Didn't realize Berea College was a center for dumb 2021 style woke-ness ?
- Thread starter ManitouDan
- Start date
There's a saying about not being able to spot a particular type of person in your first thirty minutes at the poker table. I think it applies here.
Tried facebook about 5 years ago with my wife and when a couple of old girl friends of mine tried to friend me my wife said OK, that's enough of that. We had it for about 3 months and never went back. This is my only social outlet. Would not really be comfortable with the other ones considering all of the hate being spewed by the left these days.
Nope. You don't get to run this board. It has rules. When you lack the self-control to follow them you deserve ridicule.
Glad you found a space that was safe.
I didn’t say liberals. I would generally agree with you here - true liberals support these ideals. If you read my posts you’ll notice I’ve been using the term leftists. Because that’s what they are. Democrats today are not liberals in the meaning of the word. And no, leftists are not amenable to these rights. Socialism is the exact opposite. It is economic and political coercion by the state. In the original context of this thread, judging people by skin color is removing due process (life/liberty - more of those fundamental rights) and assigning automatic guilt based on an immutable characteristic. Two examples based off the top of my head of how the left DOES NOT agree with Western values as you claim.
I agree and nowhere have I advocated for legal enforcement of Judeo-Christian values. I believe in a free society. Having said that, societies that are based on and adhere to these values typically support freedom and individual rights (in a political and government way) moreso than non-Christian societies. Are there exceptions? Of course. But Western values are all tied together. Their intertwining led to the development and support of each other. Hence why they are identified with the Christian west whereas cultures with more conformity are more susceptible to communism. Which is why Western values are under attack...
I agree with you about codifying Christian values in law. I don't think he said that though. He said cultural norms based on Christian values, which is entirely different. That being said, do you think creating laws based on Christian values is the primary way in which our liberty is being eroded?
Wasn't worried about being safe, just don't need the negativity. You guys give enough of it everywhere else you go.
Did not tell you you could not post, simply suggested you don't have to.
Thank you same small group of people and also Fox News for searching for and bringing to light these constant examples of injustice. I plan to stew and sulk over this topic until another topic of the like is brought to my attention shortly.
As long as you go HAM and completely blow this very tiny, minor, almost completely irrelevant story out of proportion -- you're on the right track.
I think the primary way our liberty is being eroded is by the War On Drugs. More people have been in jail and had their life ruined for doing something that doesn't hurt anyone else but themselves or for selling those drugs to those people. There is no more sinister limitation of freedom and liberty in the US than the War On Drugs.
I'll add that their is a decent argument to be made this war was started primarily against black Americans and there is no argument it has decimated black communities.
Last edited:
This sounds more like I want to keep things the way they are more than anything. The world changes though. The US itself was a huge change to the world. Democracy is ridiculously young to the human existence. When a people govern themselves socialistic policies are bound to come about. The society is going to vote to better and protect itself through it's government. No way around that.
I think conservatives want less of that but they don't want none of that and I think liberals want more of that, but they don't want everything to be like that. We all disagree on where that line is and we all agree that there should be a line somewhere. No one wants to be the USSR in America, but we don't want to be feudal Europe where only the strongest survive either.
He completely dismantled your stupid drive-by post. 
I tend to agree with you about drugs. We have laws for theft, driving under the influence, etc., that covers most of the side effects of drugs. There is really no need to criminalize the direct use of them. Why should we care if someone sits in his living room and does drugs. He/she is only affecting themselves. We have laws when that behavior spills over and affects other citizens.
I think another major assault on liberty has been going on for several generations now and that is social engineering. When Government tries to control outcomes for its citizens it inherently erodes liberty. You can't have liberty when the government has the authority to take from one group of individuals and give those funds to another group of individuals. Forced charity is an erosion of liberty. This is where the inconsistency comes into play, in my mind, for many liberals. If you believe it's appropriate for government to practice social engineering and redistribute wealth, then it must also follow that it is okay for them to socially engineer with respect to drugs. If they believe that society is better by limiting drug use and drug sales, then that is just as valid as engineering with respect to income issues. Allowing government to have those kinds of powers opens up a can of worms that can't be easily closed.
