We Surround Them

[Calabrio]

WE Surround Them
February 11, 2009


Share this with your friends and family...

Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?

Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?

Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.

We surround them.

So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.


The Nine Principles

1. America is good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.


And 12 Values:

Twelve Values

* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Friendship

You Are Not Alone

If you agree with at least seven of those principles and the 12 values, then you are not alone. Please send a digital version of your picture to: wesurroundthem@gmail.com and then stay tuned over the coming weeks to see how we intend to pull back the curtain.

These 12 Values, coupled with the Nine Principles -- and I'm telling you we can solve any problem.

You know, our problem right now is we're looking to Washington to solve everything for us. And then, "Oh, we've got to bail all these banks out. We've got to do this. We've got to do that."

We're making decisions so rapidly right now and we're not pegged to any principles. We're not pegged to any values.

I think the problem that we are suffering from is greed and envy and a lack of honesty. So how do we solve that? The values and the principles will solve everything for us. We can figure out anything.

Reverence: Do we have real reverence in America anymore? Are people quiet? Are they listening to the small, still voice ever? Do you ponder things?

Thrift: That was one of Benjamin Franklin's biggest things, thrift. Do we do that? Are we are thrifty on anything anymore? We live in a disposable society and it shows in the way we treat our environment to our stuff. We just get another one. It's time to change that habit.

Personal responsibility: My gosh, I'm responsible for me and you're responsible for you. We'll help each other out. But I'm responsible. And you know what? This goes all the way to the biggest problems that we have.

Everybody is blaming Madoff or the bankers or Wall Street or Washington. But you know what? You know who ultimately is responsible for everything that we're going through? Us. We, the people.

It really is, in many ways, our fault, because we have un-pegged from principles and values.

YouTube - Glenn Beck We are Not Alone, WE SURROUND THEM

YouTube - We Surround Them, Step 2, Part 1

 

[foxpaws]

Go ahead, send your photo to the "We Surround Them" group.

And then go out and really do something - work in a campaign, give your time at your favorite charity, coach a baseball team, work in a soup kitchen this Saturday.

Really make a difference, truly get involved in your community, your church, your government. Because Glenn Beck (who this comes from) is right with number 9 - the government works for us, and only we can change it. America is a reflection of those who care, care enough to give of themselves to make real difference in the face of America.

And the change you want won't happen if all you do is send your picture to Mr Beck.

You may be mad as he!!, but sending in a picture to Mr Beck is a quaint symbol. You might feel better about yourself, but, unless you actually physically do something, let's face it, you'll be disappointed.

Glenn should end his little pledge drive, not with a bad rip-off of one of our original flags, but with an urging to get truly involved, roll up your sleeves involved. Don't depend on TV pundits to speak for you - you can speak for you. Your voice, your actions, your time will speak far louder than Beck's collection of photos.

 

[Calabrio]

You may be mad as he!!, but sending in a picture to Mr Beck is a quaint symbol. You might feel better about yourself, but, unless you actually physically do something, let's face it, you'll be disappointed.

As a liberal propagandist, I would certainly expect you to understand the importance of "quaint symbol"ism. And while there are next steps in this campaign, the importance of even the symbol shouldn't be lost.

I'll elaborate on that point shortly, but let me first ask you, do you agree with at least seven of the nine points? And in anticipation that you might ask, I do. All nine.

 

[foxpaws]

As a liberal propagandist, I would certainly expect you to understand the importance of "quaint symbol"ism. And while there are next steps in this campaign, the importance of even the symbol shouldn't be lost.

I'll elaborate on that point shortly, but let me first ask you, do you agree with at least seven of the nine points? And in anticipation that you might ask, I do. All nine.

Yes, as a human I know the importance of quaint symbolism, and how it makes you feel empowered. However, usually it reinforces a false sense of accomplishment. It helps fulfill the need to 'belong', without having a real commitment involved.

And I haven't seen the next steps - I would caution Mr Beck - if things get spread out too long you lose the momentum of the moment. And if the next steps don't involve 'involvement' but rather just creating anger without a solution, it will seem like once again like sour grapes, rather than constructive action.

I agree with 8 out of 9 - but I need more clarification on number 8-
It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

I agree with that very much (it is in my 8 out of 9) - but if you listened to his video clip when he introduced this, I might have problems with his exhortation regarding 'Being american means you can't speak out against constitution and our country' or something similar, I didn't quite catch it - did you Cal?

 

[Calabrio]

Yes, as a human I know the importance of quaint symbolism, and how it makes you feel empowered. However, usually it reinforces a false sense of accomplishment. It helps fulfill the need to 'belong', without having a real commitment involved.

As a liberal, you're not aware of this-
but since the dominant media has historically been overwhelmingly liberal. Americans with traditional views have long felt that they were a minority in this country. The education systems is overwhelmingly biased and one side. Media and "journalists" are biased and one sided.

