In the spirit of the holiday season I have a gift for you: a freshly minted Herman Cain joke.

Q: Mr. Cain, what about Libya?

A: I never laid a hand on her.

But life isn’t all jokes and foolishness. It just seems that way when you’re dealing with politics. There are serious issues to be addressed — college football, for example.

The grimmest college scandal in memory has erupted at Penn State, a quiet university deep in the Pennsylvania mountains, dedicated to academic excellence and watching football.

One of its most widely respected football figures — a retired assistant coach of national reputation — has been persuasively accused of being a serial pedophile who used his access to the university and its athletic department to enhance the practice of his perversion.

Worse yet, the entire hierarchy of the school — from head coach to athletic director to president — seemed to have turned a blind eye to the situation. For years.

Which would be bad enough if it happened at just any football-first-and-everything-else-be-damned school (of which there are many), but Penn State has long been considered the gold standard of football integrity. 

It was big-time football the way it should be. Its ancient coach, Joe Paterno, was without rival when it came to reputation.

Now the president, the athletic director, and Paterno have been fired, and Paterno’s name has been taken off the trophy awarded to conference champions — the football equivalent of being brought before the troops at dress parade and having the epaulets and brass buttons ripped from your uniform.

Not many things shock me anymore, but I confess to being shocked at the Penn State scandal.

On another front, I’m not so much shocked as disappointed at the number of people who don’t have a clue when it comes to Occupy Wall Street and the rest of the Occupy movement.

Talking heads and editorial writers have looked disapprovingly at the (mostly) young people setting up camp in financial districts around the nation and asked, “What do they want?” Or even, without irony, “Why don’t they get a job?”

And that’s the point, isn’t it? There are no jobs; not the kind the protesters have gone to college and trained for.

Times are hard for new graduates these days. I doubt that their future has been this bleak since the Great Depression. 

On average, they graduate more than $25,000 in hock, often facing bleak job prospects. Then they look at Wall Street and the big banks and see the very people who gamed this economy into disaster still making millions of dollars a year playing the same games and complaining about taxes.

Walmart sales are down because people are skimping on things like milk and meat. 

At the same time, Saks Fifth Avenue is selling lots of $1,000 handbags and $2,000 suits.

What do they want, the protesters? They want justice, for openers. They want the kind of society they were promised, one that gives people an equal chance at success if they’re willing to work for it.

They don’t want a society where the top 1 percent of the population commands more than one-fifth of the nation’s income and more of than 35 percent of its wealth, a society ruled by a corporate elite whose only religion is greed.

They don’t want a society where in tough times the only people asked to make sacrifices are the old, the young, and the poor.

More than anything, they want their future back.

It’s not a lot to ask, actually, not if we really are the exceptional nation we pretend to be.

OtherWords columnist Donald Kaul lives in Ann Arbor, Mich.


(142) comments

Ezekiel
Ezekiel

GREAT ARTICLE! Old Don once again tells it how it is! He has accurately described the nature of the Occupy Together movement. The rampaging uberKapitalists that nearly brought this country (and the world economy) down, are reaping what they have sown! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! (NOTE: I do have to give old JB credit for his "Occupy Stilson" sign south of town, even if he doesn't share the goals of the Occupy Together movement. It WAS clever.)

kinnick

Well I guess if college students come out of college and they can't find a job then maybe they didn't major in the right things. Donny also wrong again on Walmart and its sales being down. Retail records set on black friday Donny.

Scotsman
Scotsman

Kinnick: Haven't you already been on board with the notion that companies are not hiring due to burdensome regulations and uncertain tax rates? Now you are blaming students for choosing the wrong major. Can't win with you, I guess.

zed
zed

Scotsman- Sorry if I'm late to the party, but how are the two (excessive business regulation/difficult to market educational backgrounds) related?

libertylover

There are numerous reasons why the OWS people can't find jobs. 1. Obama's frequent attacks against job creators, 2. his orders forbidding certain jobs to operate, i.e. Gulf oil drilling, Canada pipeline, Boeing jobs in S.C., coal mining in W. Va. and elsewhere 3. laws and regs that make it impossible to hire people and stay profitable (w/o profit, businesses can't operate) 4. OWS' own bad work habits (cleanliness, drug abuse, etc.) 5. BO's attempted destruction of the middle class, the consumer

Citizen1

To all that complain about regulations and how they strangle new jobs...exactly what regulations are preventing employers from hiring? I'm sick of hearing about them; yet no one has sited any. Safety regulations? Would any of you work in a mine without them? Eliminate oversight and you are back in the time of the late 19th & early 20th century. And remember, no regulation was just dreamed up to prevent business; businesses broke trust and created the need.

Citizen1

Kinnick...what majors are you recommending? And just how does a college graduate earn enough to pay back their loans and the rest of their bills if they do take a job at Walmart at $8.00 an hour. How much do you make?

Some Peoples Children
Some Peoples Children

Citizen, they pay slowly over time. Chipping away at it until it is eventually paid off. That’s how the real world works. Someone fresh out of college should never expect to get the best paying job, with the most outstanding benefits, being able to afford the newest vehicle, and the biggest house without working hard, and at some undesirable jobs that have nothing to do with their major.

Some Peoples Children
Some Peoples Children

Some young people look at the older people and would like what they have. Nice house, couple of cars, nice appliances, all the newest “toys”, and money left over to spend. But, they might not realize that the older people didn’t start out with that, they worked for it. Over time.

Some Peoples Children
Some Peoples Children

Why do I believe that young people think like this? Because not to long ago I was one of them and I was thinking the same thing. Once out on my own why did I find myself sitting on crap furniture, with a small T.V., and a roommate in a one bedroom house? Because that how it starts for the majority of people, only few are exempt.

Some Peoples Children
Some Peoples Children

Now I find myself on the other side with all of the things, I thought, you just get when reaching adulthood. I still have to work hard for it, but I know that now and that’s the main thing that everybody has to learn. You can get to where you want to go; it just depends on how lofty your goals are and how hard you’re willing to work for it.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Great article... I liked the juxtapositioning of the 'turn a blind eye' for the welfare the abused/molested/forgotten/raped boys to protect the sacrosanct football team and the same thing occurring to the next genearation for the sacrosanct (no taxes, responsiblity on us please) 1%.