Ironic.
The law imposed tougher prison sentences at the federal level and encouraged states to do the same. It provided funds for states to build more prisons, aimed to fund 100,000 more cops, and backed grant programs that encouraged police officers to carry out more drug-related arrests — an escalation of the war on drugs.
Here are some examples from his record, drawn partly from Jamelle Bouie’s previous rundown at Slate:
- Comprehensive Control Act: This 1984 law, spearheaded by Biden and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), expanded federal drug trafficking penalties and civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize and absorb someone’s property — whether cash, cars, guns, or something else — without proving the person is guilty of a crime.
- Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986: This law, sponsored and partly written by Biden, ratcheted up penalties for drug crimes. It also created a big sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine; even though the drugs are pharmacologically similar, the law made it so someone would need to possess 100 times the amount of powder cocaine to be eligible for the same mandatory minimum sentence for crack. Since crack is more commonly used by Black Americans, this sentencing disparity helped fuel big racial disparities in incarceration.
- Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: This law, co-sponsored by Biden, increased prison sentences for drug possession, enhanced penalties for transporting drugs, and established the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which coordinates and leads federal anti-drug efforts.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-biden-1994-crime-bill-law-mass-incarceration
I would argue that taxation and government spending are not tied together. The government can tax without spending if they want. They can also spend without taxing if they want. My view on this drastically reshaped my thinking about government spending. It's not forced charity it's our government providing a safety net. The taxes are unnecessary.
If we thought about taxing and spending more realistically we would be better at it. Spend on things that make our country better and tax on things to reduce their consumption. The vast majority of our taxes should be collected on dividends and capital gains instead of income. That would incentivize work and capital projects over investment and savings income.
I'm just curious. Which Judeo Christian values do you think should Not be reflected by the law? Abortion is the obvious one, but what else? Freedom of speech? Murder? Serious question.
I think you are trying to come up with a way to justify something you want the government to do. What you are saying is equivalent to saying a company's spending has nothing to do with their ability to generate revenue. They can spend money and not sell anything and sell things and decide not to spend money. Ultimately though, one supports the other and neither is sustainable without the other. With zero taxes, the government could not spend money. With zero spending, there is no need for taxation and no ability to tax. The only thing that allows your scenario to exist is that there is some base level taxes already in existence. Spending on social engineering creates a liability that must be supported by either taxes or borrowing. Borrowing creates a liability that must be supported by taxes. There is no way around that reality. Spending money on social engineering creates liabilities for government that ultimately must be supported by the only revenue source a government has, taxes.
Again, if social engineering is fine, which you seem to think, then social engineering with respect to drugs should also be fine. Both are social engineering and in my mind both are over reaches for a government whose primary purpose is to preserve liberty.
I’m not opposed to change. Change is the only thing constant in the world. I am opposed to regressive change that seeks to undo freedom, liberty, and republican style governance. Considering this change is directly leading to the the feudal/communist combination (and worse) you describe, you might want to oppose this change as well.
Not controversial. Idiotic. Open and honest is not something these folks want or encourage.
When calling someone a Nazi was a common occurence, spare me the diatribe being spewed by them and anyone taking this nonsense serious.
Just another waste of time and a chance to try and indoctrinate people.
Well its not an open and honest debate because they aren't going to allow different points of views which should be welcome and penetrating the echo chamber isn't allowed. They also aren't willing to accept that many of today's "anti racist" leaders we are supposed to take as gospel won't be challenged either...heres a prime example
It's why Robin D'Angelo, Ibrahm Kendi, and the 1619 project won't take on criticism from other thought leaders...bc their cop out is everything is racist if you don't automatically agree with their grift
It's why Robin D'Angelo, Ibrahm Kendi, and the 1619 project won't take on criticism from other thought leaders...bc their cop out is everything is racist if you don't automatically agree with their grift
BLM and Antifa ran wild in this country all last year burning building, looting and destroying towns. What do you think that was? They took over blocks of American cities and set up their own form of government. If that didn't bother you, you're part of the problem.
