kvnchrist

This is pretty much how I see it, of course how tolerant people are varies greatly from person to person. I don't think politics comes into it, there are those of a certain political persuasion that preach tolerance but disagree with them and you'll see just how intolerant some of them are. Oh say it isn't so! Hypocrisy in politics ;D ;D ;D

Well, here I am after walking away from another quote/unquote Discussion/debate site that's more a "You are the evilest thing alive because you don't agree with me" site. Democrats, republicans, theists, atheists. Is there any reason why people should think that just because one position binds them that they should automatically agree on everything. Why is it that those championing tolerance is so adamantly intolerant of those they perceive to be intolerant based upon their inability to agree with their pet projects. Why is the terms strong or weak used against those within the same ideological tent according to the level of total agreeance. Is this not intoleration or can this be justified? To me toleration is like respect. You either have it for someone or you don't. You can't manufacture it from an ideal, It has already got to be ingrained into your soul. Even then it is impossible to be totally tolerant or intolerant of anyone or anything. You can be satisfied with a person or a situation for a time, but in time there is a good chance that people will become less satisfied and want change, even thought the subject may not wish to change. Is this being intolerant or just wanting something new.?

Well, here I am after walking away from another quote/unquote Discussion/debate site that's more a "You are the evilest thing alive because you don't agree with me" site. Democrats, republicans, theists, atheists. lions, tigers, oh my! Is there any reason why people should think that just because one position binds them that they should automatically agree on everything. Why is it that those championing tolerance is so adamantly intolerant of those they perceive to be intolerant based upon their inability to agree with their pet projects. To me toleration is like respect. You either have it for someone or you don't. You can't manufacture it from an ideal, It has already got to be ingrained into your soul. Even then it is impossible to be totally tolerant or intolerant of anyone or anything. You can be satisfied with a person or a situation for a time, but in time there is a good chance that people will become less satisfied and want change, even thought the subject may not wish to change. Is this being intolerant or just wanting something new.?

The one thing that I'm fearful of is that the racial tensions that are being stoked by either side and fanned by the media will grow beyond their control and end up being the extremists on ether side running this emigration horse and pony show and yanking the politicians around by the bit.

I remember President Obama's first year as about the worst year I'd ever had in the trucking industry. I remember having very little freight and setting for days at a time. I just wondered if anyone else had better or worse and If so, are things looking up for you ?

Almost a full 2 days and nothing.

I truly didn't know this but seemingly there are more churches in the city of Las Vegas, Nv than there are casinos and those who attend Catholic Church have the option of using casino chips in lieu of money. This blew my mind when I first read about it, but If you think about it, it does make sense seeing the time constraints of those on vacation there. Anyway, they figured out that they needed a central place to send and separate the chips from the various casinos, so they could be taken to the appropriate casino and cash them in. This place, they settled on the Monastery of "Our Lady of Mercy" centered a few miles out of town. Seeing that those within the monastery upheld their religious devotions during the week, they set up Saturday morning as the time which they would take the chips into town and cash them in at their perspective casinos.

Until the land gets sold to China, strip mined, the materials sent to China and taxed as American Exports, processed in China, then sold back to us with a fair markup to pay for all those transportation costs and to just drive in the point that we're pretty much buying back our own resources. I don't think Canada quite has that problem yet. If you're talking about BC. That's the Western most Provence in Canada.

I don't know about politicans, but British Columbia, I know is one of the most beautiful as scenery goes. Politicians come and go but the beauty of nature is forever.

Immigration is a joke played with those wishing to immigrate as pawns in a game of "Don't my party look better than there's does". The Democrats hosed President Bush when he tried to get his guest worker program going and President Obama waited until he was in serious trouble to force the Dream act into being. I can't stand the way the illegible immigrants are being treated. They were welcomed here for their willingness to work cheap, but suddenly 9/11 happens and now they are a threat. Then they are a talking point then a political football.

I have noticed that the elite media acted like they had just won the Gold Medal in scavenger hunting, when there is what they call a minority elected to office that it quote/unquote "Correct minded" which is code for they think like me. They have a tendency not to like anybody talking bad about him or her. The race card is the main weapon used to silence opposition on either side. I remember the Right going after President Obama and I also remember the left going after Senator Rubio, but it seems the left has academy award clinched when it comes to using the race card. They are the party of change and I think that many there haven't updated their social perspective since the early 60's. They are very protective of minorities and see injustice all around them. I think that those more vocal see any minority seeing that same injustice as a sell out. This is why so many go after those minorities that are what Herman Cain called "Off the plantation"

Washington is nothing more than a high stakes rendition of American Idol. Politicians grandstand and posture in any way necessary to make them look as best they can for the people who put them there. The Republicans are not anti President Obama, they are a diminishing conglomerate of Leave it to Beaver watchers, pissed off that the reality of the world around them has changed drastically. Instead of working to have a role in shaping this new reality, they grasp onto more stringent groups, like The Tea Party, which even more disassociated them from the growing trend in today's society. They are scared of what they see happening, because they are used to the prestigious roll they envisioned America had in the world. Down came the Space program and they had to schmuck having our astronauts, for the first time getting rides from a former enemy.They see Americas economic power siphoned off for the first time to benefit the American people instead of bribing and dictating policies of other countries. They see the president pulling away from orchestrating world affairs and they are so arrogant that they think without the U.S. pushing itself on the world that suddenly the world will collapse into chaos. In a nutshell President Obama is clearing away the fumes of decades long self-delusions and the conservatives are addicted to the smell. They want them back and they want the man who smeared their nose in it to disappear.

Look man. I grow increasingly tired of reading 1000 word essays that can more easily condensed down into your core argument, which seeming stems from the idea that the Republicans are extreme because they don't side more with Democratic aims. You use of a graph of three democratic voting against a Republican vote in the same time frame seems to be trying to make this point, but this only proves that the Democrats and the Republicans are far apart on the issues and are getting farther apart. This is no surprise to anybody, but you make it out as if the Democratic voting record is the standard for the country and I really don't think you can make that claim. The Republicans do what Republicans do and the Democrats do what the they do. This use of the term false equivalency is just that. A use of a word. It can be valid or just overused to make an unobtainable point. To me the two party system and those swimming in it are equally to blame for the current intransigence, not because what one is doing to the other at this point in time, but what has been happening over the last several years. Neither party will actively allow the other to gain favor with the American people by creating legislation that will actual benefit the public. Both sides send their spin doctors and partisan hacks to lipsinc the party line and the same thing occurs every time. Fear and confusion for the public instead of their betterment by a government in love with itself. You are a Democrat and you are entitled to defend whatever you will, but if it is a quote/unquote cop out for one then it is equaly a cop out for the other to do the same thing when the situation is reversed. As I've said before, If you want to get something done then remove the obstacle not blame it for being an obstacle. Get a Democratic house and move foreword. This has not been done yet and until it is, this will be the situation we all will be dealing with.

Thank you very much for your take on things and your opinion on the aims of others. is there anything constructive to add to this?]

@ sukeban Lets get past the partisan rhetoric shall we. a good 60% of your last post was that and nothing more. To say the left hasn't did it's share of purging is to ignore what happened to Joe Lieberman. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the legislation that is coming out of Washington is beneficial based on your own political views. Others have different veiws and frankly these graphs say nothing about what was in these bills, just that they were economic. It says nothing about the leaning of the American public and seeing that would tell me more about who was leaning away from the country. Frankly, the idea that someone should not adapt their past positions to modern day situations I think, if you think about it just is not human nature. The country has changed as well as the situation they are dealing with and there is always the unknown element of what the Republicans are dealing with in the back rooms of the congress. As far as the minimum wage, I look at that, this way. If I had a family with kids and paid those kids for the chores they do. What would raising their earnings do to the families money if the family income was in the same trouble as the economy is in? I'm not an educated man, but I think anyone can see warning signs inherent in this. As far as the temperament of the republican party in the past, I think I've already commented on that. Nether of the political parties are the same now as they were then and the situation has also changed radically. As far as present legislation passing in the past I don't think that The affordable care act could at anytime have been passed until it was pushed through as it was. Personally, I think it was past due and we should have been a single payer project, but as I've said, Fear runs rampid, sometimes. As far as the Filibuster is concerned, I think that was a ludicrous thing to have in the congress to begin with. We are a country who votes people to congress to represent them. If they send a majority of one political party than the other, then the lesser of the two is doing something wrong and needs to suck it up until the next election.

