Hey if this sound like leftie nonsense:
Then skim through this thing,
or this
or this
I didn’t point out any particular group of people that didn’t care, you did. I think those things are universal. We couldn’t have cities and international trade if they weren’t.
There is also greed and selfishness in the world. The question is, how do you keep the selfishness under control and support the good stuff? I don’t think labeling people and dividing them up is the answer.
Screwed up formatting and deleted post.
Heritage Foundation is only one part of the Right, but they’re better than anything progressives are serving up.
Clearly, progressives don’t care about family and community. Their policies show that in spades. The only “community” progressives are interested in is a kind of global human community, which is not a community at all.
Any specifics? Take your time
At the risk of repeating Lausten,
Any specifics? Take your time
How Ironic, this just came across the wire:
Prem Thakker - March 21 2024, 1:06 p.m.
ON WEDNESDAY, THE Republican Study Committee, of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are members, released its 2025 budget entitled “Fiscal Sanity to Save America.” Tucked away in the 180-page austerity manifesto is a block of text concerned with a crucial priority for the party: ensuring children aren’t being fed at school.
Eight states offer all students, regardless of household income, free school meals — and more states are trending in the direction. But while people across the country move to feed school children, congressional Republicans are looking to stop the cause.
The budget — co-signed by more than 170 House Republicans — calls to eliminate “the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) from the School Lunch Program.” The CEP, the Republicans note, “allows certain schools to provide free school lunches regardless of the individual eligibility of each student.”
“Additionally,” the Republicans continue, “the RSC Budget would limit spending in the program to truly needy households.” …
I’m wondering, is keeping the neighborhood kids fed, some anti Christian Family Value these days?
When logic like “by giving them food we harm them by making them weak in spirit” works for you, pretty much any policy can be considered whatever you want it to.
Who said; “It takes a village”…?
Supposedly, that is an old African saying chosen by Hilary Clinton’s publisher. Clinton herself has always been far more invested in her career than in her family or community.
Open Borders
Promotion of racial diversity
Promotion of LBGT issues and sexual deviancy
Promotion of “career” women, easy to obtain divorce, abortion
Promotion of drug use
Promotion of urban living
Free school meals are overwhelmingly for the increasing number of Black and Brown kids forced into White school zones. Of course this is directly related to the forced diversity progressives love. Whites must pay for the common lack of parenting in those households.
Thanks one. I can see it’s going to be difficult, maybe impossible for us to come to any agreements here. What you see as causes, I see as effects from policies of previous centuries. You benefitted from those old systems, but I doubt you agree with that.
Moreover, blacks and browns were disadvantaged in those old systems. I doubt he agrees with that also.
Do you really believe that?
Can complex dynamics be reduced to a binary good / bad?
I mean, promotion of urban living. What’s that about?
People have been promoting urban living for over two hundred years dude.
We keep making babies like there’s no tomorrow? This is 2024.
Promotion of drug use - seriously. When’s the last time you walked through a grocery pharmacy, and such? How much booze get’s sold, how much are the advertising budgets for viagra and the rest? You blaming that on who?
Promotion of “career woman” - do you recongize the desolution of old style families, a product of our economic model at work, in this modern world - what are you complaining about?
What are women supposed to do - and be in your world view?
Easy to obtain divorce, why should it be difficult? Let’s get real, many men can be stupid and to varying degrees, abusive pigs. Simple reality of our testosterone driven youthful decades, coupled with Hollywood values and macho stereotypes to live up to -
why shouldn’t a physically vulnerable woman have the legal and societal consent to escape an abusive situation and protect herself from an abusive partner, what ever the sex?
Abortion, seriously? Why do you believe you are in any position to tell a woman what to do? - Where do you get that moral right?
Does God actually talk to you and tell you what to do?
Could you be wrong???
Here’s the other side:
In Defense of Women
Birth & death are part and parcel of our human condition. They can’t be moralized out of existence. A pregnancy is never a guarantee.
This isn’t about the fate of the embryo.
This is about who has the most realistic moral ‘Standing’ to decide. Does the ethical responsibility fall upon the woman with her greater situational awareness along with the burden of responsibility? Or upon distant political zealots?
An embryo certainly is human, but it’s a potentiality. A person in the making. Realistically the fetus doesn’t take on the mantle of personhood until those first breaths of life-giving air start infusing its lungs, arteries and tissues with oxygen.
In a free society, legally speaking, shouldn’t a woman deserve the Right to Her Own Self-Defense - along with Sovereignty Over Her Own Body?
Why wouldn’t a just society clearly acknowledge: “A woman’s life is more precious to her existing family, and to society, than an unborn potentiality.”?
Life can force awful situations upon people, who are we to judge them? Why not some compassion for the most difficult decision in a person’s life.
It is significant that abortion is as old as civilization, even Jewish scripture presents the Abrahamic God’s perspective on the crisis in a forgiving humane manner. Entrust the woman with the responsibility of making the best informed choices about their own pregnancies."
Why so you folks have a problem with that?
Racial diversity? I mean, don’t you know we westerns have been traveling all over the world, and hiring people from all over the world to come here. Ever hear of the Statue of Liberty and USA as the grand melting pot.
Sure it was easier when American was still an endless frontier, but that’s over, we have crowded the world - why can’t you get real about that. All of us are deferent from one another, but we’re all human, and so on and so forth.
