Is Liberalism a "Theology" as Santorum says it is?

[DefeatObama]

Yup that Hoover. Like I said, you have to dig past their top level bullshite spin. And search for relative spending.

that so?

DIGGING MATTERS
RELATIVE SPENDING MATTERS
as does the THEORY OF RELATIVITY

 

[DefeatObama]

They are educatable. Its just that you have to spend about 2x -3x per student over what is being spent on them in public Ed. That's what Parochial Schools do to achieve their success rates (and also kick out "problem" kids).

Hey there 's an idea.

the problem kids aren't being educated. they're being baby sat.

 

[degsme]

Hey there 's an idea.

the problem kids aren't being educated. they're being baby sat.

and you reach this "conclusion" how?

 

[Lobato1]

Obviously "IF" you knew definition of theology you wouldn't be asking this inanity:

Webster: Theology noun

1: The study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially: the study of God and of God's relation to the world


2: A theological theory or system <Thomist theology> <a theology of atonement> b: a distinctive body of theological opinion <Catholic theology>


3: A usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

​

Best Regards
Lobato1

:amen: :amen: :amen:

A Theology is a belief system in an entity superior to the individual human being, be it in a god or some other power.

Since Liberals believe in government, the good of the collective and wealth redistribution, it can accurately be depicted as a type of belief system or theology.

Therefore I propose that the dictionary contain the following additional definition of Neo- Liberalism or Progressivism.

Liberalism (Progressivism): A collective belief or theology who's main Sacrament is Abortion.

 

[DefeatObama]

and you reach this "conclusion" how?

experience

 

[DefeatObama]

They are educatable. Its just that you have to spend about 2x -3x per student over what is being spent on them in public Ed.

is this one of them thar bulshite type FAX ?

So the average total per pupil spending in DC area private schools, some of the most elite private schools in the entire nation, is about $10,000 less than the comparable figure for DC public schools.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-real-cost-of-public-schools/

http://www.publicpurpose.com/pp-edpp.htm

http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/spending_factiness/

http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2011/06/school-spending-per-child-milwaukee-public-schools-versus-other-public-schools-and-private-schools/

WEBSITES MATTER

 

[KnotaFrayed]

dirt.




he doesn't




oh you mean the ideology that a former VP of the US subscribes to.



you said conservatives ignore due process. since I don't know of a single instance where that's true you must have something in mind. or you don't and it's just more jive.


"n fact, the question came up almost immediately, during the ratification debates, and in early Congresses as well, so we have a rich record of just what the General Welfare Clause meant. Here, for example, in Federalist #41, is James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

Indeed, as was often asked: What was the point of enumerating the 17 other powers if Congress could do anything it wanted under this single power?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ron-paul-on-the-general-welfare-clause/

not sure if that's a FACT.

it's more like a QUOTE.

which I suppose could be considered a FACT

depending on who I'm ASKING

who would have an OPINION

that they would GIVE

I'll have to submit this to the political jack FACT

interpretation committee.

Seems fairly simple to me. I'm better able to feed myself and look after those dependent upon me when my body is healthy and whole than when I have a broken arm or broken leg, thus there is an interest in promoting the healing of an injured portion of my body as it relates to my general welfare and the general welfare of my family.

I would hope most Americas are intelligent to realize that the nation does not exist for the welfare of a privileged few who enslave and indenture them with power influenced by greed and the wealth that feeds it.

"The general welfare" is included in the preamble (the introduction and basis for) of the U.S. Constitution. This nation was not founded upon exclusivity and support only for the wealthy and privileged. It was founded on the recognition of how unchecked, unbalanced power and influence had suppressed and enslaved human beings for most of modern history up to that time. it was founded on the design of balancing the general with the few, the individual and the society, the welfare of the few or individual and the welfare of the many ("general").

Try as some may, it was not about a "libertarianism" based the same old suppressive formula of groups of like minded people posing their version of "freedom" as something "general" when it is nothing different than what any other party wants. "Freedom" for their party (group) is promoted, yet anyone that disagrees with those freedoms or is not aligned with them, should be prohibited from their freedoms because they would impinge on those whose "freedoms" they don't align with.

"Liberty, justice and freedom for all" means for all, not just those that line up on all ways to those in power at any particular moment. Would you or anyone argue that the "general welfare" of the nation would NOT be better if the nation's unemployment was 1% or even zero? The idea of "general welfare" is a whole body experience as there are certain actions any individual can do that would promote their own "general welfare", essentially improving all aspects of their life.

Stuffing one's self with cheeseburgers until one weighs 400 pounds may be done for the great "welfare" of someone's tastebuds and pleasure, but may actually harm the "general welfare" of their life and body and put it at risk. In such a case, the "general welfare" of an individual would be doing those things in every facet of their lives in combination, that keep their body and self healthy and sound and sustainable. Stopping smoking could be said to have a positive effect to the "general wefare" of smokers, if not for smokers and non-smokers alike.