Yep...cancelling Dr Seuss and Pepe LePew are nothing and needed done a long time ago. Think of all the damage those two have done over the years. Libs today are righting a lot fo wrongs. Bugs Bunny and Andy Griffith are next.
Half correct. The welfare state is the other killer. Two well meaning policies from both sides of the political spectrum with horrendous results.
No a business can default. The United States federal government can not default. They create the money the debt is owed in. There is a reason the Treasury yield is called the risk free rate. There is no risk that it will not be paid back. They don't have to tax you to spend. They can write spending into law without any taxes at all. In fact they have to spend money into existence for you to earn it and pay it back in taxes. They can pay off the entire debt today without taxing a cent. The Federal Reserve can just buy 100% of US Treasuries in existence.
Are you admitting you're not smart enough to have a debate? This looks like giving up.
I don't think abortion should be legal.
Do you think it should be illegal to lie, get divorced, be gay, have sex outside of marriage, not respect your parents, work on Sunday? I could go on, but you get the point.
I don't think free speech is a Judeo Christian principle. Nothing in scripture about everyone just saying whatever they want. In fact as a follower of Christ we are quite restricted on the way we should speak.
I was asking a serious question that was based on your statement "have a problem with restricting someone else's liberty by enforcing Judeo Christian values through law. " My first thought was that we have a whole body of criminal laws mostly based on Judeo Christian values, and getting rid of all that law seems extreme. I think what you're aiming for is excluding laws that regulate personal lifestyle and lifestyle choices, regardless of what damage a lifestyle or choice may do to others. Staying on topic, lying is not a personal lifestyle choice as I define that, and lots of lying is illegal (libel, slander, fraud, theft by deception, etc., etc.).
Thanks, At least now I know what you said.
Actually you are wrong. A government can default, and many have over the years. Again, you are talking about theoretical arguments that cannot happen in the real world If you want to maintain a functioning economy. Could a government print money to pay its debt? Sure. But it is catastrophic to its economy because its currency would be devalued making it expensive to borrow money again, if it could at all. It also makes the purchasing power of its citizens much less because the currency has less value. What you say is not practical in the real world unless a government is looking to destroy it’s economy. Again, spending creates a liability that must be paid. Unless a government is going to wreck its economy, that’s going to ultimately come from taxes.
We have already been through the multitude of ways that the supply of currency grows, so I am not going to retype something we have already been through. There are many more ways than you mention.
No government with a sovereign currency has ever defaulted. It's impossible. Default is not the risk. Inflation is the risk. When we talk about the money the government spends we should only be considered about how much inflation it is causing not how much debt we have. We're focused on the wrong thing and it leads to adverse outcomes.
I love when people on either side is offended because the other side is having a conversation.
liberal whack job “look,
The right wingers are talking about how awful socialism is. They shouldn’t do that. Wahhhhhh”
right wing whack job “look, left wingers are talking about white nationalism, what a bunch of snowflake cucks”
2021....
liberal whack job “look,
The right wingers are talking about how awful socialism is. They shouldn’t do that. Wahhhhhh”
right wing whack job “look, left wingers are talking about white nationalism, what a bunch of snowflake cucks”
2021....
Well the America I know and would die for certainly is for me . Its for my military daughter as well I assume since she signed up to defend it . ( and she was VERY liberal 3-4 years ago , Bernie supporter , but now seems befuddled by her former leanings) Anyway maybe the America that far left liberals want to envision isn't for me , that's an argument we can have . Honestly I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Maybe one one side is offended and maybe one side thinks the other side is rather dangerous in its thoughts and leanings . Maybe its just you who sees the extremes . One thing is for sure , you seem to be taking some high road above each and there isn't any reason for it .
Could it be the right isn't offended at all by conversation , but with the accusations and censorship its harder for the right to even have a voice .. just a thought . The right has been ran off the largest social media platforms in the world , maybe that doesn't bother you .. it should ,m regardless of party . But you seem too cool for parties , you got it all figured out .
Acting like you have it figured out because you “belong” to party is, well, pretty much everything wrong with the current political landscape. You tend to post like you have it all figured out so it’s probably just your personality anyway.
Last edited: