A Political Ideology Challenge, Scouts Honor you follow the rules

[acco40]

I'm not arguing "right and wrong", I'm just trying to point out that saying liberals want to restrict behavior and conservatives do not is ridiculous.

 

Most logical people will tell you that certain behaviors should be restricted by the Goverment. The devil is always in the details.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[NJCubScouter]

BobWhite says:

 

My second problem is is that the democratic party does not like things that I like. They don't like Police Officers (two of my brothers are in law enforcement), they don't like scouting, they don't like the rich (by their standards that means anyone who makes over 40,000 and isn't a democrat), and they like the United Nations more than they like the United States.

 

Do not misunderstand I do not dislike a person if they are a democrat, I simply disagree with the ideology of the Democratic Party. They want people to depend on the government, and the want the people who don't depend on the government to take care of them.

 

Bob, most of what you say here is ridiculous. I think you are finally showing your true colors here, by spouting a Rush Limbaugh-like bumper-sticker version of politics that has little or no basis in reality. Let me take these things one by one.

 

What is your basis for saying that the Democratic Party does not like police officers? I don't think this is true at all. I do think that Democrats do tend to be a bit tougher on the few police officers who break the law themselves, and on the occasional police official who has used a police force as a tool for discrimination; but I don't see how you can argue with that. "Liking" police officers who do their jobs and enforce the law with fairness is not a partisan thing. Disliking police officers such as Mark Fuhrmann, who seem to think their job is to protect only their own racial group, should not be a partisan thing either.

 

I think the accusation that the Democratic Party does not "like" Scouting has been dealt with in your exchange with TwoCubDad, at least as far as the "booing" incident is concerned. He is correct. You cannot label a whole political party for what a few people do during a ceremony. On a more global basis, I think that a Democrat would have more of a tendency to oppose the BSA policy on gays, but that does not equate to "disliking" the BSA. Indeed, as I have argued a number of times, those of use within the BSA who oppose the policy are showing true support for the values of Scouting -- both because we want the BSA to abide by its own values, and because of the difficult choices that we have faced in remaining a part of the BSA despite the national leaders having taken the organization down a temporary wrong path that has caused a lot of damage to the organization and its image.

 

As for the "rich," I do think Democrats want the tax burden distributed more fairly than it will be as a result of G.W. Bush's plan. I don't know of anyone who thinks that people making more than $40,000 are "rich." That sounds like more bumper-sticker politics, Bob. Actually, these days when I hear people complaining about the "rich," it is mostly conservative pundits and talk-show hosts talking about "limousine liberals" or "elites." It is really laughable.

 

I don't know anyone in the Democratic Party who likes the U.N. more than the U.S. It's yet another bumper sticker. Wanting to have international support before invading Iraq does not mean one likes the U.N. more than the U.S. (And that wasn't a big issue for me personally; I thought the decision should be based on our own national interest vs. the possible loss of American life, not on what France or Canada said. And I think we should just go ahead there now and do what we have to do as quickly as possible, and not bother asking for aid from other countries that would obviously come with strings attached.) There may be some people in this county who still hold out a utopian vision of one world government, but I'd say most of those people are not Democrats, but rather are members of real left-wing parties. (If it sounds like I may have a more conservative view of foreign policy than most Democrats, that's because I do. I still think Bush has lied to the American people about Iraq, though.)

 

This business about the Democratic Party wanting people to depend on the government is another Limbaugh-ism. It isn't true. There are some problems in our society, and they need to be solved. In many cases, the official Republican response (though not that of many individual Republicans) is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Although I have to say that in the years since 1994 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress (except for a few months in 2001), I did not notice the Republicans pass any bills to abolish these large social programs. To the contrary, they passed appropriations bills that continued most of these programs. If they had tried to abolish them, presumably the Democratic president would have vetoed these bills, but then what a great issue the Republicans would have had. Unless of course, the Republicans thought that most people actually don't mind paying a little extra in taxes so that the truly needy can get some assistance, which I believe is the case. And actually the one big welfare reform bill, that reduced the number of people on welfare, was actively pushed by the Democratic president. It would not have passed without him.

 

But we wouldn't want actual facts to get in the way of our bumper sticker slogans, would we?

