Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

by Cato Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:59 am

Aaron wrote:Less then 1/3 of the people agree with your beliefs of the bible guiding us Cato. 2/3rd's are offended by it.

I guess then they'll have to be offended. The principles I try to live by, principles like, working, minding my business, living as peacefully as possible with others, taking care of my family, and helping my neighbors as I deem fit are principles I have gleaned from the bible. It is the bible that has taught me that I am entitled nothing and that I and I alone will choose and bear responsibility for my destiny.

What galls me is that while others demand I bow to their views and beliefs and are more than willing to use the force of law to require my submission. I don't make that demand. I tell you what I believe and you can accept it or reject it. Simply it is your choice. Which brings us back to our discussion. If you aren't willing to address the root cause of the entitlement society we live today, then you might as well plan to continue with the same fiscal mess we are in right now.

by Aaron Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:03 am

Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote:Less then 1/3 of the people agree with your beliefs of the bible guiding us Cato. 2/3rd's are offended by it.

I guess then they'll have to be offended. The principles I try to live by, principles like, working, minding my business, living as peacefully as possible with others, taking care of my family, and helping my neighbors as I deem fit are principles I have gleaned from the bible. It is the bible that has taught me that I am entitled nothing and that I and I alone will choose and bear responsibility for my destiny.

As I said before, are those same principals not taught in the Koran, the Śruti and Smriti? Are they not taught by Muhammad, the Dalai Lama, Buddha or even non-religious individuals? Why do you have to make a Christian thing out of basic human principals? And you ask why you offend so many? It's not the principals you teach but your insistence that they originate from the New Testament bible when that simply is not true. Buddah was teaching many of those principals 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.

Cato wrote:Which brings us back to our discussion. If you aren't willing to address the root cause of the entitlement society we live today, then you might as well plan to continue with the same fiscal mess we are in right now.

Failure to adhere to New Testament biblical teachings in not the solution. True reform is.

by Cato Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:16 pm

Aaron wrote: As I said before, can those same principals not taught in the Koran, the Śruti and Smriti? Are those very principals not taught by Muhammad, the Dalai Lama or Buddha? Why do you have to make a Christian thing out of basic human principals? And you ask why you offend so many? It's not the principals you teach but your insistence that they originate from the New Testament bible when that simply is not true. Buddah was teaching many of those principals 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.

And God himself instilled those principles before Budda

Aaron wrote:Of course you demand it by your continued insistence that you and only you are right when your opinion is rejected.

This comment is a grasp at straws in my opinion. Maybe it makes me a fool, but not an authoritarian. Because I hold to my principles is not a demand that others follow suit. Not one time have I ever or would I ever demand the govenrment enforce my views on others. One other thought here is that if I'm an authoritarian are you not the same in your insistance that I'm wrong in my view. Are you not then demanding I change my view and beliefs.

Cato wrote: Failure to adhere to New Testament biblical teachings in not the solution. Reform is.

Reform won't ever come with a change in principles. A change in principles won't come without people first realizing that the mess we find ourselves is the direct result of the entitlement, me first mentality and those that have used that mentality to obtain power and control. It isn't law that will bring change it is a change of heart. A change in heart isn't going to happen without first a honest desire for real change.

by Aaron Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:32 pm

I'm curious Cato, do you think we should reduce military spending at all?

by Cato Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:19 pm

Aaron wrote:I'm curious Cato, do you think we should reduce military spending at all?

I don't understand what that has to do with our discussion, but the answer is Yes. Military spending could be cut substancially, by getting our miltiary out of the middle east and bringing home our military from every nation they now have them stationed. Don't misunderatnd me, we need a very strong military, one that would deter anyone from attacking us, but we just can't continue to wage war on three fronts, be the police for the UN, nor can we continue to use our military to provide a defence for other nations.

by Aaron Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:44 pm

We agree that entitlements have to be addressed but you fail to see how you are alienating anyone and insist on preaching government in accordance to New Testament Christianity, claim I am grasping at straws and started down your "the government is forcing their beliefs on me rant" that I've heard a thousand times so the way I see it, this discussion has went as far as it can.

Unless, of course you want to start changing font colors and sizes and babbling inchoenterly and if that's the case I'll leave you to the other drooling fool. If you want to have an adult discussion, we can agree to disagree and move on.

My points regarding defense spending is that, speaking on behalf of conservatives, Paul Ryan put out a spending plan that in addition to ignoring the holy grail completely ignores military spending, which accounts for about $600 billion annually. I'm curious as to what you think of that.

by Cato Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:24 pm

Aaron wrote:We agree that entitlements have to be addressed but you fail to see how you are alienating anyone and insist on preaching government in accordance to New Testament Christianity, claim I am grasping at straws and started down your "the government is forcing their beliefs on me rant" that I've heard a thousand times so the way I see it, this discussion has went as far as it can.

You've have now complete lost me. Here was what I posted that I think you are replying to:

Cato wrote: This comment is a grasp at straws in my opinion. Maybe it makes me a fool, but not an authoritarian. Because I hold to my principles is not a demand that others follow suit. Not one time have I ever or would I ever demand the govenrment enforce my views on others. One other thought here is that if I'm an authoritarian are you not the same in your insistance that I'm wrong in my view. Are you not then demanding I change my view and beliefs.

You once accused me of not reading your posts. I am wondering now if you've managed to read what I said. You said that I was forcing my views on others, by stating I'm right and everyone else is wrong. While doing something like that may make someone a fool, it doesn't make them and authoritarian. I will stand by the principles I hold dear, however. If you think they are good and worthy of adhearing to, fine, if not, well that is fine also. You have free choice to believe as you desire.

