The Real Threat; Not Communism, but Big Gov't and the Left

Harvard · 12-23-2005, 06:56 PM

I am not at all afraid of "communists", or the manifesto mentioned earlier in another post. I am a conservative Christian.

Anyway, I've found mention of "communists" and attempts to destroy the country by communism to be rather narrow and senseless.

Communism is simply an idealogy of the people abandoning material wealth, nothing less. To be paranoid that it will control the country is probably a carryover from 1950's McCarthyism.

To the contrary, I think there is real reason to watch the far left, and the government itself. Big governement is a huge problem in this country. We invade Iraq for the sake of freedom, but we fail to realize that we are losing our freedom in our own country every day. There are rumors that our government itself will, through incrementalism, erode away our freedoms slowly. I think they will first start taking away our right to bear arms, and eventuallty then pull the curtains and have a socialist state. I encourage everyone to vote conservative, and to fight growing gov't by writing congressmen when you see freedoms starting to disappear.

On the flipside we must stay vigilant to oppose leftist groups such as intrusive pro-homosexual special interest groups, and folks like those of the 1960's hippie movement. These are the real enemies who erode down their own morals and those around them. They try to control various media such as MTV and music on the radio, and try to manipulate and create a perverse and dysfunctional society. In my opinion the strongest patriot is one who stands up for the right thing, and resists the leftist kooks and big government at every turn.

Chris

plan_D · 12-23-2005, 10:20 PM

Interesting, and I agree with the points made. However, I don't like the idea of religion becoming any factor of politics. Religion is a destructive force, whether you like it or not.

When politics are dictated by the voice of religion, things like the Crusades happen. (Although, I do approve of them greatly and think Europe should do them again.)

Erich · 12-23-2005, 10:31 PM

just wait for the anti-christ to make his prescence felt and then try to seperate religion from politics...............it cannot be done. We're closer to the end times than you might think

Pisis · 12-24-2005, 07:37 AM

good point E

Harvard · 12-24-2005, 11:18 AM

Thanks!

The two responses took what I said way out of context.

I didn't say politics and religion should be combined. My point is that very conservative folks many times are Christian. This doesn't mean getting religion involved at all. What it really means is a higher emphasis on ethics.

12-24-2005, 11:26 AM

hardly, I spoke as to what will happen, religion and politics will be come one. if you are a conservative Christian you should know these things .........

E ~ Merry Christmas by the way

pbfoot · 12-24-2005, 06:33 PM

well I'm a liberal heathen who thinks religious folk are evil and cause more death because their god is better then mine or anyone elses . You guys scare the snot out of me

Harvard · 12-25-2005, 02:04 PM

pbfoot wrote:

Quote:

well I'm a liberal heathen who thinks religious folk are evil and cause more death because their god is better then mine or anyone elses . You guys scare the snot out of me

Merry Christams Folks!

Firstly, that's a pretty generalized statement. Real Life and real problems are far more complicated than that.

I mentioned conservative Christian as an incidental. It has nothing to do with anything except that I am conservative and ethical. Nothing to create a conflict of interest regarding the separation of Church and State.

So let's stay on the real point which is big government and the far left. Let's take the Canadian government for example. You have a very high tax rate, because of high gov't expenditures. Don't you wish you had lower taxes? I've heard that in Canada your taxes are at least 40% of your income. Why don't you fight it?

Also, you say you are liberal, do you know why? Do you know liberal gov't just spends more and more? Liberal gov't tends to make liberal choivces, hence liberal. to conserve is to do less of something. So a liberal gov't wants to do more of anything and everything. For example spending. In a liberal gov't throwing money at a problem is the way to solve it. A true conservative republic gov't will let the people find suggestions to the problem, and create an efficient sol'n. conservative=efficient.

Being a thinker is the most important thing you can do, accepting the media's influence and staying in the dark on what things really mean is another.

pbfoot · 12-25-2005, 03:21 PM

In canada I'm a conservative yes my taxes are higher but I have health coverage you don't I live in a land that is larger than the States but only 10% of the population so naturally my taxes will be higher being Christian does not make one ethical and I don't take the media at face value particularly Fox or Cnn because that is not news that is sensationalism

Harvard · 12-25-2005, 05:26 PM

pbfoot wrote:

Quote:

In canada I'm a conservative yes my taxes are higher but I have health coverage you don't I live in a land that is larger than the States but only 10% of the population so naturally my taxes will be higher being Christian does not make one ethical and I don't take the media at face value particularly Fox or Cnn because that is not news that is sensationalism

Well, wouldn't you rather have the money in your own hands and decide to pay for your own health insurance? You'd probably save more money if you got your own personal plan.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Do we let our gov't take care of us, because we lack the will power to calculate our own medical plan?

So being Christian doesn't make one ethical? Well the Bible teaches to love our neighbor as ourself. If that's not ethics, I don't know what is.

I'll agree with you about CNN and Fox, but what about other sensationalism that everybody believes?

plan_D · 12-25-2005, 09:13 PM

What about people who cannot afford private health-care, Havard? Do we let them die in the streets? National Insurance, and the NHS, were the envy of the world because it gave health-care to everyone. It doesn't exist because British people lack will-power, it exists because the British people want the system that gives what is needed to everyone, instead of just giving it to those in money.

Harvard · 12-25-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

What about people who cannot afford private health-care, Havard? Do we let them die in the streets? National Insurance, and the NHS, were the envy of the world because it gave health-care to everyone. It doesn't exist because British people lack will-power, it exists because the British people want the system that gives what is needed to everyone, instead of just giving it to those in money.

Plan_D:

So you're willing for the gov't to take your money in order to "equalize" the needy with the able?

Have you considered corporations doing it out of charity, and getting a tax break in return? Don't you think that would be better? Wouldn't be better off if you could make those decisions rather than having the royalty make it for you?

Maybe it's not a lack of will power in this case, but perhaps a lack of creativity. Again it boils down to being forced to rely on the gov't rather than creative private enterprise.

pbfoot · 12-25-2005, 09:32 PM

no you won't save money I've talked to folks from the states and when its explained how it is they are envious it's your nations choice but I believe you are the only major developed nation lacking a health care system it has its flaws but then again what doesn't that is not a slam on the US but you guys do what you think is best

plan_D · 12-25-2005, 09:37 PM

No, I wouldn't. I'd rather have everyone in the country paying into the system and having complete coverage if anything does happen to me. While I recognise the system is abused by the foreigners in this day, it's not the National Insurance system that is at fault.

If a company is getting a tax break for providing it's own health insurance - it's not doing it for charity. And what of the homeless, disabled and mentally ill? How do they pay for their health care?

I like the system the way it is. I pay about £100 a month, and have total cover as well as a state pension when I reach 65.

And I don't know what century you're living in but I'm in the 21st, and in the 21st Century - British royalty doesn't have a say in British politics. I know it's quick and easy to snipe at Britain for still being a Kingdom - and calling all Britons subjects of the Queen is highly amusing for some ...but don't bother. I've been through plenty of people who found it simple to add royalty into the argument - it's sad though that most are American...

I may be wrong, pbfoot, but I don't believe many (if any) of the European nations have national health systems. Maybe some of our Continental European members can call me on that? Adler?

Harvard · 12-25-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

no you won't save money I've talked to folks from the states and when its explained how it is they are envious it's your nations choice but I believe you are the only major developed nation lacking a health care system it has its flaws but then again what doesn't that is not a slam on the US but you guys do what you think is best

"They" is a generalization. Me and most other thinking conservatives realize that health insurance works perfectly well. Gov't health care is really best for those who can't afford insurance ($100/month). ie someone who is incapable of taking care of themselves. This is also a person can't afford a mortgage. In short, it's socialism.

So I've got an idea. You can just work and let the gov't buy your house, your car, your health, and hey you can just sit back and watch TV, and rest assured under total gov't care. This way you can just pay the gov't all your money, and let them run your life. How does that sound? Really, it's called socialism.

I prefer to make my own decisionms, and manage my own life. That way I can pay the bills, and take responsibility for myself.