We as a nation promise a 'bright future' to all our young and we can't turn a blind eye in either scenario.

ottb
ottb

[quote]Ezekiel said: "rampaging uberKapitalists that nearly brought this country (and the world economy) down, are reaping what they have sown! "[/quote]

Barney and Chris are uberKapitalists? News to me.

Citizen1

Some Peoples Children: You're right about paying over time, working at your first job, etc. I did all those things and paid back my loans, as did my husband. But, there are big differences here. My loans didn't total as much and I had the opportunity to work my way up in a company and increase my salary. The opportunities for that happening today are diminishing and the work world (and housing world) are not what they were when you started out.

Citizen1

The corporate world is changing-free is the new paid.

libertylover

Some people's Children- You have it right. Commendations to you for being able to keep faithful to the truth of the Natural Law. It is hard to stay faithful to the truth in this modern culture which tells citizens constantly, from every information source, "You are an American; you have a right to all the comforts and luxuries your parents have. If you don't have them it's some one else's fault, and they need to be punished."

jojodemo
jojodemo

So how exactly can one want the future back? How can one know what the future holds? Maybe they should study a needed occupation? We write our own future,maybe a little luck now and then,but we live by our choices Donald.

a_x_pendergast

In the spirit of the holiday season, I give you a present. A freshly minted joke that's actually funny.

Q: What do naughty kids get in their stockings on Christmas?

A: A lump of Kaul.

a_x_pendergast

As to the "Occupy _____" people, claiming the 1% owe them, I am reminded of a scene in the movie "The Life of Brian." The quote went something like, "Ok, BESIDES aqueducts, sanitation, roads, medicine, education, irrigation, public order, wine, the fresh water system and public health... WHAT have the Romans ever given US?!?!"

Some Peoples Children
Some Peoples Children

Citizen, I know that things are different, but that’s how it always will be. Things change and one persons reality is another’s history lesson. However some things hold fast and don’t change. There are still advancement opportunities out there, and some young hard working up and comers they will get them. Young people will deal with their reality because it is theirs to deal with. But they will succeed or fail by the same traits that others have throughout our countries history.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

a_x_pendergast said: "I am reminded of a scene in the movie "The Life of Brian.""

What's really funny about that is the quote refers to "the Romans" and not Ceasar nor the Senate.

The 99% are the ones who are mostly responsible for the 'aqueducts, sanitation, roads, medicine, education, irrigation, public order, wine, the fresh water system and public health' and the 1% are not mostly responsible for them and yet get/got wealthy from the 99% work.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

And not just wealthy in a reasonable, just fashion but in an obscene fashion... and the end result is there is not enough $$ in the hands of the 99% to keep an economy going, more and more are in dire straits and the unreasonable wealthy want to cut even more from them while they keep said sacrifices as far from them and their corporations as possible.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Some Peoples Children said: "There are still advancement opportunities out there, and some... will get them."

Yes there are but there are fewer opportunities and some, though they be "hard working up and comers" will not get them because... there are fewer opportunities.

The 1%ers are eating our young's opportunities by greedily holding on to and amassing the wealth, in unjust an obscene fashion.

Ezekiel
Ezekiel

Keep posting for the Po' Folks, Rev. Clarkson!!!!! Great stuff!!!!

always

Stated: "the older people didn’t start out with that, they worked for it. Over time."

Will you agree that older people were living under different situations than today's college grads are?

It is difficult to chip away at the college debt when you can't make enough to stay afloat.

My family were fortunate, times didn't suddenly turn around and ruin all plans that had been made to successfully live in the future and contribute to the good of the country.

We have many great young people!

always

For the first time I have seen this published: "You are an American; you have a right to all the comforts and luxuries your parents have. If you don't have them it's some one else's fault, and they need to be punished."

As with so many things posted, where did you find this item recorded before? Who are you accusing of telling young people this is so many words? Who do you feel needs to be punished? Could ALL who helped ruin our economy be included? Can you accept your share of the blame?

always

Stated: "Barney and Chris are uberKapitalists? News to me."

Probably caused by that 'fox-news-itis' going around.
We need to show some compassion for those who show such obvious evidence of maybe having it.

Zeke and Chris, you give us hope that things will turn out for the better as we ignore negative thoughts and concentrate on the good in the world and what each of us can do to try to be good neighbors, good citizens, and just plain good people.

Thank you for your posts.

a_x_pendergast

And who hired the '99%' Chris? Who paid for the work to be done? What would those workers have been doing, if not hired to perform this labor? I guess they could have formed a union and negotiated obscene wages and no contribution to an obscene retirement plan funded completely by the 1%

Do you think those who develop new medicines and put their own money into research, testing, developing, marketing the medicine should not be rewarded for their efforts and incredible personal financial risk?

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

a_x_pendergast said: "A freshly minted joke that's actually funny. Q: What do naughty kids get in their stockings on Christmas? A: A lump of Kaul"

And since we all know who is taking the 'lumps' from Kaul it seems clear who the 'naughty kids' of your joke is: the 1%ers, GOPers, etc.

Great joke... thanks.

a_x_pendergast

Last I checked, it was members of the 99% that broke the law by staying without permits, blocking traffic, causing public nuisances, indecent exposure to young kids, illegal drugs, etc.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/29892039/detail.html

http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-consumed-crime-wave-194500180.html

There's you're naughty list. At least they'll like their Kaul. His columns are good for burning, just like coal is.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

Zeke, Chris isn't the only poster who wants to help the poor. If we'd cut inflation to ZERO, deport Illegals, and divert $$$ from suing AZ, AL, and other states that Obama is stopping from enforcing existing federal law, the U.S. would become a workers' paradise. Wages would triple if Illegals were GONE. I'd rather pay thrice the current costs for food, etc., if all Illegals were gone, because Gov't programs would be for AMERICANS, and taxes on income property, etc., could also all decrease.

libertylover

Interesting-How can Always, Chris, and Zeke be on the same team? Zeke is a Communist who believes in dialectical materialism, which despises private property rights and rejects God; yet he is on the same team as Always, one of the 1%, and Chris, who is one of the much-hated Christians, even a minister of that religion? I guess politics makes strange bed fellows. The sad thing is that Christians can be so easily seduced into disobeying God's Commandment-thou shalt not envy thy neighbor's goods.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

ll said: "I guess politics makes strange bed fellows."

So does following God's commands (cf. Jesus and his disparate followers), including the command to 'love your neighbor as oneself' which is kinda hard to do when you are growing obscenely wealthy off their backs. [Wonder if that is why Jesus compares camels through eyes-of-needle to rich entering the kingdom?

Con 't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

And LL, the command you quote is actually 'do not covet your neighbor's goods' (your false use of envy betrays a short-sighted use of Scripure -- perhaps the 'big-picture' view is what unites always, myself and Zeke). This do not covet/desire includes toward whatever is produced fom their labor...'. The fact is that as the rich become obscenely and unjustly wealthy off the labors of others, it isn't just the 'do not covet' commandment that they break.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Covet: 2 to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably (M/W dict)

The 99% are not 'coveting' what belongs to another - they are desiring that which belongs to us all: justice and an honest days wage for an honest days work.
That the 1% have coveted what belongs to another is clear from the evidence: follow the money.

always

Stated: "Do you think those who develop new medicines and put their own money into research, testing, developing, marketing the medicine should not be rewarded for their efforts and incredible personal financial risk?"

Do you actually believe that those in the 1% are the one's doing the activities you mentioned?

always

Stated: "the U.S. would become a workers' paradise."
Over night, the U S would become a worker's paradise.

Your immense distaste for illegals is hardly showing compassion or pity.

If you had been born in the ghetto in another land can you honestly state you would not attempt to better yourself if you could cross the border to do so?

Gov't programs would still be for some AMERICANS you consider not worth being here, those unable to meet their expenses without help.

Utopia is not near yet.

always

Stated: " Always, one of the 1%"

Do you suppose you might have goofed a little stating me as one of the 1% ?

Try to explain your reason for telling such a wopper. I would enjoy hearing it and there might be others wondering about such a foolish preposterous statement also.

Also: "Chris, who is one of the much-hated Christians, even a minister of that religion?"

Christians much hated by whom? You? Do you sincerely think God hates Christians?

I keep finding more to symapathize with.

Templar
Templar

[quote]libertylover said: "Interesting-How can Always, Chris, and Zeke be on the same team "[/quote]

Great post libertylover, right on the money and judging by the responses, it hit close to home.

come'on'man

The OWS people denfinatly covet.

a_x_pendergast

read it again, always. I mentioned the ones who "put their own money up" for those activities. They take the risk, and it doesn't always pay off. Do you believe they should not be rewarded when their own personal financial risk does pay off? Or should they not be punished when it doesn't and they lose their money? Should we bail them out then?


always

"I guess politics makes strange bed fellows."

When one looks at the present candidates, I must agree.

The good thing is that Christians believe in the great commission of loving your neighbor as yourself, and also that one needs to think something through before they stupidly say something that can come back to haunt them, as the candidates of each party have found to be very true.

The difference between us is I can admit my party is not perfect. Some can't see the forest for the trees.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Templar said: "it hit close to home."

Not a problem here... I welcome always and zeke being on the same team.

"John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us. But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us." Mark 9:38-40

Go team!!

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

[quote]come'on'man said: "The OWS people denfinatly covet. "[/quote]

Yeah they covet justice and an honest days pay for an honest days wages. The fact that this has not been occurring is clear:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Such evidence is also evidence of whom it is that is coveting -- the One percenters with GOP complicity.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

a_x_ said: "I mentioned the ones who "put their own money up" for those activities. They take the risk... they should... be rewarded"

1. "Their own money" that they put up is the money that comes from charging hundreds of percentages of $$ over the cost of producing a drug.
2. Which they then turn around to research another drug to charge hundreds of percentages of $$ on.
3. The get obsecenely wealthy doing this.
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

4. They should receive a just and reasonable reward for taking those risks -- as should the employees who are also a part of that 'risk taking'.

a_x_pendergast

L/c/g/a they, in the beginning, risked their money on a drug. When it panned out for them, they sold it at market value. What people were willing to pay, that is. I guess you don't like capitalism, just as Mr. Obama dislikes it.

His desire to redistribute the wealth is innately socialistic, not the least bit capitalistic. How you can profess him to be a capitalist would be quite humorous, if you didn't actually believe it. Kind of sad, really.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

Yes, 'libertylover', Zeke is a self-professed "Communist", buy that term's present-day connotation doesn't accurately reflect his views. Zeke's a rather insightful, theoretical Marxist, who wants a benevolent gov't - NOT an arrogant, snarky liberal. When I read Chris's stuff, I get angry; when I read Zeke's posts, I often have to admit that he's got valid points, and never fail to remind myself that Free Market Libertarianism isn't the way to go, because in the end, innocent people would starve.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

I meant to type, "but", not "buy", in sentence 1 of my prior post. As to Ezekiel, I don't agree with many of his proposed solutions. But more than most of the posters on this site, he's diagnosed the PROBLEMS rather well. Despite what many of my fellow conservatives say, it's WRONG to claim that life is fair, and also wrong to deny that Gov't can, and - IMO - should, guarantee that ALL deserving citizens get the resources they need for a comfortable - NOT luxurious, but comfortable - existence.

thumper1

http://www.kcci.com/news/29946414/detail.html

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

a_x_ said: "/c I guess you don't like capitalism, just as Mr. Obama dislikes it."

You guess wrong... as usual. What I don't like is gaming the capitalist system we have in our country so that:
-unfair renumeration for the workers (who also 'took a risk') is not rewarded in fair fashion,
-the tax system is weakened so that a fair burden is not bourne,
-corporations pay no taxes,
-lobby efforts harm majority interests
-etc.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

a_x_ said: "/c... His desire to redistribute the wealth is innately socialistic, not the least bit capitalistic. How you can profess him to be a capitalist would be quite humorous, if you didn't actually believe it."

