Conservatives forget to put on the rash cream when they change their diapers, which causes their lack of common sense, telling the truth and being a civilized human being. So I'll give all you conservatives a 50% discount on Hydrocortisone cream! Just start a Rash-Tea Party and I'll show up with your dose! Most of you who need a yearly supply will get 70% off!
I sum up my conservatism in a few short sentences. I'm an autonomous, sovereign, independent individual, subject to no authority other than my own. No man owns or controls me. It just so happens that there are those who wish ill on my sovereignty. The only legitimization purpose I have for any government therefore is to protected and maintain my autonomy and liberty. Any goal or purpose outside preserving my independence is at odds with my fundamental existence and my political enemy.
@yellowkrux Do you comprehend the difference between socialism and individualism? I didn't mention the society at all. I have no intention of conforming to the whims of social fads as I clearly outlined. Please, try to pay attention to what you read.
@yellowkrux How the hell do you figure? It seems you have no understanding of what socialism is. Socialism is all about the society, not the individual. The rights and liberties of the individual come second to the goals of society as a whole. What I described is completely opposite of socialism. I clearly explained that the only legitimate purpose of any government is to maintain the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual. That is completely antithetical to socialism.
@tantrikwizard No, socialism is not all about society. Socialism is largely a reaction to industrialization & based on republicanism the concept you we alluding to in your previous post.The points you all pointed out were early talking points for left socialism & syndicalism.As the idea that a sovereign should have to submit to the will of another without any control over their labor & only reviving part of the value of it was considered degrading to the individual and contrary to republicanism.
what i fail to understand is why conservatives are christians.... Christianity is spiritual socialism ...the gospels reek of communist ideas! dont save money..turn the other cheek..dont take responsibility for own actions..etc. etc. ....conservative policies are more in tune with evolutionary biology than liberalism.. so why all the jesus stuff? if you read the early roman pagan critiques about christianity ..they have the same complaints that neo cons have about libs ..hmm?
@WORLDARYANREVIVAL The Bible doesn't tell us to use the power of government to FORCE individuals to help their fellow man. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." There is nothing wrong with philanthropy, but trying to be philanthropic by taking from others helps no one.
"Turn the other cheek" is always misunderstood. It is supposed to mean not to heed insults, not to never defend yourself. A slap is akin to an insult, not a physical attack. The Bible is full of men of God fighting their enemies.
@WORLDARYANREVIVAL Christianity is supposed to be about a person's relationship to God and his fellow man through Jesus Christ, not a person's relationship with his government. You could hypothetically provide for all the wants of everyone on the planet without saving a single soul. The Michael Moore types who use religion as an excuse to promote never-ending expansion of government power are the true hypocrites.
@ThorkilKowalski I like the dollar in terms of Congress' authority to regulate its value - I agree that it would be best to return to a tangible, real-world standard. At the same time, I don't think that would be at all viable until a long time from now after a huge shrinkage of government and repayment of most of our debt.
If you give Congress the power to regulate the value of the dollar through a central bank, you give some unelected officials (Bernanke) the power to confiscate all the US dollar savings. Bernanke is doing this through inflation. How is that consistent with your idea of a limited government?
@ThorkilKowalski It's not, and I'm no fan of the Fed printing money willy-nilly. I believe money should assigned to a real-world standard. But when you don't give power to the federal government to coin money, every state is coining it's own money with it's own standards, which has it's own special set of problems. Article I, Section 8 gave Congress the power to coin money for this reason. Abuse of this particular power is not a reason to buck the entire institution to go back to the Articles.
@ThorkilKowalski The power in terms of the Constitution is where it should be - with Congress. The problem is that Congress wrote off its power to unelected officials. THAT is what needs to be fixed, not the Constitution's delegation of the power.
@LittleSn00py I personally think it should be between a man and a woman. The US Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so legally it should be up to the individual states unless there is a new amendment. I support equal legal rights for gay couples, such as hospital visitation.
If Im the victim of a beating by thugs, the police will come to my aid and save my life. If my house is burning, the fireman will come and put it out and save my life. If america is attacked by alqaida terrorists, the american armed forced will fight them and save my life, and others of course. If microorganisms attack my immune system and cause illness, the doctors will come and save my life ... no, wait ... sorry, I dont have an insurrance. Damn.
@u2bealot Big stuff like fires or violence or foreign invaders are universally applicable to every citizen. Health care/insurance, however, differs greatly from person to person. That's why conservatives support a free market health insurance system that allows plans to be tailored to the individual- at least, when the free market actually has some freedom to operate.
@u2bealot fail! when my wife got pregnant ...we didnt pay a dime! know who did? the local hospital ..funded by rich fuckers! leave the rich alone and they will fund almost anything! and no hospital can turn you away!
In danish konservatism (spelled with a K), they talk about the "contract between generations". We inherit a society and values from our parents, and are responsible for handing it over to the next generation in a sound state. This means that they shunt ideologies such as socialism and liberalism, believing them to be futile and thought of over nigtht, i.e. illconsidered and dangerous. Thus, decisions should be made by using common sense and treading carefully rather than ideological doctrine.
@u2bealot Ideology isn't bad unless you allow it to shape your worldview and choose your facts. There's nothing wrong with an ideology based on sound observation and reason that you allow to be challenged often.
@tegthethird You're bored of what? Not being able to understand easy concepts? I wonder if you pass your classes...taking science, logic or any social sciences, econ? It doesn't like you would.
@tegthethird Legit questions. You don't provide evidence to back your statements, have a tenuous grasp (at best) of the topics presented, and you don't use logic to form anything of substance. It's pretty much as if you're brainwashed. I mean at least state how neo-liberal policies afforded Scandinavia the means to become what it is today (free market vs. socialism and how the free market afforded opportunities to these nations). But, not even that. At least try.
@ucsb1985 Do you know how OBNOXIOUS it is to log on to my email and continuously see four, five comments from you? I made this video over a year ago. Do you have nothing better to do? I'll get to this later.
So I can't be an atheist and still be a true conservative? Fuck it then, I guess we really ARE NOT created equal after all. And sorry to inform you but, your so called "rights" are nothing more than an illusion.
@GODofFAIL665 Please don't use foul language, or I'll block you. My point was that to believe in the points set forth in the Declaration of Independence, (that men are created equal and that rights were endowed to them by their Creator), you need to believe in a Creator. But it sounds like you don't believe in unalienable rights anyway (which is kind of important to conservatism), so I don't know why you are upset that you aren't included in my definition of a true conservative.
@tegthethird No you don't. CREATOR does not necessarily mean God. Creator means who you think created you, whether it's your parents, or a deity. Get your facts straight!
@NonPointRulz101 The founding fathers weren't talking about their parents, I can tell you that. And I said "God or otherwise" in my video. "Otherwise" can cover whatever deity you want it to.
@tegthethird You didn't get my point. They said "Creator" and not any specific deity because they wanted "We The People" to fill in the gap for ourselves. But of course, most Christians, especially conservatives, would take "Creator" to mean that the founding fathers were strong Christians, which they were not, of course.
That is what "Creator" means. While you might take it to mean the Christian god, I take it to mean my parents.
@NonPointRulz101 How about "Nature's God"? The "Supreme Judge of the World"? The "protection of divine Providence"? I'm afraid you're reading into the meaning of "Creator" far more than me, my friend.
@tegthethird Gahh, you still don't get it. I'm telling you that even if it seems like all the Founding Fathers were Christians, that does not make it so. Yes, some were Christians, but they were mostly agnostics, deists, and a few atheists. They might have believed in a divine being, but for one, most of them never specified their beliefs. Second, they said things like "Creator" to fill in the blanks for people. But I guess people didn't understand their message.
@NonPointRulz101 John Adams: "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
@NonPointRulz101 John Adams- "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
@NonPointRulz101 Benjamin Franklin- “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
@NonPointRulz101 Benjamin Franklin- “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
Alexander Hamilton- "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
@NonPointRulz101 Patrick Henry- “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
@NonPointRulz101 John Jay- “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
@NonPointRulz101 Thomas Jefferson- “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
@NonPointRulz101 At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
@NonPointRulz101 Benjamin Rush- “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.”
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
@tegthethird I'm not pretended anything. This nation was NOT founded on Christian principles. It was founded on secularism. I mean, haven't you ever wondered why America doesn't have a "national religion"? It's because our Founding Fathers wanted us to be built on freedom, not religious doctrine.
In fact, I can show you many quotes that our Founding Fathers have made that ridicule and or condemn Christianity, if you'd like...
@NonPointRulz101 Just because we aren't a theocracy doesn't mean we weren't founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The founding fathers didn't envision a nation where religion would be hunted down and forcibly removed from society. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." They didn't want the government to enforce religious doctrine, but they didn't want the government to prevent it, either.
@NonPointRulz101 To say that our nation was "founded on secularism" is to say that the founding fathers set out to create a nation that made a point of eschewing religion. Any layperson reading their writings knows that this was not the case. The founders wanted religion to flourish because of our freedom, not restricted in the name of it.
@tegthethird Uhh, you don't even understand what secularism is. I mean, yes, they wanted freedom of religion, but they didn't want religion to take over. And that's why we have this quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
@NonPointRulz101 Stop saying "I don't understand," then quote the First Amendment as if I've never read it. The founders didn't want religion to "take over" in the sense that they didn't want to give doctrines of specific denominations the force of law, but their writings clearly show that they hoped and expected that there would be a high proliferation of religion in society BECAUSE of the freedom to worship! To deny that is willful ignorance.
@tegthethird If you want me to stop saying that you don't understand, then start acting smart!
You just said yourself that they WANTED there to be freedom of religion, but they didn't want it to be the basis for laws. You also stated that they WANTED America to be a country with strong religious background. That, my friend, is what I've been trying to tell you(with the exception of the "religious background" argument).
You just admitted that this country was founded on freedom, not religion!
@NonPointRulz101 Freedom including freedom OF RELIGION. And "freedom" doesn't mean "secularism," which is what you have been implying. The founders didn't want a national religion, but they fully expected a religious people. In fact, for a long time many states had laws inspired by religious doctrine, to the point that politicians and public officials couldn't be elected unless they belonged to a certain religion. The argument that the founders wanted a society without religion is ridiculous.
@NonPointRulz101 What do you mean by "take over"? Because if you mean government, then you should be against efforts such as the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses or "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you mean society, then you are wrong; the founders expected and expressly wished for a religious society. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
@tegthethird Uhh, that "Under God" thing should never even have been there in the first place, because it favors one religion over the others, and quite frankly, it makes non believers of the Christian god feel uncomfortable. Tell me, would you like it if a Muslim group tried to lobby to get "Under Allah" as part of our constitution?
And I've already said it. They wanted us to fill in the blanks for ourselves. Interpret their words for what they believe is what they said.
@NonPointRulz101 Having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does nothing to affect others' rights. We have freedom OF religion, not from it. Heaven forbid people feel uncomfortable in a land of free speech. I guess we should raze the National Cathedral to the ground, shouldn't we?
You twist the founders' words to suit a secular agenda. That's not what the founders meant when they spoke of "the free exercise thereof."
@tegthethird haha you sound just like that lady who wrote that paper on "Freedom Of Religion, Not Freedom FROM Religion".
I am not trying to twist our Founding Father's words. This is exactly what they meant: "Freedom of religion, but one religion cannot try to take over the people".
And I've told you already, you wouldn't like it if someone tried to put "Under Allah" in our pledge, so if you think Christianity gets to have a double standard, you're a hypocrite.
@NonPointRulz101 Again, you are being vague about what you mean by "take over." If you think the founders meant that you have the freedom not to be exposed to any religion, then you are dead wrong.
I personally wouldn't like it, but if I lived in a community that was mostly Muslim, I would understand it, and I would TOLERATE it. "Religious toleration" does not mean we always bend our conduct to the will of the minority. The minority has rights, but that doesn't mean they always set the rules.
@tegthethird By take over, I mean, try to control the government and impose their ruling on others based simply on their own religious views.
And I didn't say that we have to bend the rules for anyone, because that is the complete opposite of what I am saying. If we want a nation that has true freedom of all, then we would not have "under God" in our pledge, as not everyone believes in the Christian god OR the same version of the Christian god.
@NonPointRulz101 Isn't that exactly what the atheists are doing? They are actively trying to prevent the usage of religious words or imagery in the public square, even if they don't affect the way people conduct their business in the slightest.
Not everyone believes that America stands for freedom. Does that mean we take out any references to liberty from the Pledge? You can't please every minority. If their inalienable rights aren't violated, then no one has done anything wrong.
@NonPointRulz101 We set laws based on morality all the time. For most people, morality comes from their religion. Heck, the fact that it's illegal to murder someone is a law based on morality. Laws against marriage to minors are laws based on morality. Laws against abuse of animals are based on morality.
Also, states are empowered by the 10th Amendment to "fill in the blanks" when it comes to local issues. If they want to make a specific law on a moral issue, they can, and they always have.
Also, you should look up "America Is Not A Christian Nation" on google. It has undeniable proof that refutes what most Christians try to twist into how they see fit.
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."- Treaty Of Tripoli
@NonPointRulz101 We're not "founded on the Christian religion," and that's not what I've been arguing. I'm not saying that our government should be designed to reflect the Bible, I'm saying that we can have faith-based principles in local government. It's up to local populations. That's what the founding fathers expected.
@tegthethird NO, they did not. If they wanted us to have a faith-based law system, then why do you think this is quote is part of our Bill Of Rights?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Once again, if a religion other than your own tried to govern based on their own religious doctrine, you certainly would not like it. So, your own religion cannot get to be the double standard
@NonPointRulz101 The First Amendment mentions Congress specifically because they expected the LOCAL governments to fill in the blanks. They were trying to ensure that there was no NATIONAL religion, but that doesn't mean they didn't hope for and expect a religious nation.
If a state was filled with mostly Muslims, and they wanted "under Allah" as part of their Pledge of Allegiance, that's up to them! You keep accusing me of using a double standard when I have done no such thing.
@NonPointRulz101 You have now brought up two topics completely unrelated to our conversation thus far: socialism and race. We were talking about the role of religion in society. Of course only the right calls Obama a socialist, for the same reason only the left calls Bush a fascist.
If you're going to call me a racist, then we're done here. We were having an intelligent conversation, but you had to bring up race. Why does the left always have to shoehorn race into every conversation?
@NonPointRulz101 you prove yourself a fool by blindly accusing a conservative as a racist just for being a conservative or opposing Obama. Were we racists when we opposed Carter and Clinton for the same things we hate about Obama?
and speaking of Obama, he is a marxist who thinks its good to "spread the wealth around". He's clearly a socialist. why can't we call him what he is?
@ucsb1985 Whoops. Wrong vitriolic commentator whose views are still absolutely insane. The insularity he exhibits on his programs is horrible. His talking points are essentially the same shrill shriek of how liberals are overtaking the media and ramming socialist programs down our throats. See, I personally would be embarrassed to consider Mark Levin a credible source. I prefer truth and tempered debates. Facts over emotions. I guess logic isn't really a strong point of the new right.
@ucsb1985 You call it "insularity" because you disagree with it. I'll admit that his tone is difficult to listen to when one doesn't share his views. As Levin says, he's not trying to be NPR. But you are mistaken when you accuse him of being all emotion and no logic. Read "Liberty and Tyranny" if you can't stand the show, but still want the substance.
@tegthethird It's not insularity because I disagree, but rather his views contradict the reality of our situation. Even a good commentator has to acknowledge the facts. It is, in essence, emotionally based. I've read parts of it. His inability to address social issues with any substance is why modern neo-conservatism is far removed from reality.
@ucsb1985 "His inability to address social issues with any substance" Um, what? He's remarked on the civil society and moral order on numerous occasions, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say he hasn't addressed social issues. Is it so hard to fathom that one can be relatively indifferent on social issues, but passionate in the system that organizes them? Is the fact that he hasn't taken a "yes or no" stance on issues such as abortion or gay marriage really what bothers you?
@tegthethird No substance. Yes it is hard to fathom that "one can be relatively indifferent on social issues, but passionate in the system that organizes them." It means that you lack an understanding what the issues are. If you state the debunked line of welfare queens, it means you don't know the reality of the situation. If you state that gays shouldn't serve in the military only on the "gross out factor" it means you haven't taken the time to see the models of other nations.
@ucsb1985 So because he doesn't get on his radio show and advocate for or against social issues means that he doesn't understand them? His agenda is limited constitutional government, not any single issue. He has never said "gays shouldn't serve in the military," he has said he's against activist judges making decisions that should be made by the Congress and the military. He hasn't said he's against gay marriage, he's said the states should decide. You just don't agree with his conclusions.
@tegthethird Mark Levin: "Why, when conservatives raise doubts about gay activism, its a wedge issue, but not a wedge issue when the gay lobby pushes its agenda?" Clearly he isn't for gay rights. Yes, when you don't advocate for social change, you most likely are ignorant of the issues. When you go on air and blame welfare for the housing crash, and the debt solely on welfare and social programs, you don't know the issue (what about the 2 wars, and the insane tax cuts).
@ucsb1985 In other words, IF HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION, HE'S WRONG. That is what you are saying. You are so focused on "gay rights" that you are missing the context of the words. He is talking about the media here, not "gay rights." He is saying the media is unfair in their portrayal of legitimate doubts in the practicality of homosexuals serving in the armed forces.
@tegthethird Read the comment. He isn't fact based. If he laid a fact based argument, I might be more inclined to state that while I disagree, he does have a valid point. He doesn't though. I'm missing the context? He stated that when conservatives are anti-gay it's divisive (as it should be) however, it's good when progressives try to mend the gap (as it should be as well). He essentially is belly aching that conservatives can't be anti-homosexual (again, as it should be).
@ucsb1985 BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE. You then accuse those who disagree of IGNORANCE. You think that's progressive dialogue? You think that that is representative of civil discourse? You are throwing a bunch of normative statements out there and claiming they are positive. You are proving my point again and again that your beef with this public figure is that he doesn't proselytize your opinions.
@tegthethird No I have beef because once again, he isn't analyzing the situation with facts. I'm just throwing statements. I've illustrated a few issues where most social scientists and him diverge significantly. I trust people that use research to back up their claims. He doesn't. It's not a stretch to call that ignorance.
@tegthethird I don't think you do. I have agreed with Hannity over issues regarding the Patriot Act. I've agreed with the assertion that too much mismanagement over welfare leads to collapse...but when you state that the government's interference led to the housing collapse and when you make ludicrous statements of how welfare recipients are living in the lap of luxury, when all evidence points otherwise...that is ignorance. If you can't see that, then you're in the same boat.
@ucsb1985 I don't think they're living in the "lap of luxury." I think socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. But those that are supported solely by the government are nevertheless a drag on productive members of society. Receiving welfare SHOULD be a social stigma, and it SHOULDN'T be in any way comfortable. Benjamin Franklin said this.
@tegthethird I didn't say you did. I stated that Mark Levin has. Public schools and universities were once considered "socialist". Receiving welfare SHOULDN'T be a social stigma. It should provide the basics as well as a means to get off it (job training, education). You do know that the class you are born into is most likely the class you'll die in. Poverty is not a choice. Stating that welfare should be stigmatized shows that you don't really know the functions of poverty.
@ucsb1985 Public schools and universities ARE socialist. No PC crap from me here. We want to privatize education as much as possible. What do you think of that?
@tegthethird Let me get this straight...you would be in favor of dismantling public education so that only private institutions exist? Thus, education would be a business and not for the students? So people who pay a lower tuition won't be able to have the same educational experience as those that pay more? What about those that can't pay at all? This increases inequalities. It's dumb.
@ucsb1985 It would be in the BUSINESS of PROVIDING FOR STUDENTS. I'm for public funding of education, but it should be attached to the student, not the school. Kids and parents should be able to shop around.
Oh NO! INEQUALITIES! Whatever will we do if our education isn't STANDARDIZED!!!
@tegthethird So in essence we should have a society where education is limited in access? Let's not regress. Many societies that can't afford educational services already provide a model what happens when education is limited to only those with the ability to pay.
@tegthethird So what standards should we have? How does one account for not meeting those standards? Again, what about if one student wants to go to a better school and can't due to price (student funding being different in different locations, currently you can do inter-district transfers and not have differences of funding being affected). We have a public school system for a reason, and it seems to work pretty well.
@ucsb1985 How about the standards be up to the parents and the student? If one school doesn't do it for them, they go to another. Competition (gasp) means schools will improve to attract students. HEAVEN FORBID a child not get the EXACT schooling experience they want. I mean, the public schools have been PERFECT for that.
@tegthethird Because they aren't educators. Competition doesn't ensure better results. LAUSD has seen that with lackluster results in charter schools. YES heaven forbid that students don't have even the chance at good schooling. Why not fix the system? Why try to make it even more unequal?
@ucsb1985 "Unequal" does not necessarily mean "bad." This is the same principle behind health care plans tailored to individuals. Schools would be different from one another, without arbitrary federal guidelines. I want standardized testing to be a thing of the past. I want the quality of education to be determined by the students and the parents. Yes, let's have "inequality!" Yes, let's have diversity of choices!
@tegthethird Unequal does mean bad. You want standardized testing to be a thing of the past? That's absurd. So how do you monitor the quality of education? I take it that you have no clue about education. So what about communities that have a lower education attainment rate, how will parents decide the curriculum? Thus what occurs is the perpetuation of inequality. Lack of proper planning.
@tegthethird Funny you mention health care. The reason why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than other developed nations is because we don't have some standard of health. There are huge demographic swaths that aren't covered. This has a huge impact on overall public health. We have a lower life expectancy due to lack of health standards. Inequalities are bad.
@ucsb1985 It's about working hard and having the freedom to do so. You can transcend classes if you are willing to put forth the effort. The freedom to support oneself is one of the reasons this nation was founded. Poverty isn't necessarily a choice, but staying there is. When you tell people that poverty is inevitable and they probably won't get out, do you think they'll try to? Teach a man to fish, dude.
@tegthethird Not always. Paris Hilton doesn't work too hard, yet some of the poorest people in America have two or three jobs. Every study ever conducted on class shows that it's nearly impossible to transcend class. Staying in poverty isn't a choice. Your mentality isn't even trying to aid those out of poverty.
@ucsb1985 It's not always about working hard, it's about working smart. It's about applying human capital in ways that make you valuable. Every child in this country gets a free education, and the opportunity to use that education and increase their value as employees, and even employers. Our "poverty" would be a Godsend to many nations on this planet. And most "rich" people aren't Paris Hilton. That you even made that argument is ridiculous.
@tegthethird College going in CA is down directly because of the recession. People can't afford school. Working smart or hard work, has little to do with poverty. Which class you were born in is a bigger determinant. If you were born rich, regardless of how smart or how hard you work, you'll most likely stay rich. Not that ridiculous an argument. It serves as an extreme example of how class in America works.
@ucsb1985 When a "social program" includes selling houses to people that have no business buying a house, then yes, that "social program" helped cause the housing crash! When entitlement programs take up nearly 40% (and growing) of the national budget (the wars are pennies in comparison), then yes, "welfare" is contributing big time to the deficit! He has addressed these points many times, including the arguments that you just brought up.
@tegthethird That was not a social program. It was a result of DEREGULATION. So your point is that government should have stepped in and tried to regulate bankers and lenders? Our budget on defense is $1 trillion. That's including all ancillary spending. The wars have cost our nation over $1 trillion to date. Those are substantial costs. He disagreed with Ron Paul when he (Ron) stated that the US should reduce the defense budget. Obviously he hasn't addressed those arguments well.
@tegthethird He clearly lacks integrity. He doesn't know the issues. He is advocating policies that would further create a two tiered society. One for the haves and one for the have nots. The irony is that a huge proportion of his followers are in the latter group. I
@ucsb1985 Now you are displaying the perfect example of Marxist propaganda that he deconstructs on the show! It's not about "haves and have nots," it's about EVERYONE regardless of race, color, creed, economic position, ability, etc. to have their fundamental liberties secured. It's not ironic at all that many of his fans are "have nots" once you actually understand conservative ideology, which was THE POINT OF MY VIDEO IN THE FIRST PLACE.
@tegthethird Really it's the fact that he feels that research done on such issues as welfare, gay marriage, abortion, and a myriad of other things...is serving a nefarious purpose. That's extremely misguided and dangerous.
@ucsb1985 What are you talking about? What research does he feel is inadequate or nefarious? How is it misguided and dangerous? You are being very vague.
@tegthethird The reason why I'm being vague is because he is wrong on almost every stance he takes. His take on welfare for example, he doesn't take into account the fact that the low tax rate for the rich is also driving the debt. He doesn't look at how the meager benefits of the poor have helped. The fact that he attributed the housing crash (Mark Levin show 7-13-10) to the welfare state and "socialism" shows that he is not researching properly. It's dangerous since people like you buy into it
@ucsb1985 YES HE DOES. He says we need to cut spending as well as taxes. Deficit isn't tied solely to government income, you know. He cites the government practices that advocated against "redlining," i.e. not selling houses to people that have no business buying houses. What's wrong with that research?
@tegthethird It's that his views CONTRADICT REALITY. Meaning, that he has HUGE flaws in the means of interpreting. It would be the same way you would disagree with a person who states that the sky is pink. It simply isn't.
@ucsb1985 What REALITY is he CONTRADICTING? You are tossing out accusations without being specific. I haven't heard him say anything along the lines of "the sky is pink." What are the flaws in his interpretation? Is he not interpreting things the way you want him to?
@tegthethird He likes to attribute problems to the government. I even stated that his views of gays in the military and gay marriage are based on his own emotions, not what research has stated (that gays in the military wouldn't hurt cohesion or that gay marriage can provide the same non monetary benefits as heterosexual marriage). What's dangerous is that liked minded people choose not to read the various studies that talk about these issues, but would rather live in a Mark Levin bubble.
@ucsb1985 Because problems usually come from the government. He has never said that he is inherently for or against gays serving in the military, he is against them being integrated by the authority of judicial fiat. You are focused on gays serving in the military, not the constitutionality of how they are integrated. THAT is Levin's focus. He's not an advocate for or against gays, but for the constitution and limited government.
@tegthethird Problems typically arise when government isn't doing its job. Problems typically arise when there is more deregulation and less of a focus on the needs of the people. When the wants of the rich and corporations are placed above the needs of the poor and middle classes, you have problems. Levin is more concerned of the perceived suffering of the rich than the actual suffering of the middle and the poor.
@ucsb1985 PROOF. Offer PROOF. You are playing class warfare when the issue Levin is discussing is personal liberty. You are not listening to what he is saying! His whole point is that conservatism is an ideology independent of classes! And you obviously haven't heard him lamenting the growing number of "poor" that are losing their jobs on a daily basis. He doesn't care how much money you make. No true conservative does.
@tegthethird Our current economic situation is proof when profits are put ahead of the welfare of the people. I am listening to what he's saying. I have heard him lament about unemployment issue, while then slandering those on welfare. It is not an ideology independent of classes, since it doesn't strive to take into consideration that not all people are on the same footing. He stance against medicare and other social programs indicate that he is also against UI benefits.
@ucsb1985 Spare me the Marxist crap. Liberty does not care about your footing. It wants you to have the same procedural fairness as any other human being. It wants you to get your fair shake under the law. It does not entitle you to anything but the basic rights of life, liberty, and property. He has said multiple times that he is not against a safety net, but when people use the safety net and nothing but, it's time to cut the strings.
@tegthethird The Marxist crap? Liberty doesn't care about your footing? So let's do away with social programs that have helped distinguish us from the third world. He has stated he is against a safety net, since it makes us dependent on the government and plays into the tyranny that the leftist Marxists want you to fall in.
@ucsb1985 If you think that our social programs are what have distinguished us from the third world, then you have bigger problems then I realized. Levin is not against a TEMPORARY safety net, including TEMPORARY unemployment insurance. He is against a systemic welfare state. There IS a difference, you know.
@ucsb1985 No, he has gone out against EXTENSIONS for temporary employment, in the context of a president who has spent THREE TRILLION in less than two years. At least try to be honest.
@tegthethird Which has helped MILLIONS of Americans. He has yet to speak out against the tax cuts which has helped contribute to the culture of deregulation that caused the collapse.
@ucsb1985 I do read. Enough to know that economists can draw wildly different conclusions on every topic imaginable. It's like global warming- not EVERY scientist believes it's man-made, a problem, or even exists. It's the same in economics, which is even harder to study sometimes. There are "experts" backing you up and "experts" backing me up, so stop pretending you're the only person hear who "reads more."
@tegthethird Wow. Not every scientist does, you're right. THE VAST MAJORITY DO. Those that don't typically aren't credible and/or have fundamental flaws in their methods. I don't think you do read much, or if you do it's right wing propaganda.
@tegthethird The Economist is so left wing. Not to mention Wall Street Journal. Not to mention the BBC, Le Monde, those international left wing outlets.
@tegthethird If you didn't know that one of the biggest distinguishing factors between the global south and the global north was social programs, then that's extremely sad.
@ucsb1985 "That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has... But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud , as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced..."
@tegthethird Just because John Adams stated something, doesn't mean that it should be taken so dogmatically. While John Adams didn't employ slaves, he voted against emancipation and equality for Blacks. So it's great that you brought out that quotation, but again it shows how backwards the new conservative movement. You are idealizing a man that believed there shouldn't equal access. There should. Otherwise it's a "glaring imposition on the credulity of the people".
@ucsb1985 The old "the founders weren't perfect, so we shouldn't listen to them" argument. I put that quote out there for the IDEAS, not because I have any particular hard-on for John Adams. It shows that the founders were focused on procedural equality, because they didn't think that the government's role was to provide, but to protect. It shows that the system of government we have was not designed to be a nanny state.
@ucsb1985 These weren't ideas based on policy, but principle. They are timeless, "self-evident" truths. Obviously policy will change with the times, but the principles behind the policies should remain the same.
@tegthethird I'm not talking about policy, but ideals. They aren't exactly timeless. The founding fathers didn't live in our mass consumer era. Ideals have to change with context.
@ucsb1985 That's because problems usually come from the government. Levin isn't an advocate for or against gays; he is an advocate for the constitution and limited government. He's not for or against the integration of gays into the armed forces, he's against their integration coming at the hands of judicial fiat. Your focus is all about having the right outcome. His focus is about how we get to that outcome.
@tegthethird Really? Deregulation didn't cause the housing bubble? Was it the strict standards placed on the oil industry that caused the worst spill in America's history? These were caused because profits were put ahead of people. Government should, ideally, be serving for the public's best interests. He has spoken out against integration of gays in the military. The main focus should be about the means and ends. He doesn't propose a system that has the best means to the best ends.
@ucsb1985 The government threatened to penalize banks if they didn't sell subprime mortgages. The government approved that BP oil well. You're pretending that the government wasn't involved, when it was very much involved!
CONSTITUTIONAL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That is the system that provides the "best means and ends." Government focused on procedural rights over practical rights. Liberty over tyranny. Personal freedoms are the "public's best interests."
@ucsb1985 Yes, they did. Specifically, legal groups would sue banks for not approving loans per the Community Reinvestment Act, suits which they would often win. One of those groups was ACORN, surprise surprise. One of the lawyers that sued Citibank was none other than Obama himself. Look it up.
@tegthethird No they didn't. The government was pushing for regulation of subprime mortgages and the derivatives market it created. ACORN had NOTHING to do with the subprime crisis whatsoever. This has been debunked MANY times over.
@ucsb1985 By leftists. ACORN was just ONE of the many entities that put the screws to the banks because of the CRA. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a way out that screwed over the American people. I have no doubt that there were greedy businessmen that took advantage of government policy to make golden parachutes, but that doesn't change the fact that the government made that opportunity possible for them. Crony capitalism at its finest.
@tegthethird Read The Economists. Read the Wall Street Journal. Read what any credible economist has stated about the cause of the housing crisis. The same people you align yourself with, were against regulations of the financial sector. That caused the housing collapse. Not ACORN. It was the creation of a shaky derivatives market that caused this mess. Conservative economics in action. Obviously there needs to be some freedom in the market, however, we over deregulated the market.
Conservatives forget to put on the rash cream when they change their diapers, which causes their lack of common sense, telling the truth and being a civilized human being. So I'll give all you conservatives a 50% discount on Hydrocortisone cream! Just start a Rash-Tea Party and I'll show up with your dose! Most of you who need a yearly supply will get 70% off!
renijohn012270 7 months ago
@renijohn012270 Most gracious of you.
tegthethird 7 months ago
I sum up my conservatism in a few short sentences. I'm an autonomous, sovereign, independent individual, subject to no authority other than my own. No man owns or controls me. It just so happens that there are those who wish ill on my sovereignty. The only legitimization purpose I have for any government therefore is to protected and maintain my autonomy and liberty. Any goal or purpose outside preserving my independence is at odds with my fundamental existence and my political enemy.
tantrikwizard 8 months ago
@tantrikwizard So you're a socialist?
yellowkrux 6 months ago
@yellowkrux Do you comprehend the difference between socialism and individualism? I didn't mention the society at all. I have no intention of conforming to the whims of social fads as I clearly outlined. Please, try to pay attention to what you read.
tantrikwizard 6 months ago
@tantrikwizard Well you're spiel justified socialism.
yellowkrux 6 months ago
@yellowkrux How the hell do you figure? It seems you have no understanding of what socialism is. Socialism is all about the society, not the individual. The rights and liberties of the individual come second to the goals of society as a whole. What I described is completely opposite of socialism. I clearly explained that the only legitimate purpose of any government is to maintain the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual. That is completely antithetical to socialism.
tantrikwizard 6 months ago
@tantrikwizard No, socialism is not all about society. Socialism is largely a reaction to industrialization & based on republicanism the concept you we alluding to in your previous post.The points you all pointed out were early talking points for left socialism & syndicalism.As the idea that a sovereign should have to submit to the will of another without any control over their labor & only reviving part of the value of it was considered degrading to the individual and contrary to republicanism.
yellowkrux 6 months ago
what i fail to understand is why conservatives are christians.... Christianity is spiritual socialism ...the gospels reek of communist ideas! dont save money..turn the other cheek..dont take responsibility for own actions..etc. etc. ....conservative policies are more in tune with evolutionary biology than liberalism.. so why all the jesus stuff? if you read the early roman pagan critiques about christianity ..they have the same complaints that neo cons have about libs ..hmm?
WORLDARYANREVIVAL 9 months ago
@WORLDARYANREVIVAL The Bible doesn't tell us to use the power of government to FORCE individuals to help their fellow man. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." There is nothing wrong with philanthropy, but trying to be philanthropic by taking from others helps no one.
"Turn the other cheek" is always misunderstood. It is supposed to mean not to heed insults, not to never defend yourself. A slap is akin to an insult, not a physical attack. The Bible is full of men of God fighting their enemies.
tegthethird 9 months ago
@WORLDARYANREVIVAL Christianity is supposed to be about a person's relationship to God and his fellow man through Jesus Christ, not a person's relationship with his government. You could hypothetically provide for all the wants of everyone on the planet without saving a single soul. The Michael Moore types who use religion as an excuse to promote never-ending expansion of government power are the true hypocrites.
tegthethird 9 months ago
Love the music, and I love what you are saying, tegthebird. You shouldn't be to happy for the dollar though. The US should return to a gold standard.
ThorkilKowalski 10 months ago
@ThorkilKowalski I like the dollar in terms of Congress' authority to regulate its value - I agree that it would be best to return to a tangible, real-world standard. At the same time, I don't think that would be at all viable until a long time from now after a huge shrinkage of government and repayment of most of our debt.
tegthethird 10 months ago
@tegthethird
If you give Congress the power to regulate the value of the dollar through a central bank, you give some unelected officials (Bernanke) the power to confiscate all the US dollar savings. Bernanke is doing this through inflation. How is that consistent with your idea of a limited government?
ThorkilKowalski 10 months ago
@ThorkilKowalski It's not, and I'm no fan of the Fed printing money willy-nilly. I believe money should assigned to a real-world standard. But when you don't give power to the federal government to coin money, every state is coining it's own money with it's own standards, which has it's own special set of problems. Article I, Section 8 gave Congress the power to coin money for this reason. Abuse of this particular power is not a reason to buck the entire institution to go back to the Articles.
tegthethird 10 months ago
@ThorkilKowalski The power in terms of the Constitution is where it should be - with Congress. The problem is that Congress wrote off its power to unelected officials. THAT is what needs to be fixed, not the Constitution's delegation of the power.
tegthethird 10 months ago
What is your view on marriage?
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py I personally think it should be between a man and a woman. The US Constitution doesn't mention marriage, so legally it should be up to the individual states unless there is a new amendment. I support equal legal rights for gay couples, such as hospital visitation.
tegthethird 1 year ago
If Im the victim of a beating by thugs, the police will come to my aid and save my life. If my house is burning, the fireman will come and put it out and save my life. If america is attacked by alqaida terrorists, the american armed forced will fight them and save my life, and others of course. If microorganisms attack my immune system and cause illness, the doctors will come and save my life ... no, wait ... sorry, I dont have an insurrance. Damn.
u2bealot 1 year ago
@u2bealot Big stuff like fires or violence or foreign invaders are universally applicable to every citizen. Health care/insurance, however, differs greatly from person to person. That's why conservatives support a free market health insurance system that allows plans to be tailored to the individual- at least, when the free market actually has some freedom to operate.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@u2bealot fail! when my wife got pregnant ...we didnt pay a dime! know who did? the local hospital ..funded by rich fuckers! leave the rich alone and they will fund almost anything! and no hospital can turn you away!
WORLDARYANREVIVAL 9 months ago
Comment removed
u2bealot 1 year ago
In danish konservatism (spelled with a K), they talk about the "contract between generations". We inherit a society and values from our parents, and are responsible for handing it over to the next generation in a sound state. This means that they shunt ideologies such as socialism and liberalism, believing them to be futile and thought of over nigtht, i.e. illconsidered and dangerous. Thus, decisions should be made by using common sense and treading carefully rather than ideological doctrine.
u2bealot 1 year ago
@u2bealot Ideology isn't bad unless you allow it to shape your worldview and choose your facts. There's nothing wrong with an ideology based on sound observation and reason that you allow to be challenged often.
tegthethird 1 year ago
Comment removed
u2bealot 1 year ago
I'm bored, ucsb1985. I have class tomorrow. Good night, and see you in November!
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird You're bored of what? Not being able to understand easy concepts? I wonder if you pass your classes...taking science, logic or any social sciences, econ? It doesn't like you would.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@tegthethird You go to a top tier university? If so, you could benefit from a few more semesters.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Three of your responses are just insults, which I will ignore.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Legit questions. You don't provide evidence to back your statements, have a tenuous grasp (at best) of the topics presented, and you don't use logic to form anything of substance. It's pretty much as if you're brainwashed. I mean at least state how neo-liberal policies afforded Scandinavia the means to become what it is today (free market vs. socialism and how the free market afforded opportunities to these nations). But, not even that. At least try.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@tegthethird Truth hurts.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Do you know how OBNOXIOUS it is to log on to my email and continuously see four, five comments from you? I made this video over a year ago. Do you have nothing better to do? I'll get to this later.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird You're responding back...so don't have you have anything else. 20-30 min at night isn't much. BTW, your ignorance is more obnoxious.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
So I can't be an atheist and still be a true conservative? Fuck it then, I guess we really ARE NOT created equal after all. And sorry to inform you but, your so called "rights" are nothing more than an illusion.
GODofFAIL665 1 year ago
@GODofFAIL665 Please don't use foul language, or I'll block you. My point was that to believe in the points set forth in the Declaration of Independence, (that men are created equal and that rights were endowed to them by their Creator), you need to believe in a Creator. But it sounds like you don't believe in unalienable rights anyway (which is kind of important to conservatism), so I don't know why you are upset that you aren't included in my definition of a true conservative.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird No you don't. CREATOR does not necessarily mean God. Creator means who you think created you, whether it's your parents, or a deity. Get your facts straight!
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 The founding fathers weren't talking about their parents, I can tell you that. And I said "God or otherwise" in my video. "Otherwise" can cover whatever deity you want it to.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird You didn't get my point. They said "Creator" and not any specific deity because they wanted "We The People" to fill in the gap for ourselves. But of course, most Christians, especially conservatives, would take "Creator" to mean that the founding fathers were strong Christians, which they were not, of course.
That is what "Creator" means. While you might take it to mean the Christian god, I take it to mean my parents.
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 How about "Nature's God"? The "Supreme Judge of the World"? The "protection of divine Providence"? I'm afraid you're reading into the meaning of "Creator" far more than me, my friend.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Gahh, you still don't get it. I'm telling you that even if it seems like all the Founding Fathers were Christians, that does not make it so. Yes, some were Christians, but they were mostly agnostics, deists, and a few atheists. They might have believed in a divine being, but for one, most of them never specified their beliefs. Second, they said things like "Creator" to fill in the blanks for people. But I guess people didn't understand their message.
Nice debating with you, though
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 John Adams: "The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 John Adams- "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Benjamin Franklin- “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Benjamin Franklin- “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
Alexander Hamilton- "For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Patrick Henry- “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 John Jay- “ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Thomas Jefferson- “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Benjamin Rush- “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.”
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 George Washington-
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 You can't pretend that this nation wasn't founded with the Christian God in mind.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird I'm not pretended anything. This nation was NOT founded on Christian principles. It was founded on secularism. I mean, haven't you ever wondered why America doesn't have a "national religion"? It's because our Founding Fathers wanted us to be built on freedom, not religious doctrine.
In fact, I can show you many quotes that our Founding Fathers have made that ridicule and or condemn Christianity, if you'd like...
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Just because we aren't a theocracy doesn't mean we weren't founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The founding fathers didn't envision a nation where religion would be hunted down and forcibly removed from society. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." They didn't want the government to enforce religious doctrine, but they didn't want the government to prevent it, either.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 To say that our nation was "founded on secularism" is to say that the founding fathers set out to create a nation that made a point of eschewing religion. Any layperson reading their writings knows that this was not the case. The founders wanted religion to flourish because of our freedom, not restricted in the name of it.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Uhh, you don't even understand what secularism is. I mean, yes, they wanted freedom of religion, but they didn't want religion to take over. And that's why we have this quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Stop saying "I don't understand," then quote the First Amendment as if I've never read it. The founders didn't want religion to "take over" in the sense that they didn't want to give doctrines of specific denominations the force of law, but their writings clearly show that they hoped and expected that there would be a high proliferation of religion in society BECAUSE of the freedom to worship! To deny that is willful ignorance.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird If you want me to stop saying that you don't understand, then start acting smart!
You just said yourself that they WANTED there to be freedom of religion, but they didn't want it to be the basis for laws. You also stated that they WANTED America to be a country with strong religious background. That, my friend, is what I've been trying to tell you(with the exception of the "religious background" argument).
You just admitted that this country was founded on freedom, not religion!
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Freedom including freedom OF RELIGION. And "freedom" doesn't mean "secularism," which is what you have been implying. The founders didn't want a national religion, but they fully expected a religious people. In fact, for a long time many states had laws inspired by religious doctrine, to the point that politicians and public officials couldn't be elected unless they belonged to a certain religion. The argument that the founders wanted a society without religion is ridiculous.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird I didn't quote my other sentence properly
They wanted to nation to be built on freedom, INCLUDING religion, but they didn't want any religion to try to take over government"
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 They didn't want government-imposed secularism, either. They wanted religious freedom.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird See, this is what I am talking about. I have already told you probably a billion times:
They wanted freedom for all, religious freedom included, but they didn't want anyone,both secularists or religious people, to take over
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 What do you mean by "take over"? Because if you mean government, then you should be against efforts such as the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses or "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. If you mean society, then you are wrong; the founders expected and expressly wished for a religious society. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Uhh, that "Under God" thing should never even have been there in the first place, because it favors one religion over the others, and quite frankly, it makes non believers of the Christian god feel uncomfortable. Tell me, would you like it if a Muslim group tried to lobby to get "Under Allah" as part of our constitution?
And I've already said it. They wanted us to fill in the blanks for ourselves. Interpret their words for what they believe is what they said.
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does nothing to affect others' rights. We have freedom OF religion, not from it. Heaven forbid people feel uncomfortable in a land of free speech. I guess we should raze the National Cathedral to the ground, shouldn't we?
You twist the founders' words to suit a secular agenda. That's not what the founders meant when they spoke of "the free exercise thereof."
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird haha you sound just like that lady who wrote that paper on "Freedom Of Religion, Not Freedom FROM Religion".
I am not trying to twist our Founding Father's words. This is exactly what they meant: "Freedom of religion, but one religion cannot try to take over the people".
And I've told you already, you wouldn't like it if someone tried to put "Under Allah" in our pledge, so if you think Christianity gets to have a double standard, you're a hypocrite.
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Again, you are being vague about what you mean by "take over." If you think the founders meant that you have the freedom not to be exposed to any religion, then you are dead wrong.
I personally wouldn't like it, but if I lived in a community that was mostly Muslim, I would understand it, and I would TOLERATE it. "Religious toleration" does not mean we always bend our conduct to the will of the minority. The minority has rights, but that doesn't mean they always set the rules.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird By take over, I mean, try to control the government and impose their ruling on others based simply on their own religious views.
And I didn't say that we have to bend the rules for anyone, because that is the complete opposite of what I am saying. If we want a nation that has true freedom of all, then we would not have "under God" in our pledge, as not everyone believes in the Christian god OR the same version of the Christian god.
We set the rules, but not based on our religion.
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 Isn't that exactly what the atheists are doing? They are actively trying to prevent the usage of religious words or imagery in the public square, even if they don't affect the way people conduct their business in the slightest.
Not everyone believes that America stands for freedom. Does that mean we take out any references to liberty from the Pledge? You can't please every minority. If their inalienable rights aren't violated, then no one has done anything wrong.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 We set laws based on morality all the time. For most people, morality comes from their religion. Heck, the fact that it's illegal to murder someone is a law based on morality. Laws against marriage to minors are laws based on morality. Laws against abuse of animals are based on morality.
Also, states are empowered by the 10th Amendment to "fill in the blanks" when it comes to local issues. If they want to make a specific law on a moral issue, they can, and they always have.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird That is all I am telling you.
Also, you should look up "America Is Not A Christian Nation" on google. It has undeniable proof that refutes what most Christians try to twist into how they see fit.
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."- Treaty Of Tripoli
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 We're not "founded on the Christian religion," and that's not what I've been arguing. I'm not saying that our government should be designed to reflect the Bible, I'm saying that we can have faith-based principles in local government. It's up to local populations. That's what the founding fathers expected.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird NO, they did not. If they wanted us to have a faith-based law system, then why do you think this is quote is part of our Bill Of Rights?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Once again, if a religion other than your own tried to govern based on their own religious doctrine, you certainly would not like it. So, your own religion cannot get to be the double standard
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 The First Amendment mentions Congress specifically because they expected the LOCAL governments to fill in the blanks. They were trying to ensure that there was no NATIONAL religion, but that doesn't mean they didn't hope for and expect a religious nation.
If a state was filled with mostly Muslims, and they wanted "under Allah" as part of their Pledge of Allegiance, that's up to them! You keep accusing me of using a double standard when I have done no such thing.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 The point that the states were meant to experiment with their governments is reinforced by the 10th Amendment as well.
I suggest you read Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. Open up your eyes a bit to our history as a nation.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Yeah, like I'm gonna listen to what a most-likely conservative closet racist has to say on the issue of socialism.
Have you ever noticed how it's only the right-wing that likes to throw "socialist" insults at Obama?
NonPointRulz101 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 You have now brought up two topics completely unrelated to our conversation thus far: socialism and race. We were talking about the role of religion in society. Of course only the right calls Obama a socialist, for the same reason only the left calls Bush a fascist.
If you're going to call me a racist, then we're done here. We were having an intelligent conversation, but you had to bring up race. Why does the left always have to shoehorn race into every conversation?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@NonPointRulz101 you prove yourself a fool by blindly accusing a conservative as a racist just for being a conservative or opposing Obama. Were we racists when we opposed Carter and Clinton for the same things we hate about Obama?
and speaking of Obama, he is a marxist who thinks its good to "spread the wealth around". He's clearly a socialist. why can't we call him what he is?
alancook01 1 year ago
@tegthethird Mark Levin? Really? The autism is caused by bad parenting guy? Great sources.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 That's Michael Savage, not Mark Levin. I don't know what sources you use, but they're obviously not greater than mine!
tegthethird 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Whoops. Wrong vitriolic commentator whose views are still absolutely insane. The insularity he exhibits on his programs is horrible. His talking points are essentially the same shrill shriek of how liberals are overtaking the media and ramming socialist programs down our throats. See, I personally would be embarrassed to consider Mark Levin a credible source. I prefer truth and tempered debates. Facts over emotions. I guess logic isn't really a strong point of the new right.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 You call it "insularity" because you disagree with it. I'll admit that his tone is difficult to listen to when one doesn't share his views. As Levin says, he's not trying to be NPR. But you are mistaken when you accuse him of being all emotion and no logic. Read "Liberty and Tyranny" if you can't stand the show, but still want the substance.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird It's not insularity because I disagree, but rather his views contradict the reality of our situation. Even a good commentator has to acknowledge the facts. It is, in essence, emotionally based. I've read parts of it. His inability to address social issues with any substance is why modern neo-conservatism is far removed from reality.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 "His inability to address social issues with any substance" Um, what? He's remarked on the civil society and moral order on numerous occasions, so I don't know what you are talking about when you say he hasn't addressed social issues. Is it so hard to fathom that one can be relatively indifferent on social issues, but passionate in the system that organizes them? Is the fact that he hasn't taken a "yes or no" stance on issues such as abortion or gay marriage really what bothers you?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird No substance. Yes it is hard to fathom that "one can be relatively indifferent on social issues, but passionate in the system that organizes them." It means that you lack an understanding what the issues are. If you state the debunked line of welfare queens, it means you don't know the reality of the situation. If you state that gays shouldn't serve in the military only on the "gross out factor" it means you haven't taken the time to see the models of other nations.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 So because he doesn't get on his radio show and advocate for or against social issues means that he doesn't understand them? His agenda is limited constitutional government, not any single issue. He has never said "gays shouldn't serve in the military," he has said he's against activist judges making decisions that should be made by the Congress and the military. He hasn't said he's against gay marriage, he's said the states should decide. You just don't agree with his conclusions.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Mark Levin: "Why, when conservatives raise doubts about gay activism, its a wedge issue, but not a wedge issue when the gay lobby pushes its agenda?" Clearly he isn't for gay rights. Yes, when you don't advocate for social change, you most likely are ignorant of the issues. When you go on air and blame welfare for the housing crash, and the debt solely on welfare and social programs, you don't know the issue (what about the 2 wars, and the insane tax cuts).
