ehowton | The Golden Rule

Current Location: 75409
Current Music: Newman - Plesantville

Entry tags:

The Golden Rule

Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.

Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?

The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.

No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.

These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.

Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.

All of them, better worlds.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas
You're missing the point here.

The peaceniks you mention here are definitely Lefties that want to bring our kids home and send them to college where those kids can be indoctrinated in more Leftist bullshit while at the same time the peaceniks fail to recognize that we have an all volunteer force. The last draft was Viet Nam, and that war was propagated by Johnson and ended under Jimmy Carter, which wasn't so much of an end as much as it was kicking the can down the road and leaving the problem for President Reagan to clean up.

Furthermore, the people that beat the drum about mother earth are the same bunch of liberal elites that include but aren't limited to The Lovable Sir Albert Gore, Jr. and Senator John Heinz Kerry (who allegedly served in Viet Nam.) Funny how Kerry is both against war and supports ideas like Carbon Credits and Carbon Exchange. I also find it interesting that these same blowhards that propagate "Climate Change" stand to profit from their rhetoric.

Who owned the largest carbon trading company? Algore. This is the same Algore that owns a mansion in Tennessee who's utility bill is over $1000/mo and flies around on jets telling everyone else that they need to reduce their carbon footprint. But not those that stand to profit from the scam.

If carbon credits were the answer and the planet really was melting as it is alleged to be doing, why would Obama push a Cap & Trade agenda? If he really cared about the environment, he would just cap carbon output and leave it at that. But such is not the case. Those who have been and who are in power stand to earn tons of money off of this ridiculous legislation that Obama himself admitted would make the average American's utility bill rise by 300%.

Even when Hollywood types come out and do PR for Global Warming, Peace and Cap & Trade, they are on the far left. Cindy Sheehan was against Bush's war, but as soon as Obama came to power, she was silenced. Why? Because she didn't fit the template anymore. A Leftist boy who would be king was anointed to bring about a socialistic utopia. Was Michael Moore right when he made his so-called documentary about healthcare claiming that Cuba and Canada have a better healthcare system than does the United States? Are you ready to join ranks with such a charlatan?

Though you attempt to exalt your intelligence by clinging to "morale high ground" you willingly close your eyes to the real world. Facts are stubborn things and these facts will not go away. When you are ready to admit that your government is working against you in an attempt to engage in more legalized theft, I'll be here waiting for you. Of course, you also have the freedom to admit that your years spent in the Air Force were spent raping women and killing babies. You either take the whole narrative or none of it.

Amen Cousin!

In forming my own political opinions, I take information from all the parties, and find that I agree with each of them part of the time.

I ALWAYS check the facts myself. Even the news media is selling entertainment nowadays; not information. Secondly, I'm ALWAYS interested in hearing someone else's well-thought out opinion, even if I don't fully agree with his/her position. Why? First of all, that person may have thought of some aspect that I myself haven't. It gives me the opportunity to learn something and perhaps even modify my opinion. Secondly, I find security in that the other person has taken the time and energy to think about the issue thoughtfully, and cares just as deeply about our country as I do, even if s/he thinks the solution may lie on a different path than I do.

It all comes down to a matter of respect.

However people whose political opinions are formed based on an inflamed, hate all dissenters, us against them, and sum it up on bumper sticker mentality scare the hell out of me.

Sometimes I think a new political party is in order. Let's call it The Middle of the Road Party. When I talk to thoughtful people, almost no one is purely Republican or purely Democrat; most lie somewhere in between.

You're a goddess amongst women. I wish more people would listen to "the other side" before forming their opinion. What a wonderful world it would be.

I have a hard time comprehending the oppositions point of view on immigration. I would like to, I really would. But it seems they use google translate from Spanish to English. The grammar and spelling is just atrocious making their statements incomprehensible.

When I was 20-something and ignorant, I felt that the ENTIRE WORLD was stupid for not understanding the things I understood, and I sounded a lot like you.

Then I grew up.

The truth NEVER lies on side or the other. It ALWAYS lies somewhere in between. Don't look now, but your partisanship is showing. How very embarrassing.

While I lean more toward the Conservative point of view where this is concerned, I will NOT give up my personal freedoms for the endeavor.

So there we have it.

*shrug*

Though you and Democrats try to paint partisanship out to be a bad thing, I don't buy it for a minute. I'm proud of the fact I stand on principle and can argue my position instead of having to resort to debating tactics t get my back from against the wall.

If there's anything to be embarrassed or ashamed of, it's the fact that I once looked up to you and you've turned out to be a spineless old man. I would pity you except you know better and are taking the easy way out.

May God have mercy on your soul.

How does defending our border and enforcing our immigration laws make you give up your personal freedom? Did you nod in agreement with Ashton Kutcher when he laughed at the PMSNBC ticker that said "Arizona law to make illegal immigration illegal."?

