Which political party carries out Christian values?

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab
Please show how Barack Obama is "anti-Libertarian" as they get.

Thanks.

I wouldn't describe him in that manner, but he certainly does not prescribe to the ideas of the Libertarian Party. He's definitely for bigger government, a little shaky on the 2nd and the 4th Amendments. He supports (now at least) the status quo of the drug war. He's an interventionist, hell, look at what he says about Iran. I actually wonder if he's a globalist. But look at Bush, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, he has very similar or even worse stances.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Libertarian Party.

I don't think Jesus would approve of stealing money from people even if the money goes to helping others.

I wouldn't call it stealing. We choose to live in this country that gives us access to all kinds of luxuries and accept that taxes are necessary to maintain the system.

Extortion might be a more appropriate way of describing it. 😛

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Libertarian Party.

I don't think Jesus would approve of stealing money from people even if the money goes to helping others.

I wouldn't call it stealing. We choose to live in this country that gives us access to all kinds of luxuries and accept that taxes are necessary to maintain the system.

Extortion might be a more appropriate way of describing it. 😛

I wouldn't say that federal income taxes are necessary. With enough spending cuts, they'd become unnecessary. Stealing, extortion, whatever you want to call it, it is money taken unequally, and by force.

 

[Xavier434]

I am so glad that the Libertarian supporters continuously shoot themselves in the foot with their pride and selfishness. As long as they continue to do that I will not feel threatened by them in the least.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Exactly. You long for catastrophe and revolution and I seek reason and evolution. You are frustrated by powerlessness of negativity and I have hope in the goodness of man. You call for the wrath of God and I ask for His love. You don't see that what needs to be salvaged and can be repaired is your self that everything is was and always will be perfect. Not intended as criticism, but as something to reflect on as a possibility.

The actual reality, it seems to me, is that change can only be done by those who are elected. The libertarians have been a minority forever and I can't see that changing. I can see the Democratic party as potentially evolving though as we become more progressive in general as a nation. If people stopped voting for the two parties things would change no doubt, but people won't so that's, though a fine dream, isn't real.

A mighty wave is coming and it's consciousness.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I "long for" catastrophe. I'd love to avoid it. I just don't think that's possible and the pragmatic side of me says that it's wasted effort to try. I fully understand that I've given up, but there do come times when the political equivalent of FFR (F-Disk, Format, Re-Install) is unavoidable. I don't want God's wrath, but I know I'll need His forgiveness for my cynicism.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired. Clinton was bad. Bush was worse. Obama won't be the saviour people want him to be (though he'll be better than Bush). In the end, it doesn't matter. Taxes will continue to go up, even on the middle class. Freedoms will continue to be eroded. Today, tomorrow, next week, or next year (metaphorically in all cases) this will end and the only long-term trend between now and then is down. I'm not happy about it, and I'm not looking forward to it, but I can't see it any other way.

I wish I believed in people as much as you do, but apparently I don't wish it enough to actually embrace the idea. 😛

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I "long for" catastrophe. I'd love to avoid it. I just don't think that's possible and the pragmatic side of me says that it's wasted effort to try. I fully understand that I've given up, but there do come times when the political equivalent of FFR (F-Disk, Format, Re-Install) is unavoidable. I don't want God's wrath, but I know I'll need His forgiveness for my cynicism.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired. Clinton was bad. Bush was worse. Obama won't be the saviour people want him to be (though he'll be better than Bush). In the end, it doesn't matter. Taxes will continue to go up, even on the middle class. Freedoms will continue to be eroded. Today, tomorrow, next week, or next year (metaphorically in all cases) this will end and the only long-term trend between now and then is down. I'm not happy about it, and I'm not looking forward to it, but I can't see it any other way.

I wish I believed in people as much as you do, but apparently I don't wish it enough to actually embrace the idea. 😛

ZV

I do understand your point and I must say that out of all the Libertarian supporters on these boards I tend to side with you the most because you shown me that you understand that the extremists from any party or view point are quite worthless.

