Liberal snowflakes flee Pence speech. So triggered. What are they afraid of? Typical libs.

[Boomboom521]

You still have avoided my question Boom. Not like you. Why is diversity important at universities for faculty, administration and students for everything but diversity of ideology?

I did answer your question, maybe not directly. Two main points on this:

1) -and we might not have anywhere near the same opinion on this- political ideology, be it social, fiscal, or over the role of government, is not as clear cut as we seem to make it today. Someone could be liberal in regards to marriage and family, for example, yet conservative in regards to art or expression. I know many that are conservative in regards to policy, but very liberal in most social aspects. I know non-Christians that are conservative in politics, and I know Christians that are liberal in social and political aspects. My point is: I don't think screening professors based on political ideology is legitimate. I do however think any university should encourage diversity of thoughts among faculty, if anything to help create a more effective learning atmosphere. I'm just not sure how one does that without forcing people to define who they are based on their political stance on the majority of issues. I would have to categorize myself as liberal, of course, but that would force me to seemingly take ALL liberal positions (at least in image). And that wouldn't be accurate.

2) Diveristy of ideas depend on the presentation. In my classroom I would never attempt to change or create a student's ideology on any issue. I press facts and encourage a realization of things that occur or occurred, but I do not try to establish a right and wrong in my students. I encourage critical thinking through debate and analysis of competing ideas. So the diveristy you seek is there. When a conservative writing is analyzed, it's not just bashed as trash by a liberal professor. Ideas within the work are discussed and debated. Some are rejected, aomenare accepted. The same with liberal work as well. Race and gender diversity are needed within faculty on some levels. I gain perspective through reading Douglass or Dubois, and their ideas are represented. But looking at point one....political ideology isn't on the same level as race or gender. Both from an asthetic and historical perspective. It's comforting on some level to see that a university is open to minority representation, and historically minorities have been denied these positions in the past.

 

[WVPATX]

I did answer your question, maybe not directly. Two main points on this:

1) -and we might not have anywhere near the same opinion on this- political ideology, be it social, fiscal, or over the role of government, is not as clear cut as we seem to make it today. Someone could be liberal in regards to marriage and family, for example, yet conservative in regards to art or expression. I know many that are conservative in regards to policy, but very liberal in most social aspects. I know non-Christians that are conservative in politics, and I know Christians that are liberal in social and political aspects. My point is: I don't think screening professors based on political ideology is legitimate. I do however think any university should encourage diversity of thoughts among faculty, if anything to help create a more effective learner no atmosphere. I'm just not sure how one does that without forcing people to define who they are based on their political stance on the majority of issues. I would have to categorize myself as liberal, of course, but that would force me to seemingly take ALL liberal positions (at least in image). And that wouldn't be accurate.

2) Diveristy of ideas depend on the presentation. In my classroom I would never attempt to change or create a student's ideology on any issue. I press facts and encourage a realization of things that occur or occurred, but I do not try to establish a right and wrong in my students. I encourage critical thinking through debate and analysis of competing ideas. So the diveristy you seek is there. When a conservative writing is analyzed, it's not just bashed as trash by a liberal professor. Ideas within the work are discussed and debated. Some are rejected, aomenare accepted. The same with liberal work as well. Race and gender diversity are needed within faculty on some levels. I gain perspective through reading Douglass or Dubois, and their ideas are represented. But looking at point one....political ideology isn't on the same level as race or gender. Both from an asthetic and historical perspective. It's comforting on some level to see that a university is open to minority representation, and historically minorities have been denied these positions in the past.

Boom, the reason universities cite for the need for diversity is that a white person cannot possibly have the life experiences of a minority, therefore the minority brings a prospecting a white person cannot bring. The same is true of libs and diversity of ideology. They can't possibly, in most cases, understand conservative issues in the depth necessary to have fair and balanced discussions.

We have affirmative action to try and correct this issue. Why should universities not engage in outreach to conservative thinkers just as they have outreach to minorities?

Many, many lawsuits have been filed on behalf of conservative professors that claim they were not hired because of their ideology. The states need to take more control over state schools to ensure that diversity of ideology is considered as important as other kinds of diversity. Universities will fight this because they want their students to learn only one side of these issues. It is in their DNA.

