Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,016 posts, read 2,705,950 times
Reputation: 374
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis
This is indeed an needed ideal (no intent to sound like Dr Suess I swear) in any civilization. And I can agree that this kind of thinking has its place. But in this very country there are around 400 billionaires and 40 million people in need. This would be at the opposite end of the scale from what you just proposed.
Give me a dam to build. That's the difference between our grand father's generation and out own. There is no dam to build - the boots don't have straps like they did then. The population was half what it is now, there was far more agriculture and people actually bought stuff that their fellow Americans made - we weren't addicted to our dependence on other nations like we are now. The system then wasn't built on 80 years of rapid technologocal revolution like it is now. In other words, their system hadn't become the out of control beast that it is now. What we are in now is a result of these changes. This is the outcome of a monetary system where EVERYTHING can be taken care of with money, and with that security blanket gone there will be a lot of whiners.
I agree with you...our tax structure and oppressive regulation has driven manufacturing out of the country, why on earth do we subsidize our farmers to NOT grow food? and tons of other crazy tax and regulative schemes??? Our economy has grown into money grubbing credit and lenders...and we are reaping that 'benefit' currently.
You talk about the billionares in this country, and I don't really know the numbers on that but the TOP 1% TAXABLE INCOME IN THIS COUNTRY STARTS AT $388,806 (as of 2006, source The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data ). That is not a whole lotta cash IMHO. It's more thaN me...but it's certainly no millionaire. So, most jobs in the US are provided by folks like that...why would we want to tax that person to death? Let them provide jobs...they provide close to 90% of them.....No, he won't be building a dam...only a country.
Along with that, I do feel that coporations need to be MORALLY responsible to the communities the reside in. But the government cannot make them so. There used to be a time when folks were loyal to their companies because their companies were good to them. Then came high taxes, corporate abuse, Union abuse, legistative abuse of power with ridiculous oppressive regulation on corporations in unreasonable timeframes....then everything has become combative and a game of who can grab the most money out the quickest. No one wins at that game....least of all, the employees.
When in the hell were companies ever good to their employees without being forced to by unions or the government or without ulterior motives? Since when have corporations been morally responsible? Donating money to libraries and charities so that people would ignore the mythical graft that took place?
These views would have fit well right in that roaring 20's age with all the other white collar enablers who looked up to corrupt monopolists because they smiled and wore nice suits. An inherently morally responsible corporation is a pipe dream, because a corporation isn't supposed to be morally responsible. It's supposed to make money. And if morally reprehensible things will make money, then corporations will do them so long as they are not prohibited. And they can only be prohibited from these things by the government and organisers.
A corporation is like a pup. It can do good things for you in the long run, but you need to train it not to **** anywhere it wants first.
This is an excellent point! I think it goes to the heart of the matter, both as far as the politcal points and the theivery points. We are a nation of folks who feel as though life should 'always feel good'. Guess what...it doesn't, nor should it. Life is hard, is can be painful. We cannot have joy without sorrow. We cannot have appreciation without effort.
I am tired of everyone trying to 'make sure everyone has everything' and 'that everything is fair and equal'. It's not. Life is not. Just look around. Everyone is not born equally as handsome, equally as bright, nor equally as athletically gifted.
:
Read the preamble of the Constituion. The whole reason we have a government is to make this a more perfect union (not a less perfect one), and to promote the general welfare, not to impede it by forcing everyone to take the bad with the good. Everybody knows that what you say is true. But that does not mean that the purpose of the government and the American system is to enforce a middle balance of the good and the bad. Shouldnt it be taking measures to try to shift it more toward the good?
Everyone is also not born equally as capable of earning a decent living with reasonable effort. So why create and support and perpetuate and intensify a system that punishes those who are not?
Right, life is not fair. But those men you adulate who built the dam did so in order to create a nation that was better than fair. Why try to kick it back down again?
Life is fair. People are fair. They act fairly, until the bullies kick them when they're down so many times, they have their fairness beaten out of them When I was a kid, we played fair, and we had to hide from our parents in order to do it. Playing baseball, when the littlest weakest kid struck out, we'd say "strike two" and give him another chance. That was the only way we knew how to play. Off the field, we had to learn to play in the adult world. Fairness went out the window.
Why don't you all just stop parsing words and admit that you despise free thinking and hold individuality to some sort of lower moral standard?
There was a time in America when everyone knew what was right from wrong , cared about that, and wanted for themselves a lifestyle above reproach. There is nothing wrong with free thinking and individuality so long as it is on the positive side of values/ethics/and high moral standards which are all needed for a civil society . Our Founding Fathers thought so , but todays Liberal Entitlers/Relative Moralists cry foul if they feel they are expected to live a certain dignified way. (Not very politically correct is it ?!).
A relative moralist is a person who believe that if any state or country passes a law against something, that changes that behavior from moral to immoral in that state or country, without affecting its morality elsewhere. Or, if the law is repealed, immoral behavior suddenly becomes moral. That is a Conservative psychosis, not a Liberal one.
Liberal entitlers, on the other hand, believe that morality is an absolute human condition, and morality or immorality cannot be changed by a legislative assembly or an autocratic edict, or even a memo from an Apostle.. That is why they are called entitlers. They believe human beings are entitled to do things according to morality, whether Governor Orval Faubus or Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez or Pat Robertson declares them to be moral or not.
A relative moralist is a person who believe that if any state or country passes a law against something, that changes that behavior from moral to immoral in that state or country, without affecting its morality elsewhere. Or, if the law is repealed, immoral behavior suddenly becomes moral. That is a Conservative psychosis, not a Liberal one.
Liberal entitlers, on the other hand, believe that morality is an absolute human condition, and morality or immorality cannot be changed by a legislative assembly or an autocratic edict, or even a memo from an Apostle.. That is why they are called entitlers. They believe human beings are entitled to do things according to morality, whether Governor Orval Faubus or Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez or Pat Robertson declares them to be moral or not.
Perhaps I should have phrased that Moral Relativists and Narcissitic Entitlers ; however in the context of todays willful Godless lifestyles... I use the words to describe a person who thinks morals are relative to how HE/SHE feels at any given time thereby demanding the freedom to make up ones own standards to live according to , and, people who suffer from feeling entitled to behave a certain deviant way (IE: Everything from a Driver on the highway who chooses to routinely go 100 mph in a 65 mph speed zone ,or, the 'entitlement' of a Mother who decides to kill her own developing baby thru abortion because sexual hedonism went (further) wrong -- which accounts for about 95% of all walkin abortions in this country by the way. Liberty over human life.)
I refuse to discuss anything with a person who thinks Godless and Immoral are synonymous. Aside from the personal insult value I could ascribe to it if I chose to. You have just called me (and several billion other people) "immoral" on the basis of whether I acknowledge a personal God or not.
Location: Oviedo, Fl formerly from the Philly Burbs!
1,016 posts, read 2,705,950 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Read the preamble of the Constituion. The whole reason we have a government is to make this a more perfect union (not a less perfect one), and to promote the general welfare, not to impede it by forcing everyone to take the bad with the good. Everybody knows that what you say is true. But that does not mean that the purpose of the government and the American system is to enforce a middle balance of the good and the bad. Shouldnt it be taking measures to try to shift it more toward the good?
Everyone is also not born equally as capable of earning a decent living with reasonable effort. So why create and support and perpetuate and intensify a system that punishes those who are not?
Right, life is not fair. But those men you adulate who built the dam did so in order to create a nation that was better than fair. Why try to kick it back down again?
Life is fair. People are fair. They act fairly, until the bullies kick them when they're down so many times, they have their fairness beaten out of them When I was a kid, we played fair, and we had to hide from our parents in order to do it. Playing baseball, when the littlest weakest kid struck out, we'd say "strike two" and give him another chance. That was the only way we knew how to play. Off the field, we had to learn to play in the adult world. Fairness went out the window.
I agree with alot of what you say here...but the Preamble to the Constitution...yes...they wanted to build a better place...but I believe their intention for government was LESS government (look at what they were escaping from, high taxation, excessive and large government interference and intervention at the time), and the POTENTIAL for a better life...not the ENFORCEMENT of a fair and equitable life for all. If that were indeed their intent, why is it not detailed in the founding father's documents? Read some of their other works...the works describing what they were doing at the time. Where their thoughts were rooted at the time...not only in morality but as far as their views of governmental intervention/interference/taxation/ etc.
Can you describe for me some of these persons you are referring to that are unable to or incapable of making a living? I understand you may have mentally or physically handicapped, or aged/infirm people, and I am not opposed to helping those out. I am also not opposed to say, child care assistance perhaps (not convinced one way or another, I would need to see a specific) for single parents going into the workforce.
I agree we are not all capable of a college degree, but a HS grad can make 5oK putting cars together at an auto maker. Most schools offer typing and steno (if they use that still...they did when I went) and you can get a good start with that type of job out of HS.
What I am opposed to is the standard of welfare subsidies we have grown accustomed to and now expect, and how much folks expect from 'the system' to the point that folks are so stripped down of personal expectations and dignity that it is not even 'worth it' to get a job anymore. They make more money/insurance/tax refunds if they stay home watching Jerry Springer.
I refuse to discuss anything with a person who thinks Godless and Immoral are synonymous. Aside from the personal insult value I could ascribe to it if I chose to. You have just called me (and several billion other people) "immoral" on the basis of whether I acknowledge a personal God or not.
Our Founding Fathers thought God and his absolute moral laws as recorded in the Bible in the 10 Commandments and teachings of Christ, where absolutely needed for the basis of american society ; so of course the term God-LESS behavior is completely synonomous with Immorality (and Rebellion) , just the same as God-LY is synonomous with moral behavior (and willful compliance) . Im not indicating that someone who wishes not to acknowledge a personal God , cant be moral ; of course they can....its just that apart from God as Moral Law Provider, they cant justify being moral ; for, within each and every one of us, there is a moral oughtness or conscience if you will , that is written on each of our hearts and its something which materials and raw chemicals leftover from a 'Big Bang' simply cannot direct .Soi hope that clears it up a bit. Lastly, there is no such thing as 'an Atheist' in light of the enormous modern scientific evidence ; but one can still decide not to acknowledge there is a personal Theistic Creator even though the person is fully aware that one is required for what we have as our cosmos. I know i deviated a little bit off of the original topic, and id be pleased to take up the fact that no one has enough faith to be a real true Atheist , if you would care to start a new thread on this matter. Regards.
Our Founding Fathers thought God and his absolute moral laws as recorded in the Bible in the 10 Commandments and teachings of Christ, where absolutely needed for the basis of american society ;.
How many of the Ten Commandments have become the law in the USA? Two. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal. Both were already the law of the land under British rule, and both are the law of the land in every single country on earth. North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, every country has exactly the same two commandments as law of the land. So it seems kind of silly to claim that our law against killing and stealing is inspired by the Founders' religious zeal.
(Some argue that false witness is the law, but there is no law against lying in the USA, except when under sworn oath in a court of law, or when lying is used as a means of stealing (fraud), which is already covered in another commandment.)
There have already been countless threads here on whether or not there is a God, and none of them have changed anybody's mind. I take it as another mild insult for you to insist that I am so vain that I have to "acknowledge there is a personal Theistic Creator" who cares a rats butt about me, in order to account for black holes billions of light years away. I am not that vain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Not very politically correct is it ?!).