Agreed, in regard to not giving up my personal freedoms for the endeavor.

As to the immigration issue itself, again, I find that both sides have valid points because the issue is very complex. I'm going to leave it at that, because I don't have time to write a 100 page dissertation on the subject.

When American citizens of Hispanic descent must "show papers", Americans are giving up their freedoms. It smells of Nazi stink. It's all well and good to say nothing that extreme could happen here, but if one studies Germany before Hitler, they were a very democratic nation. We must always be on our guard not to bend our principles for expediency.

Just like we shouldn't profile Muslim men aged 17-35 when boarding planes. After all, 67 year-old Betty Smith or 3 year-old Julie Jones could be the next jihadist. YOu never know.

Your counterpoint of, "Nuh-uh" where considering others' opinions which differ from your own is complex and thought-provoking. I'm going to need a little time to digest it all.

I will admit I was surprised by your devil's advocate approach of "closed-minded ignoramus" where you basically become the very thing I caution against.

Let me get back with you on its effectiveness as an debate strategy, although I'll be honest with you, it doesn't look promising.

Your ability to dismiss multifaceted complexity and break things down into simplistic elements is a refreshing gift.

My 10-year old sees things similarly.

You're the one trying to get the whole world to join hands for a round of kumbaya. That's overly simplistic and utopian at best. Come live in the real world: yannow, the one where someone states their position on a topic, a person responds to that topic and then the person who made their assertion first responds back with thought-out answers to response instead of ignoring the response all together and dismissing it as though the person who originally stated their position is an elitist snob that has to look down upon the dumber, lesser person when in fact, there is only one truth.

When I'm stopped by a law enforcement officer for speeding or having a headlamp out on my car I have no problem providing that officer whither he be white, black, brown or yellow three things. My drivers license, my insurance card, and my concealed handgun license. I'm no longer required to show my concealed handgun license at a traffic stop but I do it anyway.

When U.S. citizens travel to other countries they also must carry and be prepared to present their passports. People from other countries traveling in the U.S. should also be prepared to show their passports whether they are here legally or illegally.

Everybody in the U.S. no matter if they are of English, German, Chinese, Cambodian, Polish, Italian, Indian, Greek, Pakistani or "Hispanic" decent should be prepared to show their drivers license or state issued I.D. when they are stopped for a traffic violation.

You raise some interesting points here.

First of all, it isn't Nazism to ask for a driver's license and registration on the vehicle as those items are required to drive a car in ALL 50 of these United States. The only two arguments I'm willing to hear on this topic is that by handing over such documents you are violating your own Fifth Amendment rights or that the government shouldn't be issuing such documentation, but neither of these arguments have been made by either

ehowton or by thedesertquilter.

Furthermore, the Arizona law did not single out one ethnic group. In fact, it is both ignorant and racist to suggest that Mexicans, Guatemalans, Chileans, Brazilians, Hondurans, Belizeans and for that matter Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Jamaicans all into one category. This is just like labeling all dark-skinned people as "blacks", "engross", or "African Americans" or lumping Koreans in with Chinese, Japanese, Thi, Malayans, etc.

Our progressive friends have shown their asses here by boldly proclaiming their racism and daring to suggest that we're in the wrong for wanting to uphold the the Law of the Land.

Its obvious you're unaware of the controversy surrounding the Arizona Immigration Law. In this case, there are disagreements surrounding your "one truth."

Stating sir, that you don't understand how there can be such a thing as controversy surrounding what you consider to be truth is the only simplistic thought here. Surely you see that otherwise is occurring even as we speak. How could that happen?

Please read up on the Arizona Immigration Law controversy, and I will be happy to discuss it with you. Try to open your mind to differing opinions [other than simply the two you've stated (handing over such documents are violating your own Fifth Amendment rights or that the government shouldn't be issuing such documentation)] and you might not only enjoy a great discussion but learn from others, and also be a more effective teacher as you attempt to better disseminate your own ideas.

That "one truth" is as multi-faceted as the perspectives of those who view it. There's only "one bible" yet 1000 denominations. How can it be?

Here's a brain teaser - if there is only one truth...why all the controversy?

Shalom.

You're right about this post being overly simplistic, but it was you sir who missed its point :(

Are we talking illegal immigration or terrorism? Granted there are places where the two may overlap, but there are many places where they do not.

Your tangent does not address my point.

True, we hand over our ID when we've committed a traffic violation. However, you can't be so naive as to believe an overzealous officer wouldn't pull someone over simply in order to check citizenship. It's happened. It went like this: Officer pulled over the vehicle for an alleged traffic violation. Took a long time checking the Hispanic American's identification, but spent little time checking my blond-haired cousin's ID, then let them go with no ticket. What do you think happened there? How many times would it have to happen to you before you felt your rights had been violated?