However, in regards to that last comment, isn't part of the idea behind Libertarians to embrace the belief that the general public can govern themselves well enough to the point where we all get along well with each other and the rest of the world just fine? It seems to at least lean in that direction much more than most which makes sense because of how much it endorses freedom.

My problem is that, like you, I don't have enough faith in people. I don't have enough faith that the general public is responsible enough to handle such a large amount of freedom. I am not against freedom mind you. I love freedom as much as the next guy, but I do understand how responsible a society must be in order to safely enjoy certain freedoms. I believe that the amount of freedom that Libertarians want is a grand thing, but this country as a whole is too irresponsible to embrace it and use it properly. Instead, I think too many would take advantage of it and abuse it because of their selfish and greedy nature. I think that a lot of people who are not as selfish would get the short end of the stick when it comes to that abuse and they would demand that the government do something about it. They would demand that rules and restrictions be put into place in order to protect them from such people. Over time, this sort of thing would happen enough to the point where the whole idea behind Libertarianism would simply vanish into the void again. Essentially, we would just be starting over and history would repeat to a certain extent.

Now, too many rules and restrictions can be a bad thing too. Both sides have their evils right? However, changing things too quickly (FFR) would be disastrous. The right thing to do is change things slowly and gradually as our society changes.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am so glad that the Libertarian supporters continuously shoot themselves in the foot with their pride and selfishness. As long as they continue to do that I will not feel threatened by them in the least.

How are they shooting themselves in the foot?

You make as much sense as Moonbeam, and he's insane.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am so glad that the Libertarian supporters continuously shoot themselves in the foot with their pride and selfishness. As long as they continue to do that I will not feel threatened by them in the least.

😕

 

[BoomerD]

What exactly are "Christian Values?"

Do those include:
"Love thine neighbor," then kill him if he's different than you?
"Judge not lest ye be judged," unless the person is gay, then judge away?

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mohandas Gandhi

 

[HomerJS]

Isn't it about time we take religion out of politics? A politician can be a moral person without being a member of an organized religion.

Why are people so short sighted as to think an agnostic or an athiest can't be elected to high office?

Why do we care if a politician is Protestant or Catholic?

Can't we concentrate on the qualifications to run a state or the nation?

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Isn't it about time we take religion out of politics? A politician can be a moral person without being a member of an oprganized religion.

Why are people so short sighted as to think an agnostic or an athiest can't be elected to high office?

Why do we care if a politician is Protestant or Catholic?

Can't we concentrate on the qualifications to run a state or the nation?

Nope. You can thank protestants and catholics for that.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I "long for" catastrophe. I'd love to avoid it. I just don't think that's possible and the pragmatic side of me says that it's wasted effort to try. I fully understand that I've given up, but there do come times when the political equivalent of FFR (F-Disk, Format, Re-Install) is unavoidable. I don't want God's wrath, but I know I'll need His forgiveness for my cynicism.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired. Clinton was bad. Bush was worse. Obama won't be the saviour people want him to be (though he'll be better than Bush). In the end, it doesn't matter. Taxes will continue to go up, even on the middle class. Freedoms will continue to be eroded. Today, tomorrow, next week, or next year (metaphorically in all cases) this will end and the only long-term trend between now and then is down. I'm not happy about it, and I'm not looking forward to it, but I can't see it any other way.

I wish I believed in people as much as you do, but apparently I don't wish it enough to actually embrace the idea. 😛

ZV

I do understand your point and I must say that out of all the Libertarian supporters on these boards I tend to side with you the most because you shown me that you understand that the extremists from any party or view point are quite worthless.

However, in regards to that last comment, isn't part of the idea behind Libertarians to embrace the belief that the general public can govern themselves well enough to the point where we all get along well with each other and the rest of the world just fine? It seems to at least lean in that direction much more than most which makes sense because of how much it endorses freedom.