There are different forms of capitalism: free-market, social market, etc.
Redistribution of the wealth occurs in varied fashion in each... some 'equal' and some 'unequal'; some 'fair' and some 'unfair'.

That it occurs doesn't negate that capitalism is at work or supported.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

The reality is that 'graduated taxation' in our country occurred (literally) to correctly challenge the unfair ‘redistribution of wealth’ into the pockets of a few: goods produced by the work effort of others (slaves) were sold to profit a small group of others (slave owners).
Today the players have ‘changed’ but the goals remains the same: redistribute fairly or unfairly.
But be clear: redistribution of wealth (whether fairly or unfairly) is more than “the least bit capitalistic”.

libertylover

Always- In your Dec. 7 post, you admitted to being financially comfortable, even during FDR's great Depression. I have decided that that makes you part of the 1%. CCsays that some people are obscenely wealthy and he and BO have the right to make thatdetermination.He is a central planner and he and BO have the right to decide everything for everybody. Where they should work,what they should do with their money, where they should live, what leisure activities they should engage in, etc. Cent.plan.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "CCsays... some... are obscenely wealthy and he and BO have the right to make thatdetermination."

While I have the 'right' (actually 'decision') to make this 'obscene wealthy' determination for myself (with substantiated citation to justify this) the 'right' to make this determination to effect economic changes lies in the domain of majority through it's representatives (including BO). Given the polls, seems the majority has made this decision and want steps taken to correct it.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "I have decided that that makes you part of the 1%."

You certainly can make that 'decision' but w/o any citation to back your decision (and indeed in the face of always refutation) it seems like a decision based upon unsubstantiated non-fact and further demonstration of how some Conserv Repubs seek to make something out of nothing.

Ir Regardless
Ir Regardless

Last week I spent a day crating shoeboxes to be sent abroad to children who will be thankful for a washcloth and a bar of soap. We are the 1%.

Ir Regardless
Ir Regardless

How smart are we to continue to send our kids to college to incur large debt when recent history proves that to be a bad idea?

It is possible to complete college without debt. My wife and I both graduated debt free.

always

Stated ax: "read it again, always. I mentioned the ones who "put their own money up" for those activities. I read it again and found:"I guess they could have formed a union and negotiated obscene wages and no contribution to an obscene retirement plan funded completely by the '1%' Do you think those who develop new medicines and put their own money into research, testing, developing, marketing the medicine should not be rewarded for their efforts and incredible personal financial risk?
'1%'

always

Posted: " When I read Chris's stuff, I get angry"

Surprise, surprise. And I almost believed it when you posted that you post to improve your writing skills and to have fun.

Getting angry hardly improves writing skills. Instead it causes one to state negative/unreasonable/exagerated/snarky posts.

I wonder if Zeke is as impressed with your praise as you set out to cause him to be.

Just wondering, not stating any facts about it.

always

Posted: "Despite what many of my fellow conservatives say, it's WRONG to claim that life is fair, and also wrong to deny that Gov't can, and - IMO - should, guarantee that ALL deserving citizens get the resources they need for a comfortable - NOT luxurious, but comfortable - existence."

Congratulations Todd, this is a positive/encouraging and civilized post and I am happy to praise you for posting it.

May you continue in this same positive vein in the future.

always

Posted: "Always- In your Dec. 7 post, you admitted to being financially comfortable, even during FDR's great Depression. I have decided that that makes you part of the 1%"
My 5:41 post states: "Do you suppose you might have goofed a little stating me as one of the 1% ?
At 7:59 I posted: "My family were fortunate, times didn't suddenly turn around and ruin all plans that had been made to successfully live in the future and contribute to the good of the country."
Show where I stated what U claim!

libertylover

CC- I made 2 points with my last post and you seem to have missed them both. 1- There is no possible objective measure to determine that someone is "obscenely" wealthy. It can never be anything but personal opinion. To a truly poor person (3rd world country) $1000 might be. To an average American 100 million might be. To a rich oil Sheik, even 1 billion might not be. Yet central planners like you and BO pretend that you are capable of doing it. Sorry; not persuasive. Cont'd to the other point.

libertylover

2nd point- You seem to think that the government can control the incomes of Americans independent of any other aspect of our lives. You can't. As I listed, our incomes determine everything we do, from living accomodations to leisure activities. Those influences are obvious. Less obvious is the fact that your controlling of my income controls where and when I will work. Maybe you want the fruit picker to make the same as the heart surgeon, but I don't. You want my freedom, Sorry. No deal.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "you seem to have missed them both."

No I didn't.

LL said "There is no possible objective measure to determine that someone is "obscenely" wealthy. It can never be anything but personal opinion."

Yes there is - the actual definition of obscene (in this regard): "repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles " and " so excessive as to be offensive "

Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

This definition provides the "objective measure" and it seems, as I stated earlier: "Given the polls, seems the majority has made this decision (based upon the objective measure of the definition of obscene) and want steps taken to correct it."

You may 'see' something different than this 'objective measure' (aka the definition of obscene) but then you do seem to see things not there (cf. your seeing that always 'admitted to being financially comfortable' in a Dec. 7 post).

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

libertylover said: "2nd point- You seem to think..."

2. Again seeing things. And forgive me if I don't address this 'non-point' -- it isn't that I "missed" it - it's just said 'non-point' based upon what "you seem to think" about what I "seem to think" (incorrectly so) isn't worth the effort.

If you care to substantiate what you seem to think I think... have at it.
If you care to discuss what is or isn't 'obscene' have at it. I think the majority is right to see steps need to be taken.

always

Stated: "Yet central planners like you and BO pretend that you are capable of doing it."

Sorry, but I find this confusing and am wondering just what it is that 'you' and BO pretend they are capable of doing it?

libertylover

Always- You were comfortable during the FDR depression while 99% of the country were hungry. That puts you in the 1%. That is my opinion and if I work for the gov't, that is the final word. CC wants he and BO to do the same thing- decide who is the 1% and take it away from them. His definition of "obscene" wealth is subjective. No numbers. No quantitative measure. Different people will have different opinions and there will be no objective measure to judge by. cont'd

libertylover

CC wants to "take steps." That sounds exactly like what any dictator would do. Forget my God-given freedom. The gov't takes precedence. The freedom to make my own way is given by the gov't, according to CC. Sorry, CC. Once again I have to say "no way!" Some day I will explain what the word "freedom" means. I do not get angry with CC. I get frustrated and afraid. I will fight for my freedom if I have to, just as our founding fathers did.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

'Liberty Lover' - Clarkson worked the IA Civil Rights Commission, and was formerly employed by various tax-exempt entities, including a Nora Springs church. He's a liberal Democrat activist, whose perspective is clouded by his background. He CONSISTENTLY takes the side of Gov't against those who fund it - which is WHY he promotes Obama and other Democrats. Having never met a payroll, created jobs, or experienced private sector success, he's playing out his hand in a totally predictable manner.

always

Posted, again: "Having never met a payroll, created jobs, or experienced private sector success, he's playing out his hand in a totally predictable manner."

I had hoped I would not need to ever again mention the jobs the poster created after his stint in the White House, but he just won't let me forget them. They were so rewarding for the good of the patrions.

How quickly one can forget how to post civily, and go back to their totally predictable method.

always

Stated: "Always- You were comfortable during the FDR depression while 99% of the country were hungry. That puts you in the 1%. That is my opinion and if I work for the gov't, that is the final word."

IF you work for the gov't, do you? The final 'word'?
Do you honestly consider yourself important enough for the final word anywhere but maybe in your own home.

Anyone with honesty, compassion, and love for others was comfortable/happy during the depression, even if they were hungry at times.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "Always- You were comfortable during the FDR depression"

Where did always say she was "comfortable"? Where did she refer to "during the FDR depression"?
She said 'fortunate' with regard to 'her family' -- which doesn't translate into her ancestors --indeed it could mean 'progeny' -- which would not then mean 'FDR depression' time frame.
Thus, you base your assumption that she is a part of the 1% now on false 'fact' (that she said she was comfortable during FDR).
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

The majority, who are deciding that the 1% have an excessive amount of wealth and thus should pay more in taxes, base their decision on fact and thus are quite different from you.

You base your 'opinion' on unsubstantiated (and in fact repudiated nonfact) whereas the majority bases it's opinion and resulting decision to seek raised taxes on the 1% on substantiated fact.

Ir Regardless
Ir Regardless

Chris Clarkson said: "The majority, who are deciding that the 1% have an excessive amount of wealth and thus should pay more in taxes, base their decision on fact and thus are quite different from you."

Can you substantiate the claim of being the majority?

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said "CC wants to "take steps." That sounds exactly like what any dictator would do... Some day I will explain what the word "freedom" means.

LOL -
1. A dictator wouldn't be concerned with the majority.
2. So those comprising the majority who want to 'take steps' to tax the 1% are now dictators?
3. Want to discuss 'freedom', the founding documents, and wherein that freedom and independence resides --I'd love it.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "His definition of 'obscene' wealth is subjective. No numbers. No quantitative measure. Different people will have different opinions and there will be no objective measure to judge by."

My definition of 'obscene' is 'factual' since it is the dictionary definition (M/W dict.)
Applying this factual definition can be 'subjective' and can be 'objective'. The more numbers and measures (both qualitative and quantitative) applied the more objective the conclusion.
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Since, I have in fact provided the objective measures - aka the 'numbers' LL says are lacking (cf. my December 7, 2011, 6:26 pm citation) there is indeed "objective measure to judge by".

So, while the maj. conclusions contain an application of an objective measure (the numbers) in arriving at an opinion (and resulting desire for a decision: tax 'em), you (re: always 'comforable during the depression' and 'thus 1%') does not contain any objective measure.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Ir Regardless said: "Can you substantiate the claim of being the majority?"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-10/cain-pulls-even-with-romney-on-economy-for-republican-supporters-in-poll.html

Ir Regardless
Ir Regardless

Ir Regardless said: "Can you substantiate the claim of being the majority?"

I did a little of my own research and it appears that the majority are indifferent to OWS neither supporting or opposing it. So it would be much more accurate to say "We are IN the 99%" than "We ARE the 99%". To imply they represent the majority is a falsehood.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Ir Regardless said: "So it would be much more accurate to say "We are IN the 99%" than "We ARE the 99%". To imply they represent the majority is a falsehood."

Where have I said "We ARE the 99%"?
Re: my avatar? Nope, it says "We are our demands" -- similar to saying "We are what we eat".

Re: my 'majority assertion' on taxing the wealthy? Nope, just supplying objective substantiation that a majority have a desire to increase taxes on the 1%.

libertylover

Todd- Thnx for the short bio on CC. Always- Thnx for the brief autobiography (fortunate circumstances). CC- Regrettably, we cannot "debate" the concept of human freedom because just as two ships sailing on 2 different oceans can never meet, so you and I could never meet. You believe that our inalienable rights, including freedom, come from gov't and I believe they come from God. Different oceans. However, I could recommend books, including dounding father' papers, where u could learn what it is.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "CC- Regrettably, we cannot "debate".. You believe that our inalienable rights, including freedom, come from gov't"

LL, If "we cannot debate" it has nothing to do with being on 'different oceans' of thought because 1) on the issue of where "our inalienable rights, including freedom, come from" we are on the same 'God' ocean and 2) even if were were on different 'oceans' (which we aren't) it would not preclude debate.

Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

What hampers debate is when one side insists on erroneously saying "You believe that...".

What precludes debate is using the erroneous 'conclusions' arrived at by the above inistence to make an excuse to not engage in said 'debate' (I prefer to say conversation).

Fortunately, those who hold different viewpoints (whether on the same ocean or different oceans) have and continue to hold such mature conversations.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Correction- my last post first para. should read:


What hampers debate is when one side insists on erroneously saying "You believe that..." (w/o supplying objective fact to demonstrate their assertion re: the other person).

always

Always- Thnx for the brief autobiography (fortunate circumstances).

