The Warlock

So, I was discussing the political landscape with a friend at work today. He is much more liberal (note I do not say Progressive!) and respectful in debate, but he brought out the one line that will drive me off the cliff in a debate: "some people just don't have the time..."

Along with the standards of "conservatives are anti-science, racists and refuse to change with the times", this line came out and it got me rather heated.

To me, that line is the single largest reason for the decline of our society!

If you want something better, YOU are responsible for achieving it. NO ONE owes you anything! If you think you do not have the time to make your own life better, as far as I am concerned you don't deserve a better life. Those who want it will make the time. Those who want to learn more can find many ways to do so WITHOUT a college degree. You can increase your skills to help you GET to that degree, but again, that is up to you to find that path. The government cannot legislate it for you.

One thing he mentioned that gave me pause was the concept of libraries being open 24 hours a day. Being the son of an educator, that sounded like an interesting concept, but then his next statement explained WHY it would not work--no one GOES to libraries as it is!

My question, therefore, is what is YOUR response to "not enough time..."? What concepts would you impress on society to engage them in doing more for themselves?

Yes, all views welcome!

Can someone (especially a Democrat) explain why Nancy Pelosi is calling for this Congressman's resignation, but would not do so with any of the Democrats who have evaded taxes and committed ethics violations with no punishment at all?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/calls-michael-grimm...

From my reading (though I COULD be mistaken!), social security is CAPPED at $116K to be taxed.

Also, you CANNOT opt OUT of receiving payments from the fund...even if you are a millionaire!

This fund is also what Congress borrows from, which is part of the reason it is failing.

Why not remove the cap, allow people to opt out and make it so that Congress CANNOT raid this fund?

With all the wealth in the nation, you have a PERFECT revenue stream right there.

The Warlock

I would love to know why anyone out there believes they should get anything for "free"! How were you raised that you think you should not have to pay for things? Where is your own sense of honor?

I do not make a high salary and there are weeks where it gets rough. Dad offers cash these days and I quite often refuse because if I do not budget right, it is on me to accept the consequences.

You look at days of old and you really have to wonder, if you were transported back in time by 50 or 100 years, do you think you could survive?

What reason can anyone give for this "free" thought so many have today?

OK, here is one for you...I kept this in Politics because this seems to be where the debate would go in most circles..

I am investigating some new work...and one company I have come across and I like their thoughts.

(1) There are requirements (of course!) for the jobs...but there are also EXPECTATIONS of skills they want you to gain WHILE EMPLOYED!

(2) They recognize how work impacts life and while requirements are not decreased, they have brought some of those tasks / requirements in house so they can be accomplished easier.

(3) They expect honesty and integrity at all levels--and define it as a core concept in their work

(4) When hiring for software positions, they do not require certifications...but it is EXPECTED for the applicant to work towards it during employment.

(5) Entry-level positions are assigned a mentor with the goal of increasing the person's skill level from day one. Upward mobility does not seem to be viewed as an opportunity or concept but a requirement.

Yes, there would be skepticism from many, but considering this company has doubled in size and is bringing more people in this year, this business model and thought process is working well for them! It also has a nice balance between a conservative mentality and a liberal one.

With all the banter back and forth between the ideologies, especially in this forum, how many of you actually look to the other side to see what of their views can be accomplished better with aspects of your own? How can wages be increased without damaging small businesses by doing this on a national level? How can we have a safety net for those in need without removing the incentive to improve themselves? How can we have a solid education system without wasting money? How can we maintain a military for legitimate defense purposes without spending too much? How do we stem the illegal immigration flow without eliminating the ability for people to come to America for something better? How do we lower the costs of health insurance--AND ACTUAL CARE!--without violating the freedoms of our citizens?

Seeing a business find success in the balance, what concepts of your opposing ideology would you embrace, using aspects of your own to enhance it?

A friend brought this up in another discussion and I an curious here.

If what I am reading is correct, the myRA concept which President Obama raised in his State Of The Union address is essentially little more than a Savings Account that is bound by the rules on an IRA and is limited to $15K.

