Gov. Shutdown?

[Tedium]

I think I could dig Canada. I find their women's accents attractive. Plus, Alice Munro just won the Nobel Prize in Literature. For short stories no less. It doesn't get much cooler than that.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Simply reading a few sentences of this online Magazine Mother Jones tells me its view point is not exactly level either.
If you wish to call a spade a spade make sure your own cards are named accurately.
You can't judge a notoriously conservative person like Glenn Beck, using a notorious liberally-biased magazine like Mother Jones and expect a fair evaluation.

I didn't mean to cast any doubt or aspersion on Hannity or Beck because they're conservative. I'm very ready to listen to conservatives, present company included. I do question Hannity and Beck's crying wolf about coming economic apocalypse because that's exactly what paid spokesmen for a gold company would cry. As for the Mother Jones article, on page 1:

Such coziness between spokesman and sponsor is not uncommon on talk radio, where hosts can be paid to personally recommend just about any product. In fact, liberal hosts such as Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann have advertised gold.

The criticism here is that Hannity is biased about economic alarm not as a conservative, but as a paid spokesman for a gold company. I think the criticism stands independent of Hannity's politics and Mother Jones'.

In my experience as a conservative, I believe that I can trust Sean Hannity's view-point and that it will agree with my own on various particular issues. Of course I know he's biased, but not only do I know he's biased, but I believe he's right in his bias opinions.
Not to say that it isn't foolish to take other people's word for it, but if I'm going to get snippets of news then I'd rather get it from him versus Bill Maher.

fwiw, I'm not a Bill Maher fan at all. I don't share his anti-religiousness, his vaccine denialism is wrong and dangerous, and he's personally nasty. Granted, he's an adult comedian, but not my thing.

Okay the Congress gets its funds for running the government from us the people, so we need and some of us have demanded a budget.

We agree here.

The President in a difficult position? He started this whole thing with the huge hike in taxes that would come with Obamacare.

Congress passed the ACA (Obamacare) and Congress sets taxes. A clean vote in both houses of Congress today clearly wouldn't repeal the ACA, repeal it in large part or delay it in large part. Supporters of the ACA, Democrats and two Independents, hold a clear majority in the Senate. Seems to me a grown-up way to deal with this would be for conservative opponents of the ACA to campaign against the law and hope to win over enough Senators – or Senate seats – not to stomp their feet and refuse to fund the government today.

And has been unwilling to make compromises by sticking to debt ceilings, creating a budget, drilling here and now for natural energy and all sorts of other solutions that could relieve debt.

• Sticking to debt ceilings: The debt ceiling is based on commitments by Congress to pay for obligations Congress has already assumed. United States debt ceiling (Wikipedia).

• Creating a budget: The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 (White House Office of Management and Budget).

• Drilling here and now for energy: President Obama in his 2013 State of the Union Address: "[T]he natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. And that’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. (Applause.) That’s got to be part of an all-of-the-above plan. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and our water."

Is Obama, going to do anything to release the pressure of crippling debt?????

In the State of the Union, he speaks to this at length within the first few minutes. "Our work must begin by making some basic decisions about our budget -- decisions that will have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery. Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion -- mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances. Now we need to finish the job." He goes on to discuss tax reform and entitlement reform including containing health care spending.

And a lot of young people say, "But politics divides people". Ya know what though? There is a time and a place for
everything including politics and if you don't make time for it, it won't make time for you. You will lose out in the end.
The problem tho, is that its a shared responsibility so not only you will lose but also the people you love.
If you want to help people this is one way to do it: BE INFORMED and INFORM OTHERS.

We agree here again. I try to do these as best I can too.

[Jonathan Whatley]

Oh, this is like nails on chalk board or the puzzle piece that should fit but doesn't. Quite Ironic!
If I were you I'd leave it to the communists to use their "enemies" to benefit from and then turn around & stab them in the back.
I don't understand it!??:eek::confused: Were you born here? Why use the flexible-through-freedom society with all its accessibility to education and all that it gave you and flee to a place where you could never get the same opportunity!

People hear callings or find opportunities, and move between countries. I think the Bible talks about this and not unsympathetically!

[topdog98]

I think a fitting metaphor for our federal government without a debt limit is the situation at the Louisiana Walmart this week when the people found out there was no limit on their EBT cards.

A debt limit is there for a reason, but our debt ceiling has become a joke. If my family reaches the limit on our credit card, the five of us can't vote to raise it.

What we need is an amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced budget. You want a war? Pay for it. You want socialized medicine? Pay for it. You want entitlements? Pay for them.

If this means tax increases, so be it. (Although, in my opinion, this not the best solution for an economy that is already in shambles.) But this generation needs to pay for its own stuff and not keep passing it off to future generations.

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." 1 Tim. 6:10

[ncpenn]

Don't forget they also gave us Jim Carrey . . .

