Ace has a great post up that asks a simple question. They told us if we voted for Romney he would impose his bizarre religious beliefs on us…so why is the left imposing THEIR bizarre religious beliefs on us instead?
You know, some of us don’t join religions because we actually don’t want to have strange devotional rituals and forbiddances imposed on us.
But religion is voluntary. Government law is not. Why are thesemonsters — yes, monsters — encoding their bizarre religious devotions into law?
As I’ve said: God save us from those with no god but but bursting at the seams with Religion.
I do not want religion in my government. And that means the bizarre Leftist Cult of the State with all its priests and all its mysteries and all its devotions and dogmas and catechisms.
What religious devotions? How about this one:
It was only a matter of time. CBS’s San Francisco affiliate is reporting that Contra Costa County is taking steps to amend a county ordinance to include e-cigarettes in their Secondhand Smoke Protections provisions
Third-Hand Smoke?….bizarre
A high school banning AXE body spray….bizarre
High school principal calls off Honors Night because it could be ‘devastating’ to students who missed mark….bizarre
New rules for visitors to St. Mary’s County public elementary schools ban hugs and homemade food to anyone other than a parent’s own child….bizarre
Meanwhile the New York Daily News who today said if we don’t support a assault weapons ban we want dead children, has this to say about the soda and cigarette ban nanny Bloomberg wants:
By gently and cleverly combatting some of the more aggressive effects of addiction and corporate marketing run amok, they actually make it easier, not harder, for people to exercise the choices they really desire.
They REALLY desire?
So government is the one to tell us what we REALLY desire now?
Charles C. W. Cooke has an idea:
Perhaps it could argue that we should ban certain political parties in order expand our democratic options? Or, if it really wants to put its money where its mouth is, the editorial board could propose that we censor the press in order to extend freedom of speech. Today, the paper contends:
The drink ban, had it not been overturned, would not have prevented people determined to do so from drinking as much soda as they like. Rather, it would have introduced what psychologists call an “interrupt” — a signal that triggers conscious thought — before a consumer moved on to a second 16 ounces.
And it would have banned people from buying a 32-ounce soda if they wanted one. Still, I would heartily endorse the New York Daily News taking the same approach to its newspaper. First off, it could support Bloomberg in an effort to make sure that the Daily News is not visibly on sale everywhere. This will protect consumers from “aggressive corporate marketing run amok” and allow them to make a rational choice. Then, to aid us in our selection going forward, the paper’s editors might decline to put anything on the front cover that could feasibly attract our attention.
We don’t want your bizarre religious beliefs imposed on us but as is always the case with liberals….if they don’t like it they ban it
See author page
List the PRIORITIES of the Christian religions in order of importance, then list the PRIORITIES of the liberal religion in order of importance. I’m guessing that you will find they are the reverse of each other.
God obomba with his govmint commandments.
Republicans are still sad about the last election. Most Americans chose this new “religion” as they believed their own self interests would be better served by it. Bush has still not been forgiven or forgotten.
@john:
As did the citizens of every nation that wound up a dictatorship only to see mass genocide and personal persecution.
“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 what happened.”
Norman Thomas
six time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party
@john: And the Dems exploited saps like you rather easily. The false narrative that Bush was somehow different than the last few presidents. It took root. Actually, any Rep president was going to be demonized no matter what they did, due to the infectious hatred spread by the media and entertainment into the minds of the immature and under-thinking.
Lib/Dems keep speaking about this like it’s a game (as you did), and it’s all about “winning”. That’s the issue. Those who haven’t dealt with their own issues on family and religion were easily weaponized into a mass of idiots who would vote for anyone. There trying to “beat” their dad, or beat the “religion” they grew up with but still don’t understand.
The children are running things and still infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome, i.e., a scapegoat to pin your failings on.
I want to live in a country where we both forgive and forget. I reject your childish “vengeance” b.s. The only fruit that sentiment will bear is death and destruction. Grow up, or stay home on election day and let the adults have the say in community affairs that they should. The country will be better for it.