It's not so much that I think that everyone will hold hands and hug if we're just left to be free, but rather that I think everyone's individual selfishness will cancel out. I view it as better to have the inevitable frictions than to try to artificially smooth them out by limiting freedoms. Similar to the "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" approach.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
My problem is that, like you, I don't have enough faith in people. I don't have enough faith that the general public is responsible enough to handle such a large amount of freedom. I am not against freedom mind you. I love freedom as much as the next guy, but I do understand how responsible a society must be in order to safely enjoy certain freedoms. I believe that the amount of freedom that Libertarians want is a grand thing, but this country as a whole is too irresponsible to embrace it and use it properly. Instead, I think too many would take advantage of it and abuse it because of their selfish and greedy nature. I think that a lot of people who are not as selfish would get the short end of the stick when it comes to that abuse and they would demand that the government do something about it. They would demand that rules and restrictions be put into place in order to protect them from such people. Over time, this sort of thing would happen enough to the point where the whole idea behind Libertarianism would simply vanish into the void again. Essentially, we would just be starting over and history would repeat to a certain extent.

History would seem to indicate that this is what happens naturally. It happened to Rome. It's happening to Great Britain. It's happening to us. It's seems to be the natural cycle for a Republic. They start out small and agile, but as time goes by the majority eventually realise that they can vote themselves money or services from the government without restriction and things start to decline. In an over-dramatic way, Heinlein put it well:

Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome.

Or, more academically, as attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Tytler may not be the source of the quote (it's disputed, and frankly, probably not truly Tytler's quote), but I remain convinced of its general correctness.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Now, too many rules and restrictions can be a bad thing too. Both sides have their evils right? However, changing things too quickly (FFR) would be disastrous. The right thing to do is change things slowly and gradually as our society changes.

We can keep ourselves on life support for a long time, yes. And that will be more comfortable in the immediate term, but I don't think it's sustainable.

ZV

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: herm0016
only if by more social you mean more regulation on what i can and can not do...

Care to provide some examples because I have some like same sex marriage and abortion rights.

Originally posted by: herm0016
explain why republicans on avg. give much more to the poor and hungry then democrats?

explain why you are more likely to find a republican volunteering in the community than a democrat?

Sure. Church tithes and missionaries.

so... people who volunteers with a religious group in the community, and give his/her time and money to help people . It cant be because they want to give back to the people, its only because they go to church?

thats some fucked up logic.

Tithes to the church go to the church and the church has its own interests in mind on where they are spent. I'm not saying the church doesn't do some general help to the community but I doubt you'll see a catholic church assisting a jewish or muslim family. Same goes for volunteer and missionary work.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: herm0016
only if by more social you mean more regulation on what i can and can not do...

Care to provide some examples because I have some like same sex marriage and abortion rights.

Originally posted by: herm0016
explain why republicans on avg. give much more to the poor and hungry then democrats?

explain why you are more likely to find a republican volunteering in the community than a democrat?

Sure. Church tithes and missionaries.

so... people who volunteers with a religious group in the community, and give his/her time and money to help people . It cant be because they want to give back to the people, its only because they go to church?

thats some fucked up logic.

Tithes to the church go to the church and the church has its own interests in mind on where they are spent. I'm not saying the church doesn't do some general help to the community but I doubt you'll see a catholic church assisting a jewish or muslim family. Same goes for volunteer and missionary work.

Sometimes they might, sometimes they might not. When my Dad escaped Hungary in 1956 and came to Canada, the Catholic Church was willing to help Catholic Hungarians. My Dad and many others were Lutherans, but when they heard that they suddenly became Catholic! 😀

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The Libertarian Party.

I don't think Jesus would approve of stealing money from people even if the money goes to helping others.

That's just silly and you know it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Which political party carries out Christian values?