And since our society tends to avoid discussions of politics in public, traditional Americans were left with the impression that they were part of a shrinking minority.

Even today, if you just consume the mainstream media, you'd swear that the country was gung-ho for socialism... and that Obama might have been the result of a virgin birth.

Not being a lone voice IS empowering to most people. And we're about to see a radical change in government, one that isn't being discussed, debated, or even talked about in the open. We're seeing stealth coup taking place right now, and no one seems to know the scope of it.

And I haven't seen the next steps - I would caution Mr Beck - if things get spread out too long you lose the momentum of the moment. And if the next steps don't involve 'involvement' but rather just creating anger without a solution, it will seem like once again like sour grapes, rather than constructive action.

You said "once again." You're perpetuating a previous, false, claim that conservatives only issue complaints directed against liberals and fail to offer solutions to the problems liberals create. That's not true, you routinely fail to recognize that a federal response or federal involvement is not necessary component for all solutions, unless it includes "getting out of the way."

I don't know what the "next step" is- but I do have a tremendous amount of respect for Beck.

I agree with 8 out of 9 - but I need more clarification on number 8-
It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

I agree with that very much (it is in my 8 out of 9) - but if you listened to his video clip when he introduced this, I might have problems with his exhortation regarding 'Being american means you can't speak out against constitution and our country' or something similar, I didn't quite catch it - did you Cal?

He makes a distinction between UN-American and ANTI-American.

Anti-American speech in the open isn't un-American.

So, which one do you take issue with?

 

[foxpaws]

but since the dominant media has historically been overwhelmingly liberal. Americans with traditional views have long felt that they were a minority in this country. The education systems is overwhelmingly biased and one side. Media and "journalists" are biased and one sided.

Cal, so you believe it is only conservatives who have 'traditional American values'?

And as far as the 'once again' concerning 'sour grapes'. I believe that this last election was as much a vote against the right that seems to not connect with the middle America voters as it was a pro-Obama vote. I think they saw bitterness on the right, and looked for another answer.

And I listened to the Beck video again and this is what he said regarding point number 8...
It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion. My opinion or others may however be anti American. Anti American rhetoric would be anything that would be destructive to the constitution and our country, as the founders understood it, unless you want to change that.
It sounds a little like he is going against the first amendment. We are allowed to question the constitution, heck, the founders were pretty sure we would change it. But then at the end Beck says 'unless you want to change that'. So, Anti-American rhetoric is OK in some cases????

What do you think he is talking about Cal?

I don't completely agree with number 7. One of those good in theory, perhaps not so great in practice.

And you will gleefully skewer me on this - please do... I can't wait.

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, so you believe it is only conservatives who have 'traditional American values'?

I think traditional values are inherently conservative. You can't support radical and broad institutional and societal changes and still be traditional, can you?

There are self-identified liberals who share most of these values as well. When the divisive framing and wedge tactics are lifted, I find that there's a tremendous amount of common ground amongst most reasonable people, not evident in politics. And the country is much further to the right of the radically left national Democrat party.

I would argue that those people were no longer being represented by the National leadership or dominant forces within the Democrat party any longer. The Democrats are demonstrating that they are a radical left party, far out of step with the vast majority of their voters.

And as far as the 'once again' concerning 'sour grapes'. I believe that this last election was as much a vote against the right

The Republicans lost because they were perceived as acting too much like Democrats. Clearly, they didn't give the spending abilities of the Democrats enough credit. After a few weeks of Democrat rule, we're seeing how badly everyone underestimated the destructive judgment, deception, and spending of the Democrats could be.

And I listened to the Beck video again and this is what he said regarding point number 8...

I don't know why you're having trouble with this distinction.
Neither have anything to do with the first amendment.
He is making a distinction concerning language. I'm not one to play coy, so beyond what I've already said, I'm unsure what problem you're having here.

The unAmerican/anti-American, distinction is made to clarify that dissent is not unAmerican and not necessarily antiAmerican.

I don't completely agree with number 7. One of those good in theory, perhaps not so great in practice.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

And you will gleefully skewer me on this - please do... I can't wait.

Before any skewering need take place, why not just explain why you think that the government should force me to be charitable? Is that in the constitution somewhere I missed? Was that implied somewhere in the founding documents that my labors should forcefully be taken from me and redistributed to others based upon a politicians perception of their need?

 

[shagdrum]

Cal, so you believe it is only conservatives who have 'traditional American values'?

At a philosophical level, that is what defines conservatism; the traditional values of the country of origin. I would not expect you to know that because of your lack of deep analysis into anything concervative and because most colleges don't explain that in their undergraduate political philosophy classes.

