(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Founding Principles Our ‘Solid Rock’

Posted: April 25, 2013 at 3:22 a.m.

It is now standard for the “open-minded” liberal to label anyone who dares disagree with him as bigoted or “anti-intellectual,” as does Mr. Art Hobson. By pretending their opponents are morally and intellectually inferior, leftists find it easier to peddle their standard false-choice arguments to the under-informed masses.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 04/25/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

HOW WE SEE IT: Tread Carefully Expanding Farm...

Each spring brings the rebirth of farmers markets in Northwest Arkansas. The Rogers Farmers Market opens Saturday at the corner of First and Walnut Streets, and Bentonville... Read »

Next Story »

COMMENTARY: What Did She Just Say? Siri-ously

Is it just me or does Siri have an attitude? Read »

Single-parenting has greatly increased in both white and African-American families (and Hispanic and Indian families).
It would help to know the sources of Mr. Blevins' statistics.
It would help to know the details, since 'single-parent' sometimes means unmarried but cohabitating.
Blevins admits that "other social factors are involved" besides AFDC (which was reformed 16 years ago but still blamed for everything as if it was still going).

Posted by: Coralie

April 25, 2013 at 12:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The victims are even more likely than the killers to be black.
It seems that African Americans are much stronger supporters of gun control.
"A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month found that about three-quarters of blacks support stronger controls, compared with about half of whites. The poll also found that two-thirds of city dwellers support stronger gun controls, while only about a third of rural residents back them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03...

Posted by: Coralie

April 25, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve asks: "Wouldn’t civil unions do the trick?">>

Put another way, why does everyone need to drink from the same fountain, doesn't separate but equal do the trick?

And no, civil unions don't do the trick. Here are about a thousand reasons why:

"A General Accounting Office report in 1997 identified 1,049 laws where federal benefits, rights or privileges were contingent on marital status. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans." http://tinyurl.com/ct5rok5

You guys lost the marriage debate, give it up.

Steve: "...rate of gun-related homicides for the remainder of the American population that year was only 2.6 per 100,000.">>

Steve passes along a popular Ann Coulter dodge floating around wingnut circles. As this author puts it nicely:

"Ann Coulter’s claim is merely the last gasp of the gun-nut strategy of talking about anything other than guns. They have tried video games, lack of prayer-in-school, and gun free zones in schools. Having seen those fail, they wheel out Ann Coulter to beat the race drum, as only she can."

Further excerpt:

"Where Ann Coulter sees only race, I see race, poverty and the drug trade as potential explanations for this difference.

There is quite definitely a ‘demographic’ element to violent crime, but that isn’t enough to explain the difference between the US murder rate and the rate in Belgium (or Europe in general). The ‘whites only’ murder rate in the US is still 2.6 per 100,000,...
Had Ann Coulter looked at other (western) European countries, besides Belgium – the countries most like the US – she would have found a much lower overall murder rate per 100,000. For example...

US ‘whites only’ murder rate: 2.6
Denamark 1.0
Ireland 1.2
Norway 0.8
Sweden 0.9
Greece 1.4
Italy 1.4
Spain 1.2
Austria 0.8
France 1.7
Germany 1.2
Switzerland 1.0"

The rest of the unpack here: http://americablog.com/2013/01/ann-co...

(Why the big differences? Hint: it's the guns).

It's probably better to have two parents than one, but there have been some extraordinary results with a single parent. For instance, two of our very best presidents in a long time: http://llwproductions.files.wordpress...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 25, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The suggestion that civil unions would do the trick assumed, of course, that tax laws be modified to include same sex couples. The limits on word count prevented elaboration. The "drink from the same fountain" comment is the typical type of gutter-sniping I derided in the professor's opinion piece. Lacking common-sense substance, the typical progressive response is name-calling(Coulter) and/or cries of racism or bigotry.

