much the USA affects the rest of the world. I am truly and sincerely interested in what you think because I want to understand what makes Dems tick, maybe try to understand why you wan't things done a certain way that seems nonsensical to conservatives. I am an African conservative, I live here by choice and I am not a racist. I just don't get why liberals see conservative values as a danger? We are just normal people wanting to live normally. But I have to say I do see how conservatives and Republicans in the USA see liberal views as a danger to them because they want to change how conservatives live. Some Democrats and liberals even went so far as to say they want Republicans 'abolished', or some such. Don't they realise that is very dangerous fighting talk? From out here I can keep a bit of an objective eye on things and it seems to me that the liberals and the Dems are going too far. And nobody on the Dem side seems to be calling them out! Maybe you will take that on??!! Maybe one day we can get around a fire and debate such stuff.
I am glad you are so interested in learning how others think. In my opinion, this is what is missing from current politics. Whether I agree or disagree with someone's political opinions is less important than their intentions. I truly belief that liberals and conservatives both want what is best for their country, they just see different ways of achieving it. Yes, there are whackos on both sides, but these radical views do not represent the views of everyone on that side.

I tend to identify as a Democrat because I believe that we can accomplish more as a country if we work together and that government at its core can be very good. However, I diverge from many Democrats as to where I think government power should be concentrated. I would prefer to see the most government engagement at the local level, and then diminishing as it moves to the state and finally federal level.

Another area in which I align as a Democrat is that, at least in American politics, the right wing is either morally or religiously conservative. I am not religious and I do not believe that morality can or should be legislated. You may disagree with someone's life choices, but that does not mean they should be denied the right to live as they choose. Further, I do not believe we have done enough as a society to address issues of inequality for women and minorities, though we are certainly making progress.

Fiscally, while I am more conservative than most Democrats, I still do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to each other and that having people in our country living in abject poverty, especially our seniors, is simply not acceptable. Personally, I would prefer a flat negative income tax as the best solution.

I will think of more in a bit, but these were just the first few thoughts to come to mind.
 
"I am not religious and I do not believe that morality can or should be legislated. You may disagree with someone's life choices, but that does not mean they should be denied the right to live as they choose. Further, I do not believe we have done enough as a society to address issues of inequality for women and minorities, though we are certainly making progress."

"Fiscally, while I am more conservative than most Democrats, I still do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to each other and that having people in our country living in abject poverty, especially our seniors, is simply not acceptable."


Meaning no disrespect, but which is it? These are contradictory statements.

Apparently it is only conservative or religious morality to which you object being the law, not secular humanist morality.

And I will head the [almost inevitable] straw man off at the pass with a quote from Frederic Bastiat.

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
 
Meaning no disrespect, but which is it? These are contradictory statements.

Apparently it is only conservative or religious morality to which you object being the law, not secular humanist morality.

And I will head the [almost inevitable] straw man off at the pass with a quote from Frederic Bastiat.
In my first statement, I was speaking specifically of enforcing personal/religious morality on the nation. With regard to my statement on poverty, I see it more as a social responsibility and less as an issue of morality, though I would say that doing so is also moral. As such, there are many way to go about it, and a government by and for the people is a legitimate way in which a society can address its collective responsibilities. Now, the degree to which government action should be part of the solution can be debated, but I do not think it should be discounted merely because it is being pursued by the government.
 
Define it however you wish, it is a code of morality which you wish enforced by men with badges and guns, that can put people in cages or cemetery plots. How does that make you any different than the religious/moral conservatives who want their code enforced by the same badges and guns?

When I am forced to do a thing, my agency is abnegated; meaning that there is nothing moral about doing something that I am forced to be doing. Without volition, there is no such thing as morality.

It is kinda curious to me how lefties can be at once so cynical about mankind, men who have little or no power, and then be so naive about giving those same men he doesn't trust with deciding for themselves who will be the objects of their benevolence, the power to rule over other men. Are we to believe that our politicians and bureaucrats are made from a finer clay than we are? That is simply not credible.

If the people in government are no more trustworthy than the rest of us, if mankind is pretty much bad, how is it prudent to give bad men power over us? How does that work out where you don't end up with Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, and China?

I'm certain that almost nobody in Venezuela voted for what it is that they now have, yet what they now have is the [inevitable] outcome of how they've voted for the last 20 or 25 years. There is no moral or smart enough person or people to be entrusted with that kind of power.
..., but I do not think it should be discounted merely because it is being pursued by the government.
That is precisely the reason it should be discounted. Accretion of power to the government leads to invariably bad consequences for a lot of people, including and most especially the true believers.
 