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 In other words, IF HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION, HE'S WRONG. That is what you are saying. You are so focused on "gay rights" that you are missing the context of the words. He is talking about the media here, not "gay rights." He is saying the media is unfair in their portrayal of legitimate doubts in the practicality of homosexuals serving in the armed forces.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Read the comment. He isn't fact based. If he laid a fact based argument, I might be more inclined to state that while I disagree, he does have a valid point. He doesn't though. I'm missing the context? He stated that when conservatives are anti-gay it's divisive (as it should be) however, it's good when progressives try to mend the gap (as it should be as well). He essentially is belly aching that conservatives can't be anti-homosexual (again, as it should be).
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE. You then accuse those who disagree of IGNORANCE. You think that's progressive dialogue? You think that that is representative of civil discourse? You are throwing a bunch of normative statements out there and claiming they are positive. You are proving my point again and again that your beef with this public figure is that he doesn't proselytize your opinions.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird No I have beef because once again, he isn't analyzing the situation with facts. I'm just throwing statements. I've illustrated a few issues where most social scientists and him diverge significantly. I trust people that use research to back up their claims. He doesn't. It's not a stretch to call that ignorance.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 He doesn't agree with your interpretation of the facts, so you call him stupid. I get it.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird I don't think you do. I have agreed with Hannity over issues regarding the Patriot Act. I've agreed with the assertion that too much mismanagement over welfare leads to collapse...but when you state that the government's interference led to the housing collapse and when you make ludicrous statements of how welfare recipients are living in the lap of luxury, when all evidence points otherwise...that is ignorance. If you can't see that, then you're in the same boat.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 I don't think they're living in the "lap of luxury." I think socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. But those that are supported solely by the government are nevertheless a drag on productive members of society. Receiving welfare SHOULD be a social stigma, and it SHOULDN'T be in any way comfortable. Benjamin Franklin said this.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird I didn't say you did. I stated that Mark Levin has. Public schools and universities were once considered "socialist". Receiving welfare SHOULDN'T be a social stigma. It should provide the basics as well as a means to get off it (job training, education). You do know that the class you are born into is most likely the class you'll die in. Poverty is not a choice. Stating that welfare should be stigmatized shows that you don't really know the functions of poverty.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Public schools and universities ARE socialist. No PC crap from me here. We want to privatize education as much as possible. What do you think of that?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird That's extremely dumb.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 That's extremely helpful.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird I call it like I see it
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@tegthethird Let me get this straight...you would be in favor of dismantling public education so that only private institutions exist? Thus, education would be a business and not for the students? So people who pay a lower tuition won't be able to have the same educational experience as those that pay more? What about those that can't pay at all? This increases inequalities. It's dumb.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 It would be in the BUSINESS of PROVIDING FOR STUDENTS. I'm for public funding of education, but it should be attached to the student, not the school. Kids and parents should be able to shop around.
Oh NO! INEQUALITIES! Whatever will we do if our education isn't STANDARDIZED!!!
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird So in essence we should have a society where education is limited in access? Let's not regress. Many societies that can't afford educational services already provide a model what happens when education is limited to only those with the ability to pay.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 I said I was FOR public funding of education. I just think the current system is crap. Attach the money to the students.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird So what standards should we have? How does one account for not meeting those standards? Again, what about if one student wants to go to a better school and can't due to price (student funding being different in different locations, currently you can do inter-district transfers and not have differences of funding being affected). We have a public school system for a reason, and it seems to work pretty well.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 How about the standards be up to the parents and the student? If one school doesn't do it for them, they go to another. Competition (gasp) means schools will improve to attract students. HEAVEN FORBID a child not get the EXACT schooling experience they want. I mean, the public schools have been PERFECT for that.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Because they aren't educators. Competition doesn't ensure better results. LAUSD has seen that with lackluster results in charter schools. YES heaven forbid that students don't have even the chance at good schooling. Why not fix the system? Why try to make it even more unequal?
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 "Unequal" does not necessarily mean "bad." This is the same principle behind health care plans tailored to individuals. Schools would be different from one another, without arbitrary federal guidelines. I want standardized testing to be a thing of the past. I want the quality of education to be determined by the students and the parents. Yes, let's have "inequality!" Yes, let's have diversity of choices!
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Unequal does mean bad. You want standardized testing to be a thing of the past? That's absurd. So how do you monitor the quality of education? I take it that you have no clue about education. So what about communities that have a lower education attainment rate, how will parents decide the curriculum? Thus what occurs is the perpetuation of inequality. Lack of proper planning.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@tegthethird Funny you mention health care. The reason why the US has a higher infant mortality rate than other developed nations is because we don't have some standard of health. There are huge demographic swaths that aren't covered. This has a huge impact on overall public health. We have a lower life expectancy due to lack of health standards. Inequalities are bad.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Racist. You want sick people to die.
jd55192 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 It's about working hard and having the freedom to do so. You can transcend classes if you are willing to put forth the effort. The freedom to support oneself is one of the reasons this nation was founded. Poverty isn't necessarily a choice, but staying there is. When you tell people that poverty is inevitable and they probably won't get out, do you think they'll try to? Teach a man to fish, dude.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Not always. Paris Hilton doesn't work too hard, yet some of the poorest people in America have two or three jobs. Every study ever conducted on class shows that it's nearly impossible to transcend class. Staying in poverty isn't a choice. Your mentality isn't even trying to aid those out of poverty.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 It's not always about working hard, it's about working smart. It's about applying human capital in ways that make you valuable. Every child in this country gets a free education, and the opportunity to use that education and increase their value as employees, and even employers. Our "poverty" would be a Godsend to many nations on this planet. And most "rich" people aren't Paris Hilton. That you even made that argument is ridiculous.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird College going in CA is down directly because of the recession. People can't afford school. Working smart or hard work, has little to do with poverty. Which class you were born in is a bigger determinant. If you were born rich, regardless of how smart or how hard you work, you'll most likely stay rich. Not that ridiculous an argument. It serves as an extreme example of how class in America works.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Here's a question: So?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 When a "social program" includes selling houses to people that have no business buying a house, then yes, that "social program" helped cause the housing crash! When entitlement programs take up nearly 40% (and growing) of the national budget (the wars are pennies in comparison), then yes, "welfare" is contributing big time to the deficit! He has addressed these points many times, including the arguments that you just brought up.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird That was not a social program. It was a result of DEREGULATION. So your point is that government should have stepped in and tried to regulate bankers and lenders? Our budget on defense is $1 trillion. That's including all ancillary spending. The wars have cost our nation over $1 trillion to date. Those are substantial costs. He disagreed with Ron Paul when he (Ron) stated that the US should reduce the defense budget. Obviously he hasn't addressed those arguments well.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@tegthethird He clearly lacks integrity. He doesn't know the issues. He is advocating policies that would further create a two tiered society. One for the haves and one for the have nots. The irony is that a huge proportion of his followers are in the latter group. I
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Now you are displaying the perfect example of Marxist propaganda that he deconstructs on the show! It's not about "haves and have nots," it's about EVERYONE regardless of race, color, creed, economic position, ability, etc. to have their fundamental liberties secured. It's not ironic at all that many of his fans are "have nots" once you actually understand conservative ideology, which was THE POINT OF MY VIDEO IN THE FIRST PLACE.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Really it's the fact that he feels that research done on such issues as welfare, gay marriage, abortion, and a myriad of other things...is serving a nefarious purpose. That's extremely misguided and dangerous.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 What are you talking about? What research does he feel is inadequate or nefarious? How is it misguided and dangerous? You are being very vague.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird The reason why I'm being vague is because he is wrong on almost every stance he takes. His take on welfare for example, he doesn't take into account the fact that the low tax rate for the rich is also driving the debt. He doesn't look at how the meager benefits of the poor have helped. The fact that he attributed the housing crash (Mark Levin show 7-13-10) to the welfare state and "socialism" shows that he is not researching properly. It's dangerous since people like you buy into it
