An Example of Why (R) Can't Win if It's Core Base is Religion-Based

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by freestater

To my way of thinking, this is a very reasonable approach. I do believe that someone/thing created this universe. Whether or not, that being is wholly interested in each of our individual lives, I have no idea. I suspect I have enjoyed a certain amount of 'divine providence' in my life, and I'm grateful for it. I'm grateful just for existence itself. Just this opportunity to dance around, breathe in the air, and eat the sandwiches, is enough to make me appreciate what we have here.

I don't believe that any man, however, has ever written down the 'word of God'. I just don't. I simply don't think this God fellow operates that way. I don't think we're all damned without believing in certain comic books or otherwise. I just think we're here to grow. To learn. To love. The only real prayer I ever cry out to God for is that of an existence past this one. Reunion with those long lost, of course. And Peace. Because really, that's all any of us want anyway. A bunch of unscrupulous people took advantage of that natural longing in all of us and really, gave us our first governments. And there, we pissed away Peace.

In any event, I believe that God is self-evident. I believe that all we need to know about him is all around us, not in words, but works. God takes long walks with me and my dog. God pushes waves up softly on the shore. And God flashed that divine spark that eventually led to us, here, to contemplate the 'meaning' (lol) of it all. Personally, I like Speed Levitch's approach, that we're here to "experience exhilarating alienation". However the rest plays out, I intend to enjoy the sunsets, help out when I can, smoke a little weed, and have a heck of a ride.

And while I'm at it, I'll shoot the Big Guy a little Thank You now and again.

Damn Free, this hits close to how I feel too. Good stuff.

[Trades]

While not about religion, I think this fits the conversation here regarding the liberal traps and conservatives being dumb enough to be trapped.

In the wake of a brutal election loss, some of us are disappointed and want to lodge a protest -- I'm not unsympathetic to that, I get it, I really do. I got it in 2000 and in 2004 when my favorite sport was mocking left-wing movie stars who threatened to flee the country after Bush won. But therein lies the point: If conservatives are going to mock the disappointed who want to flee the country after an election loss, shouldn't we be doing the same thing now?

While it's not fair, sometimes we really do have to take responsibility for our own and even those who claim to be our allies. Because if we don't, the left-wing media's going to do it for us. But only after it's too late and we've walked into the trap.

Step 1: Some who share some of our political views overreact and do something dumb.

Step 2: The left-wing media picks it up and turns it into a mainstream story -- a trap.

Step 3: The trap works because the media exposure brings it to the attention of a bigger audience and suddenly 675,000 on our side overreact and do the same dumb thing.

Step 4: Some on our side, while not agreeing with secession, treat the idea as something worthy of discussion. Now the issue has even more attention and even a whiff of credibility.

Step 5: Now that hundreds of thousands are doing this dumb thing, the media and left (but I repeat myself) use this dumb thing to tarnish and marginalize the Right as a whole.

Step 6: Just like with the Birther movement, suddenly, the only sound bite that comes out of Eric Cantor's appearance on "Meet the Press" has nothing to do with his intelligent, logical, and fiscally sound thoughts on tax increases -- instead, it's his never quite exactly suitable denunciation of the secession movement.

Step 7: It's Katy bar the door with the Right's "secession problem" and all the racial connotations that go along with it.

Step 8: Here we go again.

How many Americans have died to protect this country and to keep us united? But what… because we lost a couple of elections and gained an ObamaCare we're going to grab our marbles and crybaby all the way home to Texahomastan? Wanting to cut and run from the fight for your country is cowardice.

I'm sorry we live in a world where a biased media can take a fringe movement and tie it like a can to our tails, but this is the world we live in, which means that sometimes we have to very publicly point to these crybaby cowards and laugh at them, as though they were Alec Baldwin in 2004, packing for Canada.

Because if we don't do this, the media's going to make us own them, whether we want to own them or not.
These people are not only cowards for giving up the fight; they also get in the way of the fight, because the media uses them to constantly put us on defense and define who we are.

Let the secessionists leave the Republican Party, or whatever the threat is this time. We have to immediately mock and marginalize these people, not coddle lunacy and sympathize with stupid. At least if they can't be associated with the conservative movement, they're somebody else's problem.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...racy-of-dunces

[brady's a catcher]

Originally Posted by freestater

To my way of thinking, this is a very reasonable approach. I do believe that someone/thing created this universe. Whether or not, that being is wholly interested in each of our individual lives, I have no idea. I suspect I have enjoyed a certain amount of 'divine providence' in my life, and I'm grateful for it. I'm grateful just for existence itself. Just this opportunity to dance around, breathe in the air, and eat the sandwiches, is enough to make me appreciate what we have here.

I don't believe that any man, however, has ever written down the 'word of God'. I just don't. I simply don't think this God fellow operates that way. I don't think we're all damned without believing in certain comic books or otherwise. I just think we're here to grow. To learn. To love. The only real prayer I ever cry out to God for is that of an existence past this one. Reunion with those long lost, of course. And Peace. Because really, that's all any of us want anyway. A bunch of unscrupulous people took advantage of that natural longing in all of us and really, gave us our first governments. And there, we pissed away Peace.

In any event, I believe that God is self-evident. I believe that all we need to know about him is all around us, not in words, but works. God takes long walks with me and my dog. God pushes waves up softly on the shore. And God flashed that divine spark that eventually led to us, here, to contemplate the 'meaning' (lol) of it all. Personally, I like Speed Levitch's approach, that we're here to "experience exhilarating alienation". However the rest plays out, I intend to enjoy the sunsets, help out when I can, smoke a little weed, and have a heck of a ride.

And while I'm at it, I'll shoot the Big Guy a little Thank You now and again.

Nice, well said Free!

[freestater]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Damn Free, this hits close to how I feel too. Good stuff.

just my thoughts on "it all". I just think it's better for our own psyches to walk through life with a sense of gratitude. Taking a moment to thank *what/whomever* doesn't make me some crazy with my "make-believe friend in the sky" or any such nonsense. In the same respect, there ain't nobody walking today, or when any of the 'holy scriptures' with any more information then I have now. I don't begrudge anybody, anything that helps them get through their day. Believe what you want, just recognize everybody else's right to approach their creator in a manner suitable to them. I've found in life, I get in the most trouble when I abdicate my thinking to someone else.

[WestCoastOffensive]

I'm looking forward to a wonderful Thanksgiving; I love all you mutts.


Good thoughts.

[Apache 51]

It doesn't really have to do with religion, it's about sheer numbers and the D's continue to grow and I's lean more towards the D's. The D's are the party of handouts, liberals believing it's up to society to help them out. The R's which generally are conservative and believe it's up to the individual. With an aging population, and a change in the groups and makeup of it as well it's only natural to be a taker. R's are up against it in many ways on the Federal level.

[parafly]

Some constructive criticism for the Republicans: drop the religious extremism and socially backward views. You are completely unappealing to a quickly growing number of Americans.

Your base will come out and vote for you anyway. Look no further than the number of Evangelicals who voted overwhelmingly for a Mormon. Unimaginable just a short time ago.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by parafly

Some constructive criticism for the Republicans: drop the religious extremism and socially backward views. You are completely unappealing to a quickly growing number of Americans.

Your base will come out and vote for you anyway. Look no further than the number of Evangelicals who voted overwhelmingly for a Mormon. Unimaginable just a short time ago.

If striving to live a life following Jesus' example is extremist, then call me guilty.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Ernie

If striving to live a life following Jesus' example is extremist, then call me guilty.

Tolerance and turn the other cheek are great philosophies, but I don't see much common ground with current Republican positions.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by parafly

Tolerance and turn the other cheek are great philosophies, but I don't see much common ground with current Republican positions.

What policies do you consider "extremist" and "socially backward"?

[Warfish]

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Ernie

What policies do you consider "extremist" and "socially backward"?

There are numerous positions which I view as socially backward and extremist, but I'd rather not get into them honestly. If you think Republicans are on the right track, I'll just agree to disagree.

[cedk]

Social issues is all the republicans got. Mitt Romney did not run on social issues at all.
Moderate republicans have had little success if any at all.
I agree they can tone it down such as agreeing to civil unions for gays but they will find success stopping the left from pretending that gay is normal and wanting to teach the children that its normal just like North American Man/Boy Love Association would also like that to be taught.

Conservatives and economic libertarians just been check mated this past election.They are done and the only argument is how can we be better lefties.(creating a society where there is a reason to work is the trick to make socialism work better)

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by cedk

Social issues is all the republicans got. Mitt Romney did not run on social issues at all.
Moderate republicans have had little success if any at all.
I agree they can tone it down such as agreeing to civil unions for gays but they will find success stopping the left from pretending that gay is normal and wanting to teach the children that its normal just like North American Man/Boy Love Association would also like that to be taught.

Conservatives and economic libertarians just been check mated this past election.They are done and the only argument is how can we be better lefties.(creating a society where there is a reason to work is the trick to make socialism work better)

I hope Republicans take your advice, it's a recipe to never win a national election again.

[cedk]

They not going win trying to cut programs or even big bird.

Of course my last post I was trying to say creating a socialist society in which you still need to work is the key to legitimate successes.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Ernie

If striving to live a life following Jesus' example is extremist, then call me guilty.

Brother Ernie, I can't think of many pols on either side who follow Jesus' example.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by cedk

They not going win trying to cut programs or even big bird.

Of course my last post I was trying to say creating a socialist society in which you still need to work is the key to legitimate successes.

That is next to impossible. I can give you hundreds of examples of where large scale socialism has failed. Can you give me one where it has succeeded and what the measurement of success was?

Why Socialism Doesn't Work

Within a free economy, societal equality means everyone starts the same. Within socialism, societal equality means everyone finishes the same. Economics students at one well-known university learned the hard way why socialism doesn’t work.


The course was on comparative economic policies. The instructor asserted that finishing the same under the socialistic model would remove incentives to excel and the risk of failure and would ultimately lower the overall quality of life in a society. Some students asserted that without incentives to excel or the risk of failure, people would give their best effort and altruistically excel to advance the greater good. So, the professor proposed an experiment: on individual exams in the course, all students would receive a score equal to the average score of all students. Students would finish the same. The students agreed.


On the first exam, the average score was a B and all students received a B. On the second exam, the average score was a C and all students received a C. After successive exams in the course, the average score dropped to an F. At the end of the course, all students received a cumulative grade of F.


Why did this happen? The instructor learned from the lower performing students that they saw no reason to study at all. The top performing students related that their hard work was for naught, so they studied less.


And, then what happened? The students complained to the university’s administration that they each received an F and not a higher grade. After confirming that the students agreed to the grading methodology and that the students chose to apply themselves less, the university’s administration left their grades unchanged.


Government must not remove the ability of the individual to excel or fail.

Similarly, government must not remove the ability of companies to excel or fail. A company that is “too big to fail” presents threats to an economy not dissimilar in magnitude than the threats posed at the individual level. In spite of all of the gnashing of teeth, nothing meaningful has been done about the corporate socialism that continues to exist in the United States. Dodd-Frank is an abysmal failure.


Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said that socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. We find that Lady Thatcher’s wisdom has greater applicability than she first thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddgano...m-doesnt-work/

I thought this was an interesting test of the analogy between grade socialism and societal socialism that many a lefty decries as a false analogy.

As the article goes on to state corporate socialism such as too big to fail is as bad or worse than socialism for the citizens.

A social safety net such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Welfare, Food Stamps, et al, makes a lot of emotional sense. It makes you feel good to think you are helping others. Sadly as we can see from our economy people just fall back on these crutches and no longer save or take a personal responsibility for the things these cover.

Similarly corporations and bankers took on high risk ventures because they knew there was a safety net. There was really no risk in half assed solar companies and mortgages with no equity or even negative equity because they knew the government would cover their losses.

Socialism just doesn't work.

[cedk]

[QUOTE=Trades;4694212]
[B]

Government must not remove the ability of the individual to excel or fail.

.

A social safety net such as SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Welfare, Food Stamps, et al, makes a lot of emotional sense. It makes you feel good to think you are helping others. Sadly as we can see from our economy people just fall back on these crutches and no longer save or take a personal responsibility for the things these cover.

Socialism just doesn't work.

I agree.
It’s the definition of socialism that I may have had wrong? I thought Canada and Europe where socialist but some research says not and other areas do say Sweden is socialist
But we have removed the ability to fail and these other countries also have and is why I argue they and the U.S are socialist but again research eventually led to a passage that say we are a mix of socialism and capitalism.
So there is no clear definition of what the western world economies are is the only point I see.
U.S and these countries will never return to pure capitalism so how do we make it harder on those that are legitimately loafers to the detriment of those that excel or try too excel.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by 21st Amendment

I hope Republicans take your advice, it's a recipe to never win a national election again.

Why? So we can have a crappy government like the Brits or the Irish?
The Irish, land of poets and bomb throwers.

A European hardly has any idea about the U.S. You were used to being spoon fed by your government waiting for the U.S. to bail you out of another mess you got yourselves into. Lazy socialist mentality.