![[The Brazil Times nameplate]](http://www.thebraziltimes.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 73°F Tuesday, May 22, 2012 |
|
ObservationsPosted Sunday, November 2, 2008, at 9:53 AM
A parking lot, especially on a campus, is a good place to find the topics we need to be thinking about asyoung people are so good at not being "politically correct." We adults get tainted over the years into accepting less than the ideal in our lives to the point where we no longer feel that continuing to strive for our ideals is worth the effort at times. There is nothing like walking through a parking lot and looking at the thoughts of yesterday that have continued to inspire our leaders of tomorrow.
What would Jesus bomb? An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind-Gandhi When the power of love overpowers the love of power the world will know peace-Hendrix Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves Arrogant foreign policy builds resentment, not security No Violence, Know Peace Peace and equality are moral issues Violence can never bring an end to violence. All it can do is provoke more violence-Gandhi COEXIST (a favorite of mine as the letters are all symbols of various religions) Love your neighbor Pre-emptively War is not pro life The earth does not belong to us. We belong to the earth. Wow. Where to start? If each of us can take just one of these phrases away with us and ask how we can make a difference in a small way, we can collectively accomplish great things even if we never see the results of our efforts. If each of us continues to do nothing, thinking that alone we can never change what is wrong with the world, but let the status quo wash over us, we are giving up our power. Be empowered. Start now by VOTINGif you haven't already. Then find another way to use your talents. Everybody has something at which they excel. You do make a difference both by your actions and your failure to act. …I wonder what my family would say if I put ALL of those stickers on our car? (grin) Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Connections to the world(7 ~ 8:55 AM, Jun 16)
Why rules?
Pandora's Box?
Are we spending wisely?
George Clooney Helps Brazil?
|
Email link
Read comments (15)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.thebraziltimes.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
I am kinda fond of this saying "take your money and a traveler's bag. And if you don't hava a SWORD, sell your clothes and buy one!"-Jesus of Nazareth. Luke 22:36. Even the messiah knew that there are times that you have to defend yourself, against the evil powers of this world.
Thank you, Conservative Dad!
Mankind has fought since the dawn of history. I don't think that we will ever change. I would not argue with the words of Christ, as He was advocating self-defense, but to "fight evil" depends on one's perception of what is evil. We live on a planet that has a finite limitation of resources to support life. Throughout history, mankind has myriad wars, some for outright gain but most justified by labeling the opponent as "evil". Not only in warfare is "evil" fought, but throughout the history of civilization. The Salem witch trials spring to mind, along with the Christianization of the natives of North and South America. Were these people "evil" or did they just possess something that someone more powerful or more conniving wanted? I like the advice to "follow the money" before I label something "evil". Admittedly, "evil" does exist, Hitler and many other people throughout history have been examples of that by how they treated people but not in that they were willing to fight for resources for their people. Mankind, and most animals, fights for resources.
Years ago, I read a story about a civilization that tried to conquer Earth. They were a peaceful civilization who went to war simply out of necessity; their population had outgrown their planet. They had the bad luck of Earth being the first planet they tried to conquer. They had developed faster than light travel, but, being a peaceful civilization with little conflict amongst themselves, had not developed warfare to the degree that humans have. Their space ships arrived, their assault troops loaded aboard transport and began their assault on Earth. Their defeat took a matter of hours as their troops were armed with muzzle-loading black powder firearms and their "assault craft" were lighter than air, steam-powered blimps. They did not fare well fighting machine guns, tanks, and jet fighters. Two of the few survivors had a conversation in the last paragraphs of the story. One commented that it was a good thing that humanity had never developed space travel. His companion commented that humanity did not need to develop it now as the aliens had just provided it for them. Now, the galaxy had better look out!
We must admit that we are a warrior breed; we cannot stop our competitive nature. We try to limit it with rules, but there will always be those who break the rules. We cannot having peace while rewarding competition. We compare our children, promoting competition amongst them. Comparison and competition runs throughout everything that we do. We cannot escape our nature.
But, the competition of "good" and "evil" and how those labels are assigned depends on which side you are on.
I've always looked at history as a shortened version of "his story". Most of history is written by the victors, excepting when a civilization cannot help but admit that they suffered defeat. Then, the defeat is explained in the best possible light within that civilization. The history of WW II reads a lot different in Japanese and German than it does in English….lol. Most of the same events appear in the same places, but the details vary widely.
We are what we are.