"General welfare" seems an objective and purpose to me, with regard to the Constitution and what I understand to be the basis for it. Like rules to many games, the Constitution states the objective(s) then what participants can or cannot do in order to meet the objective. There are many things that are not directly enumerated, but they are related to both the rules and the objective, thus although not specifically enumerated are governed by the rules and the rules are put in place for a purpose (objective). The process is to lay out what one wants to achieve (objective of an act or acts), then set guidelines to achieve what one wants to or wants to maintain. Each and every situation is not enumerated, but is guided by what is enumerated and if it contradicts or opposes those guidelines it works against the objective. The objectives of the founding of this nation are laid out in the preamble. The guidlines for how those objectives are reached and maintained follow in the articles.

You can read what Madison said about human nature and men being angels with relation to a need (and perhaps level and degree of) for government at the bottom of this post.

 

[DefeatObama]

You can read what Madison said about human nature and men being angels with relation to a need (and perhaps level and degree of) for government at the bottom of this post.

so you figure he meant that every American was entitled to a house and health care?

 

[KnotaFrayed]

you raise a good point. our founding fathers were the ultimate radicals.

what has always impressed me more than any other single thing they did or wrote was their inherent mistrust of government or rather it's potential to be corrupted.

I've never understood how/why anyone in America would look to government as the first resource.

Both party's are corrupt today. There are a few honest individuals on either side but your comment about 'winning' is right on.

party comes first. country second. individuals third. it's completely bassackwards

You seem to be looking to government to solve the nation's problems, no, even as you bash government. That seems to make no sense, much less be backasswards to people who engage their minds rather than their political partisanship. So does whining about the nation's deficit when most people that engage their minds realize that the way to pay off debt faster is to increase income, not do things like go out and buy an expensive car or house or war and then look for a job that pays less (cut revenue) Who at this site has never EVER gone into debt in their lifetime? Debt in of itself is not the evil, borrowing, then cutting the means to pay the debt back IS a BIG problem. How does one support entering two wars then suggest the best way to pay for them was to cut revenue by cutting tax rates? Two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were entitled with terms suggesting their purpose was for economic growth and job creation, yet 6 years after the passage of the first set, 4 years after the second, the nation's economy was crashing and people were losing jobs. To top that off, Obama has been blamed for what began nearly a year before he was even elected president by those of the party that had the White House for 8 years who, instead of growing the economy and creating jobs themselves, have been bashing the government for NOT doing so and blaming the government and those who look to it for the answers at the same time for the destruction of the nation.

If you would like to keep on fooling yourself and those you think you can somehow fool, please be my guest. There are a lot more former Republicans like myself who are not fooled by "neo" republican delusions and denial and we don't feel some desperate need to "belong" that we'll forego values we believe to be universally virtuous to be accepted by the "group". My parents, grandparents and others put a lot of energy into teaching me to be independent and not simply go along with anyone or any group if that group does something that goes against all the values they also spent a lot of time instilling. They told me I would be a lot happier if I tried to stay consistent with universally virtuous values than I would be if I "looked the other way" so I didn't rock the boat and risk being outcast for not conforming or agreeing to the powers that be (one of the objectives of the concept of freedom of speech). Believe me, I tested their ideals and found out for myself. "Belonging" to the "club" is overrated and while there are honorable people to be found anywhere and everywhere, the same goes for the heartless and ruthless and those who will use others to gain power for themselves, then stab those that helped them in the back.

Being a hero and doing good is not a one shot deal and does not entitle anyone to then do that which is contradictory thinking no one will notice because of their previous laurels or rep. Doing positive and good things for humanity is a lifelong deal and it involves a consistency in values that says the value applies to all people equally. If lying is bad, it is bad for all people and no matter who does it, whether it is me, a close friend or someone I or my friends do not like. The "neo" attitude seems to suggest that lying is only bad when others do it or it does not "profit" the individual or the group.

Tories were the "conservatives" of colonial America.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

so you figure he meant that every American was entitled to a house and health care?

Are oil companies entitled to federal subsidies? Are you entitled to an interstate highway system maintained in safe condition? Are you entitled to anything that has resulted from federal funding of scientific discovery and invention that has benefitted medicine, food production, transportation, energy, equal protection under the law? Why should I fund public schools? Why should I pay for "war" I don't feel is "defense"?

Can you document where such a law or suggestion exists or how, if the "general welfare" of the nation was improved by doing so, you object to it?

I have lived in places where most of the real estate was sold off to those willing to pay the max, to maximize the profits of those doing the development of the land. It was then found that after many years, those who worked the low wage jobs (because those that lived in huge residences didn't want to pay them more) that serviced either the resort or the primary residence community had to live further and further away from the communities in which they worked. At minimum wage, when one takes out the cost of childcare and fuel or transportation costs (not to mention the costs all others have) leaves little for things like health care, food and housing or anything, but publically funded education. (BTW, did you go to a public school or a private school?) Now some of those places are having trouble finding people to work in service jobs. Who's going to stock the shelves at the local stores, wait the tables, wash the dishes, cook the food, care for the gardens, all those who think they deserve to have someone to wait on them for a mere fraction of what they have?

If we raise someone else up, are not all raised up?

 

[DefeatObama]

You seem to be looking to government to solve the nation's problems,

You're not paying attention chief

 

[DefeatObama]

most people that engage their minds realize that the way to pay off debt faster is to increase income,

when a credit counselor comes in to visit do you figure they advocate cutting up the credit cards first or marching in to the boss and demanding an increase in salary to balance the books?

Debt in of itself is not the evil, borrowing, then cutting the means to pay the debt back IS a BIG problem.

our national debt is immoral. your 'logic' justify's the debt by addressing it after the horse has left the barn. hell you can justify about anything with that diddy

How does one support entering two wars then suggest the best way to pay for them was to cut revenue by cutting tax rates? Two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were entitled with terms suggesting their purpose was for economic growth and job creation, yet 6 years after the passage of the first set, 4 years after the second,

the purpose of the tax cuts was to 'allow' more people to keep more of what THEY earn. what they do with it is their business. and your strawman 'war spending' in total is less than obama's budget deficit for THIS YEAR.

To top that off, Obama has been blamed for what began nearly a year before he was even elected president by those of the party that had the White House for 8 years who, instead of growing the economy and creating jobs themselves, have been bashing the government for NOT doing so and blaming the government and those who look to it for the answers at the same time for the destruction of the nation.

Government has never created a single job. ever. the democrats have had the checkbook since '06. they have racked up more debt than the R's did from '00 on.

 

[DefeatObama]

Are oil companies entitled to federal subsidies?

no

Are you entitled to an interstate highway system maintained in safe condition?

no.

Are you entitled to anything that has resulted from federal funding of scientific discovery and invention that has benefitted medicine, food production, transportation, energy, equal protection under the law?

no. and 'federal funding of scientific discovery and intention' means what? quantify that
Why should I fund public schools?

Why should I pay for "war" I don't feel is "defense"?

don't. instead of being a hypocrite refuse to pay your taxes.

If we raise someone else up, are not all raised up?

who's 'we' ?

 

[Sgt Staples]

Nope, many Liberals are Christians, in fact one of your Wingers went into a Unitarian Church in Knoxville and murdered several.

He wasn't a winger, in fact he was a Christian hating Left Wing Democrat.

Frankly I'm,surprised that he knew which end of the gun to point.

 

[degsme]

He wasn't a winger, in fact he was a Christian hating Left Wing Democrat.

Ahh so there are no "left wing democrats" that are Christians... um sorry wrong. Try again.

BTW, I'm a liberal - Obama is well to the right of me.

And I'm probably a better shot than you are despite likely having less training.

 

[degsme]

that so?

Ahh yup.

 

[degsme]

is James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution:

Nope
Madison was the principle SCRIBE of the Constitution. That doesn't make him the principle author. It was authorship by committee, ratified by committee. And Hamilton was in fact on the committee that drafted the "General Welfare" clause.

Furthermore The Federalist Papers where a sales pitch (think Proctor and Gamble and Downy) for Ratification. Thus it is hardly definitive of what the text means any more than it is definitive that Downy "is the source of extra softness" just becuase P&G says it is in their ads.

It is True that Madison's views and Hamilton's diverge. Great. so we have TWO DIFFERNT takes on the "intent" of the clause. Which means that as Robert Bork pointed out:

t is naive to suppose that the [Supreme] Court's present difficulties could be cured by appointing Justices determined to give the Constitution its true meaning," to work at "finding the law" instead of reforming society. The possibility implied by these comforting phrases does not exist.... History can be of considerable help, but it tells us much too little about the specific intentions of the men who framed, adopted and ratified the great clauses. The record is incomplete, the men involved often had vague or even conflicting intentions, and no one foresaw, or could have foreseen, the disputes that changing social conditions and outlooks would bring before the Court
​

 

[DefeatObama]

Nope
Madison was the principle SCRIBE of the Constitution. That doesn't make him the principle author. It was authorship by committee, ratified by committee. And Hamilton was in fact on the committee that drafted the "General Welfare" clause.

Furthermore The Federalist Papers where a sales pitch (think Proctor and Gamble and Downy) for Ratification. Thus it is hardly definitive of what the text means any more than it is definitive that Downy "is the source of extra softness" just becuase P&G says it is in their ads.

It is True that Madison's views and Hamilton's diverge. Great. so we have TWO DIFFERNT takes on the "intent" of the clause. Which means that as Robert Bork pointed out:

t is naive to suppose that the [Supreme] Court's present difficulties could be cured by appointing Justices determined to give the Constitution its true meaning," to work at "finding the law" instead of reforming society. The possibility implied by these comforting phrases does not exist.... History can be of considerable help, but it tells us much too little about the specific intentions of the men who framed, adopted and ratified the great clauses. The record is incomplete, the men involved often had vague or even conflicting intentions, and no one foresaw, or could have foreseen, the disputes that changing social conditions and outlooks would bring before the Court
​

take it up with the author

 

[DefeatObama]

BTW, I'm a liberal

Noooooooooooooo..............

 

[degsme]

Noooooooooooooo..............

Which means I'm well reasoned, factually supported and probably better educated than most and humble to boot.