But that is the easiest way to understand conservatives at a philosophical level; tradition and traditional values from the country of origin. That is why conservatism is unique to each country. Russian conservatives are basically old school socialists, and American conservatives are basically quazi-Classical Liberals.

Modern egalitarian liberals are more concerned with changing society to fit a certian ideal, and concern for tradition is really not there. Conservatives are more cautious. Conservatives are view change through the lense of the precautionary principle and modern liberals are much more wreckless with change.

So, if any party encompasses "traditional american values" it is, by definition and philosophy the conservative party. The modern liberal party doesn't concern themselves with tradition but with party political power.

And I listened to the Beck video again and this is what he said regarding point number 8...

It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion. My opinion or others may however be anti American. Anti American rhetoric would be anything that would be destructive to the constitution and our country, as the founders understood it, unless you want to change that.​

It sounds a little like he is going against the first amendment. We are allowed to question the constitution, heck, the founders were pretty sure we would change it. But then at the end Beck says 'unless you want to change that'. So, Anti-American rhetoric is OK in some cases????

Unless he is saying that certian speech should be restricted by the federal government, he is in no way going against the 1st amendment. And working to change the constitution through the perscribed method is not un/anti american in any way.

However, working to change the constitution through the courts (or in any other manner that is not through an amendment process) circumvents the law and the constitution; it disregards the rule of law and is distinctly anti-american, by any reasonable definition.

I'm not one to play coy...

Definition of coy:

1 a: shrinking from contact or familiarity <'tis but a kiss I beg, Why art thou coy? — Shakespeare>
b: marked by cute, coquettish, or artful playfulness
2: showing reluctance to make a definite commitment <a coy response>​

Under either of the highlighted definitions, you are the definition of coy.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, my traditional values are fairly strong Cal. I doubt if you would find many ‘liberals’ who aren’t. You can define the far left that way, but the rank and file, no.

Just as ultra conservatives would be hard pressed to embrace ‘traditional’ values as perceived by ‘centrist Americans’ as well.

As you said, there is a tremendous amount of shared ground among reasonable people, and reasonable politicians on both sides. However, both sides have their fringe to contend with.

I don’t do what you do however Cal, and paint the entire Republican party with the fringe brush. Most Republicans are reasonable people. Most Democrats are reasonable people.

Most Americans have traditional values. Left and right. Are either of us well represented by our party leaders? I suppose that comes down to left and right. I believe most of the left is still happy with Obama, the Democratic congress, may be another matter. Did you think the right was well represented by McCain? Do the Republicans in congress represent the right well?

I believe the Republicans lost because they had only negativism to sell. They attacked Obama repeatedly, but were perceived as not having a direction other than that. It was difficult, or really impossible, for McCain (or any Republican) to run on how well the party had done recently, and he didn’t distance himself quickly enough, or far enough from Bush. A lot of politics is 'what have you done for me recently', probably almost as important as 'what are you going to do for me in the future'. I don’t think most people would have confused McCain’s policies with Democrats policies.

If either party alienates their base, or more importantly ‘centrist America’ we will see it in 20 months. I think people are far more aware of what Washington is doing these days. With the economy plummeting, people of all income brackets and party affiliations are looking to Washington to see what their representatives will or won’t do. I think if anything, this last election, and the crisis we are facing has really brought politics to the forefront of many people’s thoughts.

So, on to number 7….

No, of course forcing you to be ‘charitable’ isn’t in the constitution. Nor is the funding of roads. Should your labors be taken from you and redistributed to others in need – in a perfect world, of course not.

However, in this world…

I would love to be able to wean ourselves away from having the government be the arbitrator of and collector of charitable funds. If the populace of the United States would take up the mantle and continue in kind (not in the same amounts to the same places – that is impossible, but ‘in kind’ referring to the monetary amount and man hours provided by the government). I don’t think that would happen. Personal opinion, mostly reference by the amount of time I give and the amount of money I give. I give lots, in both cases, however, it falls far short of what would be necessary to ‘pick up the slack’ if the government didn’t take part in this arena. Would I give more if my taxes were reduced by 5%? Probably not that much. Would I give more time – I can’t, I give all the time I can spare.

So, here is one person (me) who would be a negative drain on the system as it stands. Not because I am taking, but because I wouldn’t be able to make up the difference in what would be taken away if the government didn’t contribute.

I don’t think that many more people would give more time, or more money to fill in the gap. I could be wrong, and perhaps there could be ways to find out. Have the government stop funding the arts. This is one area where it isn’t ‘life and death’ and lower our taxes by the amount saved. It would be an interesting sociological study. Would the arts survive? Would access to the arts become restrictive?

I would think that the arts would suffer greatly. Schools in my area have lost much of their arts funding. The slack hasn’t been made up by the community. The music and arts programs continue to decline, and in some schools are completely gone. I don’t think it is because the parents in those schools don’t want those programs, but they can’t afford the dollars necessary to put those programs back into their schools, even though our property taxes have been reduced by not having those programs. Do promising young musicians and artists get lost though the cracks, perhaps, but not as likely as the exposure will be missing to the general student body. Where that hurts us down the road is hard to say.

In a society as large and complex as ours, I don’t think that it is feasible to depend on the populace to fund these things. With this many people, most of society is removed from the poor, the sick, the needy.

I vote in politicians who I believe will take the funds and use them how I would like to see them used. This of course, doesn’t always happen, but I try, and as a whole I am not displeased with their decisions. When I am they know about it.

I'm not one to play coy...

Oh Shag, sorry, it was Cal that said he wasn’t coy (and I believe him… you probably should too).

I would never, ever be so foolish as to state that I was one ‘not to play coy’. Heck, you have bequeathed upon me in the past the attribute of being smart… to claim I wasn’t occasionally ‘coy’ wouldn’t be smart by any means…

 

[Machspeed]

Great responses and comments, Calabrio.

As for Glenn Beck, I have much respect for the guy, as I believe he speaks both common logic and truth. Fox News needs to set him up prime time.

 

[fossten]

With 5 million NRA members, the libs will definitely be surrounded when it counts.

You forgot number 10:

I believe in stocking up on ammo.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, my traditional values are fairly strong Cal. I doubt if you would find many ‘liberals’ who aren’t. You can define the far left that way, but the rank and file, no.

Personal is much different the philosophical. At the philosophical level, modern liberalism flat out rejects tradition. Most people, personally do not, but can buy into an ideology that does. That is why there can be a bit of a cognative dissonance between people's personal views and their political views; they have no clue of the philosophical basis for the various political ideologies.

IMO, that is why, in my experience, most "pro-choice" people I know are, at a personal level pro life. They would personally never get an abortion or want a baby they fathered aborted, but support the "right to choose".

It is a big factor in why the country is consistently center right and only occasionally swings left when they are duped into doing so.

Just as ultra conservatives would be hard pressed to embrace ‘traditional’ values as perceived by ‘centrist Americans’ as well.

Traditional values are not a matter or perception, they are a matter of historical fact. You can't spin that.

As you said, there is a tremendous amount of shared ground among reasonable people, and reasonable politicians on both sides. However, both sides have their fringe to contend with.

You cannot equate the two. You have to oversimplify and mischaracterize both "fringe" elements to do so. The principles, beliefs, ect. are completely different.

I don’t do what you do however Cal, and paint the entire Republican party with the fringe brush. Most Republicans are reasonable people. Most Democrats are reasonable people.

What he is saying is accurate. a very large portion of democrat constituents describe themselves as conservative. That is why every democrat presidential candidate since at least Clinton has had to be two-faced and say one thing when their record shows another.

Norman Thomas, (1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, said it best:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened​

I believe most of the left is still happy with Obama

And that is the problem. More and more people who voted for him who actually pay attention and are not devote leftists are getting less and less happy with him.

Did you think the right was well represented by McCain? Do the Republicans in congress represent the right well?

Of course not! That is why they were both rejected.

I believe the Republicans lost because they had only negativism to sell.

Agreed. You can't win an election (at least at the presidential level) by simply getting people to vote against the other guy (Kerry proved that pretty well); you have to give them a reason to vote for you.

A lot of politics is 'what have you done for me recently', probably almost as important as 'what are you going to do for me in the future'.

Unfortunately, due to the level of ignorance and misinformation (as well as the number of voters you, frankly intellectually unqualified to vote) this is true; at least for a large number of fools.

I think if anything, this last election, and the crisis we are facing has really brought politics to the forefront of many people’s thoughts.

Most crisis' do that....for a short time. Obama's popularity and "honeymoon" period of his presidency is a two edged sword. On the one hand, it makes it easier for him to push his agenda through, on the other hand more people are watching and not liking what they see.

Should your labors be taken from you and redistributed to others in need – in a perfect world, of course not.

However, in this world…

I would love to be able to wean ourselves away from having the government be the arbitrator of and collector of charitable funds. If the populace of the United States would take up the mantle and continue in kind (not in the same amounts to the same places – that is impossible, but ‘in kind’ referring to the monetary amount and man hours provided by the government). I don’t think that would happen. Personal opinion, mostly reference by the amount of time I give and the amount of money I give. I give lots, in both cases, however, it falls far short of what would be necessary to ‘pick up the slack’ if the government didn’t take part in this arena. Would I give more if my taxes were reduced by 5%? Probably not that much. Would I give more time – I can’t, I give all the time I can spare.

So, here is one person (me) who would be a negative drain on the system as it stands. Not because I am taking, but because I wouldn’t be able to make up the difference in what would be taken away if the government didn’t contribute.