Moral Dilemma: How does one achieve equality without taking something from someone that they have won through completion and give it to someone who lost the competition without reviving the competition for the item or making the item worthless.
Take, for example, school grades. We all want our children to get "A's". But, if there were no other grades, what would be the point? There would be no comparison, no competition, and, therefore, no point in issuing a report card…………………….LOL!!!!!
Ouch, slight misuse of words in 9:49 post. "Won through completion" should read "won through competition".
Neville Chamberlain used some of the same quotes in the late 1930's. Neville would be proud of your views Jenny.
rdevil:
[grin] Do I take that as being a pacifist to extreme to avoid conflict as he did with his practice of appeasement when PM in late 1930's?
Or as one of the organizer's of the first "Special Op's" organizations who fought Hitler's efforts clandestinely without open warfare?? HMMM? LOL.
Well I'm not very clandestine as all who read this know, and though I may have pacifist leanings with regard to physical violence, I do not refrain from putting my views out there for all to see even when they are not in accordance with the majority.
Guess it's a good thing I'm not a politician for they many times refrain from putting their thoughts out in public view so they can get votes in order to remain in office to continue a watered down version of what they believe in...
If I ran, I'd never get elected.
I do respect your writings. Most people on your side can only shoot off the talking points. I am glad the election is over. I am tired of the last 8 years where the press relentlessly bashed GWB. The difference is that we "conservatives" believe that the people have spoken, and now even though the election did not come out the way we wanted, we must now unite as a country and support the elected officials that were fairly elected by the majority. FlyinLion stated about the views depending on the perspective. I am a retired warrior, who would defend this nation at the drop of a hat, and defend your 1st ammendment right to post what you do. But from what I see from our future leader, I have my doubts. The attempts to jail those in MO who had an opposing view. Kicking out members of the press corps whose parent employer endorsed the opposition. Sending the SS to a ladies home because she dared to be in opposition, and doing a background check on a private individual who was approached on the street and asked an uncomfortable question. Those are the issues that bother us conservatives. I appreciate the dialogue.
Conservative Dad- were your doubts in anyway related to the internet emails that spread filth and lies about Obama. I too backed McCain but I was appalled at the forwarded emails that were out and out lies about a man's character and background. I almost switched to Obama because of these unbelievable lies were so easy to check and unverify that it was laughable. I really have doubts about people who will believe that stuff then forward it without checking whether it is true or not. Moderates and independents evidently saw through this and went the other way. What is your view of this stuff?
Jenny-good response and it was in jest!
rdevil8: I rarely get those type of E-mails, as my friends know that A) I don't want them, and B) the first thing I do is go to snopes to verify them. The things I listed in my post were from the public news sites. They are all true. Go to google and check them out yourself. We have a bigger problem on our hands than most realize. His smooth talking won them over. But it is the content of what he has said, that bothers me. For instance, our constitution is flawed, and he would like to see it changed. It seems it is full of "negative liberties". "It says what the government cannot do to you, but it doesn't address what the government will do for you". And that the Warren court never addressed the issue of redistribution of wealth. That is frightening. Fortunately, he did not get a veto proof senate. That will be the only thing that will save us.
Conservative Dad........you and I appear to have similar background and mindset on most things.
I have to agree that our Constitution is flawed in some ways, although not in as many now as when it was written. What item, made by Man, is not flawed? Even if an item were made perfectly, Man would find a way to misuse it!
The Constitution places limitations on the government, that and defining the government is its purpose. Other than to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"; our government was never intended to do "for us"! Over the years since it was written, citizens have come to look at the government as owing someting to them, but it does not. They are as free as you and I to make a life for themselves, no more and no less. With the years of interpretation, legislation, and expectation, the government has deviated so far from what is in the Constitution in its powers that the Constitution can scarcely be recognized as the source of its power. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can take a portion of a man's wages and give them to another person because that person cannot live on his income, will not work because he can get more money from the government than he can earn in competition, and expects the government to provide a living for him? Yet, exactly that happens!
The Government has no money that it did not take from someone else, plain and simple. In the beginning, its only source of income, taxation, was limited to tariffs - the taxing of imports and exports. Real estate isn't taxed by the Federal Government which would have been one of the first sources of income considered; yet that isn't written into the Constitution. Our Government was not meant, by the Founding Fathers, to become what it is now.
