time to come clean

This thread subject reminds me of the story about a small church in the deep south that had a revival. About the third night, after two hours of preaching and singing and testifying the preacher said, "Tell it all, brothers and sisters. Confess it all!"

A man in the pews stood up and confessed, "Preacher, I've coveted my neighbor's wife. And I want to repent and never look at another woman again, except for my sweet Sadie."

"Amen!" A shout went up and all the people started to praise and speak in tongues.

"Who else wants to confess and repent?" The preacher asked.

"I do, Preacher" A woman stood up and said. "I stole a spool of thread from the five and dime store and I'm going to go pay for it tomorrow!"

"Hallelujah!" The outcry went up again.

This went on for a long time and the people confessed and repented, sang, shouted and spoke. Finally the preacher asked one last time, "Is there anyone else who wants to tell it all and come clean?"

An old farmer stood up in the back, hat in his hands and said, "Preacher I had sex with a goat."

Not a word from the people. Finally the preacher cleared his throat and said, "I don't believe I would have told that, Brother."


So, coming clean, I confess that I think that perhaps there are some things that are best left untold. ;)
 
I don't like all laws, but I obey them.
Click to expand...

And that my Brothers and Sisters, is what is going to destroy our great Republic.

The Republic was founded on disobeying the laws. Our Republic thrived on progression with disobeying the laws (Mrs. Rosa Parks comes immediately to mind), and since we've all started to "just obey the laws", we've gone nowhere fast and have allowed our great Republic, to fall.

I don't like all laws, but I obey them.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true "American". The government school system is working, sadly.

Wayne
 
Can’t we just all get along?

Ok, I’m a little OT here, but I’ve been around here long enough (lurking and otherwise) that I feel the need to say this.

There is an interesting phenomenon that I have observed. People on opposite sides of the political spectrum sound the same. Take progunner1957’s rant. He, in my opinion, has some valid points and some not so valid one. That’s just me though. But my point is that if one replaced “Socialist Democrat” with “Fascist Republican” and changed the target to those who restrict civil liberties, then the rant could have easily been penned by one of those “evil” liberals.

What I’m trying to say is that people make accusations towards the other side that sound the same on both sides. That “they” are trying to grab power, take your rights and generally oppress us Americans. Where most people and politicians are really just trying to do what they think is the right thing. Are there some that have no care for equality, justice and the American way? Yes. And those are the ones that we must watch out for. But most people are just trying to do what they feel is the right thing. Just because you disagree does not mean that they are evil, it means that you are both human.
 
In addition, I don't believe it is possible to resend a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Can you carry your firearm concealed, anywhere in the nation, without having a permit, mind you permit means permission. YOU cant, so your view is confused on this issue. I used to be a D, now I am not, why, because the democratic party has made gun control is primary objective. Anyone that wants to deny me my right to carry/own a firearm, also wants to deny me the other 9 amendments of the BOR.
 
Talking in circles here.

Are there some that have no care for equality, justice and the American way? Yes. And those are the ones that we must watch out for. But most people are just trying to do what they feel is the right thing. Just because you disagree does not mean that they are evil, it means that you are both human.
Click to expand...
So was Patton right when he said that most of the members of the Nazi party were just like Americans, and that it was just another party? I think not. Just because you get used to something and it doesn't startle you any more or all your friends are saying it or some benign little guy at the store believes it doesn't mean there can't be an absolute good nor evil attached to it.

I think that a lot of people who do very wicked things fool themselves by saying just because their chosen behavior doesn't hurt somebody today or doesn't hurt somebody who has the power to complain then it isn't evil. Giving the State the power to decide what is good and evil is a very dangerous thing but so is taking that very same power away from the people.

(Today if I were of a debating mindset I could probably put together a coherent argument that a woman should be given the right to have her baby 'deleted' up to the time it is walking and talking and able to defend its humanness. I might be able to convince people, even large numbers of people, that this idea is somehow fair and just or OK in some circumstances, but that would not make the act itself any less evil nor repugnant nor understandable to anyone outside my own frame of reference.)

Modern day people laugh at the idea of social taboos, but taboos evolve in order to protect society from longer term non-self-evident pre-existing harms. At the risk of getting thrown off the board I will disagree with others (above) about the prohibited A word. The taboos and laws against abortion seem on the surface to be silly and outdated, but they serve a very real end. A society which reduces its reproductive diversity reduces its long term ability to defend itself against external invasion. In a society where reproductivity is decreased has a net loss of reproductive capacity which creates a population vacuum which is then made up by neighboring societies. So a cascade of negative events occurs years downstream in time, all based on what appears to be a choice between options but is actually a choice between a right option and a wrong one.

People confuse cause and effect here. Taboos don't assign goodness versus badness. Taboos warn of intrinsicly bad things. The goodness or badness existed before the taboo. Entire populations of people are killed off on the basis of not heeding such warnings but the badness is not self evident. Take for instance our taboo against walking through pretty wildflower meadows which are labeled with the sign 'mine field'.

BTW I think you are right in the very narrow sense about the commonality of language and behavior on various sides. But that doesn't mean anything except that people communicate in similar manner regardless of content. It doesn't mean that semantic analysis or argument technique or deconstruction somehow validates critique of content. Some pretty brilliant people have argued internally airtight arguments for racial eugenics up to and including population extermination, but that doesn't make genocide any less evil. What they fail to consider is the intrinsic badness of the idea which is outside their frame of reference.

So what about the RKBA? Why would any postmodernist actually BELIEVE in it, especially the libertarian form of it? Because in a strictly utillitarian viewpoint(although it is one of those things that appears on the surface to be just an opinion) in its depth is a principle which assures continued survival of the society downstream in time. In a moral viewpoint it is a good versus its evil alternatives. And in terms of totem and taboo any society which forbids it will die.
 
Is marriage a constitutional right.......

the item of contention is not the marraige itself but other states recognition under Article IV Section 1.
 
Fisherman, you should take the World's Smallest Political Quiz. There are other options besides the Democrat and Republican parties:

http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html

wspq.gif
 
LIBERTARIAN

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties
Click to expand...

Easy to take. I was "pure" Libertarian. 100% :D.

Wayne
 
Another libertarian here. Probably most on this board will be as well.

Demonizing:

The great American sport - demonize those who hold differing opinions. How is it actually possible that 50% of Americans have not one good idea, are evil of intent (everything they do has an ultimate evil purpose), are out to sabotage "us" and take us over like dictators, and are not capable of intelligent thought?

Liberals think that of conservatives, and conservatives think that of liberals.

It is an impossibility of course, but most people seem quite capable of believing the impossible.
 
That test kind of pigeon holes you. I scored Liberal :eek:. PERSONAL issues Score is 80%. ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

Some answers simply aren't as black and white as the questions. Like legalizing Marijuana, but not Meth or not censoring the showing of dead bodies on the television news while censoring child pornography on the Internet.

As far as economic issues go, welfare is a legitimate government function. I don't think that Private industry could solely handle the response to the Hurricane. Free trade barriers are useful to protect strategic resouces and businesses and to retaliate against unfair practices. A 50% cut on taxes and spending just isn't feasible. Etc.
 
Hmm, this time around I'm labeled as a CENTRIST, on the center square corner between Centrist, Libby and Conservative. They didn't have a place for Unaffiliated.
 
Come clean ?
The way to come clean is to wash that democrat funk off of you and become an independant... :D

I always thought the "D" next to the candidate's name on the ballot meant DISQUALIFIED ! no offense intended ... well, maybe a little ... :D
 
Doesn't matter if it's a constitutional right, the government has no authority to ever get between the union of two people who love each other. I don't give a damn who wants to get married or not, no government should ever ever be allowed to have control over what two consenting adults do in their relationship.

Why on earth do I have to get a marriage license? Why do I have to ask the government permission to commit myself to someone I love?
Click to expand...

No problem. I doubt very many opponents of gay marriage don't want people to do whatever they want in their own homes. However, many people don't see legal gay marriage as a way of promoting family life. The main problem is health care coverage, social security benefits for a spouse, would all be free money to gay lovers and would take money/benefits from working parents.

As far as coming clean I am:

1. anti-abortion
2. anti-gay marriage
3. pro-capital punishment
4. pro-corporal punishment (death penalty is o.k., surely a caning is not out of order)
5. pro-gun, not pro-gun like Kerry, not pro-gun like Bush, not pro-gun like NRA. Really pro-gun see 6,7,8
6. Don't have a problem with non-violent felons owning guns. If they're violent, and can't be reformed or kept in prison, see #3
7. Own whatever small arms you want.
8. Carry them where ever you want. Politely, of course.
9. Retirement? Be responsible for yourself. Save your money. Or be nice to your kids.
10. Why is it the government's responsibility to find you a job or pay you to stay home?
11. Obscenity laws are not a bad idea, though I can't see why we need them. Maybe if everybody were armed, people would be more polite by nature.