I don’t think that many more people would give more time, or more money to fill in the gap. I could be wrong, and perhaps there could be ways to find out. Have the government stop funding the arts. This is one area where it isn’t ‘life and death’ and lower our taxes by the amount saved. It would be an interesting sociological study. Would the arts survive? Would access to the arts become restrictive?

I would think that the arts would suffer greatly. Schools in my area have lost much of their arts funding. The slack hasn’t been made up by the community. The music and arts programs continue to decline, and in some schools are completely gone. I don’t think it is because the parents in those schools don’t want those programs, but they can’t afford the dollars necessary to put those programs back into their schools, even though our property taxes have been reduced by not having those programs. Do promising young musicians and artists get lost though the cracks, perhaps, but not as likely as the exposure will be missing to the general student body. Where that hurts us down the road is hard to say.

In a society as large and complex as ours, I don’t think that it is feasible to depend on the populace to fund these things. With this many people, most of society is removed from the poor, the sick, the needy.

I vote in politicians who I believe will take the funds and use them how I would like to see them used. This of course, doesn’t always happen, but I try, and as a whole I am not displeased with their decisions. When I am they know about it.

Actually, before we had a huge welfare state, American' charity and taking care of the poor was in many ways much more effective because it was much more proactive and personal. You cannot simply give people money, that presents a whole host of new problems and is a net negative if your goal is to give people a hand up.

Just look at the absolute failure of the War on Poverty. It's goal was to reduce and (hopefully) in poverty in America. Instead, it created a whole subculture of people dependant on the government and arguably ruined the black family unit.

If you are going to try and help someone, you need to do it on a personal level (which means non-government, especially at the federal level), be proactive about it and demand that the person being helped, help themself.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough: The Tragedy of American Compassion

Oh Shag, sorry, it was Cal that said he wasn’t coy (and I believe him… you probably should too).

I would never, ever be so foolish as to state that I was one ‘not to play coy’. Heck, you have bequeathed upon me in the past the attribute of being smart… to claim I wasn’t occasionally ‘coy’ wouldn’t be smart by any means…

Opps! My bad.

 

[foxpaws]

IMO, that is why, in my experience, most "pro-choice" people I know are, at a personal level pro life. They would personally never get an abortion or want a baby they fathered aborted, but support the "right to choose".

Isn’t, at it’s core, ‘pro-choice’ based in traditional American values? Don’t infringe on other’s choices? That is why it was available during the time of the founders. And why they didn’t feel a need to address it.

It is a big factor in why the country is consistently center right and only occasionally swings left when they are duped into doing so.

I doubt if it shows in election make-ups that we are consistently center right. What historical timeframe are you looking at Shag, what are you basing that on?

You cannot equate the two. You have to oversimplify and mischaracterize both "fringe" elements to do so. The principles, beliefs, ect. are completely different.

Yes, their beliefs are completely different, but you don’t have to mischaracterize to show that on either end of the political spectrum, neither side has much to do with ‘traditional’ American values.

I don’t do what you do however Cal, and paint the entire Republican party with the fringe brush. Most Republicans are reasonable people. Most Democrats are reasonable people.

What he is saying is accurate. a very large portion of democrat constituents describe themselves as conservative. That is why every democrat presidential candidate since at least Clinton has had to be two-faced and say one thing when their record shows another.

So, are you saying that most democrats aren’t reasonable – I was just stating that they were – I am confused…

And that is the problem. More and more people who voted for him who actually pay attention and are not devote leftists are getting less and less happy with him.

That is not a problem – for the right – that is a solution. If that is the case, in 20 months we should see a big swing in congress.

Of course not! That is why they were both rejected.

However, McCain and the Republicans running for Congress is what the rest of America bases their opinion on what the Republican party stands for. The party needs a revamping – and quickly if they are going to be contenders in the 2010 election. The Republicans alone can’t vote in their candidates, just as the Democrats alone can’t get theirs elected, they both need to speak to central America.

A lot of politics is 'what have you done for me recently', probably almost as important as 'what are you going to do for me in the future'.

Unfortunately, due to the level of ignorance and misinformation (as well as the number of voters you, frankly intellectually unqualified to vote) this is true; at least for a large number of fools.

What is this??? I am intellectually unqualified to vote? I really don’t understand this… And, it is pretty common for people to look at historical content when voting – if you felt you were better off during the last regime, you will more like to vote in the same. Reagan understood that - ‘are you better of now…’.

Just look at the absolute failure of the War on Poverty. It's goal was to reduce and (hopefully) in poverty in America.

Shag, I do agree the War on Poverty did little – poverty rates have declined only about 5% (17 to about 12 percent).

However, if you look at the charts – something very big happened to reduce poverty from the consistent 50%+ in the 20s and 30s to drop to the approximate 20% in the late 50s.

It was the war on elderly and disabled poverty. Many older Americans and Americans with disabilities were living in poverty before Social Security. Now, SS has become a ponzi type scheme – but it has helped those most in need. We will need to wean ourselves away from it, as it will able to only fund fully to 2041 (if the government pays back what it owes SS), and then it will have to reduce benefits significantly. But, as a government economic tool to decrease poverty it did work.

People weren’t helping out those two groups with ‘charity’ before SS was enacted. It is in those situations that Government assistance was warranted.

I believe that one-on-one help for employable poor works extremely well, I am heavily involved in the Women’s Bean Project, which has a decent success ratio. In fact over 60 percent of the funding comes from the items that are produced there (the rest is privately funded – if you want to give… ). The welfare system doesn’t work.

But, I also feel there are segments of the population, (the elderly and disabled) which are not employable, that will require government funds so they can live in dignity. There wouldn’t be enough charitable dollars or volunteer time to be able to effectively help those large segments of the population. Especially if they were summarily handed over to ‘society’ to take care of. We would need to wean the ‘retirement’ portion of SS to other types of investments, and somehow privatize the Medicare system. How you would privatize Medicare – I don’t have a clue. How you keep the elderly population ‘healthy’ affordably, without assistance? Those would eventually remove the elderly from most government assistance, but not the disabled.

And there are lots of other things – Arts, museums, zoos, that receive government funds. I feel these are necessary to ‘invest in America’. But, I assume you shag are only talking about ‘people’ charity. It appears that Mr Beck was referring to all charity… but maybe he was only talking about ‘people’ charity.

 

[luxuryrules]

With 5 million NRA members, the libs will definitely be surrounded when it counts.

Versus 150 million americans? Even with guns, getting outnumbered 30 to 1 is pretty slim odds.

Can't forget, too, that there are liberals with guns.

 

[foxpaws]

Can't forget, too, that there are liberals with guns.

 

[shagdrum]

Isn’t, at it’s core, ‘pro-choice’ based in traditional American values? Don’t infringe on other’s choices? That is why it was available during the time of the founders. And why they didn’t feel a need to address it.

You are spinning here and justifying it with unfounded speculation. You have no clue why the framers "didn't feel a need to address it."

However, the whole of idea of pro-choice goes explicitly against the constitution they created by distorting that constitution in an equivocation known as "substantive due process". You have already shown in this thread that you won't believe what you don't want to believe when it comes to that idea.

I doubt if it shows in election make-ups that we are consistently center right. What historical timeframe are you looking at Shag, what are you basing that on?

It doesn't need to , nor can it, show purely in election makeups. All that shows is repubicans vs. democrats, and personality voting, neither of which directly show anything about ideology. Party affiliation only shows...party affiliation. At best you can only infer ideology. Peronality voting shows nothing about party or ideology.

You know what I am refering to, unless you really have a very short term memory. I posted something a few weeks ago about a poll showing that the country is still as conservative as it was before Obama and is consistent with what it has been for decades.

Yes, their beliefs are completely different, but you don’t have to mischaracterize to show that on either end of the political spectrum, neither side has much to do with ‘traditional’ American values.

Conservatism as an ideology is defined by traditional American values. Are you really trying to argue that the ideologies on the right don't have much to do with traditional American values? Do you not know what and ideologue is?!

Here is the definition:

An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.
​

So, yes, you do have to mischaracterize to show that conservatives don't have much to do with traditional american values.

You are already doing that by trying to redefine those values to fit your liberal view. Hence your abortion argument at the start of this post. You are working to redefine what traditional american values are so that it fits at least as much with your view as it does with conservatism.

That is not a problem – for the right – that is a solution. If that is the case, in 20 months we should see a big swing in congress.

Don't worry, we will. I only wonder if you will be humble enough to admit you were wrong when Obama's plan fails and the conservative plan we will get after the switch in control actually works.

However, McCain and the Republicans running for Congress is what the rest of America bases their opinion on what the Republican party stands for. The party needs a revamping – and quickly if they are going to be contenders in the 2010 election. The Republicans alone can’t vote in their candidates, just as the Democrats alone can’t get theirs elected, they both need to speak to central America.

No argument there. The republicans in washington are a joke. They hardly represent their base, and the media demonizes conservatism. So most people who don't go out of their way to find true examples of conservative thought have no idea what conservatism (as a political ideology) stands for or how it truely justifies it's agenda.

Still, this country is center right. All we need to do is accurately convey our message and counter dishonest and decietful counterattacks from the left with honesty, and things will turn around.

What is this??? I am intellectually unqualified to vote? I really don’t understand this… And, it is pretty common for people to look at historical content when voting – if you felt you were better off during the last regime, you will more like to vote in the same. Reagan understood that - ‘are you better of now…’.

Sorry..."you" should have been "who". I have my dyslexic moments.

I didn't mean to say you are misqualified to vote. I was saying that we have too many people who are intellectually unqualified to vote.

Right,. They look at historical context. But how is that framed? That is very important to know. People only tend to look at history (on a societal level) very superficially. The economy was good, now it is bad, or vice versa. Why the economy is bad (or good) is where the politicians get to play.

Many people (especially younger and less educated) pay enough constant attention throughout the years to know that for themselves. They then accept what the media tells them, which is almost always favorable to democrats.

However, if you look at the charts – something very big happened to reduce poverty from the consistent 50%+ in the 20s and 30s to drop to the approximate 20% in the late 50s.

Actually, it was the economic boom after the Great Depression and into the 1950's.

It was the war on elderly and disabled poverty.

What "war on elderly and disabled poverty" happened in the late 1950's? The Great Society didn't happen until LBJ in the 1960's!

And what effected the elderly and disabled the most out of that was medicare and medicaid. They didn't go into poverty due mounting medical costs. Social security also helped. But both of all those programs have balloned and are starting to blow up.

 

[foxpaws]

You are spinning here and justifying it with unfounded speculation. You have no clue why the framers "didn't feel a need to address it."

No, shag I don’t have a clue on why the framers’ didn’t need to address abortion, I know they didn’t discuss it. None of them discussed it at all-that I can find. I do know that it was allowed during that time frame, and that it wasn’t commented on. There wasn’t any debate about it. And I am not saying that pro-choice goes with or against the consitution, I am saying that imposing my choice onto someone else does go against the constitution, in this case, because it hasn’t been defined as a criminal issue. I am not allowed to impose my choices, such as religion, onto anyone, that is protected within the constitution.

But, we have been there, done that and gotten nowhere.

It doesn't need to , nor can it, show purely in election makeups. All that shows is repubicans vs. democrats, and personality voting, neither of which directly show anything about ideology. Party affiliation only shows...party affiliation. At best you can only infer ideology. Peronality voting shows nothing about party or ideology.

You know what I am refering to, unless you really have a very short term memory. I posted something a few weeks ago about a poll showing that the country is still as conservative as it was before Obama and is consistent with what it has been for decades.

I do remember the survey. Doesn’t mean I agreed with it Do people really vote that often against their beliefs? Doubtful. Most Democrats are not that far left, and most Republicans are not that far right – I think that people vote the middle, because they are the middle, and the candidates reflect that. You only get a few zealots on either side.

So, yes, you do have to mischaracterize to show that conservatives don't have much to do with traditional american values.

Shag – I was talking about the ‘ends of the political spectrum’. Those fascinating fringes (as stated before) that both sides have to deal with – we have the socialists on the left – you have the John Birch Society on the right (well, actually a better allegory to socialism is fascism – but we shouldn’t go there). Neither of which encompasses traditional American values… But, they are the fringes of both sides. Now apparently you believe that most of the Democratic party is made up of the far left – I guess socialists. Fine, they aren’t and if most Republicans continue to spew that, we will have an easy time of it in 2010. It is, and sounds irrational. I don’t believe that most Republicans secretly are John Birchers – therefore I can logically point out the differences without having to go to radical extremes. The right is ill served by saying that the Democrats are socialists. The centrist in America doesn’t believe that – and if you start of the conversation that way, they will shut you off, and not listen to anything else you have to say.

This is a little free political advice – don’t create a monster of the enemy if they really aren’t – it is a whole lot like crying ‘wolf’…

Don't worry, we will. I only wonder if you will be humble enough to admit you were wrong when Obama's plan fails and the conservative plan we will get after the switch in control actually works.

So, I will, when it comes to pass. I will even state that Obama’s plan failed, if it does, and Dems get in anyway (stranger things have happened). Hopefully you are working away for a campaign. I couldn’t believe it when I was contacted last week about the upcoming US Senate seat that will be opening up here in 2010… To start doing some regional ground work (not running – wouldn’t run, can’t run). Blick - 20 months...

Still, this country is center right. All we need to do is accurately convey our message and counter dishonest and decietful counterattacks from the left with honesty, and things will turn around.

So, good luck with that – things really do need to change within the Republican power structure for that to happen. Your party is very divided right now, and the power struggle could be another blow to the party in the next election.

Many people (especially younger and less educated) pay enough constant attention throughout the years to know that for themselves. They then accept what the media tells them, which is almost always favorable to democrats.

You will see that media shift though Shag – it has started. It will be interesting to see what happens with the right can no longer cry about the media. I doubt if it will happen completely for the next election, but for the next presidential election it should. Hopefully the Republicans can embrace technology, and discover how overwhelming newer media streams are. It looks like they are doing it at ground level, now the party just has to get behind it.