Aaron wrote:Unless, of course you want to start changing font colors and sizes and babbling inchoenterly and if that's the case I'll leave you to the other drooling fool. If you want to have an adult discussion, we can agree to disagree and move on.

First, I'm not like Sam. I don't even understand what brought on the comment. Secondly, I have been adult about this converstation. I have told you what I believe. I can't force you to accept my views and I ain't going to try. However, that doesn't change what I beleive.

Aaron wrote:My points regarding defense spending is that, speaking on behalf of conservatives, Paul Ryan put out a spending plan that in addition to ignoring the holy grail completely ignores military spending, which accounts for about $600 billion annually. I'm curious as to what you think of that.

I don't know what Paul Ryan has or hasn't said about military spending. All I know about his plan is what I have gathered from news, which has been mainly focused on entitlements. Frankly, right now, I don't have time to study his spending plan.

I remind you, you asked me if I thought miltiary spending should be cut and I stated yes it should and where I thought it should be cut, at least to start with.

by Aaron Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:40 pm

Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote:We agree that entitlements have to be addressed but you fail to see how you are alienating anyone and insist on preaching government in accordance to New Testament Christianity, claim I am grasping at straws and started down your "the government is forcing their beliefs on me rant" that I've heard a thousand times so the way I see it, this discussion has went as far as it can.

You've have now complete lost me. Here was what I posted that I think you are replying to:

Cato wrote: This comment is a grasp at straws in my opinion. Maybe it makes me a fool, but not an authoritarian. Because I hold to my principles is not a demand that others follow suit. Not one time have I ever or would I ever demand the govenrment enforce my views on others. One other thought here is that if I'm an authoritarian are you not the same in your insistance that I'm wrong in my view. Are you not then demanding I change my view and beliefs.

You once accused me of not reading your posts. I am wondering now if you've managed to read what I said. You said that I was forcing my views on others, by stating I'm right and everyone else is wrong. While doing something like that may make someone a fool, it doesn't make them and authoritarian. I will stand by the principles I hold dear, however. If you think they are good and worthy of adhearing to, fine, if not, well that is fine also. You have free choice to believe as you desire.

I read your post and yes, that is the comment. I do not believe I am grasping at straws so we will have to agree to disagree.

Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote:Unless, of course you want to start changing font colors and sizes and babbling inchoenterly and if that's the case I'll leave you to the other drooling fool. If you want to have an adult discussion, we can agree to disagree and move on.

First, I'm not like Sam. I don't even understand what brought on the comment. Secondly, I have been adult about this converstation. I have told you what I believe. I can't force you to accept my views and I ain't going to try. However, that doesn't change what I beleive.

Continuing the conversation and making mindless, meaningless comments would make us both like Sam. I have no desire to go. I'm simply saying that if you do, you will have to take it up with him and not me.

Aaron wrote:My points regarding defense spending is that, speaking on behalf of conservatives, Paul Ryan put out a spending plan that in addition to ignoring the holy grail completely ignores military spending, which accounts for about $600 billion annually. I'm curious as to what you think of that.

Cato wrote:I don't know what Paul Ryan has or hasn't said about military spending. All I know about his plan is what I have gathered from news, which has been mainly focused on entitlements. Frankly, right now, I don't have time to study his spending plan.

When you get a grasp on it, or on Obama's, then perhaps the conversation can continue. For now, the way I see it, unless we want to start acting like babbling monkeys, as we've either agreed or not, there's not much left to say.

Cato wrote:I remind you, you asked me if I thought miltiary spending should be cut and I stated yes it should and where I thought it should be cut, at least to start with.

I ask for a reason. We agree that entitlement spending is a problem. I just happen to disagree with your stated solution. As such, the next logical step in this conversation is where we spend the 2nd most amount of money annually.

by Cato Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:03 pm

Aaron,

Answering you last comment first, I am not certain where the second most amount of money is spent annually. As I said, If I could work my will, there would be an across the board 10 to 15% cut in all discretionary spending. I would then begin to phase out as much as possible any department not Consitutionally mandated.

As far as the rest of your post, you see the problem as one of fiscal control and reform, I see the issue as a social and ethical issue. It certainly doesn't look to me like either of us are going to move on our position, so I guess the best we can do is agree to disagree. I will admit however, it has been fun.

Cato

by Aaron Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:14 pm

I just don't see the point and rehashing the same statements again and again, particulary when we agree what the problems are. All it will lead to is one of us saying something slightly the wrong way and then the stupid takes over and we're both "Sam"ing it up.

by SamCogar Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:53 am

I remember buying cigarettes at 15. Most store clerks did not care. A sale was a sale. Today they card everyone, including grandfathers.

No wonder so few kids smoke.

At 18, I could drink legally. Today's kids must wait until they are 21. This does cut down on alcoholism, I suppose.

Now adults are attacking school lunches.

Peanut butter was an early target. A few children are allergic to peanuts and we must protect them even if it means no one else gets a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

But the food police are preparing to ramp up their patrols of the school cafeterias of America.

In Washington, a group wants to ban chocolate milk.

The federal government may ban ketchup at school. Too salty. Mustard and mayonnaise will be next.

In fact, the federal government wants to set the menus for all the schools in the United States in the name of healthy eating.

Do not even think of bringing in a lunch from home, as schools are beginning to ban those.

Every single one of these things makes childhood safer, but every single one also seems to make childhood much less fun.

We are not morons. We do not change things just to change them.

We have reasons for supervising every waking hour of a child's life.

But the unintended consequence may be the creation of a society of complacent people who expect to be protected from any risk 24 hours a day.

In my house, we call such creatures "pets."

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/201104150819?page=2&build=cache

by Sponsored content