Instant Gratification

[Gym_Tigress]

Re: Instant Gratification

That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way Klash. I guess the simplest things I SHOULD understand, are hard for me to comprehend. I think a lot of the problem with having the two parties is regardless of the majority of commonalities in their beliefs, I still think each party has their differences within. I won't lie--I have always voted democrat because that is the party most of my beliefs are similar to. I still hear the Republicans side and have voted republican regardless of the party I claim---to some extent. Again, they really are just labels to me. I find it unfortunate that because of some of the most important issues, they can't find a common ground for the people as a whole. If they are trying to protect the individual rights of the people, then why don't they allow gay marriages? If this country is based, "In God we trust" and "freedom", then why can't gay marriages prevail all over the country and not just in certain states? Why do celebreties get less of a punishment then the everyday working public? I know that's neither here nor there and in our judicial system but it just goes to show that with money comes power. It's no different from any of the politicians. I realize I am stereotyping. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. If they are fighting for "us" (our country), then why is it that the people with the money always benefit? Another thing I don't understand about politicians is how does their personal life come into play with their job? If they cheat on their wife and get caught, does that mean they get exposed because they may be cheating somewhere in their line of work? I don't see the connection. Shoot, I think Clinton did a better job when he got some. Afterall, it's a natural thing to do and it's been scientifically proven that men think clearer and are more productive after they have been sexually active. I guess it's just one of those things that if you're dumb enough to get caught then you are not smart enough to help run the country??? Sorry, I realize I'm all over the place, but I guess I will just never understand politics and the reasons for the distress, disagreements and overall argumentive dispositions. =S

[deepsouth]

Re: Instant Gratification

Gym Tigress,
See here is an example (no offense deepsouth); Republicans that state they believe in small government and then also state that government should define marriage only support the slogan "small government"; government involving itself in needless private matters is intrusive and is in opposition to individual rights. Limited government is a role to protect individual rights and not to be intrusive against them no matter if the majority supports the intrusion or not. Our government was designed to protect the individual from the majority. Government is the use of force and should not be used to discriminate against any citizen, period, even if and especially when the majority think they are immoral.

None taken- but you must admit -Bush didn't grow it like this guys is.

[deepsouth]

Re: Instant Gratification

That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way Klash. I guess the simplest things I SHOULD understand, are hard for me to comprehend. I think a lot of the problem with having the two parties is regardless of the majority of commonalities in their beliefs, I still think each party has their differences within. I won't lie--I have always voted democrat because that is the party most of my beliefs are similar to. I still hear the Republicans side and have voted republican regardless of the party I claim---to some extent. Again, they really are just labels to me. I find it unfortunate that because of some of the most important issues, they can't find a common ground for the people as a whole. If they are trying to protect the individual rights of the people, then why don't they allow gay marriages? If this country is based, "In God we trust" and "freedom", then why can't gay marriages prevail all over the country and not just in certain states? Why do celebreties get less of a punishment then the everyday working public? I know that's neither here nor there and in our judicial system but it just goes to show that with money comes power. It's no different from any of the politicians. I realize I am stereotyping. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. If they are fighting for "us" (our country), then why is it that the people with the money always benefit? Another thing I don't understand about politicians is how does their personal life come into play with their job? If they cheat on their wife and get caught, does that mean they get exposed because they may be cheating somewhere in their line of work? I don't see the connection. Shoot, I think Clinton did a better job when he got some. Afterall, it's a natural thing to do and it's been scientifically proven that men think clearer and are more productive after they have been sexually active. I guess it's just one of those things that if you're dumb enough to get caught then you are not smart enough to help run the country??? Sorry, I realize I'm all over the place, but I guess I will just never understand politics and the reasons for the distress, disagreements and overall argumentive dispositions. =S

GT- Don't ever take what I say as an attack please, but as far as the Gay thing- this country was founded by men of Faith who believed in the Word and it that Word- Same Sex relations IS a sin and thats against the beliefs of our founding fathers

[Gym_Tigress]

Re: Instant Gratification

Deepsouth-- I know it's not an attack just as I don't attack anyone. we are all just voicing ourselves here--- it's all good! Like I said I appreciate everyone's opinion. I am very factual as far as believing what has been proven with concrete evidence and of course by historical events---to some extent. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe we have any right to say what IS a sin or what is not. That is what we are TAUGHT to believe because of some white guys who came to our land. I think that's all a justification to rehabilitate their guilt for their own sins. If God is going to punish a person for LOVING whether they are loving another of the same sex then he is a vengeful God. That's what I believe but AGAIN, something I don't understand that there is no evidence to answer. My theory is that there is a scientific reason why people may be that way. Could be hormonal or not , but seriously, who really knows? NOBODY... If you read Napolean Hill, he states that attractions between people are electric. We are all composed of atoms and when 2 people fall in love at first sight, their electrons are what magnetize each other. Over time, if they separate it could be cause for the envirnment changing, hence their electrons start to demagnetize. Again that is MY opinion. I really don't want to touch on the subject of religion because that is something that NO ONE will agree on if they have already decided on their belief. The subject we just discussed is hot too. I'm all about agreeing to disagree =)

[trip]

Re: Instant Gratification

Napolean Hill, get's my vote.

[Dzone]

Re: Instant Gratification

Napolean Hill, get's my vote.

Awesome!!!! Good to hear about my hero, Napoleon Hill. His portrait hangs in my office.

Gym-Tigress can quote from Napoleon Hill!!!yaaaaaaaa..What a woman!

[Klash]

Re: Instant Gratification

That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way Klash. I guess the simplest things I SHOULD understand, are hard for me to comprehend. I think a lot of the problem with having the two parties is regardless of the majority of commonalities in their beliefs, I still think each party has their differences within. I won't lie--I have always voted democrat because that is the party most of my beliefs are similar to. I still hear the Republicans side and have voted republican regardless of the party I claim---to some extent. Again, they really are just labels to me. I find it unfortunate that because of some of the most important issues, they can't find a common ground for the people as a whole. If they are trying to protect the individual rights of the people, then why don't they allow gay marriages?

Oh they have a common ground, it's just doesn't have anything to do with the people except taking more and more resources and freedom from them, so they can have more and more power. I think Jesse Ventura gave the best analogy; politicians are like wwf wrestlers, they go out in front of the public and act like they hate each other, then that night they go to a luxury dinner and are shooting the $hit with each other. Politicians don't really care as long as they get to keep their cush job that apparently doesn't even require reading.

As far as the gay marriage thing. Republicans are just as hypocritical as the Democrats and that is their problem. Republicans try to act like they have integrity while being hypocritical; democrats don't, which doesn't make it as obvious.

IMO, anyone should be able to marry anyone else (with the exception of dependents); government shouldn't even be involved in it.

If this country is based, "In God we trust" and "freedom", then why can't gay marriages prevail all over the country and not just in certain states? Why do celebreties get less of a punishment then the everyday working public? I know that's neither here nor there and in our judicial system but it just goes to show that with money comes power. It's no different from any of the politicians. I realize I am stereotyping. A lot of it just doesn't make sense to me. If they are fighting for "us" (our country), then why is it that the people with the money always benefit? Another thing I don't understand about politicians is how does their personal life come into play with their job? If they cheat on their wife and get caught, does that mean they get exposed because they may be cheating somewhere in their line of work? I don't see the connection. Shoot, I think Clinton did a better job when he got some.

A man's character isn't isolated to his personal life. If a man doesn't see anything wrong with promising to be sexually committed to someone and then betraying that commitment with deception. What is his motivation in committing to his spouse? He obviously wants his spouse to be committed to him or he would leave her; so he holds double standards. This is more of a problem with Republicans who preach family values and insult Democrats for their immoral social positions but then get busted phucking a campaign contributor.

Afterall, it's a natural thing to do and it's been scientifically proven that men think clearer and are more productive after they have been sexually active. I guess it's just one of those things that if you're dumb enough to get caught then you are not smart enough to help run the country??? Sorry, I realize I'm all over the place, but I guess I will just never understand politics and the reasons for the distress, disagreements and overall argumentative dispositions. =S

I think your looking at politics and isolating each issue from the whole. If you analyze each issue and ascertain what each position implies to the whole, i.e. our freedom you can't help but be a little aggravated and frustrated at peoples support for dangerous policies. There are only two opposing sides to the political spectrum, everything else is a degree of these two oppositions. You either believe each man owns his own life and the production of that life or you believe that the state (collective/community/majority) owns a man life and decides what to do with the production of that life. If you believe that you own your own life then you see government for what it is, the application of force; if you believe that individuals are owned by the state then you see government as the equalizer of property and most likely deceive yourself that it is by force and slavery.

[Klash]

Re: Instant Gratification

GT- Don't ever take what I say as an attack please, but as far as the Gay thing- this country was founded by men of Faith who believed in the Word and it that Word- Same Sex relations IS a sin and thats against the beliefs of our founding fathers

Our country was founded by men whose sole intention was to protect individual freedom; regardless of their personal faith or non-faith. We do not live in a theocracy, which is what your sentence implies. If everything that is designated as a sin in the Bible, was illegal and our justice system was built around that, we would live in a very dangerous country. Just because modern Christians choose to ignore the atrocities mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean they aren't there.

[Klash]

Re: Instant Gratification

Napolean Hill, get's my vote.

It took Napolean Hill to bring you out of the shadows, huh? Some how that doesn't surprise me! Good to see you around.

[Waterboy]

Re: Instant Gratification

To express my concerns over any government program would be redundant of what has already been said above.
However, I think before any program is passed, it should meet one very strong litmus test. Show me where in the Constitution it is stated that the government has the right to establish said program. Examples: where does it say the government should have a Dept. of Education, where does it state the government should run healthcare,set limits on a CEO's salary,etc. Most of the government departments should go back to being operated by the individual states. There would be better efficiency, so to speak, rather than all the beurocratic (sp) red tape that is so very wasteful.
I am a conservative Republican and believe in limited government as only setforth by our founding fathers and the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.