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 YES HE DOES. He says we need to cut spending as well as taxes. Deficit isn't tied solely to government income, you know. He cites the government practices that advocated against "redlining," i.e. not selling houses to people that have no business buying houses. What's wrong with that research?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 "His views contradict the reality of our situation." In other words, you disagree.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird It's that his views CONTRADICT REALITY. Meaning, that he has HUGE flaws in the means of interpreting. It would be the same way you would disagree with a person who states that the sky is pink. It simply isn't.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 What REALITY is he CONTRADICTING? You are tossing out accusations without being specific. I haven't heard him say anything along the lines of "the sky is pink." What are the flaws in his interpretation? Is he not interpreting things the way you want him to?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird He likes to attribute problems to the government. I even stated that his views of gays in the military and gay marriage are based on his own emotions, not what research has stated (that gays in the military wouldn't hurt cohesion or that gay marriage can provide the same non monetary benefits as heterosexual marriage). What's dangerous is that liked minded people choose not to read the various studies that talk about these issues, but would rather live in a Mark Levin bubble.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Because problems usually come from the government. He has never said that he is inherently for or against gays serving in the military, he is against them being integrated by the authority of judicial fiat. You are focused on gays serving in the military, not the constitutionality of how they are integrated. THAT is Levin's focus. He's not an advocate for or against gays, but for the constitution and limited government.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Problems typically arise when government isn't doing its job. Problems typically arise when there is more deregulation and less of a focus on the needs of the people. When the wants of the rich and corporations are placed above the needs of the poor and middle classes, you have problems. Levin is more concerned of the perceived suffering of the rich than the actual suffering of the middle and the poor.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 PROOF. Offer PROOF. You are playing class warfare when the issue Levin is discussing is personal liberty. You are not listening to what he is saying! His whole point is that conservatism is an ideology independent of classes! And you obviously haven't heard him lamenting the growing number of "poor" that are losing their jobs on a daily basis. He doesn't care how much money you make. No true conservative does.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Our current economic situation is proof when profits are put ahead of the welfare of the people. I am listening to what he's saying. I have heard him lament about unemployment issue, while then slandering those on welfare. It is not an ideology independent of classes, since it doesn't strive to take into consideration that not all people are on the same footing. He stance against medicare and other social programs indicate that he is also against UI benefits.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Spare me the Marxist crap. Liberty does not care about your footing. It wants you to have the same procedural fairness as any other human being. It wants you to get your fair shake under the law. It does not entitle you to anything but the basic rights of life, liberty, and property. He has said multiple times that he is not against a safety net, but when people use the safety net and nothing but, it's time to cut the strings.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird The Marxist crap? Liberty doesn't care about your footing? So let's do away with social programs that have helped distinguish us from the third world. He has stated he is against a safety net, since it makes us dependent on the government and plays into the tyranny that the leftist Marxists want you to fall in.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 If you think that our social programs are what have distinguished us from the third world, then you have bigger problems then I realized. Levin is not against a TEMPORARY safety net, including TEMPORARY unemployment insurance. He is against a systemic welfare state. There IS a difference, you know.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird They do. I take it you don't know HDI or wealth disparities are calculated. He has gone out against temp unemployment.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 No, he has gone out against EXTENSIONS for temporary employment, in the context of a president who has spent THREE TRILLION in less than two years. At least try to be honest.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Which has helped MILLIONS of Americans. He has yet to speak out against the tax cuts which has helped contribute to the culture of deregulation that caused the collapse.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Because it's a fantasy that exists in your head.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Umm...right, only my head and about every economist out there. Seriously, read more.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 I do read. Enough to know that economists can draw wildly different conclusions on every topic imaginable. It's like global warming- not EVERY scientist believes it's man-made, a problem, or even exists. It's the same in economics, which is even harder to study sometimes. There are "experts" backing you up and "experts" backing me up, so stop pretending you're the only person hear who "reads more."
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Wow. Not every scientist does, you're right. THE VAST MAJORITY DO. Those that don't typically aren't credible and/or have fundamental flaws in their methods. I don't think you do read much, or if you do it's right wing propaganda.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 I think you read LEFT-wing propaganda. What do you think of that?
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird The Economist is so left wing. Not to mention Wall Street Journal. Not to mention the BBC, Le Monde, those international left wing outlets.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@tegthethird If you didn't know that one of the biggest distinguishing factors between the global south and the global north was social programs, then that's extremely sad.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 "That all men are born to equal rights is true. Every being has a right to his own, as clear, as moral, as sacred, as any other being has... But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud , as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as ever was practiced..."
- John Adams
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Just because John Adams stated something, doesn't mean that it should be taken so dogmatically. While John Adams didn't employ slaves, he voted against emancipation and equality for Blacks. So it's great that you brought out that quotation, but again it shows how backwards the new conservative movement. You are idealizing a man that believed there shouldn't equal access. There should. Otherwise it's a "glaring imposition on the credulity of the people".
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 The old "the founders weren't perfect, so we shouldn't listen to them" argument. I put that quote out there for the IDEAS, not because I have any particular hard-on for John Adams. It shows that the founders were focused on procedural equality, because they didn't think that the government's role was to provide, but to protect. It shows that the system of government we have was not designed to be a nanny state.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird The ideas were based on antiquated notions, that while progressive for the time, have to be tweaked for modern times.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 These weren't ideas based on policy, but principle. They are timeless, "self-evident" truths. Obviously policy will change with the times, but the principles behind the policies should remain the same.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird I'm not talking about policy, but ideals. They aren't exactly timeless. The founding fathers didn't live in our mass consumer era. Ideals have to change with context.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be adjusted with the times. Gotcha.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Certain inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have to change with the times. Gotcha.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird No you didn't "get me". You just kind of proved how superficial conservatism has become.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 That's because problems usually come from the government. Levin isn't an advocate for or against gays; he is an advocate for the constitution and limited government. He's not for or against the integration of gays into the armed forces, he's against their integration coming at the hands of judicial fiat. Your focus is all about having the right outcome. His focus is about how we get to that outcome.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Really? Deregulation didn't cause the housing bubble? Was it the strict standards placed on the oil industry that caused the worst spill in America's history? These were caused because profits were put ahead of people. Government should, ideally, be serving for the public's best interests. He has spoken out against integration of gays in the military. The main focus should be about the means and ends. He doesn't propose a system that has the best means to the best ends.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 The government threatened to penalize banks if they didn't sell subprime mortgages. The government approved that BP oil well. You're pretending that the government wasn't involved, when it was very much involved!
CONSTITUTIONAL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That is the system that provides the "best means and ends." Government focused on procedural rights over practical rights. Liberty over tyranny. Personal freedoms are the "public's best interests."
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird No they didn't threaten to penalize the banks.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 Yes, they did. Specifically, legal groups would sue banks for not approving loans per the Community Reinvestment Act, suits which they would often win. One of those groups was ACORN, surprise surprise. One of the lawyers that sued Citibank was none other than Obama himself. Look it up.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird No they didn't. The government was pushing for regulation of subprime mortgages and the derivatives market it created. ACORN had NOTHING to do with the subprime crisis whatsoever. This has been debunked MANY times over.
ucsb1985 1 year ago
@ucsb1985 By leftists. ACORN was just ONE of the many entities that put the screws to the banks because of the CRA. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a way out that screwed over the American people. I have no doubt that there were greedy businessmen that took advantage of government policy to make golden parachutes, but that doesn't change the fact that the government made that opportunity possible for them. Crony capitalism at its finest.
tegthethird 1 year ago
@tegthethird Read The Economists. Read the Wall Street Journal. Read what any credible economist has stated about the cause of the housing crisis. The same people you align yourself with, were against regulations of the financial sector. That caused the housing collapse. Not ACORN. It was the creation of a shaky derivatives market that caused this mess. Conservative economics in action. Obviously there needs to be some freedom in the market, however, we over deregulated the market.
ucsb1985 1 year ago