Log in

No account? Create an account
Eric 1stDiv, Triumphant

The Golden Rule

Posted on 2010.11.14 at 13:05
Current Location: 75409
Current Music: Newman - Plesantville
Tags: , ,

Compassion isn't a political agenda item. Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas, yet modern-day pundits decry it as a Socialist movement - something which threatens to tear the fabric of Democracy from our fingertips. Mention "giving" or "helping" or "recycling" and young Conservatives immediately close their minds to the liberal propaganda which is sure to follow, when in fact its these very ideas - peace, love, giving - that all people, regardless of political alignment, strive for and promote every single day. Conservatives tend to just not want it legislated. That's different than not giving.

Compassion is not a political weapon to be wielded. Its not to be denied, nor assigned to any group of people. Its a universal label, to be applied freely by all. Where then lies the stigma?

The problem isn't necessarily the Right and Left Wing talk show hosts equally stewing feverishly in their spun tales - for anyone with any level of maturity will soon come to realize neither camp is ever completely honest. In fact the very basis of that hosts existence, no matter which side they're on, is to accuse the other side of doing it wrong. My conservative friends don't listen to Olbermann, and my liberal friends don't listen to Rush. Unless its to get inflamed about something - because its the perfect environment for that; An emotional powderkeg. They don't listen to their respective personalities out of anything more than confirmation. Justification for their thoughts and actions.

No, the problem (as always) is people. People who are too busy lining up to be labeled to listen to what's being said. I am by no means advocating "vote for the person instead of the party" rather, I'm asking everyone to just take a step back from politics for a moment and consider the harm its doing to our opinions of one another by way of these labels, and the part you're playing through the propagation of this myth - the myth that your politics or religions are making this world a better place.

If you really wanted to make the world a better place, you'd lay down your political party and your religion and you would follow the ethic of reciprocity: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I don't follow this advice more than when I'm behind the wheel of my car. I treat everyone how I wish I were treated, and my short commute is filled with the happy thoughts of a nation of drivers who aren't rude, careless, ignorant, angry, or stupid. Hands down its one of the more difficult things I do during the course of my day because it hurts my soul that most people simply don't care.

These same people, they've labeled themselves and call themselves by any number of names: Republican, Christian, Democrat, atheist, liberal, conservative...and they all pride themselves on being more open-minded than those who disagree with them. How wonderfully flawed.

Truly living by treating others as you yourself would like to be treated would culminate in a whole host of other little problems given our diverse nature, but it would be a damn fine start to a better world.

All of them, better worlds.


Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2010-11-14 19:41 (UTC) (Link)
Peace and conservationism aren't Leftist ideas
You're missing the point here.

The peaceniks you mention here are definitely Lefties that want to bring our kids home and send them to college where those kids can be indoctrinated in more Leftist bullshit while at the same time the peaceniks fail to recognize that we have an all volunteer force. The last draft was Viet Nam, and that war was propagated by Johnson and ended under Jimmy Carter, which wasn't so much of an end as much as it was kicking the can down the road and leaving the problem for President Reagan to clean up.

Furthermore, the people that beat the drum about mother earth are the same bunch of liberal elites that include but aren't limited to The Lovable Sir Albert Gore, Jr. and Senator John Heinz Kerry (who allegedly served in Viet Nam.) Funny how Kerry is both against war and supports ideas like Carbon Credits and Carbon Exchange. I also find it interesting that these same blowhards that propagate "Climate Change" stand to profit from their rhetoric.

Who owned the largest carbon trading company? Algore. This is the same Algore that owns a mansion in Tennessee who's utility bill is over $1000/mo and flies around on jets telling everyone else that they need to reduce their carbon footprint. But not those that stand to profit from the scam.

If carbon credits were the answer and the planet really was melting as it is alleged to be doing, why would Obama push a Cap & Trade agenda? If he really cared about the environment, he would just cap carbon output and leave it at that. But such is not the case. Those who have been and who are in power stand to earn tons of money off of this ridiculous legislation that Obama himself admitted would make the average American's utility bill rise by 300%.

Even when Hollywood types come out and do PR for Global Warming, Peace and Cap & Trade, they are on the far left. Cindy Sheehan was against Bush's war, but as soon as Obama came to power, she was silenced. Why? Because she didn't fit the template anymore. A Leftist boy who would be king was anointed to bring about a socialistic utopia. Was Michael Moore right when he made his so-called documentary about healthcare claiming that Cuba and Canada have a better healthcare system than does the United States? Are you ready to join ranks with such a charlatan?

Though you attempt to exalt your intelligence by clinging to "morale high ground" you willingly close your eyes to the real world. Facts are stubborn things and these facts will not go away. When you are ready to admit that your government is working against you in an attempt to engage in more legalized theft, I'll be here waiting for you. Of course, you also have the freedom to admit that your years spent in the Air Force were spent raping women and killing babies. You either take the whole narrative or none of it.
ehowton at 2010-11-14 23:22 (UTC) (Link)
When I was 20-something and ignorant, I felt that the ENTIRE WORLD was stupid for not understanding the things I understood, and I sounded a lot like you.