[kasane]

True everything comes at a cost. Utimately though it is how much or how little each person benefits from the cost involved.

 

The cost of health care in the USA is so high/person that many millions cannot afford the cost. Those that can, can only afford to pay (insurance, or fees) for themselves and immediate families, and that's all who benefit.

 

Canada has set their system up that every person pays somethiing (if they pay taxes) and ensures that EVERYONE gets something back for it.

 

The Boy Scouts (depending on the Council) now have insurance coverage for leaders and boys. Theoretically, it is a secondary line of insurance (primarily liability, but there is some medical coverage), but how many of your unit's families actually have health insurance? Think how many of your boys (and leaders) can't even afford a uniform. Do you think they have any medical coverage? And we take them out on events where they handle axes, fire, could drown, etc. Even attending a tiger meeting at someone's house could be hazardous to the boy's health - exposure to measles, chicken pox, etc.

 

The cost is picked up by an organization, which over-insures those that are already insured - and if pressed will cover those that don't have any at all.

 

What kind of market economy is that?

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

I enthusiastically accept your challenge. Heres a post thats way too long, but you should have seen that one coming when you opened this can of worms! So here it is...something for everyone.

 

I am a political and social conservative. My conviction to right wing conservative causes is rooted in two power forces that drive much of my life logic and faith. Despite the yammering of many on the left, most people that believe as I do are not driven by ignorance, bigotry, and fear. Quite to the contrary, we recognize reality, embrace truth, and trust in the Lord. That's not an answer to Old Grey Eagles questionbut before I breakdown my beliefs any further (political and religious), I wanted to quickly counter what surely would have been some contrived, knee-jerk, liberal, slander against me and my ilk (that was not addressed to anyone in particular). Now for the details

 

I am politically conservative because my observations of mankind tell me the following:

 

Men are NOT generally good hearted, unselfish beings. We like to think we are, but even amongst the best of the best, most humans fall prey to temptations. Our condition is such that we should not be trusted to have the best of intentions. We should be very guarded, not only against one another, but also against our very own nature. Much of what we do and say is derived from our selfish hearts. The facts that support my position are this:

 

1) I know myself. I am tempted very often to do the wrong thing. Occasionally (and that might be hedging), I fall prey to those temptations.

 

2) I know my family. They have their own temptations and I have seen them fall prey to them.

 

3) I know my friends. They too, often fall prey to temptations.

 

4) I know my neighbors. Many of which, make my family, friends, and myself look good.

 

5) I know the crime the statistics. They support my theory too.

 

6) You know yourself. If you deny having selfish desires and a heart bent on temptation, I unashamedly and unapologetically say to you - Liar!

 

While the vast majority of the population has not been found guilty of wrongdoing and sentenced to jail, I am convinced that every person had or has the potential to become a criminal, if it were not for traditional values, dedicated families, and laws with teeth. The first two factors are beyond the control of the government. And nor should they ever attempt to control or teach them. The government is simply an institution created and controlled by other men. These men can fall prey to temptation just like the rest of us. I prefer a government that is limited in scope and constrained by laws. Obviously, our forefathers had similar feelings when they created the Constitution. Strong laws, inspired by and for the people, is what an administration should rely on to govern the people. These laws, if they are going to be effective, need to address the true condition of man. For example, if penalties are not created to deter men from becoming perpetrators or repeat offenders, laws have little affect. As I said, laws need to have teeth. They need to confront and deal with the reality of mans self-serving nature. I support strong sentences, including the death penalty. I support three-time loser laws. I am vehemently opposed to the parole system (time off for good behavior).

 

If the aforementioned laws are enforced, and the justice system behaves accordingly, I believe gun control laws are counter-intuitive. They take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Those who would do harm to you, or rob you, would obtain a gun in spite of those laws. Furthermore, many gun control laws would do nothing but disempowered the people from protecting themselves, and increase the power of the government to control the people with minimal effort. Neither of these outcomes is good.

 

While I support some welfare programs for the truly vulnerable and/or helpless, I also recognize mans tendencies. I believe many welfare programs feed peoples propensity to allow others to do for them, what they really can do for themselves. These systems feed our temptations. Why should people work 40 hours per week and leave welfare, when they can make similar money doing nothing? The welfare system should be a safety net for those that are justly reliant on others. For others, it should be a temporary - a very temporary measure of relief.

 

I believe we should have a very strong defense and an active intelligence community. Why? Humans, who have a very selfish nature, are the architects of all the nations. Some have managed to control themselves because they have adopted standards and hold themselves accountable. Others merely pretend that they do. These nations are waiting for an opportunity. These governments have no apparent moral conscience. They will freely slaughter whoever gets in their way. Now, with the threat of terrorism, I believe it is even more important. Rogue nations are trying to further their cause and at the same time to disavow any association with these acts of violence. We need to root out and deter or destroy these governments (whatever it takes), before they find a way to undermine us as a nation.

 

I believe in a strong free market economy. Our nation has prospered for many generations. We need to maintain a market where hard working individuals and enterprising businesses (small and large) can thrive. While there is a need for some regulating of businesses and industry, in the past, some regulatory bodies have overstepped their bounds of authority. They need to be careful that they do not suffocate our economy with regulatory laws born out of political activism. Regulatory laws should address real and proven threats to the economy, the environment, workers, and/or the consumer.

 

I believe an unborn baby is just that, and not a piece of tissue that can be discarded like a bad kidney. Pro-choice proponents argue that an unborn baby, with his mother in the tri-semester, can be aborted by the most heinous of measures. They say, Prove to us that this fetus is a living being. I say, since we know a fetus will definitely become a human being, Prove to us when it ever stopped being one.

 

I believe a nation of people can and should set moral standards for itself. If the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity, then politicians and the courts should honor that standard. Jurists and those who hold office should not attempt to treat behavior as a protected class, especially when it flies in the face of the peoples will.

 

All of the above conclusions are based on logic. God gave us logic. I have no doubt that He expects us to use it and to use it often.

 

Nevertheless, I am a social conservative because I believe in the Word of God. Although, I believe every conservative social issue can be debated with pure logic, my faith dictates my beliefs even more so. I know that the human heart has the capacity to deceive, including oneselfso much so that I rather put my trust in the Lord then depend on my own logic. That being said, Ive never had to abandon an argument based on logic to embrace my faith. The two have always been mutually agreeable. When I give to the poor, it is born of my free will, as God would have it. It wont be because I supported a government, which thinks it is wiser than I and responsible for enforcing entitlement programs. When I support a mother, it wont be by supporting the murder of her innocent baby. When I support those on welfare, it wont be through a program that callously creates a world of dependence on others. God tells us to love everyone, but he doesnt tell us to ignore sin. So yes, I can care for a homosexual, but I am not commanded to accept his behavior.

 

Liberals like to believe that they think the best of mankindthat all men are basically good. This is probably true for most liberals. Unfortunately, if youre a Christian, it contradicts what the Bible teaches you not to mention what common sense should show you - but I digress. I suppose they think that they are optimistic, as opposed to those coldhearted conservatives who are pessimistic. Really, it isnt a great wonder that there is such a great chasm between liberals and conservatives, especially if born-again Christians comprise a majority of the conservatives. This liberal ideology directly contradicts Gods Word. Let me tell you a secret, mankind is NOT basically good. Mankind is basically bad, or more to the point - evil. Were so far apart on this point liberals and conservatives its amazing that this country has had only one Civil War.

 

About the only time liberal politicians believe that there is evil in the world, is when they are losing a political battle to a conservative. Then, all of a sudden, all sorts of evil things are happening. Hes a bigot. Hes a sexist. Hes a warmonger. He doesnt care about the little guy. Hes abandoning the poor. Hes abandoning the elderly. His only concern is for the wealthy. They dont argue strategies for governing- they slander opponents. When they get caught in their own wrongdoings real events as opposed to the unproven accusations that they heap upon their opponents, then suddenly they want to talk issues.

 

Those that argue that liberals are compassionate, do so out of ignorance. It is not compassionate to support every cause, every behavior, just to be accepting. In fact, in my mind, the Democrats in leadership do this simply to garner votes from special interest groups. If this idea were applied to every family, all of our children would be amoral, self-serving, degenerates. No my friend, it is much more difficult, and much more compassionate, to love with discipline. Listen to your children, but correct them when they stray. Set boundaries and monitor them closely. I know it takes a lot more energy, but one has much better results. No one likes to be a disciplinarian. I dont want to make my children unhappy by confining them, or spanking them, or taking some privilege away. Id much rather be remembered as the dad who always showed compassion and love. However, my children will not learn if I dont provide them with consequences. I remain intent on deterring them from bad behaviors so that they do not develop habits and attitudes that will harm them and others in the future. Similarly, I believe our government needs to enforce laws without leniency so that the citizenry will learn that certain behaviors will not be accepted or tolerated. If that means some people will spend a lifetime behind bars, so be it. The law should serve to protect the people and to enforce their will. It is should not be used a tool by liberals to conduct social experiments to demonstrate their compassion.

 

So, one might ask himself, What does Rooster7 think motivates liberals to be the way he describes them to be? For most folks, I think one word can summarize it: self-deception. Why? Too many reasons to list but from a faith prospective, one reason is this:

 

Its easier to believe that all men are basically goodthat there are no real evil people in worldthat God loves all of us and well all be with Him one dayor to believe there is no God and we only need to be accountable to ourselvesthen it is to come to grips with ones own sin (or the sin of someone we love) and accept God as the Holy and Righteous God He is. The God of the Bible tells us to fall on our face and trust in Him. For some people, thats just too much to ask for.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Achilleez]

"If that means some people will spend a lifetime behind bars, so be it"

 

For a person so devoutly intent on following God's Word, you sure don't seem to put much stock in his forgivingness.

 

I am extremely against capital punishment in any way or form. "An eye for an eye" is such a horribly stupid philosophy and I hope someday mankind will realize it.

 

If America is the only land and Americans are the only people which God looks after, then I guess the rest of us are rather screwed

 

 

[VH_50]

I'm a liberal because I think that the highest purpose of government is to put the talent and treasure of an entire society to work on behalf of what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature" . . . to ensure that the hungry are fed, the naked clothed, the homeless housed, and the sick healed.

 

I'm a liberal because I cherish our free market economy, but believe that government can and should play a role in curbing its worst excesses . . . treating workers as a disposable commodity, pursuing profit at all costs, and doing long-term damage to the environment for short-term gain.

 

I'm a liberal because I think that the government has a role to play in supporting the arts, the pure sciences, the humanities, and other things that don't make us a profit but do make us human.

 

I'm a liberal because I think that (until he or she has given us reason to believe otherwise) *every* individual, regardless of race, religion, sex, age, class, political affiliation, immigration status, or national origin is just as much a human being--and just as deserving of decent treatment--as I, my family, and my friends.

 

I'm a liberal because the 20th-century US government programs that I most admire--the Pure Food and Drug Act, the GI Bill, rural electrification, the national park system, the Marshall Plan, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, Head Start, NASA--tend to be the products of "liberal" administrations.

 

The amusing thing about all this (to me) is that by the standards of eastern Massachusetts (born and raised); Providence, RI (college); and Madison, Wisconsin (grad school) I'm a mainstream liberal . . . but by the standards of Cobb County, GA (where I've lived these 10 years) I'm some kind of leftist radical.

 

My wife (whose politics are similar to mine), is fond of observing of herself: "My [college] students think I'm an ultra-leftist and a radical feminist . . . and if they ever meet a real example of either they're going to be deeply shocked."

 

VH-50

[Bob White]

With all due respect NJ,

That paragraph you refer to violated the rules that OGE set when he introduced the string. I have already apologized for sending it and I will not continue a discussion along it's lines since it should not have been there to begin with.

 

I sent a replacement post that was in keeping with OGE's request, and if you would like to question that post I will be happy to respond.

 

Bob White

[Rooster7]

Achilleez,

 

For a person so devoutly intent on following God's Word, you sure don't seem to put much stock in his forgivingness.

 

I forgive my children whenever they misbehave. However, I still punish them...they still suffer a consequence for bad behavior. So, if a criminal does not have enough sense to stop stealing, beating, raping, etc. - and thus he continues to suffer a consequence such as a life behind bars, his plight has nothing to do with God's ability to forgive. In fact, it is the criminal himself who needs to search his heart. I feel for those that suffer a lose as a result of a man's bad choices in life. However, my ability to sympathize, forgive, and love my fellow man, does not and should not affect a man's consequences for bad behavior. The business of government is to protect and serve the innocent. It is not their place to forgive transgressions - they should concentrate on governing according to the law. The matter of forgiveness belongs to others like God, the victim, and his family. Lastly, God's forgiveness will benefit those who seek it when they leave this world. That's something men should think about, especially if they're on death row.

[Fat Old Guy]

"I'm a liberal because I think that the highest purpose of government is to put the talent and treasure of an entire society to work on behalf of what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature" . . . to ensure that the hungry are fed, the naked clothed, the homeless housed, and the sick healed."

 

Last time I checked, the federal government was supposed to mint money, provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce. State and local governments really aren't supposed to do much more than provide an infrastructure.

 

[kasane]

"If the collective nation recognizes homosexuality as a perversity, then politicians and the courts should honor that standard."

 

Collective nation? Define collective. A majority? 50.5%, 99%, 100%? If every person in the nation that had the right to vote (not registered to vote - but met the citizenship and age requirements to vote), voted on this issue, you would not get 100% in favour or against. By the very nature of the voting process (the measure of agreement), you would have the very people this affected voting on the issue (or would you deny their rights to have a say in the matter).

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7]

kasane,

 

The majority of voters - how complicated is that?

[acco40]

Confronted with two individuals, one a criminal, one innocent, but their individual guilt unknown ...

 

A conservative would have them both locked up for fear of letting the criminal go free.

 

A liberal would have them both go free for fear of incarcerating an innocent man.

 

I believe that as a society, we should strive to meet Maslows five basic needs for all (see below). In doing so, productive citizens are generated. This can be met by the Government, charitable organizations, religious organizations, families and or many other resources.

 

I'v got a question for all of the self proclaimed conservatives out there. How do you interpret the "A Scout is trustworthy" part of the BSA law? My guess is that you feel it only applies to you, i.e. "I should make myself trustworthy." I believe as Scouts, we should also have trust in our fellow man. No, not blindly follow (faith?) but as a basic premise, expect trustworthiness out of our fellow man. People tend to live up to their expectations. Why not set them high?

 

 

 

 

 

Physiological Needs

These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction.

 

Safety Needs

When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.

 

Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness

When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.

 

Needs for Esteem

When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.

 

Needs for Self-Actualization

When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Rooster7]

A conservative would have them both locked up for fear of letting the criminal go free.

 

No. A conservative would give both men a fair trial and let the chips fall where they may. Certainly innocent men have been jailed before. However, all we can do is weigh the evidence and act accordingly. What a conservative would not do, is create a parole system that allows violent men to go back into society simply because they got their act together for a few months just so they could gain back their freedom. Sadly, when liberals in the justice system allow this to happen, the resulting damage rarely affects them directly. No, its some other guys family who is shattered when their daughter is raped, their son killed, or inflicted with some other act of callous violence.

 

I've got a question for all of the self proclaimed conservatives out there. How do you interpret the "A Scout is trustworthy" part of the BSA law? My guess is that you feel it only applies to you, i.e. "I should make myself trustworthy."

 

I agree. Most conservatives probably do only think of themselves when repeating this oath. That's not to say others can never be trusted - But the reality is, we can only control our own behavior. Others need to demonstrate that they can be trusted. Obviously, I am not referencing everyday exchanges between acquaintances - but I wouldn't ask a teenage boy to baby-sit my daughter just because he's a Scout.

 

People tend to live up to their expectations. Why not set them high?

 

Typical liberal drivel...Sorry, but this statement highlights the basic difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals - all people tend to have good tendencies. Conservatives - all people tend to have bad tendencies. It should be noted, while I believe this simple premise to be true - recognizing people, as having bad tendencies is not the same thing as thinking all people will do bad things. However, society does need to recognize the condition of man and address him accordingly.

 

[evmori]

Rooster7,

You post that describes your convictions is excellent!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10