Your welcome l l. I would assume you understood what I said.
There are those who cannot seem to keep up with the subjects that are being discussed at each time period.

libertylover

CC- OK. I will accept your assertion that you believe our human rights come from God and not from gov't.
What do you believe is meant by "the pursuit of happiness" expressed in the Declarartion of Independence?

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "'the pursuit of happiness' expressed in the Declarartion of Independence?"

To find/employ/engage in the means that leads to a state of well-being and contentment.

Since the DOI speaks of this pursuit of happiness (along with life, and liberty) being based upon and flowing from Divine origins this 'pursuit' is rightly understood to be one that is a united pursuit (aka a shared 'finding/employing/engaging in' which leads to happiness). Hence the first 10 words to the DOI.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Con't
In short: God says 'I give to you life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'; since these rights are given/endowed by God they can only be subsequently manifest by making sure this 'gift/endowment' remains a 'gift/endowment' for all.

In really abbreviated fashion: It is better to give than to receive.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Now LL, "What do you believe is meant by
the pursuit of happiness' expressed in the Declarartion of Independence?"

libertylover

CC (and other reader-thinkers who are spectating- You are right in your def. for the most part. The 3 essential rights have divine origin and take precedence over any man-made laws. Our disagreement lies in the fact that you believe caring for neighbor precedes or equals caring for self. That is not possible. A person who is dying of hunger cannot give food to his neighbor. W/o property rights (right to food among other properties) the human race cannot survive. Gov't cannot rake prop rts away.

always

Posted: "you believe caring for neighbor precedes or equals caring for self. That is not possible. A person who is dying of hunger cannot give food to his neighbor."

This is truly confusing to me. Where did anyone state that those dying of hunger should be giving to their neighbor? Where did we ask people not to take 'care for self'?

These are the very people we, I at least, want to have help from those with much, especially the 1%. Many are now going hungry, probably not starving in US.

libertylover

Always- I believe you are a generous person. You no doubt give to the hungry, the homeless, your church. But you could not be doing that if you or your husband had not earned sufficient property to do so. CC's emphasis on "united" and "all" suggests that you and your hub did not have the right to do this on your own. You had to wait for the "all" to join you in amassing and owning your property. Do the "all" have equal right to your property?

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "Our disagreement lies in the fact that you believe caring for neighbor precedes or equals caring for self."

1. What disagreement? I think, for some reason, you jump the gun and seek to see a disagreement prior to one appearing (apparent in your insistence on stating what you think my position is on a separate issue of ‘caring for neighbor’ – one that I will be more than happy to discuss after your initial point of ‘pursuit of happiness’ and life/liberty is finished).
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

2. We were currently speaking of 'pursuit of happiness' (and life/liberty) and not 'caring for neighbor'.
3. I believe that protecting this 'pursuit of happiness' (and life/liberty) can only occur as a joint venture alongside other's pursuit of happiness. That is to say, since this pursuit has a Divine origin it is not ours to deny for anyone else. Or to say in another fashion: What God has endowed for all we do not have the right to deny. Correct?
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

4. And thus if you agree – a pursuit of happiness, if indeed it is of Divine origin, can only be ‘for all’ and can only be ‘united’ for if we seek to deny ‘for all’ or ‘united’ then we seek to thwart God’s divine gift (which our founding document states clearly “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”).
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

5. Thus, my position with regard to safeguarding those unalienable Rights: it is better to give than to receive, because if we don’t give them we have denied them… even for ourselves.

So, please stick to the issue at hand: 'pursuit of happiness' and 'life/liberty'. Do you think these Divine unalienable rights can exist for one or a group of people without existing for all? Are we to be united in viewing them as belonging to all or not?

Then we can, if you wish revisit 'caring for neighbor'.

always

Posted: "emphasis on "united" and "all" suggests that you and your hub did not have the right to do this on your own. You had to wait for the "all" to join you in amassing and owning your property. Do the "all" have equal right to your property?"

This is such a stupid statement that I will answer. My hub and I are part of the 'united' 'all' citizens who feel as we do which means there was no waiting period.

Why would all have those rights, I have no rights to theirs.

Good explanations C.

libertylover

CC-When you say "It is better to give than to receive" you are stating the Christian view of things. I agree with that statement on a personal, moral level. I do not believe it is a necessary part of tne "pursuit" statement of the DOI. On a primitive level I must take care of myself before I am strong enough to take care of you. Taking care of you does not equal or take precedence over taking care of myself. That would be impossible. Please note- No where do I deny others the same right.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LLsaid:
1."I do not believe it is a necessary part of tne
pursuit' statement of the DOI." and,
2. "take care of... take care of you. Taking care of... taking care of myself."

Let me respond in reverse order:
2. Again you jump to 'take care of' in repeat fashion. We are dealing, currently, with the unalienable God endowed right(s) of pursuit of happiness (and life/liberty) and not 'taking care of' (whether self or others). Let's concentrate on this first.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

1. So, re: pursuit Please answer the questions I asked.
Further if you believe the divine gift of "pursuit of happiness" (and life liberty) can/should be safeguarded for ourself, separate from safeguarding the same for others, how does one 'pursue' ("find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish" -M/W) happiness in such fashion? It sounds like a 'my pursuit' vs. 'your pursuit' of happiness competition which in the end denys the fact that God has given this right of 'pursuit' to all.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

There may be a 'competition' in how far one can get in this 'pursuit' but currently we are speaking of: does this pursuit belong to all? are we to be united in protecting this right to 'pursue happiness' (and life/liberty) for all?

