[aldante]

Why can’t they get a heloc?

[aldante]

Why can’t they get a heloc?

[aldante]

Why can’t they get a heloc?

[aldante]

Afx said….
I do not believe that our rights come from some magical bearded dude in the clouds (unless it’s The Dude).

*****THE DUDE******
Believe it or not I saw that movie for the first time 3weeks ago!

I appreciate your post. I guess the our disagreement lies in where our collective “logic and reason” came from. To the point of this particular thread, I think that it is unavoidable that our founders held “certain truths to be self evident” and at least in part this explains the founding of this country. I will never try an foist my beliefs on others – and I don’t want theirs foisted upon me. Our government exists only by society letting it exist. I think the reason society lets it exists is some of the things you mentioned – I can’t guard my property 24 hours a day. Therefore it benefits most of its citizens. But when I have to defend my property from the government (forced health care or abuse of eminent domain) then it starts to become a foe rather then an ally. When the government threatens my privacy then it is encroaching and it needs to be pushed back. When it takes my tax dollars and bombs innocents around the world without a declaration of war it needs to be reigned in. Where is the logic in that by the way?? Innocent children dead becasue it is acceptable to (who?) not me. None of the Generals or smart guys have been able to convince most people that it is logical and yet it happens all the time. Not to mention the dead Americans. That is the benefit of the tea party (it has many problems I admit). The benefit trying to stop the run away size of Government. The disenfranchisement of our citizenry. The tea party is the body politic at its most elemental. Look at the established Republicans that it has taken down already. Speaking of O’Donnell – I loved watching Karl Rove (Devil Incarnate) squirm when she won. That was worth it right there!!!!
I think a Christine O’Donnell or a Rand Paul is far less dangerous to our society thes someone like Chris Dodd or Barney Frank!

[aldante]

Afx said….
I do not believe that our rights come from some magical bearded dude in the clouds (unless it’s The Dude).

*****THE DUDE******
Believe it or not I saw that movie for the first time 3weeks ago!

I appreciate your post. I guess the our disagreement lies in where our collective “logic and reason” came from. To the point of this particular thread, I think that it is unavoidable that our founders held “certain truths to be self evident” and at least in part this explains the founding of this country. I will never try an foist my beliefs on others – and I don’t want theirs foisted upon me. Our government exists only by society letting it exist. I think the reason society lets it exists is some of the things you mentioned – I can’t guard my property 24 hours a day. Therefore it benefits most of its citizens. But when I have to defend my property from the government (forced health care or abuse of eminent domain) then it starts to become a foe rather then an ally. When the government threatens my privacy then it is encroaching and it needs to be pushed back. When it takes my tax dollars and bombs innocents around the world without a declaration of war it needs to be reigned in. Where is the logic in that by the way?? Innocent children dead becasue it is acceptable to (who?) not me. None of the Generals or smart guys have been able to convince most people that it is logical and yet it happens all the time. Not to mention the dead Americans. That is the benefit of the tea party (it has many problems I admit). The benefit trying to stop the run away size of Government. The disenfranchisement of our citizenry. The tea party is the body politic at its most elemental. Look at the established Republicans that it has taken down already. Speaking of O’Donnell – I loved watching Karl Rove (Devil Incarnate) squirm when she won. That was worth it right there!!!!
I think a Christine O’Donnell or a Rand Paul is far less dangerous to our society thes someone like Chris Dodd or Barney Frank!

[aldante]

Afx said….
I do not believe that our rights come from some magical bearded dude in the clouds (unless it’s The Dude).

*****THE DUDE******
Believe it or not I saw that movie for the first time 3weeks ago!

I appreciate your post. I guess the our disagreement lies in where our collective “logic and reason” came from. To the point of this particular thread, I think that it is unavoidable that our founders held “certain truths to be self evident” and at least in part this explains the founding of this country. I will never try an foist my beliefs on others – and I don’t want theirs foisted upon me. Our government exists only by society letting it exist. I think the reason society lets it exists is some of the things you mentioned – I can’t guard my property 24 hours a day. Therefore it benefits most of its citizens. But when I have to defend my property from the government (forced health care or abuse of eminent domain) then it starts to become a foe rather then an ally. When the government threatens my privacy then it is encroaching and it needs to be pushed back. When it takes my tax dollars and bombs innocents around the world without a declaration of war it needs to be reigned in. Where is the logic in that by the way?? Innocent children dead becasue it is acceptable to (who?) not me. None of the Generals or smart guys have been able to convince most people that it is logical and yet it happens all the time. Not to mention the dead Americans. That is the benefit of the tea party (it has many problems I admit). The benefit trying to stop the run away size of Government. The disenfranchisement of our citizenry. The tea party is the body politic at its most elemental. Look at the established Republicans that it has taken down already. Speaking of O’Donnell – I loved watching Karl Rove (Devil Incarnate) squirm when she won. That was worth it right there!!!!
I think a Christine O’Donnell or a Rand Paul is far less dangerous to our society thes someone like Chris Dodd or Barney Frank!