The gun deaths per 100,000 figures were in direct response to the professors data and, along with the single parent household figures, were pulled from government statistics. I do not, like far too many today, take the propaganda put out by either side to be fact without vetting it thoroughly. Neither the data on gun related deaths nor the info on black families was intended to be a one-size-fits-all justification of anything. The issue of gun control is a very complicated one and the slop put forth by Hobson handily ignored too much.

It is certainly true that the failed "war on poverty" has had similar effects on poor families of all races. It seems to me that progressives consistently ask the wrong questions. It's not "should we feed hungry poor kids?" The answer to that question is always yes. The question is how to do so in an intelligent way that doesn't breed generational dependence on government assistance. In other words--less emotion and more reason. I mourn daily the slow death being suffered by common sense in our nation. Try to use yours before it goes away completely.

Posted by: Nooghawg

April 25, 2013 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve pops in to defend his letter. Good.

Noog (Steve): "[for] civil unions [to] do the trick assumed, of course, that tax laws be modified...">>

a) If you had researched this topic you would see there's a hell of a lot more to it than modifying "tax laws."

b) If you don't make civil unions identical in every way to marriage then you are still discriminating against the gay community.

c) If you do make them identical in every to marriage, then the only difference is the word. Aside from being rather silly, it's a note perfect correlation to the old "separate but equal" nonsense your conservatives were peddling 60 years ago.

Noog: "The limits on word count prevented elaboration.">>

No they don't. Comment boxes are quite large and each post is... free.

Noog: "drink from the same fountain"... typical type of gutter-sniping...".>

Not at all. All of the "separate but equal" racist arguments correlate absolutely perfectly with your equally irrational desire to discriminate against the gay community for emotional reasons. The arguments translate across perfectly. If you can't see this, watch this pastor do a nice job of it in this 3 minute clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx...

Noog: "typical progressive response is name-calling(Coulter)">>

It's not name calling to point out that your argument is a bit of recycled Coulter racial irrelevance.

Noog: "and/or cries of racism">>

You and Coulter are the ones needlessly bringing racist stereotypes into a gun regulation argument. It hardly matters which community is being most damaged by our extreme lack of gun control. Correcting the situation and improving our pitiful statistics will help all elements of society, if some more than others.

Noog: "or bigotry.">>

You're the only person to use the word bigotry in this discussion. I don't think your references to race are necessarily bigoted, I just think they are a distraction.

Noog: "figures were... were pulled from government statistics.">>

I didn't question their accuracy.

Noog: "gun control is a very complicated one and the slop put forth...">>

You've shown no slop.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 25, 2013 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Noog: "the failed "war on poverty" has had similar effects on poor families...">>

If you're one of those who have been helped out of poverty, then it's not so much of a failed war. It's just the case that your conservatives have long tended to be rather good at making more poor people. Note:

"The poverty rate declined under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent by 1970. A more recent example compares Bill Clinton with George W. Bush. Under Clinton, Americans living in poverty decreased by nearly 20 percent. Under Bush, this number rose by 21 percent." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...

In 1968 poverty among the elder category was 25%. In 2006 it was 9.4%. I wouldn't call that failure either: http://www.russellsage.org/research/c...

Noog: "how [feed the poor] so... that doesn't breed generational dependence...">>

You're talking points are moldy and out of date. Welfare rates were slashed up to 90% in some states under Clinton. What's this got to do with guns?

Noog: "less emotion and more reason.">>

I can help you with that. Your arguments against equal rights for everyone are entirely emotional and unreasonable. And they are going to fail just like separate but equal failed. And for the same reason. If you think you have good reasons for withholding completely equal rights from the gay community, let's hear them.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 25, 2013 at 9:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Siting Politico as a reliable resource on something, .... Wow!