Both.

Your claim is that it is Nazism to ask "Hispanics" (which is a racist term) for their driver's license and registration because it is profiling; therefore, you must agree with the TSA's policy of molesting 75 year old grandmothers and 3 year old children because they too might be a jihadist and blow up a plane. After all, profiling at the airport would be Nazism per your definition.

My point (not tangent as you smugly put it) does address your claim of Nazism. What you fail to explain the Constitutionality of driver's licenses, tag registration (taxes) and the TSA.

You've just contradicted yourself here. On the one hand, you don't have a problem with requiring drivers to show their license and proof of paying taxes, yet on the other hand you think that it's wrong to ask a certain group of people to show their ID.

Here a thought: the Federal Government failed to do it's job of securing the border. Arizona, a border State, created a State law that was in harmony with Federal law. Because this administration's policy is to give illegal immigrants, particularly those who have crossed our Southern border amnesty against their crime of entering the country illegally, the Attorney General of the United States leaned on a Federal judge to rule against the Arizona law rendering that State impotent to solve it's problem whist the Federal government continued to exacerbate the situation so that the only conclusion people at large would come to is that there are too many illegals in the country to deport, so let's give all illegals the same rights as American citizens because illegals broke our laws.

Please cite Article, Section and Clause where the Constitution grants the current administration's immigration policy, both for the ruling on the Arizona law and to give illegals amnesty.

Its obvious you're unaware of the controversy surrounding the Arizona Immigration Law.
I am very aware of the so-called controversy surrounding the Arizona law. Being a student of Constitutional Law, I do not see how the Arizona law violates the Constitution. Arizona SB 1070 was well within the bounds of the Constitution as the only thing SB 1070 did was give the State the power to enforce Federal Law that was already on the books that the Federal Government was failing to enforce.

As Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states (otherwise knowns as the Supremacy Clause) states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Therefore, since the United States has a treaty with Mexico that defines our Southern border between the two sovereign nations, the United States of America has the right to police her borders. This is true on both a Federal and a State level. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

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.

Please note that nowhere does the US Constitution construct such entities as the FBI or the CIA. In fact, both of those entities are 20th century byproducts. It was NEVER conceived that Federal criminals could not be apprehended by local law enforcement. This idea that Federal Law trumps all is modern invention of the Democrat party to pre-empt Nullification, a process that Thomas Jefferson STRONGLY defended and used himself. Why bring up Jefferson? Because he was the mentor of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and Madison and Jefferson agreed on this issue, hence the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 respectively–nullification laws.

So I have made a Constitutional case for Arizona SB 1070. As stated earlier, the only possible reasons for this law being un-Constitutional is if driver's licenses and vehicle taxes (otherwise known as car tags) are illegal. Both driver's licenses and car tags are State laws and thus State issues; requiring to produce documentation, therefore, can either be construed at a Fourth or Fifth Amendment argument.

I do not believe that it is a Fourth Amendment argument given that there is probable cause for the traffic stop in the form of a violation of an existing Arizona traffic law or city or county ordinance. The question then becomes, is it self-incriminating to produce documentation in any circumstance and therefore a violation of the Fifth Amendment? That question is left for greeter minds than mine. I lean towards yes, but if having to produce documentation is a violation of Fifth Amendment rights, then driver's licenses and vehicle taxes are therefore un-Constitutional and therefore illegal.

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply here because SB 1070 does not require any one group of people to do anything that any other group of people is required by law to do, ergo there is equal protection.

Please cite your Constitutional reasons for the un-Constitutionality of SB 1070.

Yes ma'am. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Please cite your Constitutional reasons for the un-Constitutionality of SB 1070.

Not everything I disagree with is rooted in unconstitutionality. I don't agree with some of the online games my son plays, but that doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Likewise, the constitutionality of your impressive retort doesn't magically eradicate the disagreements surrounding the law. Sometimes there are going to be those who disagree despite these facts. The maturity is in acknowledging that. Also, a basic understanding that not everyone is going to agree with you all of the time.

As a lover and defender of freedom, I preach caution where broad strokes of law have the potential to chip away at liberty. And only because I'm familiar with your modus operandi I'll remind you this does not make me a Socialist, or a Democrat. Again dude - shades of gray. I have a different perspective than you.

Lastly, the controversy surrounding the law is not "so-called." It actually exists by way a misunderstanding of its intent. Denying it isn't going to make it go away, and in fact, facing it might greatly increase your street cred where this concerned.

I love you for your passion, and your opinion, but you lose your audience when you're dismissive and inconsolable. Conservatives historically allow for a variety of viewpoints, and we will fight for your right to say or do things we may not agree with in the name of freedom.

Only Democrats and the Sith deal in absolutes.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

The Golden Rule

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject