Obama's 'Elitism' Issue

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by LEE3370

"They're hardly the same thing, you know (in spite of the fact that most conservatives couldn't tell me the difference if their lives depended on it). "
Yes, you are correct as usual.
I can not tell you how they are different.
Know what?
I don't care how the differ.
I care how they are the same.
Those two and the liberals want to bend pepole to the will of the government.
That is why they get lumped together.
Not how they differ, how they are the same.

That's like calling a Ford Mustang a Chevy Impala, then telling me it doesn't matter because they're all cars. Why don't you go ahead and call them Monarchists, Totalitarians or Theocratists while you're at it, since you can't tell the difference anyway?

Someone who doesn't know the basic fundamentals, and doesn't care, may not be the best qualified to lecture me about politics and government.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by troy2000

That's like calling a Ford Mustang a Chevy Impala, then telling me it doesn't matter because they're all cars. Why don't you go ahead and call them Monarchists, Totalitarians or Theocratists, while you're at it, since you can't tell the difference anyway?

Someone who doesn't know the basic fundamentals, and doesn't care, may not be the best qualified to lecture me about politics and government.

More like determining the difference between a rattlesnake and a shark. It really doesn't matter as far as your freedom is concerned.

[TXplt]

Originally Posted by troy2000

That's like calling a Ford Mustang a Chevy Impala, then telling me it doesn't matter because they're all cars. Why don't you go ahead and call them Monarchists, Totalitarians or Theocratists, while you're at it, since you can't tell the difference anyway?

Someone who doesn't know the basic fundamentals, and doesn't care, may not be the best qualified to lecture me about politics and government.

Do you believe that h or o wouldn't try to be monarchs or totaliarians if they had their way (and weren't prevented by our constitution and populace). Why else this rabid desire to disarm their "pets" -- the American people and tell them what's best for them. I think they very much exhibit character traits wishing to be "king" of a state driven "kingdom." They're just not as well spoken as some of the notable totalitarian dictators of the past, nor our conditions as adverse.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

... which is exactly why I put "Cling to guns and religion" ...... Can someone tell me what's wrong with that ? Want values in ourselves, families, and children and want to make America strong --" in this section.

Obviously, this chuckle head does not understand tradition, values and rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution. It is sad that "elitists" have become that lost in their own self-proclaimed superiority...

Decision 08 will not be for Obama or Hillary.

The problem is that our government is set up with too much federal powers to begin with. When they try to pass a federal law that may work out great in NY City, or over in CA, where there are millions and millions of people, every religion on earth, every culture on earth, tons of drugs, violence, gay people, the richest people in the world to some dirt poor people, etc, it may not work or apply to those who live in the bible belt and don't understand that way of life. I mean small towns don't really have the crime rates or the same crimes really compared to big large cities, and the life style is way different.

So, in those cities certain things may work out better, or people will have a completely different understanding than you. Where as in the midwest or the "bible belt" as some call it, those people don't deal with the same issues people in NYC do.

Obviously, to label small town people as clingers of religion and guns, isn't going to help Obama's cause. You can't talk down to people and expect them to vote for you.

I went to Macon, MO a few weeks ago to see my dying great grandmother, and my brother and I went out to the local bars that night. Just being an out of towner and from the city made both of us stand out, and everyone knew it, and I live in the same freaking state. Big city life and country life are completely different, different communities, different life styles. I had some country boys giving me dirty looks and some country girls wondering who I was. I know for a fact one drunkard at the first bar we went to was going to try to pick a fight with us, but I avoided the situation and saw it coming a mile away.

I say leave gun laws and regulation to the state and then let the state's residents vote on it. The smoking ban just passed in my city, and the people voted for it, so well that is how democracy works. When the bill expires they will vote on it again. The problem is to get the people to vote in the first place. Of course there should be federal guide lines the states do have to follow, but beyond those guidelines they can regulate guns how they see fit.

[Casull]

Why don't you go ahead and call them Monarchists, Totalitarians or Theocratists while you're at it, since you can't tell the difference anyway?

Actually, both Nazi Germany and communist Soviet Union were totalitarian regimes. Or, would you argue that they were not? Lee, makes a good point when he says he's more interested in their similarities than their differences.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

More like determining the difference between a rattlesnake and a shark. It really doesn't matter as far as your freedom is concerned.

Oh, it matters quite a bit. Most of the people who actually believe liberals are out to "bend the people to the will of the government" traded in their brains for a radio dial a long time ago, and are getting their definitions from Rush Webster and the Rushbook Encyclopedia.

Let's try a real Merriam-Webster dictionary instead, shall we?

The word liberal is derived from the Latin word, liberalis, 'suitable for a freeman, generous,' from liber, free.

1: the quality or state of being liberal, often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.
b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. Capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.

Sorry, nothing in there about 'imposing the will of the government on people.' Many liberals do believe some things are better done by the government than by private companies, or that they won't get done at all unless the government does them; that's where public highways, public schools and public hospitals came from. They also believe it's the government's job to protect its citizens; that's where laws on pure food and drugs came from.

I'm willing to bet there are as many conservatives out there as there are liberals who, given the chance, would use the government to cram their own beliefs, agendas and standards of behavior or morality down our throats. It's utter nonsense to try to distinguish between the two camps on that basis.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Oh, it matters quite a bit. Most of the people who actually believe liberals are out to "bend the people to the will of the government" traded in their brains for a radio dial a long time ago, and are getting their definitions from Rush Webster and the Rushbook Encyclopedia.

Let's try a real Merriam-Webster dictionary instead, shall we?

The word liberal is derived from the Latin word, liberalis, 'suitable for a freeman, generous,' from liber, free.

1: the quality or state of being liberal, often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.
b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. Capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.

Sorry, nothing in there about 'imposing the will of the government on people.' Many liberals do believe some things are better done by the government than by private companies, or that they won't get done at all unless the government does them; that's where public highways, public schools and public hospitals came from. They also believe it's the government's job to protect its citizens; that's where laws on pure food and drugs came from.

I'm willing to bet there are as many conservatives out there as there are liberals who, given the chance, would use the government to cram their own beliefs, agendas and standards of behavior or morality down our throats. It's utter nonsense to try to distinguish between the two camps on that basis.

"If a million people say a stupid thing, you are likely in California." - M. McKee

[TXplt]

I really don't like labels....... Conservative/Liberal, etc. One thing which IS true is if there's less government, there is less capability to cram government's own beliefs down people's throats hence my advocating that in most cases. The "protect its citizens" or "protect our children" is a slippery and dangerous slope. More often than not, this is used by demagogues (wanting to build their own power) against our liberty to advance agendas to "protect us from ourselves" which have nothing to do with helping people(and often hurt people)--look at the thread on home searches for firearms which is incredibly wrong on all levels. Your government is completely unable to protect you against all ills....agencies like defense, police, fire can help, but self-defense is always an inherent right and responsibility.

The pure food and drug act, in actual fact, came from government intervention due to asymmetric information (which is one of a very few justifications for government intervention in a market economy). Makers of patent medicines knew more about what was in their medicine (usually morphine) than did the consumers. The act itself had no intent of making drugs illegal--only to require manufacturers to properly label foods and drugs so people knew what they were buying and could make the choice themselves. This was an extremely good and rational approach -- government stepped in because of a market failure and targeted efforts which fixed the problem. (Just like food labels--government shoudn't BAN or REGULATE trans fats, but should require food makers to label their foods so people can make the choices for themselves). In the guise to "protect people from themselves" this later (in the 30's and beyond) morphed into the extreme and silly drug laws we now have, "reefer madness" effectively turning citizens into criminals and crowding our jails--not to mention intruding on our liberties. This is why we must always be reticent of goverment intervention in any area--it has demonstrated an ability to get out of hand very quickly and actually be counterproductive. Public highways are actually justified government activities in a market (public good/increasing return to scale). Public schools maybe not as much. Smoking bans in private places (bars/restaurants) definitely NOT--under the guise of simultaneous consumption or "protecting us" this is wholly wrong. So the problem with a philosophy advocating government solutions stems largely from our extreme propensity to step in where we shouldn't, step in in the wrong way, and not know when to quit.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by TXplt