Calling the feelings of those who view the institution of marriage in it's traditional light(which predates recorded history) as silly is constructive. And proves you to be incapable of open consideration of opposing views. You still simply name-call and pettifog the issue rather than directly addressing the issue. If your goal is equal rights under the law for same sex couples it CAN be achieved without changing the definition of traditional marriage. Why do you insist on not admitting it?

I have never been a fan of the bomb throwing types like Ann Coulter--on either side of the political spectrum. The soft bigotry of low expectations perpetrated on people of color by race baiters like you prevent meaningful discussion of the problems still faced by minorities in our country today. Poverty has a lot to do with guns in our country because it leads to gun violence (been to the south side of Chicago lately). I know it's inconvenient to the leftist playbook to discuss the causal links between these things. It's much easier to trot out distraught parents to push for legislation that would have done NOTHING to prevent the deaths of their children. THAT is the type of cowardly use of emotion to which I was referring. Respect for the religious and societal traditions represented by Marriage is not simply emotion although emotion is certainly involved. Still waiting for an actual answer. Why is it necessary to redefine traditional marriage? What's the true goal? If it's equal treatment under the law the simple answer is that it's not necessary at all. BTW respecting the opinions and beliefs of those who disagree with you is a very big part of true liberty and the American ethos. I do respect your opinions.

Posted by: Nooghawg

April 25, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Noog: "Siting Politico as a reliable resource...">>

The article references "Bloomberg" but I know it's traditional that you begin the genetic fallacy. All the conservatives do it.

Noog: "those who view the institution of marriage in it's traditional light...">>

Lot's of traditions are bad, especially ones that discriminate against a class of people and withhold equal rights from them. A list can be provided if you like.
If you have a good reason for withholding full equal rights from millions of people on this matter, let's hear it. An old use of a word, is not a good reason.

Noog; "marriage... traditional... predates recorded history)">>

There is no "one" traditional marriage, it's been defined in many different ways. See:
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-conten...

Noo: "proves you to be incapable of open consideration of opposing views.">>

I've very much considered the view that wants to oppress minorities and works to keep them from having full and equal rights in marriage. And I've found the arguments to be cruel, unreasonable and vapid.

Noog: "You still simply name-call...">>

Oh really? What name did I call you?

Noog: "rather than directly addressing the issue.">>

As you know, I directly address the issue and your points. Stop dancing. What is your reason for withholding full equal rights from this group?

Noo: "equal rights... CAN be achieved without changing the definition of traditional marriage.">>

Separate but equal. All this over a word? You can have *your* marriage be as traditional as you like, but the word is being expanded.

Noo: "[not] a fan of... types like Ann Coulter">>

Good. But your argument about guns and race, verbatim, has been popularized by her.

Noo: "The soft bigotry... perpetrated on people of color by race baiters like you...">>

This from the guy who just turned a gun issue into a race issue. I pretty much never talk about race. I'm like Colbert, I don't see color.

Noo: "Poverty has a lot to do with guns in our country...">>

Not really. We have peer countries with poverty and even different races too. Our terrible gun stats come from a sea of guns and lack of control. Race is irrelevant to the problem and the solutions.

Noo: "(been to the south side of Chicago lately).">>

Actually yes, rode the bus too. Talk about "race baiting." Try to focus.

Noo: "Respect for... traditions represented by Marriage is not simply emotion...">>

Same old song. We need to oppress a group because our religion says that's the tradition. That's emotion and it's not a good reason. Not even close.

Noo: "Why is it necessary to redefine traditional marriage?">>

You can define marriage however you like. Society is going to expand it's definition to include same sex.

Noo: "What's the true goal?">>

Stopping you from using the old tradition of using religion to oppress an entire class of people. Again.

See: http://tinyurl.com/bmj425g

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 26, 2013 at 12:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, fayfreethinker. Art Hobson's article must have struck a nerve, seeing that there are now two editorial responses to it.

Posted by: BradBailey

April 26, 2013 at 2 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Nooghawg, you are exactly right. It is was a pleasure to read a reasoned and rational response to the usual drivel that flows from Hobson.

