House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@okie,

If you are against universal health care, you are tilting at windmills. There is no such thing.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
"There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
I would not call this a philosophy. It is more a call to act but not to think.

I do not agree. Let us look at abortion for an example. If a woman wants to eliminate a pregnancy, she might find an abortion to be an easier answer for herself, rather than choosing to accept the responsibility of her actions, but using Reagan's philosophy of choosing a simple but morally right answer, she would choose to preserve the life of her offspring, simply because it is the right thing to do. That is based not only upon having emotional and moral feeling but upon clear thinking, reason, and sound judgement, for which she will feel grateful for during the remainder of her life. And she will not have to suffer the remorse of choosing a more convenient and easier short term answer.

2 Replies

@okie,

I am not going to read your tedious idiocy. You are clueless and its become boring.

0 Replies

@okie,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
"There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”
I would not call this a philosophy. It is more a call to act but not to think.

okie wrote:

I do not agree. Let us look at abortion for an example. If a woman wants to eliminate a pregnancy, she might find an abortion to be an easier answer for herself, rather than choosing to accept the responsibility of her actions, but using Reagan's philosophy of choosing a simple but morally right answer, she would choose to preserve the life of her offspring, simply because it is the right thing to do.

I disagree with u, Okie; it is a situation of self-defense for the chick,
if she chooses to avoid the pains and dangers of childbirth.
That parasite has no right to be inside her, draining her assets,
threatening her health, nor REQUIRING her to manufacture him.
What happened to the 13th Amendment (agaist slavery and involuntary servitude)?
She has no duty to the invasive parasite, the same as she has
no duty to a burglar. She has the right to defend herself against either or both. Neither has a right to be there.
This is a matter of the chick's basic n fundamental personal freedom.

I worked for Reagan and I voted for him, but he was rong about that.

okie wrote:

That is based not only upon having emotional and moral feeling but upon clear thinking,
reason, and sound judgement, for which she will feel grateful for during the remainder of her life.

Too many children have murdered or annoyed their parents.
(I am very pleased indeed, that I have no need to be concerned of such potential annoyances.)
She needs the "clear thinking" (as u put it) to FIGHT BACK.
She has the right to fight back against the violation of her rights.

She is an innocent victim of that intrusive parasite.
If he is gone, then he can no longer annoy her.

okie wrote:

And she will not have to suffer the remorse
of choosing a more convenient and easier short term answer.

My ex-girlfriend, Maralyn, had an abortion
and SHE never indicated any of the "remorse" to which u refer.

Convenience is good.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The truth is much more simple and easier to express...

The reduction of complicated and complex truths to simple statements, whilst being popular, produces falsehoods.

As regards the simple facts of infinite relationships; it is more easy to be false to the facts through complication... I do not disagree exactly with the words of Spengler... I just think there was a better way of saying it that is more simple and as true... None of us can actually know or tell the truth, and must settle for an approximation of reality... A close approximation is better than none at all... For example: Marxs said Capital is a relation... In a sense, true, but better and more accurate to say capital, like every economy, is a form of relationship... It is through our ideas and forms that we understand reality, and our forms all stand in a certain relationship to each other, and here is the point I think Spengler was getting at: All forms are forms of relationship, and by relating through our forms we survive, or sometimes die because form, or relationship die...

We have simple notions in words like society and economy which simplify and generalize what are vast and complex relationships... What you need to remember, is that, while these forms are vast and complex, they all occur one at a time, which may add to their number and infinite amount, but not to their complexity exactly... I have a relationship with everyone on the planet just as a human being... Humanity is a form, but just like with every other relationship, it is one on one no matter how large the group considered...In that sense, every relationship has to work for the two people considered, or it cannot be said to work at all...

I am not kidding you... To say simply that every form is a form of relationship is a more simple and clear way of stating exactly what Spengler was hinting at with greater complexity... The world seen in this fashion can be seen in two ways, as form, and as relationship... Our forms, social, physical, moral can all be seen through the relationship, and every relationship can be seen through the form... Each is a lens for the other... In my opinion it is the clearest and most accurate method of seeing what is going on in the world, and what has gone on in the world, and what is likely to continue going on...All other ways of seeing reality are doomed by trying to see them through infinite complexity rather than through what each has in common... What do you think

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
make choices about our own health care, but in order to maintain that freedom, we should be prepared to be responsible for the cost of it ourselves. We now see the partial loss of that freedom because of Obamacare, and one of the reasons is because so many people have failed to adequately plan for and pay for their own insurance.

When you tell parents that their children will need to die because of lack of the funds for proper medical care do not be surprise if they kill you and take the money off you dead body.

Kind of similar when the French people was told that they needed to starve to death if they did not have the funds to buy foods for their family.

There are limits beyond which the society will be destroy and it start when the have parts of the population tell the have not parts of the population that they just need to die.

As you can see from the nuclear disaster in Japan, and from the Gulf oil spill, the factors that may affect our health are far beyond our immediate control... We also have communicable diseases that can ravage society from hand to mouth, and diseases that result from industrial agriculture, or diseases that result from employment which no one can avoid if they would have any respect or honor... No one can divide the self inflicted injuring of a harrassed and distressed person from the society that cause the distress... In fact, health problems affecting large parts of the population are public health problems demaning national attention... Public health is a public problem just as public education is a public problem... We may not all suffer ignorance equally... We may not all suffer the poverty that ever attends ignorance; but we all suffer the affects of ignorance in all we do... It, like ill health is a continual drain on society, and the rich who want to shed their responsibility for the harm they cause to have the good they enjoy push people in to believing public health or education is not their responsibility either... All those people are wrong... People should be encouraged in good health, but good food, safe products, and a clean environment should be marketed to them as well...If some one is profiting on poor health and illness it is they who should be the first to pay for illness... Without wishing to complain: My job injured me in many respects but I never collected a cent of comp... What I have is pain without pay...My bosses still have the gain they made at my expense if they did not gamble it away... All I took was my momentary survival...