What is the flaw that he intends to repair with this? The options are available in the private sector, so what is the reason he feels the government needs to get involved and compete against the private sector in this aspect?

Are there not enough things for the government to do already? How about some of these things that the federal government is supposed to take care of and are not doing so at present? I am no financial wizard, so I could very well be missing something, but I just do not see the need for this.

The Warlock

I am loving how liberals are all up in arms about the GOP twisting the words of the CBO report to fit their agenda against the ACA.

It is almost like they believe this behavior to be insanely wrong! Not that it has stopped Democrats from doing the exact same thing for decades...same as the GOP...and basically all politicians for centuries!

Yes, I would say the GOP terms regarding this are misleading and I would rather they not be taking this approach, but at the same time, this has been the Democratic tactic for so long it is laughable that they are up in arms about it.

If this is so bad, why are liberals NOT calling out their own party for all the lies and misleading interpretations of data?

In 2008, the GOP released their "Pledge To America", detailing the state of the nation from their point of view and their course of action to remedy it.

Within this pledge was an acknowledgement of their own culpability in the spending attitudes in Washington and their pledge to change how they consider the payment for legislation. I take this as an apology to America for the behavior.

With the advent of the TEA party movement, many on the right are learning just how angry many Americans are at the taxation and wasteful spending which has shown itself in the mentality of wanting to ensure legislation is paid for prior to passage. I am not saying they are doing the best job with it, but at least there is an attempt.

My question is: has there been a Democrat since 2008 that has taken this step? Has any Democrat acknowledged their culpability in the reckless spending attitude and made any strides to change their own mentality?

I already know some of the expected responses, but am curious if I'll see something solid.

Why is it that in today's world the left demands their version of freedom but remains voluntarily ignorant of the fact that everything in life has COST? There is nothing free in life.

The economic talk from many on the left is about a "living wage", "income inequality" and "fairness". Concepts such as "redistribution of wealth" have a great sound but many do not agree that the violations to the rights of others are not worth the supposed results.

Some concepts that are ignored:

(1) Not all people are equal in their skill levels, intelligence and earning potential. We are individuals and achieve at different levels all our lives. Some will do better.

(2) Requiring people who succeed to sacrifice their incomes because others believe they have "too much" violates the rights of those people. If you are willing to violate the rights of one group to provide rights to another, you do not truly care about the rights of either.

(3) If you make rules that increase costs on businesses, they will not increase hiring, nor will they increase wages. This is basic math, people!

(4) A living wage to you could be excessive spending to me. How do you legislate something that can change from state to state?

(5) You cannot legislate a living wage to an irresponsible person. It will never be enough.

(6) The more you want government to take from others, the more you set yourself up to become part of the "others" when government decides YOU need to contribute more!

The basic question here for those on the left is: why is taking from the successful people a good thing in your mind? Are ALL the poor just that way because of outside circumstances and not their own choices?

So, the host has apologized for her comments regarding Mitt Romney's grandson. Even though just on Twitter, it seemed sincere.

Then, one of the others apologized, "but not to the wingnuts" and stated they were surprised that they were not defended by people who support freedom of speech, such as with Phil Robertson.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but Robertson expressed a belief based on his convictions and faith. The quote was from the Bible. Some of his other quotes were odd to say the least but not smeared with hatred as the left wants people to believe. This event surrounding the Romney photo was intentionally hurtful with no concern given to the family.

Should people have defended this as freedom of speech or called it out as the racist attack it appears to be? What say you?

The liberal rant these days is that CEO's are all greedy and should not be able to make the salaries they do because it is too much and they do not need it.

Does this mean that if you want to a limit on what a person is allowed to make while working at a job they have trained for and learned to perform through education and experience that we can limit the amount of lottery winnings someone can claim in a year as well?

If a CEO cannot be allowed to earn $100 million (or whatever the salary), why should someone be able to claim a $300 million lottery winning? It is too much and everyone else did not get it, right? Why should compensation for work be "too much" yet a lucky ticket is just fine?

I saw a question just recently that asked why liberals should tolerate "intolerance" and made me think: do these types of people actually understand the definition?

Tolerance:

1.The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

2.Leeway for variation from a standard.