 

[atlkvb]

the extreme changes the administration seeks in regards to the environment, education, immigration, and overall attitude is offensive

OK boomer...what is "extreme" about:

Systematic reviews of environmental regulations to assure they are both needed and working as designed? (as opposed to unneeded runaway legislation that punishes economic growth)

Devolving education planning and curriculum out of Washington D.C. and placing those decisions into local hands of administrators, Teachers, and Parents? (as opposed to supporting failing schools and educational programs)

Enforcing the nation's existing immigration Laws, and securing our borders against illegal entry and drug trafficking? (as opposed to open borders and runaway invasion of illegals committing heinous crimes)

Reducing the size of bloated Government, balancing the budget, cutting taxes, and rebuilding our Military and capability to defend the Nation?(as opposed to stifling debt, deficits, and ineffective, intrusive big Government income redistribution)

If any of that is "extreme"...sign me up![thumbsup]

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, the reason universities cite for the need for diversity is that a white person cannot possibly have the life experiences of a minority, therefore the minority brings a prospecting a white person cannot bring. The same is true of libs and diversity of ideology. They can't possibly, in most cases, understand conservative issues in the depth necessary to have fair and balanced discussions.

We have affirmative action to try and correct this issue. Why should universities not engage in outreach to conservative thinkers just as they have outreach to minorities?

Many, many lawsuits have been filed on behalf of conservative professors that claim they were not hired because of their ideology. The states need to take more control over state schools to ensure that diversity of ideology is considered as important as other kinds of diversity. Universities will fight this because they want their students to learn only one side of these issues. It is in their DNA.

And I reject your idea that conservatism is an inborn condition. It's not that you've experienced life AS A CONSERVATIVE. The notion that only a conservative could properly understand and analyze a work by a conservative is (not to be harsh here but) silly. This fundamental change in what we identify with as Americans is a major problem today. Hamilton and Jefferson were both important and intelligent Americans, although their ideas of what America should be were different, they were not unable to share experiences and agree on certain aspects of life and government.

To take this left - right identity to a level in which not only does one HAVE TO pick a team, but the level in which ones whole life experiences have been different due to a choice of political ideology only prevents solution and cooperation. Issues should be at the forefront of discussion, not team loyalty.

 

[Keyser76]

Once again: "homophobe" is a term used to describe those that are homophobic. Those that see homosexuality as a "sin", imo, are very much homophobic, because they see the act as derivative of evil forces and seek to eradicate that evil. Fear seems to be a part of that desire

They don't hate the sinner they just wan to create laws that make them secondhand citizens, **** PATX, we have business laws and if a Christian or any kind of baker refuses to do business with anyone because of their beliefs it is against the law as it should be. They just worry that if Homosexuality is mainstream and accepted it casts even more doubts on their literal gods word reading of the Bible that most any intelligent Christian rejects. And they get to feel persecuted, persecuted because the Government does'nt elevate their religion above others. And for the record, I doubt they hate Trumps sins as much as they do a saintly gay man who as a sinner should be denied a cake. Christians in America claiming discrimination make me wanna puke.

 

[WVPATX]

And I reject your idea that conservatism is an inborn condition. It's not that you've experienced life AS A CONSERVATIVE. The notion that only a conservative could properly understand and analyze a work by a conservative is (not to be harsh here but) silly. This fundamental change in what we identify with as Americans is a major problem today. Hamilton and Jefferson were both important and intelligent Americans, although their ideas of what America should be were different, they were not unable to share experiences and agree on certain aspects of life and government.

To take this left - right identity to a level in which not only does one HAVE TO pick a team, but the level in which ones whole life experiences have been different due to a choice of political ideology only prevents solution and cooperation. Issues should be at the forefront of discussion, not team loyalty.

Again Boom, most libs simply can't understand conservative thought, ideas, feelings, beliefs, etc. Diversity of ideas is far too important to ask a liberal professor to try and study conservative ideology and present it fairly and accurately in his or her classroom. Again, if you are an atheist, how can you possibly present Christian or religious thought in an accurate, unbiased way? It is simple human nature.