As for the silly arguments out of the "progressive liberal bunch" that continuously attempt to dominate these threads, Coralie makes sense occasionally but is very left leaning and biased and Freebie will do anything to try to overwhelm any debate with dubious, often wrong or inaccurate, and usually out of context information he selectively mines from the internet. Some people have a lot of difficulty developing an original thought.

When progressive liberals are presented with evidence that their ideological philosophies don't work and are often harmful they immediately make an attempt to redefine them. When things become uncomfortable for them they will often try to change the subject rather than be trapped by reality. We see it all the time. It is typical.

Thanks for writing and presenting a reasond and rational view, Steve. It is very refreshing to see.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 26, 2013 at 3:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fayetteville Free Thinker, I think you are a genius. Has this paper ever asked you to write a guest article? If not, it should. I pledged not to give a dime of my money to Walter Hussman or WEHCO media, but I would buy a copy of the NWAT to read an article by you. Let me know if this happens.

Peace, happiness and prosperity to you, my friend.

Posted by: BradBailey

April 26, 2013 at 7:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

If he did it would amount to plagerism. Freebie doesn't have origianal thoughts, just parrots what can be dug up somewhere on the internet in support of already well known and worn out progressive liberal ideology.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 26, 2013 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Christ the solid rock on which I stand, all other ground is sinking sand.

Our forefathers believed that also. That cannot be denied.

Posted by: mycentworth

April 26, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Blevins/Noo complains about expanding the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples, but seems to have no reasoning to support why this expansion should not occur, aside from his fear of "the abyss" and "the long-term effect of softening public opinions." Should hard public opinions be protected legislatively?

Noo demands a separate, but equal category of union for LGBT couples. He considers equal marriage rights (civil rights) to be antithetical to traditional American values, which he defines to include "self-determination, personal responsibility, charity, equality of opportunity, equal treatment under the law, personal integrity, and the value of the family."

What's the problem, Noo? Same-sex marriage brings all of these values home to a minority group which has suffered discriminatory action from the "average American" for long enough.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

April 26, 2013 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brad: "Thank you, fayfreethinker. Art Hobson's article must have struck a nerve,">>

You're welcome. Like an effective freethinker Art's been striking a few nerves lately with lots of letters expressing shock & awe that he holds beliefs contrary to the comfortable norm. Good.

Brad: "I would buy a copy of the NWAT to read an article by you.">>

Thanks, I did have one, with lots of good feedback. Some folks called me on the phone to thank me.

Brad: "Let me know if this happens.">>

Posted here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

I'll be giving a lecture tomorrow at the Fayetteville library. Meeting starts at 2:00. We've been getting good attendance lately with 70-80 showing up. Finally going to address Tank's favorite topic of "American Exceptionalism." Everyone welcome. Details here:

"April 2013 Freethinker Meeting" http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 26, 2013 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "Christ the solid rock on which I stand,... Our forefathers believed that also.">>

Lot's of them didn't. If you're speaking of the biggies, the brains behind the operation, they mostly were freethinkers.

MyC: "That cannot be denied.">>

Sure it can. As I've told you before:
"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."
--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.

And:
"At the time of its Founding, the United States seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation's leaders - include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin - were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the Bible, and were hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were participating members of churches."
[Ian Robertson, _Sociology_, 3rd editions, Worth Publishing Inc.: New York, 1987, page 410]

D.
-------------
See also: "Founding Fathers Would Howl If Called Christian"
Excerpt from: "Toward The Mystery" by Rev. William Edelen. An active ordained Presbyterian and Congregational minister for 30 years. Adjunct professor of Religious Studies and Anthropology, University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington.
Article here: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/christian-...

(note: It's a good article but one of his founders quotes isn't accurate, see if you can spot it).

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 26, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And that well-sourced information SHOULD end the discussion about our religious Founders--but it probably won't.
+++
Speaking of traditional marriage, in mountainous Tibet the traditional form was polyandry--a woman married to two brothers. The reasons for this custom are believed to be first that farming in this inhospitable region is so hard and physically taxing that it takes two men to support one woman and her children.
Second, this prevents a small farm from being divided into two very small farms not big enough to support a family.
Many Asian families attempt to live off very small plots of land.
So are these people immoral for not having marriages that conform to "one man, one woman"?
Should missionaries go over there and change them? (Apparently the occupying Chinese have already tried to do this.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandr...

Posted by: Coralie

April 26, 2013 at 1:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>The percentage of black children living with a single parent was 22 percent in 1960..... By 2006 the number of single-parent black children was 56 percent!<

Hey Nooghawg, what prevented you from posting the same stats for Caucasians?

Posted by: cdawg

April 26, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr. Blevins:

I read this someplace before:

"A wise author once wrote, “Good without reason always accomplishes evil.”"

Many people believe it is good to keep marriage, a legal process that makes a legal family relationship between two unrelated adults, between only a man and a woman with law and constitutional amendments.

I would put it to you that there is no rational reason to keep two men or two women from having that same legal family relationship provided by law in a marriage of the two people.

I have asked many people in many places for a rational reason why marriage cannot be changed to remove the gender requirement, and I have been soundly disappointed.

With no reason to ban gay marriage, together, we should find that banning gay marriage is always evil.

Posted by: ecsmith2

April 26, 2013 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie and EC hit it right on the head. Simply and logially. Well done!

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 26, 2013 at 7:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Coralie and EC hit it right on the head. Simply and logially. Well done!"
But wait-- Coralie got that information off the Internet. And ecsmith2 read that quote somewhere-- it's not "original thinking".

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 26, 2013 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

They have demonstrated origianal thought in many instances in the past cat person. You may have once or twice. Freebie never has.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 26, 2013 at 9:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This disagreement will never end. It has been going on for a long time. All that can be said has been said on both sides. Christians will never go against God's law. If one gets concerned about the salvation of their soul, and searches for the truth, the Holy Spirit Himself will convict them.

But when our Christian rights are in jeopardy, we have to confront the attacks as tiring as it gets. I say live and let live, but I don't see the left doing that.

PS - Coralie, we aren't talking about Tibet. Missionaries don't go over there to discuss their traditions, but to spread the way of salvation, as the Lord instructs. The Holy Spirit takes care of the rest.

Posted by: mycentworth

April 26, 2013 at 9:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Religions have nothing to do with God or the "Creator". They are cultural and political things. They are inventions of men. They are no more divine than witches and warlocks. Religions are in the words of Lenin "The opium of the masses." That is just about the only thing he got right.

Peace brothers.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 26, 2013 at 11:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Religions have nothing to do with God or the "Creator

That is exactly right. Religion is man's idea of God, God tells who he is in His Word. You need no church, no building, nothing but you and His Word.

Posted by: mycentworth

April 27, 2013 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"we aren't talking about Tibet."
Why not?
Even though their way of life seems to make sense given their circumstances, it doesn't conform to what you say is a universal truth.
So should they change?
Or is one man one woman not a universal truth?

Posted by: Coralie

April 27, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's all about the government taking control of your daily activities from rising to going to sleep. There are some too lazy to work or think that want the government to supply everything in life. Isn't possible. Someone has to work and provide the money for the government. One thinker said," if you think health care costs too much now, wait until you see how much it costs when the government provides it"
As to guns, laws preventing the ownership by individuals accomplishes one thing: ownership by law abiding citizens. Nothin else. The criminals will have guns regardless.

Posted by: kinggeorge

April 29, 2013 at 12:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"if you think health care costs too much now, wait until you see how much it costs when the government provides it">>

We actually know the answer to that, it costs a lot less. Every time. And we see this whether we look to our own government run VA medical system that provides better care for less money, or our peer nations that spend *far* less than we do with typically better results. Why? They don't fizzle away trillions to feed a hungry, unnecessary greed based private machine.

The United States spent $2.2 trillion on health care in 2007, or $7,421 per person. That was 16% of (GDP). Versus:

• France 11.1%
• Germany 10.4%
• UK 8.4%
• Canada 10.1%
• Japan 8.1%
http://csis.org/blog/oecd-figures-hea...

We spend almost twice the average of the thirty nations in the OECD.

KingG: "As to guns, laws preventing the ownership by individuals accomplishes...">>

But no one has suggested that. What is being discussed is checking to see if people are mentally ill or a felon before they can buy a gun, any gun. Do you have a good reason why that shouldn't be done?

What's wrong with this fellow's suggestion?

“We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone,” --NRA head Wayne LaPierre, May 1999 http://tinyurl.com/abfe74e

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 29, 2013 at 12:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New blood thinking government controls everything you do from the time you get up until you go to bed. Interesting. I'll ask the question again that in several months no one, not Freebie, not Coralie, not the "Cat", no one has been able to answer.

Tell me one thing that you can do that the government doesn't control or impact in some way. Anything.....cummon, folks. Somebody tell me just one thing they don't have their mitts all over in some way. Bet you still can't!

Freebie, your comparisons between the USA and other countries is dumb and completely invalid. There are so many fundamental differences between them and in important details that statistics can't take into account so any reasonable comparison isn't revealing. When those come from the progressive liberal avocates you continue to cite they are even less pursuasive. Give it a rest, you have embarassed yourself enough. You're just wasting keystrokes on anyone that has a scrap of common sense and a free mind.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 29, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Jef: "Tell me one thing that you can do that the government doesn't control or impact in some way.">>

Yes, I didn't respond to that one. Too dumb. ECS gave an example for instance that you can move around freely in the country. You're idiotic response was that you are restricted from flying a plane over the White House and thus necessarily threatening the president and the presidential residence. A typical childish response which only revealed you weren't up to an adult level of conversation on that issue. A child stamping its feet that it's freedom doesn't include openly threatening the White House residency. Dumb.

Jef: "your comparisons between the USA and other countries is dumb and completely invalid.">>

Then let's see you show this with something beyond mere assertion.

Jef: "There are so many fundamental differences between them and in important details...">>

Careful readers will note that Jeff fails to even attempt to demonstrate a single one of these "so many fundamental differences." And that's for good reason. "Evidence in your head" only gets you so far.

Jef: "any reasonable comparison isn't revealing.">>

Why is that? Jeff doesn't say. Perhaps it conflicts with what he calls "evidence in his head." I bet that's it.

Jef: "you have embarassed yourself enough.">>

Yes. KingG claims government provided health care costs more. The facts plainly show otherwise and for very well understood reasons. Here, I'll let Romney explain it to you, again:

"Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/r...

I know you have an allergy to straightforward questions but perhaps you can explain why we need to spend almost exactly twice the OECD 30 nation average and at least 4% more of GDP than even the next highest country while at the same time getting worse results.

If you can't, I can.

D.
-----------
"My evidence is in my head..." --jeffieboy
April 23, 2013

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 29, 2013 at 10:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE " I'll ask the question again that in several months no one, not Freebie, not Coralie, not the "Cat", no one has been able to answer.

"Tell me one thing that you can do that the government doesn't control or impact in some way. Anything.....cummon, folks."

This was one of the first prominent examples of jeffieboy's technique of ignoring information that he can't bring himself to agree with. What he can't rebut, he ignores.

I answered your question. You chose to ignore the answers. That's your problem, not mine. Again: you can think and dream without government control or impact. (Note that if you think or dream about the government, that is your doing, not the government's control or impact.)

Your question was already answered. Since you cannot truthfully claim that you are unaware of this fact, your assertion that it has never been answered is a lie.