When liberalism came onto the scene this is what it stood for:
a commitment to individual liberties
the most important function of government was to protect liberties
equality before the law
government needed to be based on political rights and on the consent of those governed
individuals should be free to engage in economic liberties without interference from the state
individual rights were inalienable and should be guaranteed in a written constitution (much like ours)
direct representation in government
the right to overthrow a monarch who abused power
The roots of their legal and political beliefs were in John Locke and the roots of their economic beliefs were in Adam Smith, both of whom who would be considered “right wing extremists” by modern “liberals”.
One area where there was disagreement was on who should have the right to vote. Some said the common people and others thought only those who owned property and were educated (perhaps they realized back then the power of vote getting with free handouts as opposed to making informed choices).
How times change the meaning of a word.
Socialists, while not opposing economic development, believed that social class was a problem and that problem arose from competition, individualism, and private property. Marx took that view to an extreme in his “Communist Manifesto” calling for abolishing private property and creating a communist society with no social classes through revolution.
Kind of sounds like the modern “liberal”?
@another vet, #6:
The problem arises when the average individual must compete with a small minority of other individuals having enormous wealth and power, and with gigantic corporate collectives—both of which are focused exclusively on fulfilling their own narrow interests.
What serves as a counterbalance on behalf the common man?
I’m always curious how those on the right would answer that question, without evasions such as The rich are individuals, too, or Corporations are people.
Democrats tend to think the counterbalance should be government.
The divide between us is wearying. It’s also deceptive. It’s a means of separating regular people so that their attention can be focused on their differences, while distracting them from the fact that they could be united to pursue a far broader range of common interests.
A dysfunctional, divided state of the nation is to somebody’s advantage. That’s why it’s being perpetuated. Somebody is benefiting from it, and that’s no conspiracy theory.
Greg, during the time we were in the printing business we watched as big national printing chains opened near our business over and over again.
Speedy Print, Kinkos, PIP and others.
But guess what?
They came in like lions but all of them went out.
And why?
They over-relied on a set type of technology while the industry kept moving forward.
Our ”mom & pop” stayed until we wanted to both retire.
From 1968 til 2013.
I haven’t been around because I’m busy looking for a new home in Utah.
Rarely do I get on line even to check email.
But the short answer is small business people need to look out for themselves.
And the risks, the long hours, the lack of a safety net are worth it.
@Greg: The logical fallacy you’ve fallen into is that some people, in any kind of cultural setting, will be tempted by money, power, prestige, etc, and abuse their power. In this case, the business executives and politicians are subject to the same pressure. So, building a “company” in the way of a bigger federal government, paid for by the people and not stockholders and investors (there investment was a choice, not an imposed tax) is not logical. Eventually there will be abusers, but no one to reign them in because they are holding the reigns. Bigger government leads to bankruptcy and tyranny–do some research and see.
Giving the reigns back to the people, in the largest capacity available, always makes for a better and more stable government. The fallacy of scapegoating business (everyone with a job is a “businessman/woman”, by the way) was a poor media device used to slander viable candidates who came from the private sector rather than public. It’s made for an ignorant population that is easy to control. People dislike their careers or place in life, so instead of aspiring to their dream, they jump ins tep with a cultural disease of mimetic rivalry, which can only lead to violence. This needs to change.
Sorry, but the above statement shows you’ve swallowed a false narrative, and indeed, support socialism. The view is fallacious and not based on data or truth. Some execs do the wrong thing . . . just like small biz owners, workers . . . people in general. Seriously, it’s downright stupid to think only the “rich” fall to narrow, self-interest. If you want to change things, live a life of integrity and lead the way for others. They get to choose to make the right, or wrong, choices. Laws and gov will not stop greed for money or power, it will only make it easier for a few thugs to insulate themselves in the top tiers of society. This is commonly referred to as “tyranny.”
Modern liberalism=progressivism=socialism=totalitarianism.
When I make enough money that I have to take a second job to be able to pay the taxes on the first income, something is WRONG.
On another note, I just saw a NYT article that the American Academy of Pediatrics has now come out to officially back gay “marriage”as (get this) ‘good for the children of gay parents’.
Now you know why I dropped my membership to the AAP over a decade ago. They are all leftwing politics all the time, and I will not give them my money. It is disgusting.
@Greg:
Who have you competed against and for what? I consider myself an average person and don’t find myself competing against a corporation. As an example, if I apply for a job I have to compete against other individuals wanting the same job. In some cases, the government does step in and play favorites forcing the corporation to choose based on matters unrelated to who is best qualified.
Look at some of your favorite POTUS’s speeches. He fits the bill to a ‘t’. So do most of those on the left usually with regard to class warfare, you know, anyone who makes more money than ‘you’ do must be a thief or someone evil. And whose common interests are we talking about? Your common interests? Mine? We have strong differences of opinion on just about everything. You have shown a strong willingness to weaken the Constitution to further empower the government. I do not have the same view.
Which usually means using the power of government to impose their views on everyone else. And how far do you think government should go in making this happen? Massive regulations? Seizing control of private enterprise and having 100% control of everything or should they have control of most things or just some things? Spreading the wealth until it’s evenly distributed? Firing up gulags or camps to put dissenters and rich people in?
@Nathan Blue, #9:
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. It hasn’t been in the news, but it probably should have been.
Just yesterday, a provision that would give corporate purveyors of genetically modified produce immunity from inconvenient Federal court orders made it through the Senate. This was accomplished by burying the provision in H.R.933–the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and 4 Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013. You can find it there as Section 733. It has been nicknamed The Monsanto Protection Act.
There was a related bit of news that also got minimal attention in the U.S. this past January: Uncovered, the ‘toxic’ gene hiding in GM crops: Revelation throws new doubt over safety of foods. The introduction of GM crops has been strongly resisted in Europe. Not because of what they’ve known there, but because of what they don’t know.
So tell me… Why should we trust Monsanto any more than we should have once trusted the tobacco industry? Why should we trust the financial industry? Or the pharmaceutical industry? Or any enormous corporate entity, where the the decision makers can reap short-term rewards while leaving someone else to deal with the long-term consequences? Why should we trust them to self-regulate, or trust the free market to keep the public safe? Consider: The GM crop industry has already taken steps to protect themselves from free market forces: They’ve successfully lobbied to prevent product labeling that reveals GM produce content. The market isn’t allowed to choose, because consumers are not allowed to know.
I don’t think this sort of thing is really about business, in the sense that most honest business people normally think about it. The problem is something else. The real issue has been deliberately obscured, to make it politically harder to deal with.
Liberals are polytheistic–this is but one of many.
@Greg: That’s a good point, and I don’t have an easy answer. I was upset over the ACA because, after doing research, I saw it was a product of companies lobbying for their own self-interest, namely United Healthcare. UH is making lots of money, though not because the public, or market, “demanded” their services–they were brought in by the government. I don’t see government as a hedge to corruption, but rather just another piece for people to use for nefarious ends.
Monsanto: It’s a tough issue because they are fighting cultural fads and the ignorance out there concerning GM crops, but they can succumb to corruption all the same. Monsanto has been around for a long, long time. Most never knew all the work and progress they’ve made through the decades, but enjoyed the fruits. Now we have the “organic” fad that is big with some (but not all) people. There are some good points, but a complete reactionary response to modern agriculture isn’t mature, or well thought out. There’s got to be a balance beyond “Monsanto, bad . . . low-yield hipster-grown veggies, good” . . . People would starved by the Billions if we abandoned GM crops.
However, GM crops need to have a close eye on them, but a scientific one. Those who advocate “labels” are doing so because they are against Monsanto (just another blindly scapegoated entity, singled out by the spirit of the age) and want to foment a general point of view that matches their own. We have the FDA, so if you are saying the FDA can’t protect us already, why would “more” government be the answer?
In any case, the question is how do we stop people from doing the wrong thing? We don’t.
Freedom is still a radical concept. I don’t put Europe on a pedestal, and I suggest others don’t as well. They are not “ahead” or “advanced” as compared to us, and too many in the country act as though we should follow their lead.
Free-market capitalism works, but you are right about companies protecting their self-interests. From United Healthcare and the ACA, to the Monsanto Protection Act, the companies are being allowed to manipulate the government.
So, does more or less government allow for this? That’s a good question.
On Tuesday, FL Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz worried that prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being “priced out” of a good meal.
BUT…..At the carry-out cafe in the Cannon Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz has her office, you can get an 8oz bowl of Ham and Bean soup for $2. You can buy gourmet sandwiches and wraps for around $5.
http://radining.compass-usa.com/ushouse/Documents/Menus/Cannon.pdf
They could go ”off work site” and pay more.
Or they could bring their own lunches.
How POOR are these aides of Debbie’s?
Wasserman Schultz’s top aide earns around $160k a year.
She pays two additional aides around $120k a year.
She has five additional aides who earn between $60-100k a year.
This is a woman in the House of Representatives.
That’s $680,000 a year in aides!
For ONE piddly House member!
@Nathan Blue:
Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops can and have contaminated non-Monsanto crops with their genetic alterations. This is not a little issue when (1) You don’t want your crop adulterated because you are an organic gardener or you grow crops for the seed industry. (2) Monsanto goes after you for patent infringement after pollen drift from their genetically modified plants has contaminated your crop through the simple effects of nature. If I were a judge, I’d throw out infringement lawsuits by Monsanto on the grounds that their own product is responsible for the so called infringement, and find instead for the innocent farmer.
Note that the above issue has nothing to do with the topic. It’s another attempt from Greg to hijack a discussion. If this is something he feels strongly about, perhaps Greg should instead submit it to Curt for honest discussion, and stop changing the flippin’ subject.
@Ditto: #16
If people like Greg and other libs had to stay on topic, all they would have to do is save their ORIGINAL comments and copy-and-paste from then on, since they keep repeating themselves.
The tragedy is, the hijack works, every time. How many comments back is the last one on-topic, do you think?
Why don’t you that love to feed the trolls go to USENET where your kind is tolerated.
Interesting. I have gone back and read every word at least once. (Several times in several cases because every time a comment referred to a previous comment, I went back and read that comment again. Sometimes that causes a further back track so I had to consciously suppress the urge to “not need to go back. Again.”.
It is my opinion that the hijack occurred at and in #16.
As we used to say in the netnews workd: YADATROT. The notion of politics-as-religion is one I have argued for years. I do not know if I was the first to make the connection, I will tell you that when I did, I didn’t know that anybody else had.
I first had the notion crystallize when family members (some of whom I place a distance to the left of Kim Jong Un or maybe even to the left of Hanoi Jane Fonda) insisted that I must read Al Gores “An Inconvenient Truth” — a title used, probably because of the copyright on “The Watch Tower”. There is stuff being pushed in that religion that is of a character that not even Aimee Semple McPherson or Dr. Eugene Scott would not have tried to peddle. (I do think the Bakker heirs might have a case.)
Just in the last day or two I realized that the followers of Margret Sanger fit the model to a “T”. I was reading reports of somebody (memory fails me) talking about how this “thing” becomes a human……I thought I did a good job with it–let me go see if I can find it….
[time passes]
Yes, here it is (on Facebook, if you are not addicted you might not be allowed to see it at https://www.facebook.com/ajax/sharer/?s=99&appid=2309869772&p%5B0%5D=1817479203&p%5B1%5D=155269624637462 #. I was talking about a link to an article about Melissa Harris-Perry (not clear to me who she is) at http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/23/msnbcs-melissa-harris-perry-on-unborn-human-life-what-it-costs-to-have-this-thing-turn-into-a-human/ #.
I said (quoting my self):
I do understand well that these are subsets of liberalism
CURT
I like the ACES QUESTION,
they told us if we vote for ROMNEY, HE would impose his bizarre religious beliefs on us,
so why THE LEFT IMPOSING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON US?
WELL WITH ROMNEY THE 47% WOULD HAVE LEARNED TO FISH,
THEY WOULD HAVE LEARN TO WORK,
THEY WOULD HAVE LEARN TO MAKE THEIR BREADS,
THEY WOULD HAVE LEARN TO COOK AND SELL THEIR FOOD,
THEY WOULD HAVE LEARNED WHAT THEIR TALENT GIF OF GOD ARE,
BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE LEAD THEM TO FIND IT WITHIN THEMSELVES,
WE WOULD HAVE TEACH THEM THE VALUES OF WORK AND PRIDE OF EARNING,
WE WOULD HAVE MADE JOBS COME TO AMERICA BY ENCOURAGING THE MAKER OF JOBS TO COME AND CREATE JOBS TO HIRE THEM FOR A LIFE TIME, SO TO MAKE THEM FEEL WHAT IS SECURITY IS WHEN YOU HAVE A FAMILY WHO DEPEND ON YOU.
YES WE MISS THE BOAT , THE ROMNEY BOAT CAME FOR US, WE LET HIM GO.
GONE, NO JOBS NO NOTHING EXCEPT A CAMPAIGNER FOREVER TALKING
@Smorgasbord: Christian religion and the religion of most liberals (also Christian) are not mutually exclusive. Proscriptions and prescriptions are religious when the have a supernatural source (like God)—for example edicts by Fundamentalist Christian politicians and their flock, which tries to keep people from having abortions and using birth control—now this is an example of interference by religion in government.
@Nathan Blue: You should read “Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism”. You might find that you agree with the thesis—if you can get past you ideological leanings.
@Larry Sheldon: Is this worse than being monotheistic, and believing in a false god?
LiberalI[objectivity]
you sure are not objective, to give such a false opinion,
the CHRISTIANS are not trying to stop it,
but they don’t want no part of it, because they know it is so wrong,
and they have the wisdom to see it
anyone with a right mind is seeing it and see past further in time
the consequenses,
that is the problem with the LIBERAL FLOCKS, they follow blindly so to not have problem to be force to debate with the leaders who hold the ropes tied on them.
@Nathan Blue: Research is showing that GMO seeds are not actually yielding an increase in food availability. Please pay attention to FreeSpeechTY and LinkTY to get balance information.
@ilovebeeswarzone: How do you define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’—probably according to some Christian authority.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): #21
I let moral values run my life, and they won’t let me do things that I have seen and heard religious people do and say. One thing I have wondered: Does God allow cussing in Heaven? I am hearing it more and more her on Earth. I have even heard parents brag about their kid’s cuss word.
I’ve got a simple solution for the abortion issue: At a presidential election, let’s put the issue on the ballot. Since only women can get pregnant, only women could vote on the issue. The majority wins. Problem solved. I would like to see a lot of the major issues settled by a national vote.
Liberal1 [objectivity]
the word ” WRONG” is a word which scream in your gutts,
and if you have enough of those gutts,
you stand out and shout, STOP IT, don’t do it, don’t drink that,
don’t eat that, don’t say it, don’t vote them in,
get him out, don’t listen to EVIL. and last but not least,
don’t you know it is wrong?
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): I I have watched “Democracy”–it is not liberating.
Capitalism does not need to be cured. It needs to be tried.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
To what does “this” refer? Almost everything is worse that being monotheistic, since that is the optimum state. I don’t know much about believing in a false god, having rejected all offers in that area.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity)
I can’t answer for anybody elsee and the question was not asked of my, but I try not to let things like that get in my way.
I don’t define “right” or “wrong”–they were defined by the set of ethics and moral values I received as a child. For sure, some them are founded on Judeo-Christian teachings, but many are much bigger than that, some are as big as Natural Law.
the LOSERS AT FOX was said to be the shame of AMERICA watching the ASTRONAUT get in the RUSSIAN
SPACE SHIP to go in space at a price multi millions,
OBAMA is the loser for engenering that shame
from the start of his position,