When libs profs outnumber conservative profs by 10-1 or 20-1, something is very, very wrong. And yes, it is indoctrination, not education.

 

[atlkvb]

the level in which ones whole life experiences have been different due to a choice of political ideology only prevents solution and cooperation

I do agree with this in principle, but where is the tolerance on the Left for Conservative viewpoints, ideas or solutions to our common problems?

I don't mind "competing" in the arena of ideas because when they're honestly exposed and compared to Conservative solutions, Leftist ideology always loses to rational Conservative thought. It simply doesn't work, and history proves it.

But the Left today is trying to shut down debate, and dicatate terms of what is discussed. I don't see where they are willing to at least listen to the other side and see if there is any common ground or a better way than Leftist pathology?

Conservatives are Evil to the Left, especially if they're Christian. Nothing else gets discussed past that pejorative.

 

[Boomboom521]

Again Boom, most libs simply can't understand conservative thought, ideas, feelings, beliefs, etc. Diversity of ideas is far too important to ask a liberal professor to try and study conservative ideology and present it fairly and accurately in his or her classroom. Again, if you are an atheist, how can you possibly present Christian or religious thought in an accurate, unbiased way? It is simple human nature.

When libs profs outnumber conservative profs by 10-1 or 20-1, something is very, very wrong. And yes, it is indoctrination, not education.

AGAIN...your equating a conservative approach to a subject AND RELIGION. I reject that comparison.

And unless the writer is a no talent hack, the writer presents their ideas in their work. A professor gets students to read them, and discuss them. It's not the professor that presents the ideas within the work - the work does that already. The professor facilitates the discussion by either pulling various points out to compare and contrast with other work, or through allowing students to discuss how the work affected them.

 

[WVPATX]

They don't hate the sinner they just wan to create laws that make them secondhand citizens, **** PATX, we have business laws and if a Christian or any kind of baker refuses to do business with anyone because of their beliefs it is against the law as it should be. They just worry that if Homosexuality is mainstream and accepted it casts even more doubts on their literal gods word reading of the Bible that most any intelligent Christian rejects. And they get to feel persecuted, persecuted because the Government does'nt elevate their religion above others. And for the record, I doubt they hate Trumps sins as much as they do a saintly gay man who as a sinner should be denied a cake. Christians in America claiming discrimination make me wanna puke.

We will see now SCOTUS rules. Must a Muslim t-shirt maker be forced to make a t-shirt mocking Allah or Muhammad? Must a Jewish butcher be required to handle pork?

SCOTUS has already ruled in Hobby Lobby that closely held businesses do not have to sacrifice their religion when they open their doors.

And opposing gay marriage is not homophobic or hating gays, despite your very poor understanding of religion. You want it to be that way, but it is not. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It has been the bedrock of civilization. Those who oppose gay marriage are not by and large bigots. But you call them that to shut down debate.

 

[Boomboom521]

We will see now SCOTUS rules. Must a Muslim t-shirt maker be forced to make a t-shirt mocking Allah or Muhammad? Must a Jewish butcher be required to handle pork?

SCOTUS has already ruled in Hobby Lobby that closely held businesses do not have to sacrifice their religion when they open their doors.

And opposing gay marriage is not homophobic or hating gays, despite your very poor understanding of religion. You want it to be that way, but it is not. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It has been the bedrock of civilization. Those who oppose gay marriage are not by and large bigots. But you call them that to shut down debate.

Sometimes you are very thorough in your ability to discuss ideas, and sometimes you are the opposite. There are legitimate concerns to "religious freedom" in business practices. At what point is it accepted to reject a black customer, due to a religious belief? Is it not possible that someone could then refuse to provide services to a Christian based on their atheism beliefs that religion is a social ill that needs to be eradicated?

I don't understand why a gay couple would want a baker that sees their homosexuality as a sin to make their wedding cake anyway, so at first glance I would say "let it be". But the road then gets opened to discrimination that took decades and decades to combat in the nation --- and isn't completely eradicated yet either.

And marriage has had many identities throughout history my friend. To me, marriage is the foundation of family, and has not one thing to do with religion.

 

[WVPATX]

Sometimes you are very thorough in your ability to discuss ideas, and sometimes you are the opposite. There are legitimate concerns to "religious freedom" in business practices. At what point is it accepted to reject a black customer, due to a religious belief? Is it not possible that someone could then refuse to provide services to a Christian based on their atheism beliefs that religion is a social ill that needs to be eradicated?

I don't understand why a gay couple would want a baker that sees their homosexuality as a sin to make their wedding cake anyway, so at first glance I would say "let it be". But the road then gets opened to discrimination that took decades and decades to combat in the nation --- and isn't completely eradicated yet either.

And marriage has had many identities throughout history my friend. To me, marriage is the foundation of family, and has not one thing to do with religion.

SCOTUS has yet to rule. Must a Muslim t-shirt maker be forced to make t-shirts mocking Muhammad? That is a very straight forward question.

SCOTUS did rule on Hobby Lobby, a privately held business. They recognized that this business did not lose its religious liberty.

I think SCOTUS can come up with the boundaries when bigotry, not religious freedom is in play. For example, I don't know of any religion that would forbid them from doing business with a black person.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, sometimes many women, but also opposite sex marriages. It has never been between two members of the same sex.

 

[atlkvb]

o me, marriage is the foundation of family, and has not one thing to do with religion.

Where did it come from then boomer?

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1331-foundational-truths-regarding-marriage

 

[Boomboom521]

I do agree with this in principle, but where is the tolerance on the Left for Conservative viewpoints, ideas or solutions to our common problems?

I don't mind "competing" in the arena of ideas because when they're honestly exposed and compared to Conservative solutions, Leftist ideology always loses to rational Conservative thought. It simply doesn't work, and history proves it.

But the Left today is trying to shut down debate, and dicatate terms of what is discussed. I don't see where they are willing to at least listen to the other side and see if there is any common ground or a better way than Leftist pathology?

Conservatives are Evil to the Left, especially if they're Christian. Nothing else gets discussed past that pejorative.

Not to me. Tradition for tradition's sake is ridiculous to me, yes. But conservative ideas in many social aspects I understand and some I agree with as well. It's when your religion must take precedent over what is considered decent or acceptable that I begin to reject conservative religious passion.

When I look at communities, I'm very supportive of religious presence. The support and positivity they offer those that seek it are invaluable to society.

When I look at government, I see many conservative principles that I agree with. I am however, appalled at the notion that our democratic republic does not already have forms of socialism at work already. Do I seek to transition to a complete socialist form of government (in comparison to your failed examples)...no, do I seek a form a European socialism....no. I seek a better more effective government than the one in place currently, and that, imo, requires some socialist elements in unison with freemarket economy principles and some conservative policies as well.

 

[Boomboom521]

SCOTUS has yet to rule. Must a Muslim t-shirt maker be forced to make t-shirts mocking Muhammad? That is a very straight forward question.

SCOTUS did rule on Hobby Lobby, a privately held business. They recognized that this business did not lose its religious liberty.

I think SCOTUS can come up with the boundaries when bigotry, not religious freedom is in play. For example, I don't know of any religion that would forbid them from doing business with a black person.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, sometimes many women, but also opposite sex marriages. It has never been between two members of the same sex.

The KKK had a very religious foundation. And many extremist groups have a racist ideology derived from excerpts of their religious doctorine.

 

[atlkvb]

I seek a better more effective government than the one in place currently, and that, imo, requires some socialist elements in unison with freemarket economy principles and some conservative policies as well.

I don't think this is possible boom. The two competing philosophies are mutually incompatible.

It's like someone who likes Beethoven or someone who likes Smashing Pumpkins.

There is just no common ground other than the fact both are music.

 

[Boomboom521]

Where did it come from then boomer?

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1331-foundational-truths-regarding-marriage

This is where religion goes to places I just can't.
Ok. You are one of the most frustrating people I've ever tried to discuss issues with....but I'll give it another shot.

Do you think there was not a form of marriage in Native American tribes? In ancient civilizations? It was a practice that ensure bloodlines and established property rights and provided safety and security for children. It was originally a civil procedure or a status defined by tribal leaders (for example: shamans were not needed to complete the event in most Native American tribes).

Now this is where you will surely bring the term marriage and it's association with religion into the discussion. And once again, in your opinion, the Bible trumps all. But it just isn't true.

 

[Boomboom521]

I don't think this is possible boom. The two competing philosophies are mutually incompatible.

It's like someone who likes Beethoven or someone who likes Smashing Pumpkins.

There is just no common ground other than the fact both are music.

I like both the Pumpkins and Beethoven. And they aren't competing life philosophies, they are competing approaches to issues.

 

[atlkvb]

I see many conservative principles that I agree with. I am however, appalled at the notion that our democratic republic does not already have forms of socialism at work already.

So how do you "compromise" these two extremes boom?

I think people should keep more of what they earn because we all pay too much in taxes. The wealthy will logically pay more in taxes because they earn more, but everyone should pay the same rate at least because penalizing someone who is wealthy and therefore forcing them to pay at a higher rate is unfair. Fairness should guide our tax collection policy, not punishing individual achievement or success.

You think the wealthy should pay more at a higher rate because they have it and it is the only fair way to assure that all wealth does not end up concentrated in the hands of only a few people who then can dicate terms to everyone else. The wealthy would not have their wealth if it weren't for the poor, therefore they should pay their "fair share" (give more) to even things out and make sure poor people have a shot at receiving a portion of their unfairly acquired wealth.

Where's the "compromise"?

 

[atlkvb]

I like both the Pumpkins and Beethoven. And they aren't competing life philosophies, they are competing approaches to issues.

OK boom (I said you are weird)...but most Beethoven devotees wouldn't be caught dead in a Pumpkins' mosh pit!

 

[atlkvb]

they aren't competing life philosophies, they are competing approaches to issues.

OK then...try this

God centered self governance based on the fundamental precept that our ultimate authority comes from a (the) Creator who defines the limits of civil Governmental ordinance for Man.

vs

Man centered State sponsored ruling authority that assumes people operating fairly for each other don't really need any "Religious deity" or "God" to justify or organize their governing principles for social justice?

Where's the "compromise"?

 

[atlkvb]

Christians in America claiming discrimination make me wanna puke.

You included two words not nesessary for you to do that last part of your statement.

You didn't need to include "claiming discrimination" for Christians to make you puke.

Their mere existence produces the same effect for you.

 

[Boomboom521]

So how do you "compromise" these two extremes boom?

I think people should keep more of what they earn because we all pay too much in taxes. The wealthy will logically pay more in taxes because they earn more, but everyone should pay the same rate at least because penalizing someone who is wealthy and therefore forcing them to pay at a higher rate is unfair. Fairness should guide our tax collection policy, not punishing individual achievement or success.

You think the wealthy should pay more at a higher rate because they have it and it is the only fair way to assure that all wealth does not end up concentrated in the hands of only a few people who then can dicate terms to everyone else. The wealthy would not have their wealth if it weren't for the poor, therefore they should pay their "fair share" (give more) to even things out and make sure poor people have a shot at receiving a portion of their unfairly acquired wealth.

Where's the "compromise?"

There are many I'd imagine. I wouldn't be opposed to a uniform tax rate if it could cover our needs without destroying lower income families. I think wealthier people should pay more because they do receive benefits not available to lower wage earners. Benefits along the lines of access to government officials, ability to hire accountants that find loopholes to increase writeoffs, maids, tutors, private schools that help their children receive scholarships --- take the cost differences between a new or used car--- or the difference between owning a home versus renting --- the ability to save for retirement --- the healthcare options available to them. To the victor goes the spoils, I understand that fact. But I believe in providing HELP for those lower wage earners. It's harder today to bootstrap you and yours into a better class....not impossible, but those that do it today are working harder and seeing less of their families than ever before, imo. Help is NOT income resistribution. It doesn't have to be that extreme, just because some mask wearing young idealists think it's what's best --- that doesn't mean they speak for everyone on the left. I'd be ok with that help coming in the form of healthcare or insurance supplements, or added tax breaks for college tuition, etc....

 

[Boomboom521]

OK then...try this

God centered self governance based on the fundamental precept that our ultimate authority comes from a (the) Creator who defines the limits of civil Governmental ordinance for Man.

vs

Man centered State sponsored ruling authority that assumes people operating fairly for each other don't really need any "Religious deity" or "God" to justify or organize their governing principles for social justice?

Where's the "compromise"?

No government can possibly have jurisdiction over a person's spiritual relationship with life, living, or a deity. As long as the government does not actively pursue laws that seek to limit ones own spiritual quest, then the authority is defined by the limits of man's interaction with others. Social justice, in a democratic republic, will always be defined by the majority---but the minority cannot be denied individual rights either. The rights of man and nature are not threatened by a religiously centered philosophy, unless law is established to force adherence to that religion. Otherwise, ones personal religiously centered ideas of justice or authority can be applied by the individual onto themselves without infringing on the rights of others within that society.

Hold yourself to that standard, let other Americans hold themselves to the standards they feel are right for them....but do not allow the basic laws of social justice as defined by nature and democracy to be infringed upon.

 

[atlkvb]

Do you think there was not a form of marriage in Native American tribes

Do they pre-date the Bible boom?

 

[Boomboom521]

Do they pre-date the Bible boom?

Yes

 

[atlkvb]

the basic laws of social justice as defined by nature and democracy be infringed upon.

Who "defines" those basic laws boom? Suppose the "majority" you speak of in your example decides I am inferior? What authority other their own decisions makes them reject that opinion?

 

[atlkvb]

Yes

Native Americans existed before the Egyptians of the Bible? Before Mosopotamia, Medo-Persia, the African tribes of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers?

 

[Boomboom521]

Who "defines" those basic laws boom? Suppose the "majority" you speak of in your example decides I am inferior? What authority other their own decisions makes them reject that opinion?

They did, in the formation of our Constitution, but the natural laws of equality and decency won out in time (too long of an amount of time). The room allotted for breath within our Constitution allowed for the change that was right.

 

[atlkvb]

No government can possibly have jurisdiction over a person's spiritual relationship with life, living, or a deity. As long as the government does not actively pursue laws that seek to limit ones own spiritual quest,

This is exactly what Socialist societies insist on in order to be "pure" and free from Religious dogma that is used to "control" the masses and confuse them denying their natural allegiance to "the State", and it's supremacy regulating human order and equality for all assuring no one individual or Deity is supreme to its authority.

 

[atlkvb]

the natural laws of equality

the Left claims the Founders rejected these...in favor of institutionalized slavery and not naming Black slaves as equal?

Are they correct boom? Why not?

What makes the Left's characterization of our Founder's belief in natural Law wrong boom?

Just because someone said so?

 

[Boomboom521]

Native Americans existed before the Egyptians of the Bible? Before Mosopotamia, Medo-Persia, the African tribes of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers?

You asked in the marriage practices of Native American tribes predates the Bible...I said yes. The Bible didn't reach Native American tribes until these practices were long established.

 

[Boomboom521]

This is exactly what Socialist societies insist on in order to be "pure" and free from Religious dogma that is used to "control" the masses and confuse them denying their natural allegiance to "the State", and it's supremacy regulating human order and equality for all assuring no one individual or Deity is supreme to its authority.

Well that's not what Democrats advocate here

 

[Boomboom521]

the Left claims the Founders rejected these...in favor os institutionalized slavery and not naming Black slaves as equal?

Are they correct boom? Why not?

What makes the Left's characterization of our Founder's belief in natural Law wrong boom?

Just because someone said so?

They didn't reject them, but they didn't accept them completely....either in regards to race or gender. But they were smart enough to allow room in the Constitution so the shift didnt destroy the foundation of the nation.

 

[Keyser76]

I don't understand your point. Church doors being open are far different than active programs to help people avoid sin.

You act like all Christians agree that homosexuality is a sin, like you know, how mental illness was usually attributed to demonic possession in the Bible before we understood the science behind it. Homosexuals are born that way, only confused bisexuals think it is a choice or a sin.

 

[atlkvb]

I think wealthier people should pay more because they do receive benefits not available to lower wage earners.