Neither. They both exist to serve their own selfish ends and gobble up as much power as possible. Pretty much the opposite of Christian values.

And the OP's contention that Abortion = Death Penalty on the moral scale is laughable.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Robor
I'm not saying the church doesn't do some general help to the community but I doubt you'll see a catholic church assisting a jewish or muslim family. Same goes for volunteer and missionary work.

There are church-run soup kitchens and homeless shelters all across this country; surely you don't mean to imply that these organizations serve only those who belong to the sponsoring faith? I've never seen, or heard of, the Salvation Army requiring people to recite the Apostle's Creed before they will offer aid either.

Most of the community outreach programs are indeed independent of faith. If someone in need comes in, they will be helped.

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It's not so much that I think that everyone will hold hands and hug if we're just left to be free, but rather that I think everyone's individual selfishness will cancel out. I view it as better to have the inevitable frictions than to try to artificially smooth them out by limiting freedoms. Similar to the "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" approach.

*lots of good reading*

We can keep ourselves on life support for a long time, yes. And that will be more comfortable in the immediate term, but I don't think it's sustainable.

ZV

I disagree with the cancel each other out part because the vast majority of selfishness revolves around certain groups of people trying to take advantage of other groups of people whether it be between businesses, political groups, nationality, class, ethnicity, etc. The world is far too small now for it to be any other way. The selfishness which exists on a person to person basis is a core problem for sure, but it is not a very powerful core problem these days in comparison to what it used to be.

However, given what I know of history and primarily the fact that no society has lasted forever, I would venture to say that you are correct about the sustainability of our country. The same can be said about a Libertarian government though. In both cases, the greediness and selfishness of people end up tearing the society and government apart. However, I think what we have in America is meant to last for while longer before it undergoes a radical reform. That doesn't mean that I believe it will not change quite a bit over the next 50-150 years, but I do not suspect that a swift radical change will occur somewhere within that time frame. Unfortunately, I will not be around long enough to even find out if there are a bunch of people who would just end up pointing fingers at me and say, "I told you so!"

The best that any of us can hope for is that the gradual changes and adaptations that we make given our current system is enough to sustain us for a very long time. It is even possible, although unlikely based on the odds provided to us by history, that the gradual changes that we make will continue to be gradual and plentiful enough to the point that we do manage to sustain ourselves to the point where the flaws in both our people and the system of government are not what truly is determined to be responsible for our demise in the future whenever that may be.

Two things are for certain when it comes to me. First, I will continue to try and practice being as selfless as possible while still keeping myself happy in hopes that it contributes positively towards society. Second, the last thing I believe is that my country or our system of government is by any means invincible. That is partially why I never allow myself to fully side with any political party. I believe it would be quite foolish if I were to give up any of those beliefs.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab
Please show how Barack Obama is "anti-Libertarian" as they get.

Thanks.

I wouldn't describe him in that manner, but he certainly does not prescribe to the ideas of the Libertarian Party. He's definitely for bigger government, a little shaky on the 2nd and the 4th Amendments. He supports (now at least) the status quo of the drug war. He's an interventionist, hell, look at what he says about Iran. I actually wonder if he's a globalist. But look at Bush, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, he has very similar or even worse stances.

Uhh, what makes you think any of this?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Tab
Please show how Barack Obama is "anti-Libertarian" as they get.

Thanks.

I wouldn't describe him in that manner, but he certainly does not prescribe to the ideas of the Libertarian Party. He's definitely for bigger government, a little shaky on the 2nd and the 4th Amendments. He supports (now at least) the status quo of the drug war. He's an interventionist, hell, look at what he says about Iran. I actually wonder if he's a globalist. But look at Bush, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, he has very similar or even worse stances.

Uhh, what makes you think any of this?

Real quickly...,

More government involvement in health care.

Supported DC's gun ban.

Voted for new FISA bill.

Changed stance to keep pot illegal.