Congratulations. You have come completely out of the hedge. You can join kinggeorge/MrD, notorious weaseler, in cavorting bald-faced in the sunshine, having cast off the trammels of truth.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2013 at 1:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Did you go to school Cat? Did you learn things? Didn't your teachers indoctrinate you with curriculum designed and officially approved by developers at some government Department of Education?

Do the things you "learned" there impact your thoughts and dreams? Will you argue that isn't true? Will you ignore that 20 years or more ago no school would have considered teaching something like "sensitivity and tolerance of Gays" for one second, but they vigorously promote that cultural change in thinking and morals today? Will you argue that doesn't effect the thoughts of our children on the subject?

By manipulating information and your thinking they take away the freedom of thought you may think you have but really don't. No, you are not free to think anything you want because your thinking is based on information you get and a lot of that is controlled, manipulated, and authorized by government.

If there is a free thinker, it is one somewhere that hasn't been taught, trained, fed information, or otherwise indoctrinated by anyone. Maybe "Adam" was, at least until "Eve" came along.

It's like Freebie's stuff. Freebies stuff comes from biased left leaning progressive liberal information sources most honest brokers and rational people wouldn't consider for an instant. Using those kinds of sources of information doesn't make a "free" thinker, it makes an indoctrinated one.

Posted by: jeffieboy

April 30, 2013 at 1:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Do the things you "learned" there impact your thoughts and dreams?"
No. My dreams are all original thoughts. And again, I generate my own thoughts and dreams; the government doesn't force me or direct me in that pursuit. But if you're going to argue that route, then why stop with blaming the government? Your whole life-- which is where your thoughts and dreams come from-- is influenced by all sorts of things, including, I'm sure, that God we hear so much about but which (as I understand your posts) you don't believe in. When your dreams are influenced by things that don't exist, you will be hard-pressed to point out the "impact" of the government.

You can dream that you're flying; you can dream that you're giving an important speech while naked; you can think and dream about collecting weapons and overthrowing the government. The government can neither force you nor stop you.

Posted by: AlphaCat

April 30, 2013 at 3:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now Jeffie just resorts to being dishonest with language. It doesn't follow that because someone went to school and picked up some learning/reasoning skills along the way that this in any way stops them from the freedom to think as they wish (which was the question). That's absurd.

Jeff: "By manipulating information and your thinking they take away the freedom of thought...">>

Jeffie can easily demonstrate the truth of his claim by giving us an example of a specific thought that has been banned by the government.

Oh wait, can't do that.... those are banned!

What was I thinking.

AlphC's example thought example is untouchable (if intangible) so Jeffie resorts to semantic avoiding of the answer with a song and dance routine. I have some more material examples, maybe I'll post them later.

J: "[some one's] stuff comes from biased left leaning progressive liberal information sources..."

And of course, never an actual response to an actual specific claim but rather the necessary knee jerk broad smear of any unapproved far right sources that don't provide the rightwing conclusion desired in advance. Otherwise known as the Genetic Fallacy. Boring.

D.
--------------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)

Posted by: fayfreethinker

April 30, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freebie, admit it. It's time for you to "come out" and admit you might be an idiot.

Cat, the government educated you in a larger part then your parents unless you were home schooled. You are inundated with information not only from them but from unaccountable and numerous sources they control or influence. To deny that it effrects your thinking and beliefs is pure folly.

Just because you think it goes on in your head alone, it is important to remember that some influence planted those seeds in your head. Government has a lot to do with that.

Get real, this is getting lame.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 12:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "You are inundated with information not only from them but from unaccountable and numerous sources they control or influence. To deny that it effrects your thinking and beliefs is pure folly."
Information is not the government, and it is not force. Don't try to change the subject.