What am I? I'm not really Republican or Democrat. Maybe Libertarian or Constitution Party? They'll need to know what to put on the ballot when I run in '08 :D
 
RE: seperation of church&state

The founding fathers were very intelligent people,therefore i do believe they intended to seperate the state from the church of England!!
 
Sorry for taking off. I had familiy things come up.

The test pegs me as liberal near libertian. I agree that it is a pigeon hole test.

1. pro-choice (I mean that in the sense of choice)
2. nonexclusive marriage rights and benifits
3. anti-capital punishment (Do you realize how much it costs to execute a piece of garbage? Do you not think the loss of liberty is greater than loss of life? However; I think the prision system can be a cake walk, and measures to reclaim order and *total* loss of privilages like TV or recreational time, weight lifting, ect.
4. anti-corporal punishment, but that is a personal choice and I think the gov has no right to weigh in.
5. pro-gun,-- Agree-- but I have no problem with restrictions on who can own; but I have no idea how to construct that paridigm.
6. No violent felons should own guns. See above
7. Own whatever small arms you want. --Agree and go a step farther with any gun (I'm somewhat conflicted with items like RPG's)
8. Carry them where ever you want. Politely, of course.-- Agree (how do you define politely in legalease?) Would prefer open carry choice.
9. Retirement? Be responsible for yourself. Save your money. Or be nice to your kids. -- How can I disagree? Many will not be responsible. What do you do? Government cheese only goes so far. I don't like SS, but I see it as a necessity. I'd like the choice of private investing - but wall street is full of shady characters (watch what happens with OSTK this year - Hedge fund go bust and bring lots of others down with them.)
10. Why is it the government's responsibility to find you a job or pay you to stay home? -- Agree 100%, but I think FDR saved our country.
11. Obscenity laws are not a bad idea, though I can't see why we need them. Maybe if everybody were armed, people would be more polite by nature. ---Worked in Tombstone.....or did it? Would you be inclined to use a firearm if someone violated your sensibilities?
 
"anti-corporal punishment, but that is a personal choice and I think the gov has no right to weigh in."
I think you're talking about spanking. I'm for it if the parents need it. I was referring to a form of criminal punishment. Caning works.

"Do you realize how much it costs to execute a piece of garbage?"
It could be done cheaper.

"Do you not think the loss of liberty is greater than loss of life?"
Yes. Death is more humane. I'm not a monster, after all.

"I have no problem with restrictions on who can own; but I have no idea how to construct that paridigm."
Easy. Anyone of age who isn't in prison can own a gun. Those who we can't trust- they would be in prison.

"Many will not be responsible. What do you do?"
Let churches and other private organizations take up the slack.

"I'd like the choice of private investing - but wall street is full of shady characters."
Agreed. Buy a house. And any other real estate you can get.

"Why is it the government's responsibility to find you a job or pay you to stay home? -- Agree 100%, but I think FDR saved our country."

In the short term, he did. In the long term, he placed the people in a position in which they slowly but surely drifted away from personal responsibility and whenever anything bad happens it's the government's fault. They depend on the nanny state. And those who are working hard take up the slack. Look at the people who grew up in the Great Depression, and fought World War II. Compare them to the ones who have had the government to fall back on their entire lives.

"How do you define politely in legalease?"

I think we have it pretty well covered already. If you're threatening someone while openly carrying or brandishing, that's impolite. I'm pretty sure the cops could find something to charge you with. If you're showing it off to impress girls, I figure that's impolite. If the girls are armed, too, then no one's going to be impressed, and the offender will cease out of embarrassment.

"(armed, polite society)---Worked in Tombstone.....or did it? "

It worked in Tombstone until they started taking firearms away, and corrupt law enforcement took over town. Of course, that depends on whose version of history you accept. http://clantongang.com/oldwest/ganginto.html

BTW, fewer people were killed in Tombstone than Hollywood would have you believe.

"Would you be inclined to use a firearm if someone violated your sensibilities?"

Nope. But I wouldn't go around violating the sensibilities of people who were well armed.

Of course, these are just my opinions. And my opinions are far from mainstream. That libertarian test probably doesn't even have a place for me on that diamond chart thing-a-ma-jig.
 
"Caning works."
Perhaps for some. Lashing works for some.


"It could be done cheaper."
I'm all for cheaper but,: As of March 2005, 119 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973 (Northwestern University, DP Information Center). Researchers Radelet and Bedau found 23 cases where innocent people were executed since 1900 (In Spite of Innocence, Northeastern University Press, 1992)


"Yes. Death is more humane. I'm not a monster, after all."
Glib? Perhaps I am the monster. I too would prefer death to life in prision.

"Easy. Anyone of age who isn't in prison can own a gun. Those who we can't trust- they would be in prison."
Trust as defined by whom? I don't trust (our would be incline not to) anybody who has committed a violent felony. Are you saying it is better to keep them locked up forever? Have you considered the expense?


Let churches and other private organizations take up the slack.
I'm inclined to agree, however it is a "holy" safty net. No easy answer here.


"Agreed. Buy a house. And any other real estate you can get."
I'd love that personally, but this is a very poor answer. Wall Street needs to be cleaned up. Have you checked your pension plan lately? Do you know anything about Reg.SHO or naked short selling? Many private and government employees are trusting their future to unscrupulious managers and hedgefunds are raiding the savings by all classes of investors. Have you considered the concept of real estate only saving and what kind of property to buy? Land is a limited commodity. You would sky rocket the value and then pop the bubble by that theory.



"In the short term, he did. In the long term, he placed the people in a position in which they slowly but surely drifted away from personal responsibility and whenever anything bad happens it's the government's fault. They depend on the nanny state. And those who are working hard take up the slack. Look at the people who grew up in the Great Depression, and fought World War II. Compare them to the ones who have had the government to fall back on their entire lives."

Critisize a man who you believe saved our country? Monday morning quarterbacking! I couldn't disagree more. The draft taught self reliance. Families lived by that prinicipal. To conclude that any politician can teach upbringing is falious.


"I think we have it pretty well covered already. If you're threatening someone while openly carrying or brandishing, that's impolite. I'm pretty sure the cops could find something to charge you with. If you're showing it off to impress girls, I figure that's impolite. If the girls are armed, too, then no one's going to be impressed, and the offender will cease out of embarrassment."

You're not a lawyer from what I can tell.


"It worked in Tombstone until they started taking firearms away, and corrupt law enforcement took over town. Of course, that depends on whose version of history you accept. http://clantongang.com/oldwest/ganginto.html"

You are right. That was a very poor example.

"BTW, fewer people were killed in Tombstone than Hollywood would have you believe."

see above.



"Nope. But I wouldn't go around violating the sensibilities of people who were well armed."

You assume everybody is like you.

"Of course, these are just my opinions. And my opinions are far from mainstream. That libertarian test probably doesn't even have a place for me on that diamond chart thing-a-ma-jig."

Ditto on opinions. I have no ill will toward you for the way you think or vote. I hope you and others understand that not all Democrats stand against guns. Or are on welfare, or are light on crime,....

Thanks for the converstation!
 
Some answers simply aren't as black and white as the questions. Like legalizing Marijuana, but not Meth or not censoring the showing of dead bodies on the television news while censoring child pornography on the Internet.
Click to expand...
Well, it is, after all, the world's SMALLEST political quiz. :)

I think what you need to consider, though, is what is the underlying principle at work that leads you to conclude that consuming meth should be illegal and the government should have the power to force you to refrain from doing so, while consuming marijuana should be legal, while consuming Drain-O is legal and probably always will be.
 
I think some of these so-called Democrats are not Democrats at all!

They are beginning to look a lot like their Socialist leaders, who have robbed the Democrats of their once glorious identity. :mad:

Maybe they should change their "handles" to Hippy13 or Commune69 :p :D
 
Pointer,

I can only assume you are talking about me since I have two numbers after my handle. I don't see how my ideas are remotely similar to socialism or communism (but if you can make a case then go for it with some supporting facts.) I will say flat out that bothe socialism and communism are an impossible proposition that will only lead to the "poor tilling of the fields" and lining the pockets of those in control.

I can see that this will only lead to sniping and villifing (at least by a healthy percentage of posters.)

I am open to changes in my life and belief structure. I have not attacked anyone on a personal level; and I can only ask for the same treatment in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top