You guys are forgetting one very essential portion of this entire episode. You bring up the past as if the circumstances coming into play here have ever taken place before. We have a time when when the country is going threw one of the longest economic disasters we've had in modern times. In the midst of this a Democratic president with far reaching designs on the shape and form of the country itself, comes to power. He has tried to change the energy polacies of the country. He has ended long entrenched programs that have brought prestige to the U.S. in a time where the country is on its knees. I am not defending any party here, just giving my take on why there is so much drama in Washington. I dare say if Pat Rebertson suddenly became popular and was elected president, the left would be in full defensive mode as well. I would be willing to lay down money, that if he was implementing far right wing legislature that the left would be just as intransigent as the Republicans are today. If instead of healthcare, abortion rights, Welefare, Medicare and Medicare were on the perverbial chopping block you guys wouldn't be standing alone to shut down the legislative system, but you'd still be there. The entire country is going through the most entense soul searching it's been through and you are wondering why the those on the listening end of the stick are clinging on to anything they can. The Republican Party might be fragmented. But they aren't in any way out of the game.

Oh come on now lets not get crazy and saying inflammatory things to provoke a crazy response , no one ever said the Democrats were doing a phenomenal job .lol Was intended to be sarcasm :biggrin: . Anyway I hope those evil Republicans completely stonewall anything the Democrats try and pass. The ones who voted for Republicans are the ones who want partisan gridlock. So the threats about them losing seats if they don't compromise, uh? No? Its actually the other way around. If they compromise ANY on lets say gun control? Then its likely they could lose a primary to a challenger. So you think the sequester spending cuts are a good idea for the Republicans to stonewall just to create partisan gridlock for no aparrent reason when both parties right now think the sequester is a bad idea? If both political parties think sequester spending cuts are a bad idea now, why doesn't the republican majority speaker of the house bring it up for a vote to repeal? Are guns are more important than the well being of the countries economy? Doing nothing about the sequester spending cuts would be a job destroying tragedy not only to private job creators but also ultimately end up shutting down parts of the government. Good luck buying guns if your company lays you off because they lost billions in government business. For the record Deomcrates have a higher national approval rating than the republicans right now. Democrats are around 49% and Republicans at around 27% And i would have to say the democrats are doing a phenomenal job on capital hill despite the partisan gridlock. looking back to the end to the 112th congress every corner the Republicans have tried to stop important legislation the republican party has blinked. lol Why are you so polarized on this? You seem to think that the President Obama isn't working on his own on some of these backroom deals. He has already went around congress so many times it isn't funny. He even sidestepped Herry Reed on a deal he wanted to make with the republicans. If you ask me there are three entities working here. President Obama ideological pushing this way. The Democrats in congress trying to keep their seats while trying to justify some of President Obama ideals and the Republicans, trying to do the same, except they want to highlight the more idealist of the presidents proposals in order to cast him in the light they wish to. Do you really think that the opposition is for this sequester or against it based soley on that. There are other matters that are afoot here and I don't think any party should roll over on every other piece of legislation just to stop one. The Democrats are not doing a phenomenal anything. They are playing the same kind of politics that the republicans are. Why do you think that President Obamas budget proposals haven't been backed strongly by either the Senate or the House. Note the Senate is in Democratic hands. The republicans are not shutting down or stopping government. They are doing the constituents bidding as well as they can and The Tea Party is right in their demigoging everything like the drama queens they are. Personally, I though they'd have been absorbed into the body of GOP by now, but I guess there like a bad case of herpes. They pop up and irritate the crap out of everybody. Sorry but it's never an either or scenario in Washington. It's not Guns or the sequester and you are still using poll numbers as if they are the thermometer of the country. I think we pretty much discounted that assumption in the last couple of posts. The qualifier "Important" is an opinion. as to the relevancy of as legislation's noting the desire of politicians to add things that have nothing to do with the legislation at all. Some could argue that some legislation is important only to one side or the other. Just because something is produced by a favred party doesn't necessarily make it important.

No, being an ideologue is not being political. It means having no conceptual idea that anything you do can be considered wrong or that anything you do may not work. The man is a community organizer, not a politician and his legislation bears that out. almost everything his done has been pushed through including the affordable care act and we still don't know how much the insurance and pharmaceutical companies made out in that deal. He may have not had very much of a finger on that, but the speed that it was pushed had his fingerprints all over it. I think you would find few people here who would agree to a contract backed by a person who stated, "We have to sign it in order to find out what is in it beyond the fog of debate". Would you buy a house under those circumstances? I wouldn't. I'm also sorry, but I think that you have your facts wrong, when it comes to polls. Note, I didn't say national because I wasn't sure the poll I took was national, but it was skewered. The rest you can indeed word a question in order to alter the outcome. I know, I've seen to many of these debates to not understand that. I refrain from saying words like Niave and nonsense, which has a tenancy to be taken personally by some. I'd rather someone say that my facts are wrong or that I had been misinformed. For the record I had two phone polls taken by me over the past few years. I will not say which party because I am sure both parties do this, but both I took the first question was what I thought of the overall performance of one political party. I was given a list of numeric responses from 1 to 5. Me being myself and finding political parties distasteful I gave the lowest response. The same exact question was repeated and I responded appropriately. The question was again repeated and I gave the noncommittal response to which the question was again, repeated. I responded this time with the highest remark and surprisingly the next question was asked. I then hung up the phone thinking the test had a glitch in it. I try to give everyone a chance. No on and nothing is infallible. That was until I received the same poll, though I didn't know wither it was given by the same body. It started out and ended the same way as the first. I won't ask you to infer anything from that, but it is fact that I took it. As far as credibility, the news and print media also has this to think about and how many of them skew their information towards their target audience? Credibility has become a commodity in today's world, just like sincerity and offense I see you are confident enough in these polls to quote a few. I think you would find a fairly consistent score, no matter which party was in power there at the time. Also If you are going to bring up these polls, would you at least post the scores for the Democrats as well. I really see no point in polls sense, even if I'm in error, for which I apologize for in advance, they are a snapshot in time and relate more to what someone perceives than any kind of reality. Case in point, we elected George the II twice. The second time because the country was afraid. To tought the present polls as anything more meaningful is to ignore the electoral history. High marks today doesn't mean in three days the same people won't be in the crapper. He is an ideologue = A true believer in what he is trying to do. More power to him sense the Democrats elected him to do their bidding. Any Democrat or Republican, for that matter needs to follow their vision of The America they chose. To not do so is to deny the voice of those who elected them, but does that mean what they want in any way workable? There are those on the left that think President Obama didn't go far enough and I'm not sure that they aren't correct. Especially with healthcare. Everybody on the right, that I've talked to calls the man a socialist and I'm not sure wither they see communist when they say socialist. Not many that I've talked to even know there is a difference. True Communism has in my opinion, never been achieved by any government, but the right still had McCarthy totally destroy hundreds of citizens futures just be cause they believed in an idea. This, sentiment, I think has never gone away. This mortal fear of an idea. I think America has been toying with the idea of socialism for a very long time. I think it's time we need to see what full socialism is in this country and find out for sure if it will work here. If not there's not a lock on the door that will stop us from changing back or instituting something altogether new. Heck wasn't it an idea that created the U.S. to begin with. To be fearful of a different idea, now doesn't exactly make us shine. What do you think?

Personal, I get very tired of the partisan politics, the political wrangling and above all those people who simply refuse to give leaders of their own side the same scrutiny as those on the other side. Frankly, the lack of scrutiny of one's own leaders gives these people the room to slither around and do backdoor deals that most likely is the reason for half the legislation that gets opposed. Do you guys really think that each and every bit and piece of legislation is all about what the name of the legislation describes? Please don't tell me that this and that senator doesn't add a few million dollars of pork onto these bills for this and that project, until it's too much even for it's sponsors to support. Politics has always been about perception. The spin meisters and the damage control specialists are all over the place, tweaking and sheering up anything that happens in Washington and there is the fact that that either side of this manure fight doesn't want anything that would make the other side look good. President Obama is just as much of an ideologue as George Bush was an idiot. Both sides are so sure of their aims and ideals that they see any opposition to them as being Evil. I think the term the spin doctors are using these days is, "Out of step with The American People." which is ludicrous. These people have pollsters that actively search for ways of wording the polls they take so that they can say "The America Public" is behind them . I don't really think that either side is entirely for the American people, since the interests of either party is to be re-elected and look as good in their mud wrestling clothes as humanly possible in the time between elections. Their policies are formulated to turn America in the direction they envision and to help those contributors who have been most financially supportive of their causes. This doesn't mean that these supporters are in it to aid the rest of the public and for either side not to add this calculation to the sum and total of their appraisal of either side is dangerous to the very ideal of democracy. I would continue, but I have several cats that simply refuse to be ignored and are slow walking across the screen, my keyboard and my lap with that motor running at premium pur mode. I think they have a whim that want me to pander to and are passively resisting me doing anything further until I fulfill them. In fact I'm having to look around a jet black furry tail to type the remainder of this while it's owner lays across the keyboard of my laptop and attacks my fingers as they strik=e- -jnnmjkui567548u9it. See what I mean. I'll get back with you.

What part of the following statement did I get it wrong. In my opinion the word Judgmental is a politically correct phrase which has no value. >I know from history that human beings social and politically have evolved from Hunter gathers, to tribal, to kingdoms, to nations and I was wondering why we have always sought a way to divide us as human beings, mostly according to the most superficial of reasons, other than to unite us for the betterment of the species. You are claiming that without using labels which exclude human beings from other human beings that good ideas would not be exchanged. How is this then that there are 1000's of anonymous users, some on this very site who doesn't define themselves by any label other than their user name. How then can we exchange so many ideas without knowing who calls who what? I think you are getting Geography mixed up in topic which has nothing to do with where you were brought up. A black man, raised in Spain , who migrates to America. Is he a black man? Is he a Spaniard? Is he an American? Is he an African-American? A person may have a different perspective based on where he grew up, but does his origin define him as a person or does his character? Wow! that last post of mine came out weird! Here's what I was trying to say: 1. The guy's labeling people as violent who don't think like him. That's judgmental. 2. Geography is one of the driving forces in societal and cultural development. 3. Let the black guy from Spain label himself. If he becomes an American citizen, then I'll just be content to call him an American. I would like to ask how a determination of another persons actions is any more judgmental as someone calling another person judgmental. This idea of being nonjudgmental is to me just argument as the use of labels. I would think that the driving force behind any change would be ideas rather than areas.

And how do those people being intolerant cast those in their cross hairs? They do that by Labeling them as something other than the caster is. Just because people exclude other people doesn't mean they don't use labels to do so. Wither it is exclusion or inclusion, the effect is the same. Someone is left out for being a cast that way by the use of a label. Violence need not produce a visual scar. Those scars almost always go away. It is the scars left on the soul that last the longest and hurt the most. Labels help to define people, there is not a problem with labels, the problem comes from people who fear or dislike a certain group, those who use labels for their own ends. It's human nature to pigeon hole people or groups of people, to think we would ever stop doing it is to deny reality. I have Jewish friends, are they being violent towards me? no, do I see them as any different? not at all. People should be proud of what and who they are, diversity adds to the richness of any culture, a few bigots and morons shouldn't be allowed to change that. This has nothing to do with diversity and absolutely nothing what-so-ever about liking who they, you or anybody else for that matter are. This is about people casting others as outsiders. Bigots are simply those individuals who actively embrace the differences in order to justify their own existence. They are the worst of the worst and are so ignorant they are proud to be so. We still come back to the notion that it is intolerance that is the issue here when the real issue is defining whole groups by their differences instead of embracing them for thir similarities. Hell, with the overwhelming loss of the Republican ticket, this last presidential election, I would think the danger of pigeon holing people would be pretty much a given. The GOP excluded more groups than they included and it cost them another 4 years. This is not about personal growth or finding oneself. It is about branding a set of people as "Not Us," by defining us by a label.. Are you seriously suggesting we could function without defining people? how do we help the poor without defining them? how do I know what foods to avoid giving guests if I don't define them? how do I make allowances for someones beliefs if I haven't defined them. Suggesting we can function without labelling or defining is failing to understand how the human mind works. The fact is we're not all the same so trying to behave as if we were is a nonsense. As for children, they can be very cruel towards those different to themselves. Define them as individuals, not groups. A man who happens to be born black or white is not black or white and then a man, but political correctness has turned one into an African America and then a man and the other simply a man. I would rather know if either of them are good caring persons rather than something that was determined by nature. Being poor or rich is an artificial term which has nothing to do with the individual person, but their financial circumstances. None of these people arte the same and the reasons they are where they find themselves is as diverse as their attitudes. Some life has not been fair, some decide they are comfortable in that situation and some chose to be so because in there goodness they've rejected prosperity. Mother Theresa falls into the later description. My question to you is, Do you actually think people who are givers, who make a conscious decision to reject wealth in favor of helping their fellow humans are actually poor. To me they are richer than the wealthiest person in the world. As for those who have chosen to be poor. I have family who have decided they'd rather do drugs and live on a shoe string, rather than stop doing drugs and find better employment, with a business that mandates drug testing. This isn't even in the same ball park with a single mother, with 5 children who works 3 jobs and cleans other peoples houses on the weekends. One is actually trying to make it, while the other is simply sliding by and teaching her kids those same values. I ask you, who deserves public assistance more? The label poor gives all these people equality behind a label that they don't necessarily deserve. As far as my suggestion being nonsense, I think is just another attempt to say that to try to change what has always been isn't worth the effort. I'm not saying that anyone is, but that seems to be an entrenched mindset. Personally I think it would be work if people who stop for a second and not concentrate on the reasons it wouldn't. There is hope there. Alot more than what people have grown accustomed to do. Look around the world. How has this penchant to label worked out over the course of human history. How many lives have been lost?

And how do those people being intolerant cast those in their cross hairs? They do that by Labeling them as something other than the caster is. Just because people exclude other people doesn't mean they don't use labels to do so. Wither it is exclusion or inclusion, the effect is the same. Someone is left out for being a cast that way by the use of a label. Violence need not produce a visual scar. Those scars almost always go away. It is the scars left on the soul that last the longest and hurt the most. Labels help to define people, there is not a problem with labels, the problem comes from people who fear or dislike a certain group, those who use labels for their own ends. It's human nature to pigeon hole people or groups of people, to think we would ever stop doing it is to deny reality. I have Jewish friends, are they being violent towards me? no, do I see them as any different? not at all. People should be proud of what and who they are, diversity adds to the richness of any culture, a few bigots and morons shouldn't be allowed to change that. This has nothing to do with diversity and absolutely nothing what-so-ever about liking who they, you or anybody else for that matter are. This is about people casting others as outsiders. Bigots are simply those individuals who actively embrace the differences in order to justify their own existence. They are the worst of the worst and are so ignorant they are proud to be so. We still come back to the notion that it is intolerance that is the issue here when the real issue is defining whole groups by their differences instead of embracing them for thir similarities. Hell, with the overwhelming loss of the Republican ticket, this last presidential election, I would think the danger of pigeon holing people would be pretty much a given. The GOP excluded more groups than they included and it cost them another 4 years. This is not about personal growth or finding oneself. It is about branding a set of people as "Not Us," by defining us by a label..

Ask yourself why children can play with children, who if they were adults they wouldn't be 50' from each other, unless they have eachother's necks in the grip of their hands. Children see more clearly than we as adults, because they haven't been tainted by the unconscionable world on adulthood.

What I said was: Human beings are steeped in tradition, culture and they thrive in familiar surroundings. What needs to happen is to experience other cultures, traditions and become comfortable with that which they are not familiar. Only then will we be truly able to transcend the us against them mentality. Intelligence is only the capacity to learn. Education is only an awareness of a larger world. Experience is the one thing that will permanently, for good or ill instill a sense of human face on those who we once called, them!

Who said the human race was intelligent. We mimic intelligence until confronted with ideaology counter to ours. I've seen the most intelligent people I've come across act like children when confronted with a challenge to their perceptions of reality. Heck, It has happened here on several occasions. We, who wish to descuss these matters are doing so, but what is the percentage of human beings who would just as soon flip you off and call you names, because you don't see what they consider obvious. Look at the Untouchables in India. Look at any (BANNED SUBJECT) organization and you can see people condemning others for the labels they attribute to them and the depravity that label fosters. The compartmentalizing of information is helpful, but to some it is necessary to put others in their Quote/unquote rightful place.