Said he would place further sanctions on Iran, "do everything possible" to prevent them from obtaining nukes. "Everything."

 

[Tab]

Let's do this Moonbeam style...

B: More Government involvement in healthcare....

T : This is bad because? All he's doing is providing free health care access, ie you can't be denied because of pre-existing condition(s)

B: Supported DC's Gunban

T : I don't agree with it either, but it's not like he has been an aggressive anti-gun guy so who cares?

B : Voted for new FISA Bill

T : The whole telecom thing is a really big mess, but I can see why he still voted for it. He did however vote for stripping the immunity provision but that failed.

B : Change stance to keep pot illegal

T : He did? In any case I'm glad as there's no way in hell he'd ever win an election being pro-legalization. His voting record isn't aggressively anti-drug so I'm not really concerned about it.

B : Said he would place further sanctions on Iran, "do everything possible" to prevent them from obtaining nukes. "Everything."

T : While talking to a IAPC, a isreali interest group. This should be took into consideration.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Tab
This is bad because? All he's doing is providing free health care access, ie you can't be denied because of pre-existing condition(s)

Yeah, "free" health care access.

Why not actually look at why we have a problem with health care, i.e., high costs, instead?

Have you looked at the numbers for Medicare? Go to youtube, do a search for "David Walker" and click on the first result. Now, tell me how we can afford to throw more money at health care?

Saying that we'll save money by not being in Iraq is not an answer. We couldn't and can't afford it either. Besides, that's not solving the problem.

I don't agree with it either, but it's not like he has been an aggressive anti-gun guy so who cares?

I care. And I don't even own a gun. It shows a lack of respect for the Bill of Rights, something the government is supposed to protect.

The whole telecom thing is a really big mess, but I can see why he still voted for it. He did however vote for stripping the immunity provision but that failed.

Immunity is one thing, what is worse are the additional powers granted to the government under the bill. Again, BoR's, trampling instead of protecting.

He did? In any case I'm glad as there's no way in hell he'd ever win an election being pro-legalization. His voting record isn't aggressively anti-drug so I'm not really concerned about it.

It was in my post, and I didn't know what you asked about specifically, so I commented on all of it. Yes, he at one time was pro-decriminalization. He changed his mind. I have no idea what his stance on medical marijuana is, but I hope it is better than Bill Clinton's.

While talking to a IAPC, a isreali interest group. This should be took into consideration.

Are you giving him a free pass for saying one thing to one group of people, and something different to another group of people?

If not, what exactly is his stance on Iran? Sanctions. Sanctions are an act of war. Look at sanctions did to the Iraqi people, and then ask why? What problems did they solve? Is a nuclear Iran a threat to the USA? If you were Iran and the USA had troops in almost every country bordering Iran, would you want a nuke?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
-snip-
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I "long for" catastrophe. I'd love to avoid it. I just don't think that's possible and the pragmatic side of me says that it's wasted effort to try. I fully understand that I've given up, but there do come times when the political equivalent of FFR (F-Disk, Format, Re-Install) is unavoidable. I don't want God's wrath, but I know I'll need His forgiveness for my cynicism.

I guess what it comes down to is that I'm tired. Clinton was bad. Bush was worse. Obama won't be the saviour people want him to be (though he'll be better than Bush). In the end, it doesn't matter. Taxes will continue to go up, even on the middle class. Freedoms will continue to be eroded. Today, tomorrow, next week, or next year (metaphorically in all cases) this will end and the only long-term trend between now and then is down. I'm not happy about it, and I'm not looking forward to it, but I can't see it any other way.

I wish I believed in people as much as you do, but apparently I don't wish it enough to actually embrace the idea. 😛

ZV

I can't disagree with any of that.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

People nearly always think the era they are living in is one of decline. They're usually wrong.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
People nearly always think the era they are living in is one of decline. They're usually wrong.

Our world is so dark the soul slowly dies.