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

Chris, the right to pursue happiness belongs to all - BUT Liberals seem to want GUARANTEES thereof. Therein lies the problem. People need to be more accepting of their limitations, and those whose limitations have been aided by taxpayers should be grateful to their benefactors. We're all equal in God's eyes, and, theoretically, under the law. But as any teacher, coach, or CEO can tell you, that's where it STOPS. There's only so much room at the top, and too many people feel entitled to be there.

libertylover

CC- Certainly the pursuit belongs to all. As I said, nowhere do I deny this right to all. Perhaps you are saying I should give you (or other competitors) a head start in the pursuit? Why? When I have achieved my potential and have surplus I will be glad to share, according to Christian values, but in the beginning, when I am struggling to make ends meet, I should give you (or others) a head start? Nowhere in the DOI does it say that. If Steve Jobs had done that, we would have no Apple Computer.

libertylover

God gave us a strong survival instinct at creation.
We must be strong to survive. He then gave us the revealed word, which tells us to take care of our needy neighbor.
The strong, after having realized their strength, must take care of the weak. That does not mean enabling them to be weaker, as the Dem. party has done to the black family.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "CC- Certainly the pursuit belongs to all."

Question 1 (does this pursuit belong to all?) answered in the affirmative.

Question 2 (are we to be united in protecting this right to 'pursue happiness' (and life/liberty) for all?) still remains to be answered.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "Perhaps you are saying I should give... a head start in the pursuit?"

Not at all... I think plenty of that occurs already as our economic system has been gamed to the advantage of some.

LL said: "That does not mean enabling them to be weaker, as the Dem. party has done to the black family."

Given the larger percentage of the black vote given to Dems it seems they disagree with you on that score.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "He then gave us the revealed word, which tells us to take care of our needy neighbor."

More than that, we are to 'love our neighbor as ourself' regardless of whether they are needy or not.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "When I have achieved my potential and have surplus I will be glad to share, according to Christian values, but in the beginning, when I am struggling to make ends meet, I should give...?"

Whether or not a person wishes "to share, according to Christian values" is up to them. But, I would point out that giving "according to Christian values" is Scripturally to be done at all times (including "in the begining" and even when we are "struggling to make ends meet" -- cf. the widow's mite).

always

Stated: "There's only so much room at the top, and too many people feel entitled to be there."

I do agree with this. Those born with silver spoons in thier mouths, all the advantages, etc. do not want anyone else to be entitled to be there.

Neither the Bible or the DOI give them a reason to believe they deserve this priviledge at the expense of those hurting in our country who only want to have a chance at enjoying happiness also.

Share a little and feel better about oneself.


Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

always said: "Stated: "Those born with silver spoons in thier mouths, all the advantages, etc. do not want anyone else to be entitled to be there."

Great point always.
Being at 'the top' rightly occurs from hard work, ingenuity, drive, etc.. We are to protect the 'avenue of pursuit' so that all have access to it and one of the ways the 'system is gamed' is thinking that 'silver spoon' is enough to arrive at 'the top'. It is why an 'estate tax' is a just occurrence.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

always said: "Probably caused by that 'fox-news-itis' going around."

Some more evidence of how that ailment is spread:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/12/387668/fox-chart-unemployment-fail/

libertylover

CC- sorry about the delayed response. Unavoidable. I have answered your 12/12 11:28 question no. 2, but I will answer it again. Yes, we should protect everyone's 3 basic human rights in the DOI, even if it means using our military to do so against foreign invaders. Traditional conservatives will have to protect those rights from internal enemies, and they will do so if a majority of them understand the threat. Either that or we will lose to libs who don't understand the threat and prefer not to.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "I have answered your 12/12 11:28 question no. 2, but I will answer it again. Yes, we should protect everyone's 3 basic human rights in the DOI"

1. Where exactly did you say "protect" these rights? I see you say these 3 rights "belongs" to everyone and you do not "deny this right" but where did you say "protect this right" prior to your last post?
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

2. There is more to question #2: are we, as 'the people' to be united, by the laws we enact and representative we elect, in protecting these rights? Is protecting these 3 rights for all something we are meant to be united on?

libertylover

CC- I am not clear on your point of disagreement with me. I am beginning to suspect it may be the word "unified." If that is the case, please explain what you mean by it. What exactly does that entail?

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "CC- I am not clear on your point of disagreement with me. I am beginning to suspect it may be the word "unified." please explain what you mean by it. What exactly does that entail?"

1. There is no "point of disagreement" -- #1 was simply pointing out that you had not yet agreed to "protect" and #2 was pointing out you had not yet fully answered the second question with regard to the "united... in protecting these rights".

Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

2. As to your question what does it mean, the word is "united" and it means (m/w):
1: made one : combined
2: relating to or produced by joint action
3: being in agreement

Thus, as we protect these 3 rights is it a legitimate expectation that all citizens should be involved in this protecting of the unalienable rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) that belongs to everyone?

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Or to state in different ways:

1. As we protect these 3 rights is it a legitimate expectation that all citizens should be as one in protecting these unalienable rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) that belongs to everyone?"

2. As we protect these 3 rights is it a legitimate expectation that all citizens should be joined in action to produce protection for these unalienable rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) that belongs to everyone?

Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

3. As we protect these 3 rights is it a legitimate expectation that all citizens should agree that we are to protect these unalienable rights (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) that belongs to everyone?"

libertylover

CC- thanx for the explanation. Since abortion, DOMA, central planning vs. economic freedom, embryonic cell research, strong military vs. strong welfare system are all hot-button political issues on which we disagree we cannot be as one on the issue of property rights, the pursuit of happiness. Thanx for the discussion and since this page is close to the end of its life, we can move to another page. I see you have already offered your opinion on the question of homosexuality.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

Liberals don't understand that the right to liberty includes the right to fail, and NOT expect Gov't to prop them up. I favor providing for those who need help, as that's the humane thing to do, but entitlement to such isn't a right - as U.S. history proves. For well into the 19th Century, it wasn't uncommon for Americans - even in peacetime, and with no epidemics - to casually step over corpses lying in streets as though they were carrion. Expanding what's a "right" isn't always constitutional.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

1. I haven't spoken of 'property rights' nor any of the 'hot button' issues.
2. Since I gave a definition for 'pursuit of happiness' that did not include in any fashion ‘property right’ and of which you said was "right... for the most part" (excepting the 'caring for others’ which wasn’t in my definition either) I wonder why you now want to add ‘property rights’ as equivalent to ‘pursuit of happiness’?

Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

3. I am not asking/stating that we be ‘one’ on ‘hot button issues’ (which also is not equivalent to ‘pursuit of happiness’ nor a part of my ‘for the most part correct’ definition). I am asking/stating: is it a legitimate expectation we be united in protecting for all citizens, these unalienable rights (however they exist or however we think they should exist or however once the ‘dust’ settles will exist)?
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

4. And yes, I am currently 'offering my opinion' on several ongoing threads and certainly could continue in this one as well. Sorry you deem it necessary to 'move on' but thanks to you, also, for the discussion.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

Based on Chris's 12:47 a.m. post, he seems not to realize that the Founders wrote the Constitution as a document which was mostly concerned with protecting Property Rights. They'd fought and worked hard for what was theirs, and were determined to keep it. That's also why they opposed Gov't welfare programs, and restricted the right to vote to landowners. WASP culture built, and nurtured the USA, reinforced by the Protestant Work Ethic. Getting away from such has caused this nation's downfall.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL, Those 'hot button' issues (and the issue of proprerty rights) are a 'means' of protecting those three unalienable rights. Leaving aside how those 'means' do or should or will exist, all I am asking: is it a legitimate expectation we be united in protecting those 'means' so that they (do/will/should) apply equally for all citizen as our great nation continues to rise?
I await your answer, since u seem to be one who can discourse in respectful fashion. If u have 'moved on', I'll catch u later.

always

Posted: "For well into the 19th Century, it wasn't uncommon for Americans - even in peacetime, and with no epidemics - to casually step over corpses lying in streets as though they were carrion. Expanding what's a "right" isn't always constitutional."

What does this mean? Are you meaning it' a right to casually step over corpses?

Is this a situation where you actually saw and did the above, or is it a case of having read or heard about it from others?

What good does mentioning it do?

always

I have still not seen the written proof of this statement.
Since it is so definately stated the Founders wanted/stated this, why do you refuse to provide the writtin proof?

Stated: "That's also why they opposed Gov't welfare programs, and restricted the right to vote to landowners. WASP culture built, and nurtured the USA, reinforced by the Protestant Work Ethic. 'Getting away from such has caused this nation's downfall'."

One person's IMO. I prefer proof.

libertylover

CC- OK. I guess we have a little more time on this blog. It is my turn to ask a question. How am I not protecting those rights? Where am I failing? Thanks to Todd for reiterating certain essential characteristics of freedom. In order to be truly free, we must be free to fail as well as to succeed. It is the true nature of true freedom.

always

I like this statement: "In order to be truly free, we must be free to fail as well as to succeed. It is the true nature of true freedom."

And if those with the funds to do so would again hire workers, start small businesses, and take a chance at failing in small ways the economy would be strengthened. It would help provide 'truly free' to those who lost jobs, are losing homes, and do not have the freedom for equal opportunities in our great country.

Freedom for all, not just the wealthy.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL,
I haven't asserted you are not protecting those rights or failing in that regard.
I'm only asking "is it a legitimate expectation we be united in protecting those 'means' so that they (do/will/should) apply equally for all citizen as our great nation continues to rise?" Then we can move on to whether the 'means' (abortion, DOMA, central planning vs. economic freedom, property rights guarantees, method of caring for others, etc.) protects or fails re: those 3 rights.

Todd Blodgett
Todd Blodgett

Liberals must realize that Freedom to collect welfare requires curtailing the freedom of others to retain what's theirs; there's no free lunch. Libs who accuse Conservatives of imposing THEIR Pro-Life views on others do the SAME THING when it comes to welfare; their arrogance, and hypocrisy know no bounds. If true freedom/liberty still existed, Democrats would lose EVERY election, because they'd not be able to buy votes with OPM. They'd also be 100 or so Million short of their present numbers...

always

Stated: "there's no free lunch"

We've gone through this before. Have you forgotten already.
If I pay for your lunch it is free to you. I would have paid for it, yes, but it is still free to you.

Hard to believe that someone can actually post the 'outrageously false' comments that his last post is filled with. "arrogance, and hypocrisy by Dems. If you also charge Reps of the same I can agree that does exist in many cases. Buying votes, again, admit Reps. also buy votes if Dems do. Be honest

always

Koch brothers file: Republican Governors Association recweived $1 Million from Koch brothers
Koch pac gave $6 Million to GOP candidates
Wiscosin Govrnor Scott Walker received $11OK from Koch brothers.
Also supported with money: Patients United Now
Americans for Prosperity (early Tea Party supporter)

Heritage Foundation, confict of interst ethics probe.
----Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

How did that claim about money received by the Democrats go?

libertylover

CC- I can assure you that I will stand up for those 3 rights for all people, as written in our code of law, the Constitution. I will not support any person's private interpretation of that law. If you are ruled by law you are free. If you are ruled by men you are a slave to the whims of someone else. Good discussion. See you in about a week.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

LL said: "I will stand up for those 3 rights for all as written in our code of law, the Constitution... Good discussion. See you in about a week."

I am glad that you will stand up for those 3 rights for all in such fashion -- I will too.

But since you don't/can't/won't commit to "a legitimate expectation we be united in protecting those 'means' so that they (do/will/should) apply equally for all citizen" all we have is you 'standing' in a corner unwilling to work for 'united'.
Con't

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Which leaves me 'standing' in a corner trying to get your to 'commit to that united' so actual work can be done. Multiply two (you and me) by 217 to equal 434 and you have what seems to be going on in the congress (there is one vacancy).

Now imagine every adult citizen 'standing' for those principles as written without a legitimate expectation to be 'united' on such 'standing' for those 'principles'. You have 'freedom' that leads to 'what'? Freedom for its own sake isn't viable.

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

Con't

Have a great week.

jojodemo
jojodemo

CC why use so many words? Why not just type "At this point we/I dont know." Instead of 10:25-10:39. Again Todd and libertylover say it like it is. Success takes risk and investment..

Chris Clarkson
Chris Clarkson

jojodemo said: "CC why use so many words? Why not just type 'At this point we/I dont know.'"

Because "At this point..." is not 'saying it like it is'. At this point re: LL and I's discussion we do know where LL's position leads: each standing for something with no expectation that we will arrive toggether (united) and thus remaining divided and arriving no were.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.