You and I took the same oath, "to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". While I have been discharged from active military service, I do not recall anyone relieving me of that duty by releasing me from my oath. Others may well see it differently, but for myself, I wlll be bound by that oath until my dying day. The Constitution cannot release me from that oath, therefore neither can the Government or any man. While you and I have been relieved from parts of the oath that we took with our release from active service - we are no longer bound to obey the orders of superiors as we no longer belong within the organization and therefore have no superiors appointed over us, my view is that we are still bound by oath and honor to defend the Constituion.
One man, even the President, can do little to damage this nation, although I must concede that the person in that position has the potential to do more than any other single person. Hopefully, Obama won't and the legislature and judicial branch will stop him if he tries. You and I may, and probably do, disagree on the value and wisdom of some of President G. W. Bush's policies. He has his agenda, his plan, his knowledge, his expectations of outcomes and he has his position to fill. We, in the end, must allow the man with the responsibility to do his job, but the Constitution ensures that we can disagree with him from our point of view and make it known.
FlyinLion: Semper Fi. I respect and appreciate the history lesson in your post. I was not at all happy with the way GWB ran the show. He rarely used his veto pen, and basically gave the congress whatever they wanted. So much for checks and balance. The court scares me, mainly because of Kennedy. You know where the other 8 will fall most of the time, but Kennedy jumps back and forth. The DC gun ban was ONE VOTE away from becoming precedent. Kennedy was that vote. Had he went the other way, who knows where it would end. I mentioned to Congressman Ellsworth the last time I conversed with him that "Thomas Jefferson would be appaled at what we have done with the government". He did not answer one way or the other. You are right on the Constitution restrains the powers of government. That is the way it should be in order to maximize liberty. Reagan once said, in order to give someone one dollar of entitlement, it must first be taken away from someone who earned it. The problem as I see it, too many people expect the government to take care of them, instead of taking care of themselves. I would love to do away with Social Security but that will never happen. The "Fedzilla" (as Ted Nugent calls it) loves the money too much. Where is the SS lock box, it doesn't exist. Fedzilla has taken our money and spent it as fast as they could collect it. Why does the IRS have such fierce teeth? Not because they want to equalize the playing field, it is because the politicians need the money in order to cover their commitments. Thanks for the exchange.
I'm just glad that the USSC decided to hear and rule on the 2d Amendment, and I'm glad that they saw it the way that it reads........lol.
In UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the USSC held that a 12 gauge shotgun had no value as a militia weapon. This case was used as precedent for all kinds of restrictive laws that eliminated many firearms from the self defense market.
I carried a cut-down version of the M870 12 gauge as a back-up many times. the shotgun was in the military arsenal long before 1939, when the USSC handed down this ruling. The military now stocks them in various configurations down to a 10" barrel. The M79 had a 14" barrel, the M203 has a 12" barrel and they both can fire 40mm buckshot rounds. How that court ever decided that the shotgun was not an effective weapon has always stymied me. In combat, you throw rocks if nothing else is handy......LOL. That's still better than hand-to-hand, always the last resort.
Social Security is another thing that was a good idea gone awry. The way I understand the original concept, the funds were supposed to go into a trust fund that built up savings and interest while paying out benefits slightly below intake. As such, there would always be money in the trust. There would have been times when benefits would exceed intake, lean years where there's more people drawing than paying, but the excess money taken during the good years plus the interest would have covered the shortfall if Congress had not adopted the policy of "raiding " the Social Security Trust Fund on a regular basis. Another "safety net" made into a liability on the taxpayer by mismanagement.
The IRS………………whew! When the government wants the money………THEY WANT THE MONEY! Of all of the Government agencies, that one is the one furthest out of the bounds of the Constitution. I see nothing in the Constitution that allows the government the powers that the IRS has and do not understand how it came to exist. But, it does, so we have to deal with it or change it. I don't think we have much chance in changing it, though. I think the first time you tried, you would find yourself robbed blind on some pretext so that you would no longer be worried about the activities of the government, you would be worried about where your next meal was coming from……….lol!
I could not agree with you more FlyinLion. Our government has gone way past what the Founding Fathers intended. All in the name of entitlements, and buying votes. The Constitution was written to keep the Government from being a major impact in our lives thus maximizing liberty. Over the years, as Fedzilla got bigger and bigger, our liberties got less and less. This thing about taking our 401K's has me scared almost to the point where I am considering retiring early and get my money in some sort of off shore, swiss bank account just to keep my government from stealing it.