Saul, you and Sgt Zim are exchanging thoughts well here and whilst I really dont want you to feel outnumbered I would like to throw in a few questions. Maybe some of the other Democrat hunters can chime in. I am sometimes confused by the stance of liberals claiming to represent humanities more than conservatives, for example your statement about old people in poverty. But in the conservative Republican values I see far more emphasis upon the family unit, values that promote decency and care for their elderly than I see in the liberal 'each for their own' leaning. This looks like a contradiction to me. Even in our religious views there is preaching to compassion and shunning of violence. But in the anarchy that has and still is pervading America there is a swing to violence that seldom gets a Democrat push back - how is this more acceptable than the conservative opinions?
 
When you align yourself with the Democrats, it = support of the baby murdering party, socialism, Godlessness, and many more evils. There's no middle ground, period.
 
But in the anarchy that has and still is pervading America there is a swing to violence that seldom gets a Democrat push back - how is this more acceptable than the conservative opinions?
I think that anarchy is too strong word. Watching America from another continent just like you, I simply do not see Anarchy in USA.
 
There is a good point in what JGRaider says Saul - are there no Christians in the Democrat party, and if there are, how do they reconcile themselves to the abortion stance of the party?
Nancy Pelosi claims to be a Catholic, but supports abortion, she is the top Dem - isn't this even more contradiction?
 
I think that anarchy is too strong word. Watching America from another continent just like you, I simply do not see Anarchy in USA.
Accepted Mark, but then lawlessness is too soft a word too. It is heading further and further towards anarchy - open border, ever increasing shootings (even on the highways now), rampant shop lifting (really blatant theft, not something petty), resorting to rioting and looting at any excuse, and possibly the most dangerous of them all - biased media that is close to propaganda. This is the stuff that stacks to dry tinder waiting for a spark.
 
Define it however you wish, it is a code of morality which you wish enforced by men with badges and guns, that can put people in cages or cemetery plots. How does that make you any different than the religious/moral conservatives who want their code enforced by the same badges and guns?

When I am forced to do a thing, my agency is abnegated; meaning that there is nothing moral about doing something that I am forced to be doing. Without volition, there is no such thing as morality.

It is kinda curious to me how lefties can be at once so cynical about mankind, men who have little or no power, and then be so naive about giving those same men he doesn't trust with deciding for themselves who will be the objects of their benevolence, the power to rule over other men. Are we to believe that our politicians and bureaucrats are made from a finer clay than we are? That is simply not credible.

If the people in government are no more trustworthy than the rest of us, if mankind is pretty much bad, how is it prudent to give bad men power over us? How does that work out where you don't end up with Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, and China?

I'm certain that almost nobody in Venezuela voted for what it is that they now have, yet what they now have is the [inevitable] outcome of how they've voted for the last 20 or 25 years. There is no moral or smart enough person or people to be entrusted with that kind of power.

That is precisely the reason it should be discounted. Accretion of power to the government leads to invariably bad consequences for a lot of people, including and most especially the true believers.
You are correct, doing so does require giving up some agency. But that is a consequence of living in a society and reaping the benefits of our government system. Unless arguing for absolute anarchy, we will always have to sacrifice a certain level of autonomy to live in a society.
Saul, you and Sgt Zim are exchanging thoughts well here and whilst I really dont want you to feel outnumbered I would like to throw in a few questions. Maybe some of the other Democrat hunters can chime in. I am sometimes confused by the stance of liberals claiming to represent humanities more than conservatives, for example your statement about old people in poverty. But in the conservative Republican values I see far more emphasis upon the family unit, values that promote decency and care for their elderly than I see in the liberal 'each for their own' leaning. This looks like a contradiction to me. Even in our religious views there is preaching to compassion and shunning of violence. But in the anarchy that has and still is pervading America there is a swing to violence that seldom gets a Democrat push back - how is this more acceptable than the conservative opinions?
I apologize if I made it sound as if conservatives do not care about poverty or humanity, that was not my intention and going back I can certainly see how it sounds like that. Rather, I meant to say that I believe that there is a place for fiscal policy aimed at eliminating abject poverty, though I do think that most often Democrats are wrong as about how to approach such policy.

I think that the contradiction you are noticing is probably a result of many Democrats believing that a social safety net is the best means of keeping people out of poverty, while many Republicans believe that a strong family unit is the best means of doing so.
There is a good point in what JGRaider says Saul - are there no Christians in the Democrat party, and if there are, how do they reconcile themselves to the abortion stance of the party?
Nancy Pelosi claims to be a Catholic, but supports abortion, she is the top Dem - isn't this even more contradiction?
Joe Biden is also Catholic. I am not religious so I cannot speak with much authority on this topic, but to me, no one is in complete alignment with each and every teaching of their chosen faith. Frankly, I am in no position to judge how anyone chooses to follow their faith.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,618
Messages
1,131,258
Members
92,673
Latest member
ChristyLak
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top