I mean I don’t get the guys of the world with their resentments and hatreds for everything outside their living rooms. Get out and meet people - it’s surprising sometime. Sure the world is crazier and there are more really sketchy people around, but that’s consistent through every race, we nice white guys can be pretty heinous, so what’s with the holier than thou attitude. You can believe in it, but it’s still a dead-end, promising nothing but more misery all the way around. Same as it ever was.
As for “strange Republican responses” -
I hear they been asking people if we are better off now than four years ago. Lets think about that:
We aren’t God’s give to Earth.
We are the product of Earth’s processes, and are blessed to experience this blessed moment of being a living creature within Earth’s fantastical pageant of evolution.
That goes pretty far, once ya learn to understand what it means.
[quote=“thatoneguy, post:49, topic:10729”]
Open Borders.
And you prefer a big fence around the US?
Promotion of racial diversity
Promotion of LBGT issues and sexual deviancy
Promotion of “career” women, easy to obtain divorce, abortion
Promotion of drug use
Promotion of urban living
No, no, … these programs are in promotion of “individual rights”, unlike subservience to the prevailing regional religious tenets.
It’s fine if everyone wants to discuss general policy or the voters, but to clarify my OP:
I was talking about the very few Republicans at the top; the ones who handpicked the person making the response to the SOTU, the ones who coached her, the ones who suggested the setting, the speech writers, and the people behind the speech writers. This is a very small group. They are just as bad of an unelected, bureaucratic, secret meeting, controlling cabal as what THEY would call “The Swamp”. They might continue to prop up this woman, but more likely her political career has hit its peak.
I am far more concerned about these small powerful groups than I am about the short-term memory, non-critical thinking public. I never enjoyed seeing the putting of microphones in front of stupid people. The percentage of stupid people has decreased over the decades but that will never be eliminated (and by never, I mean a long, long time, if we work hard at it). If it weren’t for them (the stupid ones), we wouldn’t need a representative democracy, we would govern ourselves locally and the national government might actually be that small administrative unit that the Republicans say we should have.
FYI, stupidity is spread evenly throughout political parties and religions and non-religion. That’s why it’s so easy to put down “The Left”. I’ve seen them be anti-vax. I’ve seen them put all their efforts against nuclear power generation and miss the big picture of conversion to renewables. I’ve them support terrible regimes because the right-wing party du jour is against them. Very few left-wing people were behind MLK before the Edmund Pettis Bridge.
The fight should be against the smart people who are exploiting the stupid ones. Which means we have to be smarter.
At minimum, yes.
Our individual rights always have a big effect on society at large.
Birth rates are falling all over the world, but that doesn’t have anything to do with this topic. Progressives invest in cities because that’s where the money is and because cities are diverse – which they love. However, cities are terrible places to raise a family because of that diversity. That is why urban lifestyles are promoted to the young.
I’m talking about the legalization of Marijuana.
Leftists started promoting the idea that women are nothing without a career last century. There was no need for this at all. It was simply a perverse way of attacking the family structure. However, it has never really worked, because women are built by nature to be moms and wives. The result is the chronic social decay and the unhappiness of modern women.
Sometimes there are good reasons for divorce and abortion. That is much different from the Leftist promotion of divorce and abortion as lifestyle choices – often portrayed as aids for a woman’s career goals. Again, the purpose is to attack the traditional family.
Yes. Big mistake.
I always hear this from progressives that live in very White areas of the country, like you and Lausten. It’s laughable. When you have to deal with diversity up close you see how destructive it is.
My grandfather was raised Southern Baptist, with all those traditional values you talk about. But Arkansas was poor 100 years ago and he had 3 hungry mouths to feed. He moved to Detroit to get a job. We’ve all done pretty well since then. Everything I just said has been held up as progress and the result hard work by responsible individuals. And you think it’s a liberal conspiracy?
People of color tell me I can’t understand their plight either. So, I guess I’m stuck being a white guy talking about how everyone should get it over it and work harder and just choose to be happy. That if course is ridiculous. If you @thatoneguy think you know what it’s like to be from a completely different culture, then I can also understand, listen to, and learn about the lives of others.
diversity or poverty ?
I think that most people attribute to diversity what is caused by poverty !!!
I have a french friend born in Tunisia, a pharmacist. He has wed a French woman and they have raised a boy.
The companion of my daughter is a Frenchman, born in Algeria. He has a diploma of one of the best French institute about international relationships and security. He has a very good job in the sector. My daughter is a medium level manager in an international trade firm. they live in a very mixed district without any serious problem.
And there are thousands of such exemples.
The mixed districts you are referring to are the poorest districts, accumulating problems.
In fact, apart fro " race " and i put the word between “”, there is not much diversity among the inhabitants.
2 Likes
America is one of the counter examples, as are some other situations where prejudice has been created by powerful people to control the masses. They, and I seem to remember oneguy doing this, will switch from saying “race” to saying “culture”, thinking they have avoided the prejudice by blaming character flaws.
But, if you say, yes, history creates culture and white Southern plantation owners created both laws and culture to repress their slaves, based on skin color, which at the time identified their country of origin. Then, they claim reverse prejudice, or they say slavery is over and no longer affects anyone. I’ve walked that all the way up to unfair housing in the 60s, with total agreement and they still say, that history doesn’t matter.