I am so glad that someone finally had the guts to come out and say it. I would also like to humbly beseech the court to add Carly Rae Jepsen's name to the list. Call me. Maybe?:leaving:

[ncpenn]

The Soviet Union is gone? Really? In name, yes. But the people, controlling powers, land, culture (everything that made it was it was) is still there.

Ergo, the US will not cease to exist in 5 to 10 years.

I think the US will cease to exist in 5 to 10 years, much like the Soviet Union. It is the natural progression for empires. And, all I can say is good riddance.

[ncpenn]

It is not sarcasm that I am working toward emigration. I spent three years living in a country with higher taxes and socialized medicine and I would go back if it weren't so hard to get into one of the European Union countries. Instead, I will be content with Canada. I have plans to attend grad school there and see what happens after grad school. I gave up hope that things will get better here. As long as the government is for sale to the organization with the biggest advertising budget there is little hope for the American people.

I think people should be free to live where they want. You're not happy with the US, and think Canada is better, more power to you. I think you're going the wrong direction, but that's obviously a debatable issue.

I too think the US has serious problems that are deep-rooted, but don't see Canada being terribly better. In fact, most of Western civilization at the moment seems to think that morality can be artificially created. People act out, act only in their interest, hurt others, etc. So, the response is more rules, more taxes (to help those who need helping), more regulations, etc.

It won't work. It isn't working.

The answer is that people must have that morality in them (Love your neighbor as yourself). If/when that is the case, for-profit medicine either works or doesn't exist. Elderly are taken care of by those closest to them (not the gov't). Etc, etc, etc . . .

But, here's the monkey wrench in the whole thing. Morality can't exist (for long) in a vacuum. Morality to work requires absolutes and the concept of absolute truth. Otherwise it's okay for me to hurt you if my "relative morality" allows it. Society cannot define morality anymore than thousands of particular premises could ultimately prove a universal conclusion. (Some a is b will never lead to an All a is b conclusion no matter how many "Some a is b" statements are added. Only from a universal premise can you get a universal conclusion. Therefore, to have absolute morality that society conforms to, you must have an absolute standard).

So, to have morality, you must have absolute truth. Absolute truth must come only from an absolute being (as shown above, society cannot be the basis). No man or any other mortal being is absolute . . .

In short, religion is necessary for things to work properly (and a religion that believes in an absolute being). Then of course, the question becomes, which one?

[jmeitrem]

The answer is that people must have that morality in them (Love your neighbor as yourself). If/when that is the case, for-profit medicine either works or doesn't exist. Elderly are taken care of by those closest to them (not the gov't). Etc, etc, etc . . .

But, here's the monkey wrench in the whole thing. Morality can't exist (for long) in a vacuum. Morality to work requires absolutes and the concept of absolute truth. Otherwise it's okay for me to hurt you if my "relative morality" allows it. Society cannot define morality anymore than thousands of particular premises could ultimately prove a universal conclusion. (Some a is b will never lead to an All a is b conclusion no matter how many "Some a is b" statements are added. Only from a universal premise can you get a universal conclusion. Therefore, to have absolute morality that society conforms to, you must have an absolute standard).

So, to have morality, you must have absolute truth. Absolute truth must come only from an absolute being (as shown above, society cannot be the basis). No man or any other mortal being is absolute . . .

In short, religion is necessary for things to work properly (and a religion that believes in an absolute being). Then of course, the question becomes, which one?

Coincidentally, I just watched this video yesterday regarding the same topic.



The further our nation drifts from God the more things seem to fall to pieces. The Golden Rule can only go so far in regards to morality. During the fight for gay marriage last year everyone kept saying that if you love each other, why shouldn’t you be able to get married? That seemed hard to refute without bringing up religion. But if that's the case, what argument could one have against incest, pedophilia, or polygamy? I'm sure one day people the people in California will get those wheels rolling as well. Let the moral drift continue...

[Tedium]

Don't forget they also gave us Jim Carrey . . .

I don't appreciate your insertion of truth into a discussion about Justin Bieber. Can't we all just agree to hate the entire country indiscriminately? I mean c'mon, that guy is the worst. There's no coming back from that, even if the education and healthcare are free.

[sanantone]

Coincidentally, I just watched this video yesterday regarding the same topic.



The further our nation drifts from God the more things seem to fall to pieces. The Golden Rule can only go so far in regards to morality. During the fight for gay marriage last year everyone kept saying that if you love each other, why shouldn’t you be able to get married? That seemed hard to refute without bringing up religion. But if that's the case, what argument could one have against incest, pedophilia, or polygamy? I'm sure one day people the people in California will get those wheels rolling as well. Let the moral drift continue...

Children cannot consent; that is how gay marriage is different from pedophilia. In theory, I don't see anything wrong with polygamy. Many religions have long accepted polygamy. The problem with polygamy is actually the religious component that's usually involved. Women (or girls) are often pressured by their families and religious communities to enter polygamous marriages or face excommunication and ostracism. With incest, the concern is the increased chance of genetic abnormalities; although, it's been debated whether the increases are significant.