The principle underlying the argumentative aspect of your question is government duress-- you can't fly here or there, you must dispose of leftover paint properly, and so on. Show how the government can force you to think or dream something, or prevent your thinking or dreaming something. Until you can do that, I have a better handle on "real" than you do, and the "lame" is entirely your doing.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 12:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The claim:

Jeff: "By manipulating information and your thinking they take away the freedom of thought...">>

Jeffie can easily demonstrate the truth of his claim by simply giving us an example of a specific thought that has been banned by the government.

What is he waiting for?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

May 1, 2013 at 12:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

jeffieboy, Tell me one thing that you can do that corporations don't control or impact in some way.

Posted by: Coralie

May 1, 2013 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Everybody is formed by culture.
After all, we are social animals. No one brings himself up.
Culture consists of language, customs, and a lot of institutions some of which are influenced or controlled by governmen (education) and others which are not such as organized religion.

Posted by: Coralie

May 1, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This disagreement will never end. It has been going on for a long time. All that can be said has been said on both sides. Christians will never go against God's law. If one gets concerned about the salvation of their soul, and searches for the truth, the Holy Spirit Himself will convict them. - mycentworth

Who is asking Christians to go against God's law?

What are they being asked to violate of God's law?

But when our Christian rights are in jeopardy, we have to confront the attacks as tiring as it gets. I say live and let live, but I don't see the left doing that. - mycentworth

What are the "Christian rights" you are referring to, and how are they in jeopardy?

What are you not letting live because your Christian rights are in jeopardy?

Who on the left is not letting your Christian rights "live"?

Posted by: ecsmith2

May 1, 2013 at 1:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, what is one thing corporations don't impact in some way? Nothing. They are exactly like government. They impact everything I can think of in our "modern" world. That is how the world works.

The only difference between the two is that corporations create wealth and government is an expense.

Governments are more dependent on corporations than corporations are dependent on government. Without the funding generated by the wealth created by corporations and their workers there would be no funding for government operations. Because of that difference we can probably do without government more easily than we can do without corporations.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Speaking of "founding principles", the religious bedrock upon which our exceptional nation is based, and so on:
"Starving Settlers in Jamestown Colony Resorted to Cannibalism"
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history...

Maybe that Ayn Rand fetish isn't as inane as I thought it was.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Roger Williams had something to do with "founding pinciples" even though he showed up about 25 years after the Jamestown Colony was established. Here's a link to make Freebie happy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Wi...)

Jamestown was a corporate venture. The Virginia Company's corporate bunch at Jamestown had about as much to do with founding principles as the "Donner Party". Neither had a lot to do with any of it. Both were simply hungry and apparently saw little reason to let good meat go to waste in an emergency. Argentine athletes have shown similar behavior.

I have never tried it but I've read human flesh tastes like pork. I know from smelling burned human bodies that when "cooked" human flesh does smell a little like roast pork with the hair left on.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The Virginia Company's corporate bunch at Jamestown had about as much to do with founding principles as the 'Donner Party."
The colonists are as much of our national mythology and cultural underpinning as the Founding Fathers are. Whether the object of their emigration was religious freedom or greater worldly opportunity, the early settlers are a revered part of our history and an essential component of our national character-- even though some of them were communists and cannibals.

Posted by: AlphaCat

May 1, 2013 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I bet the Indians that sold Manhattan would agree with the mythology part. Indians generally had little understanding of the Eurpoean concept of land ownership. Most generally believed the land owned them, not the other way around. So getting paid to let someone live there sounded like a really good deal to them. They were getting paid for somthing that didn't matter.

Some might argue that as they Europeans fled Europe for a new freedom they sacrificed the freedom of those already living here for it. That is also part of our "national character". It is an accurate conclusion.

So what is important then? What is important is that the strong will always triumph over those less strong. The less strong will pass into history but won't write it. In a sense it is no different than the pride of lions that catches the weakest member of the fleeing herd. It's just the natural way of things.

Posted by: jeffieboy

May 1, 2013 at 10:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )