When did people stop living unto they were 800 + years old?

[GenSeneca]

I will agree that it is much better to get a government that listen to the people and then act on what people want.

That's not what I'm saying at all... I want us to have a government that doesn't violate the rights of its citizens. That's the only way to ensure that nobody can legally impose their will on any of us by force. What we have are large groups on both sides looking to abuse the power of government to force their will on everyone else, I don't want government to "listen" to any of that much less act on it.

...who, in the current government, is currently FORCING their opinion on the majority of the people?

I really don't understand where you're coming from here... Do you think it's OK for a majority to do whatever the hell it wants to the minority and that it's only wrong for a minority to impose itself on the majority?

It's not right for anyone, whether part of the majority or minority, to impose their will on others by force. Reason is the only civilized way to deal one another. People who resort to the use of force when dealing with others are immoral.

 

[dogtowner]

That's not what I'm saying at all... I want us to have a government that doesn't violate the rights of its citizens. That's the only way to ensure that nobody can legally impose their will on any of us by force. What we have are large groups on both sides looking to abuse the power of government to force their will on everyone else, I don't want government to "listen" to any of that much less act on it.


I really don't understand where you're coming from here... Do you think it's OK for a majority to do whatever the hell it wants to the minority and that it's only wrong for a minority to impose itself on the majority?

It's not right for anyone, whether part of the majority or minority, to impose their will on others by force. Reason is the only civilized way to deal one another. People who resort to the use of force when dealing with others are immoral.

nice try but you already knew that using the brute force of government to do what you want is ok with the left.

 

[Openmind]

That's not what I'm saying at all... I want us to have a government that doesn't violate the rights of its citizens. That's the only way to ensure that nobody can legally impose their will on any of us by force. What we have are large groups on both sides looking to abuse the power of government to force their will on everyone else, I don't want government to "listen" to any of that much less act on it.


I really don't understand where you're coming from here... Do you think it's OK for a majority to do whatever the hell it wants to the minority and that it's only wrong for a minority to impose itself on the majority?

It's not right for anyone, whether part of the majority or minority, to impose their will on others by force. Reason is the only civilized way to deal one another. People who resort to the use of force when dealing with others are immoral.

Okay. . .so what would you propose in this specific case of the "cliff?"

That NOTHING is done? Great! I'm all for it! Let's get over the cliff, shrink the ridiculous "defense" budget, raise taxes on everyone and then. . .let's set up new tax cuts for EVERYONE's first $250,000 of income!
Yes, there will be some cuts in entitlements also. . .and I ALWAYS thought cuts were needed AS WELL as increase in revenues.

But it seems that what you are offering is a CONSTANT stand off, with NOTHING being done in order to not "force" anything on anyone! . . .What does that do with this country? What happens to the infrastructure? What happens to the elderly, the disabled, the environment, the education? . . .they just wait until every one agrees and sings "Kumbaya?"

I really am open to suggestions here! Or do you think that the majority, who voted based on very specific policy proposals, should just say, "okay, now that we have voted for what we want, let's just have the others force THEIR policies, that we have clearly rejected, on us!"

Please, help me here! You said you wanted this to be a "give and take" of ideas and information, so we could both gain something from this. I'd love to hear about another way to get something done!

By the way, wouldn't you consider the way the Right black mailed President Obama in agreeing to keep the Bush tax cuts for all 2 years ago with the threat of putting the burden of higher taxes on the middle class, and the threat to kick the unemployed to the curb was a "use of force?"

 

[PLC1]

nice try but you already knew that using the brute force of government to do what you want is ok with the left.

and the right.

 

[dogtowner]

and the right.

perhaps some but far moreso among the left.

 

[PLC1]

perhaps some but far moreso among the left.

One is about as authoritarian as the other. The one wants to regulate your wealth and tax you to death, the other want to make choices it considers "moral."

Unless, of course, by "the right" you mean real conservatives who want to cut back the size and power of the central government, who are pro choice, pro gun rights, pro Bill of Rights, and believe that the only purpose of government is to protect our god given rights.

If that's how you define the right, then, of course, your correct.

 

[dogtowner]

One is about as authoritarian as the other. The one wants to regulate your wealth and tax you to death, the other want to make choices it considers "moral."

Unless, of course, by "the right" you mean real conservatives who want to cut back the size and power of the central government, who are pro choice, pro gun rights, pro Bill of Rights, and believe that the only purpose of government is to protect our god given rights.

If that's how you define the right, then, of course, your correct.

the right as I see it would have the government restricted to Constitutional limits.
there is no distinction between gun rights and he Bill of Rights. its included specifically.
show me where in the Constitution it is OK with intentionally killing embryos ?

the purpose of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. it DOES include protecting our God given rights among other things (provide for the common defense as an example).

now are there some wh could be seen as 'the right' whi do not fit thus ? of course. but to be honest I've not seen anyone on the left whi is not OK with violating the Constitution some. Even JFK who was as about as reasonable as they come was OK with it.

 

[PLC1]

the right as I see it would have the government restricted to Constitutional limits.
there is no distinction between gun rights and he Bill of Rights. its included specifically.
show me where in the Constitution it is OK with intentionally killing embryos ?

the purpose of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. it DOES include protecting our God given rights among other things (provide for the common defense as an example).

now are there some wh could be seen as 'the right' whi do not fit thus ? of course. but to be honest I've not seen anyone on the left whi is not OK with violating the Constitution some. Even JFK who was as about as reasonable as they come was OK with it.

If the Patriot Act, asset forfeiture, indefinite detention are championed by "the left", and opposed by "the right", then you have a point.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate abortion and marriage?

 

[Openmind]

If the Patriot Act, asset forfeiture, indefinite detention are championed by "the left", and opposed by "the right", then you have a point.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate abortion and marriage?

Excuse me.. .but all this time I thought that the Patriot Act was initiated by the "Right?"

And. . .where in the Constitution does it FORBID early term abortions? Because, face it. . .abortions are NOT a new issue, and it is obvious that abortions already took place in the time of our forefathers! Did they TALK at all about it?

Did they mention specifically that "GAYS" were not afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

Where in the constitution did our forefathers give women permission to vote?. . .or interracial couples the right to marry? And yet. . .doesn't that fall under "our God given rights. . .to pursue happiness?"

 

[dogtowner]

If the Patriot Act, asset forfeiture, indefinite detention are championed by "the left", and opposed by "the right", then you have a point.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate abortion and marriage?

yes the GOP or parts of it were for these things.

as to the latter, it doesnt. so why is it that abortion has been deemed legal by SCOTUS ?

 

[dogtowner]

Excuse me.. .but all this time I thought that the Patriot Act was initiated by the "Right?"

And. . .where in the Constitution does it FORBID early term abortions? Because, face it. . .abortions are NOT a new issue, and it is obvious that abortions already took place in the time of our forefathers! Did they TALK at all about it?

Did they mention specifically that "GAYS" were not afforded the same rights as the rest of us?

Where in the constitution did our forefathers give women permission to vote?. . .or interracial couples the right to marry? And yet. . .doesn't that fall under "our God given rights. . .to pursue happiness?"

do not confuse the GOP with the right.
you mention pursuit of happiness which is not in the Constitution but seem to forget life and liberty.
homosexuals do have the same rights, the seek unequal rights. or more correctly privileges.

 

[Openmind]

do not confuse the GOP with the right.
you mention pursuit of happiness which is not in the Constitution but seem to forget life and liberty.
homosexuals do have the same rights, the seek unequal rights. or more correctly privileges.

Okay. . .why don't you define the main differences (and similarities) between the GOP and the Right?

And, yes, I realize that this sentence

"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"

Is not in so many words in the Constitution, but it is in the Declaration of Independence, and it is part of the US fundamental GOD GIVEN rights.

So. . .where in the Constitution are those "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS" revoked?
And if they are not revoked by the Constitution, shouldn't those rights (qualified by our forefathers as "unalienable") remain as the BASIS of every other right?

And how do you believe that homosexuals can "pursue happiness" while denying their true sexual orientation and their true love?

What do you see as "unequal rights" in the request from homosexuals to enjoy THE SAME advantages from the protection of the laws than heterosexual couples?

Where the interracial couples who were denied marriage only 60 years ago also requesting "unequal rights?"

On what basis were those rights denied? and why were there finally granted if they were "unequal?"

 

[dogtowner]

Okay. . .why don't you define the main differences (and similarities) between the GOP and the Right?

where they depart from the Constitution they dwore to uphold

And, yes, I realize that this sentence

"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"

Is not in so many words in the Constitution, but it is in the Declaration of Independence, and it is part of the US fundamental GOD GIVEN rights.

So. . .where in the Constitution are those "UNALIENABLE RIGHTS" revoked?
And if they are not revoked by the Constitution, shouldn't those rights (qualified by our forefathers as "unalienable") remain as the BASIS of every other right?

the constitution never revokes rights

[quoteAnd how do you believe that homosexuals can "pursue happiness" while denying their true sexual orientation and their true love?

What do you see as "unequal rights" in the request from homosexuals to enjoy THE SAME advantages from the protection of the laws than heterosexual couples? [/quote]

norhing preventing the pursuit of happines just benefits which have always and in all cultures worldwide been intended for marriage which was alwsys between opposite sexes

Where the interracial couples who were denied marriage only 60 years ago also requesting "unequal rights?"

nope

On what basis were those rights denied? and why were there finally granted if they were "unequal?"

wrongly and see the above

 

[Openmind]

where they depart from the Constitution they dwore to uphold



the constitution never revokes rights

[quoteAnd how do you believe that homosexuals can "pursue happiness" while denying their true sexual orientation and their true love?

What do you see as "unequal rights" in the request from homosexuals to enjoy THE SAME advantages from the protection of the laws than heterosexual couples?

norhing preventing the pursuit of happines just benefits which have always and in all cultures worldwide been intended for marriage which was alwsys between opposite sexes



nope



wrongly and see the above[/quote]

I obviously disagree. When interracial couples were refused the right to marry, they could also "pursue happiness" without the "advantages" of marriages. And it would have been remain a severe violation of their right.

Sex is no more than race a reason to refuse human rights to people.

You are in the wrong on this . . .as are a shrinking minority of people (about 49% today).

I am certain that within 3 years, that minority will shrink even more, and that the right for gay couples to marry or to engage in civil unions with all the benefits of marriage will be upheld by at least 6 to 10 more States, and maybe even by SCOTUS.

So I will not put much energy into discussing this with you. Time will do it's job on narrow minded people, and the normality of two people who love each other wanting to have their commitment legally recognize will be accomplished.

 

[PLC1]

The original issue was whether the right or the left is more authoritarian, i.e., which one favors individual rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I say it depends on definition.

The real conservatives are those who would favor a government going back to Constitutional limits and the purpose outlined in the Declaration. They would support all of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights, would be against nanny state issues, would be against the Patriot Act, asset forfeiture, and indefinite detention, would be against both the welfare state and the authoritarian state.

Real conservatives are an endangered species in Washington, may in fact be extinct. Like the ivory billed woodpecker, there is an unconfirmed sighting now and again, but nothing more.

and neither party represents conservatism as outlined above.