Are Democrats Less Patriotic than Republicans

Naw, that would turn out like all the rest of these kind of debates FTR, I'd try to base my postion on facts from the neocon's own documents and policy papers, translated "their own words" from the 80's to the present and you'd base your postion on their masterful propaganda campaigns spread by their "public private partnership" comrades in the mass media. I've learned that non stop propaganda and fearmongering is more powerful than the truth in most cases.


It's enough for me to see them being exposed little by little for the liars and traitors to this country that they really are to the majority of people outside this board. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I don't believe that the two opposing sides can be characterized as Socialism and Capitalism. I believe they are "The rich get richer" versus "help the poor." Think about it. All those programs you are calling socialism include MedicAid, Medicare, food stamps, social security, etc.

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Luk 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor [thy] rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
Luk 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
Luk 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

2Cr 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

2Cr 9:9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.

Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jam 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jam 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.


Which side was Christ on? It's obvious from even a brief reading of the New Testament He was on the side of the poor. In fact He told the Rich Young Ruler to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. His deciples certainly weren't wealthy. So, do you characterize Christ's teachings as "socialism?"

 

No. Christ never advocated using the force of government to help those in need. Christ's teachings were about individuals willingly helping those in need.

 

Your class seperation ideology doesnt bear itself out in the economy of America. People in this country are not oppressed because the rich take everything. Which is communist rhetoric.

Your application of scripture does not match the context of the author. Jesus told the rich young ruler to go and sell all that he had because it was his priority in life and it was the very thing that kept him from devotion to God.

As a member of the SBC I take part in some of the biggest benevolence in the world. But Christ did not mandate taking by force what someone else owns to redistribute to someone else through secular, inefficient government programs. It costs more to run the programs than it provides for the people.

I am apposed to ss, ma, mc, and income tax as well as big government. The government should have limited responsibilities, and our representatives should be there about half the time.

Government poverty programs do more to hurt people than help. And these programs are all ideas based in communism. It just gets relabeled to allow for incrimentalism. Capitalists see this and oppose it.

 

Originally Posted by fromtheright
poncho,

You might want to try another thread. The point of my post was not to debate neoconservatism but simply to make the point I made about Burnham. I'm not even sure that Burnham would be categorized as a neo-con, unless all former Trotskyites are somehow neo-cons. Care to debate that?

Now, how is it you would debate the question I asked (i.e., whether all former Trotskyites would be classified as neo-cons) with "documents and policy papers" from the 80's to the present? Sounds to me like you can't (or won't, which is fine) debate that question. If that's the case, just say so, rather than changing the subject again.

 

Okay so you can't be bothered to go back and read all the neocons documents and policy papers from the 80's on up. What's new?

 

I'm just not sure what that has to do with the question I posed.

 

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, especially given the fact that you cite cnsnews.com as a source. Of course, Brent Bozell is always accurate and never biased.....

 

Greetings FTR:

That is an easy one - no: not all former Trotskyites are neo-cons.

I trust that all is well with you,
BiR (back home in Tampa this week)

 

BiR,

Try telling that to poncho (tho I'm not sure what he really believes since he hasn't directly answered that question). All is going OK here. Please stay safe in your travels. Or are you getting to stay home for more than a 24-hour period?

 

Well I would certainly be in favor of all of the new-capitalists that do not want their SS checks and Medicare.

Then maybe it would not go bankrupt because we have entitled too many people and aborted to many future workers so that the workforce COULD NOT support the programs anymore.

And it is not that I am greedy - I just want to be able to retire. And the SS money that I have paid out is a part of my retirement planning.

 

It's ironic that many people celebrating Independence Day would probably have been on the other side, if they had been living at the time.

Conservatives were pretty much all tories; I can't think of a liberal among them.

 

Exactly. In fact that's the definition of a conservative, someone who supports the status quo. Liberals are defined by a desire for change.

 

Excellent point. I would add that it goes farther than that.

I used to be a hard-core radical right-wing conservative, a College Republican, a dittohead, and a political activist. Then one day I woke up and actually listened to what I was saying. Now I am a LIBERAL who finds that the more LIBERAL I become, the happier I am. I always thought that the Left was angry, yet now that I am a Leftie, I see that it is some of those on the Right that are filled with anger.

Look at the topic of this discussion thread. Why would anyone feel as though they have the moral authority or the right to question the patriotism of the opposing political view? What is the source of all that anger?

Regards to you and yours,
BiR

 

It's because to Republicans, every day is the 4th of July. Now with Democrats, every day is the 15th of April.

 

Funny... I'm the exact reverse (enlightened Liberal turned Conservative,) and I find that all the Liberals I encounter are usually the most unhappy people I meet. Actually, now that I think about it, I can't think of a genuinely happy Liberal that I know. Even when I look into the Subaru's with the "No W" stickers on them, they all have a mean, unhappy face on. Maybe liberals are different out here in California (specifically, the Bay Area and surrounding vicinity.)

 

Weren't those Californian scowls the result of experimentation in the 60's 70's? LSD . . . and . . .



Cheap shot - I know that the scowls are more related to NOT knowing Jesus and fearing a total lack of self purpose and self worth . . .

 

I think the whole country and certainly Christians would benefit from listening and considering other people's point of view. You don't have to accept what they're saying just discuss the issues in a more reasonable (Christian) way.

How can Christians who have a very dogmatic political perspective ever hope to evangelize those of the opposite point of view?

 

This is not unlike a stereotype perpetuated by Rush Limbaugh. Although I am not questioning your own experence, that is precisely what I believed when I was a "dittohead." In contrast, that is not the experience I have had at all. In my job I travel extensively, and my trips to California (LA, San Diego, and San Francisco - my favorite city) were radically different from what you offer. I found many of these "Liberals" to be amiable and congenial. My experience in Vermont (another "bastion" of Liberalism) was even more positive.

Despite what you have seen in your own life, even you cannot argue that the vast majority of the "conservative" talk show hosts / authors / personalities are seemingly in a perpetual state of anger. Look at Rush Limbaugh: when was the last time you had a laugh on his show that was not at the expense of someone, or was the product of something that was mean-spirited? What about Sean Hannity? His show is even worse than Rush's program. Moreover, look at his show on FoxNews weeknights at nine. Who can argue that his demeanor is more belligerent and confrontational than that of Alan Colmes? Of course there is Bill, who is "looking out for you." Have you ever noticed that his talking points are usually negative? Then of course there is my personal favorite: Ann Coulter. Who could ever argue that she does not give the impression of being in a continual state of anger (so much so, in fact, that whenever I attempt to discuss her comments on this board I usually cannot provide links to them due to the vile language and/or subject matter).

Many times I see much of what these people say and write find its way in this forum, despite claims (some of which are vehement claims) that these people don't listen to these personalities. In some cases, the comments are verbatim to what I hear from noon to three (I willingly admit that I listen to Rush). Some of the most right-wing people in the politics forum are continually making confrontational comments, and imply a very angry undertone when read (of course, it is hard to deduce this in most cases, but there are some where it is not hard at all). Other comments seemingly imply a mean-spirited attitude (there is one right here on this page). Like I wrote in the previous post, look at the subject matter of this discussion. Why would anyone be compelled to question the patriotism of anyone on the other side of the political spectrum?

Like I said: I used to be one of those dittoheads. Then one day, I simply woke up and listened to what I was saying......

God's Blessings to you and yours,
BiR