Then I grew up.

The truth NEVER lies on side or the other. It ALWAYS lies somewhere in between. Don't look now, but your partisanship is showing. How very embarrassing.

Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2010-11-14 23:46 (UTC) (Link)
Though you and Democrats try to paint partisanship out to be a bad thing, I don't buy it for a minute. I'm proud of the fact I stand on principle and can argue my position instead of having to resort to debating tactics t get my back from against the wall.

If there's anything to be embarrassed or ashamed of, it's the fact that I once looked up to you and you've turned out to be a spineless old man. I would pity you except you know better and are taking the easy way out.

May God have mercy on your soul.
ehowton at 2010-11-15 01:00 (UTC) (Link)
Your counterpoint of, "Nuh-uh" where considering others' opinions which differ from your own is complex and thought-provoking. I'm going to need a little time to digest it all.

I will admit I was surprised by your devil's advocate approach of "closed-minded ignoramus" where you basically become the very thing I caution against.

Let me get back with you on its effectiveness as an debate strategy, although I'll be honest with you, it doesn't look promising.
michelle1963 at 2010-11-14 22:09 (UTC) (Link)
Amen Cousin!

In forming my own political opinions, I take information from all the parties, and find that I agree with each of them part of the time.

I ALWAYS check the facts myself. Even the news media is selling entertainment nowadays; not information. Secondly, I'm ALWAYS interested in hearing someone else's well-thought out opinion, even if I don't fully agree with his/her position. Why? First of all, that person may have thought of some aspect that I myself haven't. It gives me the opportunity to learn something and perhaps even modify my opinion. Secondly, I find security in that the other person has taken the time and energy to think about the issue thoughtfully, and cares just as deeply about our country as I do, even if s/he thinks the solution may lie on a different path than I do.

It all comes down to a matter of respect.

However people whose political opinions are formed based on an inflamed, hate all dissenters, us against them, and sum it up on bumper sticker mentality scare the hell out of me.

Sometimes I think a new political party is in order. Let's call it The Middle of the Road Party. When I talk to thoughtful people, almost no one is purely Republican or purely Democrat; most lie somewhere in between.
ehowton at 2010-11-14 22:51 (UTC) (Link)
You're a goddess amongst women. I wish more people would listen to "the other side" before forming their opinion. What a wonderful world it would be.
CeltManX, Devlin O' Coileáin
celtmanx at 2010-11-14 23:13 (UTC) (Link)
I have a hard time comprehending the oppositions point of view on immigration. I would like to, I really would. But it seems they use google translate from Spanish to English. The grammar and spelling is just atrocious making their statements incomprehensible.
ehowton at 2010-11-14 23:23 (UTC) (Link)
While I lean more toward the Conservative point of view where this is concerned, I will NOT give up my personal freedoms for the endeavor.

So there we have it.

Tomas Gallucci
schpydurx at 2010-11-14 23:49 (UTC) (Link)
How does defending our border and enforcing our immigration laws make you give up your personal freedom? Did you nod in agreement with Ashton Kutcher when he laughed at the PMSNBC ticker that said "Arizona law to make illegal immigration illegal."?
michelle1963 at 2010-11-15 00:07 (UTC) (Link)
When American citizens of Hispanic descent must "show papers", Americans are giving up their freedoms. It smells of Nazi stink. It's all well and good to say nothing that extreme could happen here, but if one studies Germany before Hitler, they were a very democratic nation. We must always be on our guard not to bend our principles for expediency.
(Deleted comment)
michelle1963 at 2010-11-15 00:05 (UTC) (Link)
Agreed, in regard to not giving up my personal freedoms for the endeavor.

As to the immigration issue itself, again, I find that both sides have valid points because the issue is very complex. I'm going to leave it at that, because I don't have time to write a 100 page dissertation on the subject.
ehowton at 2010-11-15 16:30 (UTC) (Link)
Yes ma'am. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

(Deleted comment)
ehowton at 2010-11-16 02:42 (UTC) (Link)
I'm rather biased because while I seemingly fund these projects, I never qualify for any of them. And while I ensure my tags, inspection, insurance, taxes, down payment and premium are always "on time" if I'm the one who gets hit in an accident, its by someone who has no insurance, and there's usually nothing which can be done about it, unless...you guessed it, I pay for that too.

We each give in our own way.

My wife gives freely of her time in the community, and I enjoy tipping generously. I do so not because the government tells me to. If they want to help me out, they can enforce traffic laws.


Like I said, a little biased. It would appear you've seen worse than I have, and were our positions reversed, I might agree with you. I've spent a lot of time within the comfort of my bubble since I got out of the military :/
(Deleted comment)
Previous Entry  Next Entry