I really don't like labels....... Conservative/Liberal, etc. One thing which IS true is if there's less government, there is less capability to cram government's own beliefs down people's throats hence my advocating that in most cases. The "protect its citizens" or "protect our children" is a slippery and dangerous slope. More often than not, this is used by demagogues (wanting to build their own power) against our liberty to advance agendas to "protect us from ourselves" which have nothing to do with helping people(and often hurt people)--look at the thread on home searches for firearms which is incredibly wrong on all levels. Your government is completely unable to protect you against all ills....agencies like defense, police, fire can help, but self-defense is always an inherent right and responsibility.
The pure food and drug act, in actual fact, came from government intervention due to asymmetric information (which is one of a very few justifications for government intervention in a market economy). Makers of patent medicines knew more about what was in their medicine (usually morphine) than did the consumers. The act itself had no intent of making drugs illegal--only to require manufacturers to properly label foods and drugs so people knew what they were buying and could make the choice themselves. This was an extremely good and rational approach -- government stepped in because of a market failure and targeted efforts which fixed the problem. (Just like food labels--government shoudn't BAN or REGULATE trans fats, but should require food makers to label their foods so people can make the choices for themselves). In the guise to "protect people from themselves" this later (in the 30's and beyond) morphed into the extreme and silly drug laws we now have, "reefer madness" effectively turning citizens into criminals and crowding our jails--not to mention intruding on our liberties. This is why we must always be reticent of goverment intervention in any area--it has demonstrated an ability to get out of hand very quickly and actually be counterproductive. Public highways are actually justified government activities in a market (public good/increasing return to scale). Public schools maybe not as much. Smoking bans in private places (bars/restaurants) definitely NOT--under the guise of simultaneous consumption or "protecting us" this is wholly wrong. So the problem with a philosophy advocating government solutions stems largely from our extreme propensity to step in where we shouldn't, step in in the wrong way, and not know when to quit.

+1, TXplt. Well-spoken.

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

"If a million people say a stupid thing, you are likely in California." - M. McKee

-3, Mitch.

[kygunsmith]

Leave gun control to the states?? How about leaving freedom of speech, abortion and civil rights to the states ? Let the people vote?? Mob rule is what a liberal democracy advocates at the expense of the rights of the minority. It doesn't matter if all 300million? brainwashed Yankees and Californians vote to ban guns, I still have a right that "shall not be infringed"!

[jimkim]

"The word liberal is derived from the Latin word, liberals, 'suitable for a freeman, generous,' from liber, free.

1: the quality or state of being liberal, often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.
b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. Capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party."

It would appear that the word liberal in no way applies to the Democrats now. How about a new word how about progressive. I wonder if they will be willing to refer to themselves as progressive.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by kygunsmith

Leave gun control to the states?? How about leaving freedom of speech, abortion and civil rights to the states ? Let the people vote?? Mob rule is what a liberal democracy advocates at the expense of the rights of the minority. It doesn't matter if all 300million? brainwashed Yankees and Californians vote to ban guns, I still have a right that "shall not be infringed"!

+1

It bugs me when people state that the Bill of Rights gives rights to the people. This would imply that rights given by Man can be taken away.

Our rights are not given by any government. Our rights are our by virtue of being born human. All governments can do is infringe upon our rights. The B.O.R. was designed to prevent this.

The citizens of China, Cuba, Great Britain, everyone has, among others, the right to keep and bear arms. However, their governments have chosen to infringe upon that right.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by kygunsmith

Leave gun control to the states?? How about leaving freedom of speech, abortion and civil rights to the states ? Let the people vote?? Mob rule is what a liberal democracy advocates at the expense of the rights of the minority. It doesn't matter if all 300million? brainwashed Yankees and Californians vote to ban guns, I still have a right that "shall not be infringed"!

There are far worse things the government can do to us besides restrict our weapons. I never said they could take away the right either, I said they can regulate it, which they are already currently doing. As long as the regulations are not infringing on the right itself then it should be fine.

If a county wishes to banish all guns from the public, then they have every right to vote for it. Take Texas liquor laws for example. When I was in Dallas/Fortworth I have never seen such liquor laws. They were by county, and one county was dry and the other was not. I thought it to be a bit ridiculous but no one was saying drinking liquor was illegal. If that is how they want to do that and vote for it that way, then that is their right whether I agree with it or not. You could always tell when you crossed county line though, you'd see like 5 liquor stores all back to back at county line.

Mitch,

You're rights are granted by the government, and they can be taken away by the government if you commit a crime and some states do not even reinstate all your rights after you serve your time in a federal prison.
There is a documentation granting those rights which our entire system of government is built off of. Whether you want to believe that or not, that is how it is. Those granted rights shall not be infringed either. The current administration has enabled some acts and created home land security which has already violated so much of our privacy through illegal warrants, and no one was held accountable for it.

You guys should really be more concerned about personal privacy rights right now than anything. Once that is gone it will be the beginning of our "big brother" government tracking everything we do.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

There are far worse things the government can do to us besides restrict our weapons. I never said they could take away the right either, I said they can regulate it, which they are already currently doing. As long as the regulations are not infringing on the right itself then it should be fine.