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
The reduction of complicated and complex truths to simple statements, whilst being popular, produces falsehoods.

Interesting. There is an internet dating site that worked a system of determining certain beliefs and personality factors through indirect questioning. To discover whether someone is liberal or conservative, you ask whether they prefer simple people or complex people. Liberals prefer complex people and conservatives the opposite.

If you like beef, you must like cattle... The so called conservatives are confirmed in their beliefs by examples human stupidity and worthlessness, and the liberal are confirmed in their beliefs by examples of people who are complex, multifaceted, and intelligent... The liberals seem less democratic because they fear the simple minded; but the conservatives are less democratic because they want to deny the simple minded the most basic of rights, their liberty...

2 Replies

@Fido,

The innermost essence of liberalism
is lying and cheating; without that, no one can be liberal.

David

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
Quote:
The reduction of complicated and complex truths to simple statements, whilst being popular, produces falsehoods
Interesting. There is an internet dating site that worked a system of determining certain beliefs and personality factors through indirect questioning. To discover whether someone is liberal or conservative, you ask whether they prefer simple people or complex people. Liberals prefer complex people and conservatives the opposite.
I like Ronald Reagan's quote, wherein he said: "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” If I understand the philosophy of Reagan on this, I believe it is human to want to make something more complicated than it is, in order to justify ones own actions, rather than simply facing the simple truth of a matter.

[/quote]Reagan was wrong to believe there was anything simple about morality... No one in close to three thousand years has come up with a good working definition of what is moral, and yet every idiot thinks they know what morality is... If they think they know, the should behave as they think right rather than trying to get others to act as they think right... On place they clearly get morals wrong is in thinking it it for the purpose of contrrolling the behavior of others when it may have more to do with controlling ones own behavior.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

When I was in college, it was often remarked that it is impossible to teach chemistry and religion to high school students because in simplifying it enough to make it comprehensible, it was made wrong. I don't believe that.

What is right about religion??? I mean, if certainty were not the object it would not be taught at all, and it has nothing what ever to do with objective or scientific proof... The fact is, that if religion is right, everything else is wrong, and the argument has some merit, but no place in the world of right or wrong...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido, Well stated; they can't both be "right." That is, if we understand logic at all.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”

Reagan was known to be a liar of gigantic proportion, Okie. That he, every bit in kind though not in number, the mass murderer that Hitler was, had the gall to say something like this is astonishing. That the whole of America didn't laugh him out of the WH is shameful. But, as we well know, most of America, the appallingly ignorant and the merely naive, does seem fond of their war criminal presidents.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Your posts leave me dumbfounded, JTT. They are weirder than weird, and beyond being called simply liberal. That is my honest opinion.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, "liberal" ideas flourished in Europe and North America; they challenged the rule of monarchs and the church and emphasizing reason, science, individual liberty, free markets, consent of the governed and limited government. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by libertarian ideas

In the USA we have perverted the word Libertarian compared to how it is used in other countries!

Keep in mind that any word that means getting along with your fellow man will often be taught as an evil word in the USA

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Your posts leave me dumbfounded, JTT.
They are weirder than weird, and beyond being called simply liberal. That is my honest opinion.

Okie, JTT is not able to reason
and has rejected logic.

U might as well argue with Gracie Allen,
or with a dog, for all the good it will do.

1 Reply

@okie,

Coming to the realization that pretty much everything you've been taught is a huge lie is what leaves you dumbfounded, Okie.

And the facts be damned, you're just not willing to go there, are you?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, "liberal" ideas
flourished in Europe and North America; they challenged the rule of monarchs

YES; that is absolutely right!
Thay were liberal in that thay DEVIATED from acceptance
of the Divine Right of Kings and from authoritarianism.
Liberalism inheres in turning away from
whatever is the subject matter of that liberalism,
whereas orthodoxy or conservatism inheres in remaining
steadfastly, inflexibly and rigildly in support thereof, with no straying, however slight.

reasoning logic wrote:

and the church and emphasizing reason, science, individual liberty, free markets,
consent of the governed and limited government.
Libertarians of various schools were influenced by libertarian ideas

In the USA we have perverted the word Libertarian
compared to how it is used in other countries!

Will u explain what u have in mind,
with greater specificity ?
(I must admit to having attended "libertarian" meetings
some of whose other attenders had some very different ideas than I did.)

reasoning logic wrote:

Keep in mind that any word that means getting along
with your fellow man will often be taught as an evil word in the USA

The dispositive criterion is whether any such
"getting along" is VOLUNTARY, or the product of extortion.

David

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Keep in mind that any word that means getting along with your fellow man will often be taught as an evil word in the USA.

That's an amazing thing to say rl. In some ways it is worse than the things JTT says about the USA. The things JTT says can be thought of as incidents but you are saying they are endemic in your culture.

Can you provide some examples.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

How would you know, Om? You sit there in your piss stained LazyBoy unable to defend any of the spittle that makes it past your bib.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Yes, Spendi, examples are myriad.

Here's a start.

http://able2know.org/topic/14261-1#post-4548509

0 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know