So you'd deny their hard work & efforts beyond others who didn't work as hard to acquire those advantages for themselves and you'd simply remove those advantages because you don't think they earned them and poorer people don't have them? That's "compromise"?

Benefits along the lines of access to government officials, ability to hire accountants that find loopholes to increase writeoffs, maids, tutors, private schools that help their children receive scholarships

Again, they worked hard, had talent, achieved, and purchased these benefits as a direct result of their own initiative. Who prevented anyone else from working just as hard or harder to achieve even more? Who is restricted from producing superior effort to wealthy folks who've produced to achieve their particular advantages, and why are they not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hard work? Why do you think they have an unfair "advantage" simply because they worked harder? What's 'compromising" about that philosophy?

take the cost differences between a new or used car--- or the difference between owning a home versus renting

These are again direct results of reward and effort. If there is no ancillary reward for individual effort, what is the other incentive? Why do you want to remove the benefit of reward from individual effort? Where's the "compromise" in that philosophy?

the ability to save for retirement --- the healthcare options available to them.

If one works hard to achive these benefits, who else should benefit from them other than the person who worked hard to achieve them? Taking that effort away from the achievers removes their incentive to achieve. Where is there "compromise" removing an individual's personal incentive to achieve for themselves?

I believe in providing HELP for those lower wage earners.

That's fine, but you would rather force those who worked for themselves to provide their rewards for those who did not work as hard to achive their lower results? Where is the "compromise" in that approach?

but those that do it today are working harder and seeing less of their families than ever before, imo.

Perhaps, but those who worked even harder also achieved some measure of success for themselves and do get to see their families... yet you want to remove their initiative and give their results to those who didn't work as hard or perhaps didn't achieve as much from whatever hard work they did put into their efforts. Where is there a "compromise" for the ones who deserve the fruits of their labor before having it taken away and given to someone else who didn't work as hard?

Help is NOT income resistribution.

Who defines the "help" and who defines what qualifies for it? Where is there "compromise" if those who are simply in need can demand the efforts of someone else to provide for them what they either can't or didn't provide for themselves? What sort of "compromise" is that?

I'd be ok with that help coming in the form of healthcare or insurance supplements,

Where is the "compromise" if those benefits are paid by those who already worked to acheve that for themselves? Why would anyone work harder if their effort is taken away and given to someone else, and why would those who are not motivated to work harder feel they even should try if "help" will always be provided to them regardless of how hard they work? Where's the "compromise" in that scenario?

or added tax breaks for college tuition, etc....

A "fair" tax system would not require any "breaks" for anyone, since all would be paying the same rate. Where is the "compromise" if under your system those who have more money are the only ones who get a "break" and that tax break means those who earn less end up paying pay more? Where's the "compromise" in that?

 

[atlkvb]

Homosexuals are born that way

If this is true (and there is no choice involved in it) how is it that one can go from "gay to straight" or vice versa?

Seems to me if it's not a conscious choice, there is no option other than to be Gay...correct? So if one suddenly prefers the opposite Sex to the same Sex, why is no "choice" invoved. Same for the opposite of that question?

If there is no choice, and it's a condition of birth...how can it change from one to the other?

 

[atlkvb]

They didn't reject them, but they didn't accept them completely....either in regards to race or gender. But they were smart enough to allow room in the Constitution so the shift didnt destroy the foundation of the nation.

The Left claims they indeed did reject them boom, in favor of naming Slaves 3/5th of a Man.

So is the Left correct on that, or is the Left wrong that the Constitution did have concepts of equality that were not defined by the Founders?

Which incorrect assumption from the Left about our Founders is correct?

 

[atlkvb]

Well that's not what Democrats advocate here

Where is the error, besides how Democrats and the Left deny this what they really believe?

 

[atlkvb]

Well that's not what Democrats advocate here

Can you tell me which Socialist societies actually encourage Religious Worship alongside or equal to allegiance of supremacy of the State?

 

[atlkvb]

Yes

OK, how far ahead of Biblical accounts were their histories written? Who wrote them? Where can we find them. How were they dated? How much time had passed before the Bible's civilizations supplanted their hisorical records?

What happend to those? (Native American historical records that pre-dated the Bible)