If a county wishes to banish all guns from the public, then they have every right to vote for it. Take Texas liquor laws for example. When I was in Dallas/Fortworth I have never seen such liquor laws. They were by county, and one county was dry and the other was not. I thought it to be a bit ridiculous but no one was saying drinking liquor was illegal. If that is how they want to do that and vote for it that way, then that is their right whether I agree with it or not. You could always tell when you crossed county line though, you'd see like 5 liquor stores all back to back at county line.

Mitch,

You're rights are granted by the government, and they can be taken away by the government if you commit a crime and some states do not even reinstate all your rights after you serve your time in a federal prison.
There is a documentation granting those rights which our entire system of government is built off of. Whether you want to believe that or not, that is how it is. Those granted rights shall not be infringed either. The current administration has enabled some acts and created home land security which has already violated so much of our privacy through illegal warrants, and no one was held accountable for it.

You guys should really be more concerned about personal privacy rights right now than anything. Once that is gone it will be the beginning of our "big brother" government tracking everything we do.

Concerning rights granted by the state?

You are 100% wrong! This is a typical sign of what happens when public education goes amok. Kids actually thing that the nanny state GIVES them rights!

Please review the text of the time, especially: ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Apparently, it's not so self evident anymore.

Governments GIVE you nothing. It can only take away. You will find nothing in the US Constitution that says anything about granting rights. The Constitution ENSURES rights that we, by virtue of being human, already have.

As for incarceration, the government has been given the authority by the people to infringe on the rights of those convicted for crimes under due process. Note that not ALL rights are forfeit upon conviction.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Funny that McCain sought to make hay over this after his quote in Michigan; Those (auto) jobs aren't coming back. and I'd be ashamed and embarrassed to claim they were.

Originally Posted by jimkim

It would appear that the word liberal in no way applies to the Democrats now. How about a new word how about progressive. I wonder if they will be willing to refer to themselves as progressive.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Neither of the two major parties know a damn thing about freedom and neither do a majority of their constituents.

[tlarkin]

Mitch,

10th amendment says what I am talking about and no I don't want a nanny state.

I actually agreed with you mostly, yet you still wanted to argue.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Mitch,

10th amendment says what I am talking about and no I don't want a nanny state.

I actually agreed with you mostly, yet you still wanted to argue.

The 10th, simply stated, only limits the scope of the Federal govt. to what was written in the Constitution.

The only reason I spoke up was not to argue, but to try to lay to rest that "Constitution grants the right to......." mindset.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

The 10th, simply stated, only limits the scope of the Federal govt. to what was written in the Constitution.

The only reason I spoke up was not to argue, but to try to lay to rest that "Constitution grants the right to......." mindset.

It does grant rights though. Recognition is granting.

grant Audio Help /grænt, grɑnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[grant, grahnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1.to bestow or confer, esp. by a formal act: to grant a charter. 2.to give or accord: to grant permission. 3.to agree or accede to: to grant a request. 4.to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point. 5.to transfer or convey, esp. by deed or writing: to grant property. –noun 6.something granted, as a privilege or right, a sum of money, or a tract of land: Several major foundations made large grants to fund the research project. 7.the act of granting. 8.Law. a transfer of property. 9.a geographical unit in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, originally a grant of land to a person or group of people. —Idiom10.take for granted, a.to accept without question or objection; assume: Your loyalty to the cause is taken for granted. b.to use, accept, or treat in a careless or indifferent manner: A marriage can be headed for trouble if either spouse begins to take the other for granted.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME gra(u)nten < OF graunter, var. of crëanter < VL *credentāre, v. deriv. of L crédent-, s. of crédéns, prp. of crédere to believe]

[mym1a]

the problem obama can't figure out is why any one would risk the comforts of," being taken care of" as opposed to being free!!!!! welfare mentality he has no clue! just change lol!!!!!!!!!!!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by jimkim

"The word liberal is derived from the Latin word, liberals, 'suitable for a freeman, generous,' from liber, free.

1: the quality or state of being liberal, often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity.
b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard.
c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. Capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party."

It would appear that the word liberal in no way applies to the Democrats now. How about a new word how about progressive. I wonder if they will be willing to refer to themselves as progressive.

Being a liberal is nothing to be ashamed of. I refuse to hide behind the term 'progressive' instead, just because a bunch of Ditto Heads not only don't know the difference between Nazis, Communists, Socialists and Liberals, but are actually proud of their ignorance...