[aldante]

Afx said….
I do not believe that our rights come from some magical bearded dude in the clouds (unless it’s The Dude).

*****THE DUDE******
Believe it or not I saw that movie for the first time 3weeks ago!

I appreciate your post. I guess the our disagreement lies in where our collective “logic and reason” came from. To the point of this particular thread, I think that it is unavoidable that our founders held “certain truths to be self evident” and at least in part this explains the founding of this country. I will never try an foist my beliefs on others – and I don’t want theirs foisted upon me. Our government exists only by society letting it exist. I think the reason society lets it exists is some of the things you mentioned – I can’t guard my property 24 hours a day. Therefore it benefits most of its citizens. But when I have to defend my property from the government (forced health care or abuse of eminent domain) then it starts to become a foe rather then an ally. When the government threatens my privacy then it is encroaching and it needs to be pushed back. When it takes my tax dollars and bombs innocents around the world without a declaration of war it needs to be reigned in. Where is the logic in that by the way?? Innocent children dead becasue it is acceptable to (who?) not me. None of the Generals or smart guys have been able to convince most people that it is logical and yet it happens all the time. Not to mention the dead Americans. That is the benefit of the tea party (it has many problems I admit). The benefit trying to stop the run away size of Government. The disenfranchisement of our citizenry. The tea party is the body politic at its most elemental. Look at the established Republicans that it has taken down already. Speaking of O’Donnell – I loved watching Karl Rove (Devil Incarnate) squirm when she won. That was worth it right there!!!!
I think a Christine O’Donnell or a Rand Paul is far less dangerous to our society thes someone like Chris Dodd or Barney Frank!

[aldante]

Afx said….
I do not believe that our rights come from some magical bearded dude in the clouds (unless it’s The Dude).

*****THE DUDE******
Believe it or not I saw that movie for the first time 3weeks ago!

I appreciate your post. I guess the our disagreement lies in where our collective “logic and reason” came from. To the point of this particular thread, I think that it is unavoidable that our founders held “certain truths to be self evident” and at least in part this explains the founding of this country. I will never try an foist my beliefs on others – and I don’t want theirs foisted upon me. Our government exists only by society letting it exist. I think the reason society lets it exists is some of the things you mentioned – I can’t guard my property 24 hours a day. Therefore it benefits most of its citizens. But when I have to defend my property from the government (forced health care or abuse of eminent domain) then it starts to become a foe rather then an ally. When the government threatens my privacy then it is encroaching and it needs to be pushed back. When it takes my tax dollars and bombs innocents around the world without a declaration of war it needs to be reigned in. Where is the logic in that by the way?? Innocent children dead becasue it is acceptable to (who?) not me. None of the Generals or smart guys have been able to convince most people that it is logical and yet it happens all the time. Not to mention the dead Americans. That is the benefit of the tea party (it has many problems I admit). The benefit trying to stop the run away size of Government. The disenfranchisement of our citizenry. The tea party is the body politic at its most elemental. Look at the established Republicans that it has taken down already. Speaking of O’Donnell – I loved watching Karl Rove (Devil Incarnate) squirm when she won. That was worth it right there!!!!
I think a Christine O’Donnell or a Rand Paul is far less dangerous to our society thes someone like Chris Dodd or Barney Frank!

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Afx –
I did not find that article germaine to the point. We do not live in a theocracy. The ideas of the enlightenment and man’s individuality are at least as important to our constitution (imho) as our common ideas of right or wrong.
The point is this: I did not say all our commonality had to do with believing the same thing but that we hold some important beliefs in common. 4 out of 10. Hell if most marriages had that kind of compatiblity maybe the divorce rate would be a lot less.
More important to the point at hand is that the constitution does not codify those common idea’s but bases its intent in them.
Most “todays” liberals would have you believe that if you believe in these common ideas that you are a in favor of the state enforceing them upon you. That is becasue “todays” liberals believe that the state is the ultimate authority.
A true liberal believes that we have inalienable rights and no matter who tries they can not be taken away….only given away. Here is Wikipedia on the topic:

While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

So while todays liberal tries to tell me that I have to pay for someone elses healthcare becasue the state says it is their “right” a true liberal says that can only be enfoced by force. ie, the IRS. Meanwhile no one can take my right away to believe what I want to believe.

So our constitution does not say you must believe in the 10 commandments but I think that and other “truths” were used in it’s intent.

And by the way….the founders wanted the Constitution to be “living”…that is why there are two ways of amending it.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[aldante]

Many in the “tea party” would say that there should not be a department of education or public schools.

[Author]

Posts