3.The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.

4.The capacity to endure hardship or pain.

5.Physiological resistance to a poison.

6.The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.

7.Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.

8.Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.

9.The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.

As can be seen, the definitions are wide ranging but they amount to the “tolerant” person (or group) giving their permission for a deviation from the norm (#2). If we take Yahoo! Answers as a measure, a vast majority of liberals demand “tolerance” as defined in #2, but refuse to provide the definition in #1. I find it to be arrogance in a major way as the presentation is thus: “if you do not agree with my giving permission for these different things you are a hateful person and no, I am not going to include your deviation from my perspective.”

When placed in the political spectrum, tolerance is a group of people stating that they will permit others to act as they choose so long as it is within their own views of right and wrong. If you disagree, they can and will attack you because, in their eyes, you are not allowing for their arrogant permission.

This is the generic liberal method, yet conservatives are the ones labeled as being hateful and arrogant.

Why would anyone with compassion subscribe to this level of thought?

The continued rant from many on the left regarding minimum wage is that people should be paid a "living wage".

To those who are in favor of this concept, please identify the following:

(1) What is the definition in your eyes

(2) What is included in your definition?

(3) WHO should decide what this would be set at

(4) HOW should this be enacted?

(5) Why would you demand this over paying for what a job is actually worth?

Please, be specific in your view. I may not agree at this point, but the more information I can get from those who support this, the more potential of intelligent discusison.

OK, here is a question for liberals (mostly) of Affirmative Action...

If a company's racial profile has less that 77% whites, are they guilty of discrimination against whites? The 2010 census shows the US population at 77% white, so if you are speaking of "fairness" then companies can only have 13.1% non-white employees to be "fair".

If you have more, yoou are discriminating against whites.

What is to prevent people from following the pure statistic? The truth of the matter is that no matter what, there is a higher percentage of the population that is white, so basic math prevents a balance in numbers. We have to get to the point where we base our decisions on skills and compatibility. If you have two candidates with equal skills and education, but the white guy is the better fit in personality, why is that a bad decision? Will it always be a racial issue?

This one just kind of dawned on me (yes, I can be slow...:) but the question goes out to those who try to remove Christian iconography, statements, etc. from any public areas.

I will concede I have no respect for people of this nature and the concept offends me, but I am asking this out of honest curiosity and will respond with civility and respect for different opinions as best I can...

We see many news articles about people and groups that want no mention of Christmas on public lands and buildings. Portraits of Christ must be removed. The Ten Commandments cannot be displayed. This is labelled as the so-called "separation of church and state" and is the tactic used to change freedom OF religion into freedom FROM religion.

With that being said, does it not follow that since Christmas is a Christian holiday in origin and celebration that it CANNOT (technically) be a National Holiday? By making it a National Holiday, the government is putting one religion over all others, correct? If you do not support this argument, which has logical value, how can you support (if you do) the removal of any Christian aspects from public grounds? Is it not hypocritical?

I had responded to a question about Hobby Lobby and the issue going back and forth with the ACA. This is the text of the "Best Answer" and while I do not criticize the person who answered, I thought it merited a closer examination...

"No, definitely NOT...Hobby Lobby's owners should not be able to deny legal access to birth control to their female employees nor should these employees' own religious freedoms be denied them.

Hobby Lobby ships their goods on taxpayer-funded highways, they take money for their sales from the general public and reap profits from having done so, they rely on all Americans of all faiths or non-faith and all ethnicities, and they cannot discriminate in their hiring practices either. If the whacko bird religious-extremist owners want to live in the United States they have to abide by the laws of the land---and the Affordable Care Act has been law of the land since March 2010. If they want to claim "religion" as a reason for NOT complying with established law, then let them close the store to all but people of the very same extremist "religion as theirs and hire only the evangelical extremists that believe as they do. "

Keep in mind that Hobby Lobby is a family owned corporation who is NOT forcing their religious views on their employees, nor are they discriminating against potential employees based on religious beliefs. The responder (in my eyes) loses credibility with their use of “wacko bird religious-extremist owners”. Apparently, standing up for what is important to you gives you “wacko-bird” status these days, but only for those on the right.

That said, the responder seems to feel that the company's NOT wanting to be FORCED to provide something that violates their beliefs is a violation of the employee's rights. First, refusal of this does not prevent access to birth control, it just makes it payable by the employee--same as if there was no insurance at all. The employee's religious freedom is not impeded whatsoever, so I can't figure that part out.

Next, the responder goes on to talk about taxpayer-funded and the source of funds, etc. and that the employer has to abide by the law of the land. Unless I miss my guess, refusing to lose your own rights is how laws are formed, changed and eliminated in America. The owners are taking a stand for their own rights to live free and decide the fate of their enterprise--built by them taking all the risk. The President has provided all kinds of exemptions, but a free citizen refusing to give up their rights is a bad thing?? Also, the owners are not complying through the legal process.

I am conservative and am not a fan of many liberal ideas, but many have merit and I know many liberals who are damn good people. It is when opposing views are labeled "extremist" that things get out of hand. We decide where we wish to shop all the time. We can decide if we do not like a business for whatever reason and shop elsewhere. How is forcing one group of people to violate what is important to them for the "greater good"? What happens when a conservative is in control and tries to do the same? Will liberals go against that and not accept the responses they are giving in this very case?

Main question: In this case, what is more important: forcing a company to pay for services they disagree with or allowing Americans the freedom to dictate their own course in life? We talk about rights, but rights extend up to the point where they violate someone else's.

I hear a great deal regarding "poverty wages" and the concept of a "livable" wage and was considering this and it's impact.

These concepts are defined as "being able to pay bills" which led me to the thought of "what bills" and what should this wage be since the impact would differ based on the situation, right? If you raise it at the federal level, someone working fast food with 3 kids will get less impact than a high school kid's part time job.

A livable wage for a single person at age 22 vs. a 40 year old with 2 kids is worlds apart, so where is the definition? This is the problem with trying to make things standard across such a varied landscape. The impact on the businesses will be different as well. It would impact the large corporations (and lead to price increases, no doubt) and probably decimate small business ventures.

Have there been any actually dollar amount proposals for this or is it just whining?

Here is a thought: Democrats do not like the increased use of filibusters, so my question is two-fold:

(01) Do liberals (or Democrats) believe that Democrats have never used the filibuster?

(02) If the filibuster is used a great deal to delay legislation / votes / whatever and increase debate, is that irresponsible on the part of the party doing the filibuster or is it also an indication of the opposing party intentionally putting forth nominees and legislation that will initiate a filibuster so they can use that as a political tool to attack the other party?

The so-called Party Of No is attacked for going against pretty much everything, but if legislation and nominees are considered bad and damaging to the nation, is it not their job to do so with every method available? If the GOP is filibustering against bad legislation, that is a good thing and should be supported. A filibuster against a nominee for Treasury who is a tax cheat would be a wise course of action, right?

This is theory, but should be considered: Who is doing more damage?

With the rollout of the ACA now more than a month in place, here are a couple concepts that many probably avoid / ignore if they are in favor...

(01) In the budget fight, Democrats (Harry Reid) REFUSED to negotiate on the ACA delays calling anyone in favor of those delays "terrorists". Now, the delays are being forced by the botched rollout, bad website, etc. and somehow it is still the fault of the GOP in many peoples' eyes.

(02) The ACA was uphead because the "penalties" were argued as taxes. Conservatives did not like Chief Justice Roberts' decision on this, but now, since that decision the next step arrives--they are taxes, but the legislation originated in the Senate and taxes cannot originate in the Senate, therefore by arguing that they are taxes, the lawyers for the Act have admitted that the Act cannot be Constitutional based on its origin. Has anyone seen anything from the media on this one?

(03) We have an Act, passed (in theory) by Congress and made law yet the President is using Executive Priviledge to alter said law at will to delay aspects because the planning was poorly executed, but the GOP have been wrong and "terrorists" to repeal the flawed act.

Anyone noticing a pattern here? Why should we listen at all to the media anymore? This includes Fox. The so-called protectors of the citizens are basically helping to keep us divided and unfocused.