And it will be the youth – currently empowered as shown by the last election. They don’t get their information from traditional media source – so, if the right wants their voice to be heard they really need to exploit new media.

Actually, it was the economic boom after the Great Depression and into the 1950's.

That was a small amount of it – but most of it was getting the elderly out of the bottom income brackets with SS. If you look at the age breakdown of the poor, it shifts dramatically in the 50s – away from seniors.

What "war on elderly and disabled poverty" happened in the late 1950's? The Great Society didn't happen until LBJ in the 1960's! And what effected the elderly and disabled the most out of that was medicare and medicaid. They didn't go into poverty due mounting medical costs. Social security also helped. But both of all those programs have balloned and are starting to blow up.

Shag – the biggest single item in helping out the elderly poor and the disabled was Social Security, like I discussed – which was FDRs – by the time the war was over, and enough elderly were covered it was rolling into the 50s. FDR saw the need, and made a program. I was using the euphemism of “war” that everyone uses regarding poverty. And as I said there are going to be huge problems with those programs, and we need to be weaned away from them. SS will be somewhat difficult to pull into a private sector type situation, but Medicare will be very difficult. And you have to deal with AARP, which will be becoming stronger as baby boomers move into the retiring age brackets. That voting block will be increasing over the next couple of decades as that huge population group ages, as well as lives longer. Can the right deal with AARP? It will eventually be a make or break situation in certain parts of the country.

 

[Calabrio]

..I'm not worried about a big swing in the Congress come 2010.
I'm more worried about what kind of country it will be in two years.

Foxpaws, though claiming honest, is probably quite proud of Obama for passing a massive bill like this under the guise of a stimulus, while conservatives complained about pork, when in reality, the thing just laid the ground work for universal health care and more socialism.
Next up we have the TARP 2.0 and the next budget.

After that, we are going to be staring at an economic collapse.

And while we teeter on the verge of another Keynesian Depression, lets also hope Mexico doesn't crash, the Middle East doesn't get real hot, oil shipping isn't disrupted, or there's isn't a terrorist attack within the country.

 

[fossten]

Versus 150 million americans? Even with guns, getting outnumbered 30 to 1 is pretty slim odds.

Can't forget, too, that there are liberals with guns.

Think before you speak.

Better yet, google "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising."

Do you think that every NRA member carries just 1 round?

Do you think that the other 150 million, as you put it, know who the 5 million are?

Do you think that the other 150 million, as you put it, are willing to fight to the death for their right to freedom?

I GUARANTEE you that if there's a 30-man zombie team advancing on me, as you put it, I can take them ALL.

And I won't be alone.

 

[hrmwrm]

I GUARANTEE you that if there's a 30-man zombie team advancing on me, as you put it, I can take them ALL.

And I won't be alone.

then you oughtta be in iraq fighting with the other tough guys.

 

[fossten]

I already served my country, your non sequitur notwithstanding.

 

[luxuryrules]

Think before you speak.

Better yet, google "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising."

Do you think that every NRA member carries just 1 round?

Do you think that the other 150 million, as you put it, know who the 5 million are?

Do you think that the other 150 million, as you put it, are willing to fight to the death for their right to freedom?

I GUARANTEE you that if there's a 30-man zombie team advancing on me, as you put it, I can take them ALL.

And I won't be alone.

Heh, I just made a real quick and uneducated guess on 150 million. I figured you'd pick on that number if you really were going to argue with me.

For what it's worth, the answer to your questions is predominantly no. But we can tell who those five million are, as they will largely be the ones with the NRA bumper stickers all over their cars.. or they will be the ones shooting at the liberals

While the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is a good example, you might be better off referring me to the Battle of Tondibi and the role that Morocco's arquebusiers & cannons played in a battle against ridiculous odds. Illustrates your point much better. I appreciate the advice about thinking before I speak - I will think better of it next time.

 

[fossten]

For what it's worth, the answer to your questions is predominantly no. But we can tell who those five million are, as they will largely be the ones with the NRA bumper stickers all over their cars.. or they will be the ones shooting at the liberals

I'm just curious...how many NRA stickers have you seen? Because I know quite a few 'gun nuts,' and none of them have any identifying stickers on their cars. Now maybe the government could try to strongarm the NRA for a list of its membership, but that kind of move could have dire consequences, as it would alert everyone that something was really wrong.

Oh...FYI...

I'm not an NRA member. But I am as ardently pro-gun-rights as anyone on this planet. I wonder how many there are like me...?

 

[lincolnx2]

I already served my country, your non sequitur notwithstanding.

I didnt know you served Fossten, I have some respect for you now.

 

[fossten]

I didnt know you served Fossten, I have some respect for you now.

My battalion went to the first Iraq War.