Why don't the people who don't like the FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES that are coming to America find another country that better suits them?
The Wrong Guy
2011/10/24 17:22:43
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
7% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
12% | |||
|
26 votes
|
|
27% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
15% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
15% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
12% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
11% | |||
I think most of them would really enjoy Iran.
They're big fans of conservative/religious fundamentalism there.
Newsflash for the left-behinds and perpetually-fearful: America isn't just your country - you're sharing it with roughly half of the rest of the population. Every society has to change, to evolve in order to meet its ever-changing needs. The odds-and-ends many of you are nit-picking about started "changing" under your Lord and Savior, Ronald Reagan, so be sure to direct some venom at him - when you're not too busy hating the President, poor people, homosexuals, and minorities.
Try some historical perspective: For every sweeping change that helped to ensure equal rights for minorities, the working class, and women, there has been a conservative movement diametrically opposed to it. How'd that work out for the conservatives of those time-periods? Think about it.
Yeah, the answers are slanted, but hey - if you don't like it, feel free to find another anti-Muslim, anti-Obama, anti-minority, anti-civil rights, anti-human right-wing circle jerk to infest.
n-sur-vuh-tiv] adjective
l, lib-ruhl] adjective
They're big fans of conservative/religious fundamentalism there.
Newsflash for the left-behinds and perpetually-fearful: America isn't just your country - you're sharing it with roughly half of the rest of the population. Every society has to change, to evolve in order to meet its ever-changing needs. The odds-and-ends many of you are nit-picking about started "changing" under your Lord and Savior, Ronald Reagan, so be sure to direct some venom at him - when you're not too busy hating the President, poor people, homosexuals, and minorities.
Try some historical perspective: For every sweeping change that helped to ensure equal rights for minorities, the working class, and women, there has been a conservative movement diametrically opposed to it. How'd that work out for the conservatives of those time-periods? Think about it.
Yeah, the answers are slanted, but hey - if you don't like it, feel free to find another anti-Muslim, anti-Obama, anti-minority, anti-civil rights, anti-human right-wing circle jerk to infest.
con·serv·a·tive
[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showinesslib·er·al
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
Definitions have been provided for folks who think "Democrat=Liberal", and/or that conservatives were actually the champions of the needed changes that have taken place in America. Read those definitions, and ask yourself, "Does it sound like something a conservative would support?" The answer has always been no, by definition.5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
Top Opinion
-
Change of any sort makes them anxious
+27"CHANGE!" Fundament Changes have been changing our hard earned way of life, and I do not like what I see. If those Fundamental Changes you mention so blythely don't bother you, well they do me, and if YOU don't like my or others opinions, who are concerned, I suggest you migrate to another Country your own self, one that already has the kind of Government you are so hep on acquiring and shoving down our throats. CHANGE! Change Countries....that is my advice to you!
"And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change
and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 18:3
there is plenty of land in Siberia should they choose to go elsewhere
How about just cutting out the loopholes for the wealthy and large corporations and watch the jobs appear and the economy grow.
http://teamlaw.org/
I asked a simple question. A very simple question. You're complicating and derailing it into something much larger about the government as a whole. Which was NOT what I was asking. Whether it's the illegals, or the huge debt, or whatnot and whatnot, I'm asking a simple question: when the able-bodied are out of jobs, and are looking for jobs, independent of other contributing issues, do you support giving them welfare to stay afloat while they try to get back on their feet?
You could have just said that at the beginning, you know.
Eyes roll to the ceiling when I am silently thinking, "Lord, give me patience."
Watch this if you want to see why.
Please focus on this specific issue. Enforcing our immigration laws, or spending hundreds of billions of dollars to create an impassible border, will not provide jobs for all able-bodied citizens. What is your solution to THIS problem?
By reading between the lines, I conclude that your answer is "Yes, they should be left to depend on the kindness of strangers or starve."
Is this correct? Please answer DIRECTLY!
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)
Oh, what the heck. Here is my opinion:
All the other countries have already been ruined.
If conservative is for less government, why do they need more control over people's private lives?
We can have less government if we quit paying for abortions.
No one can make them stop getting them, but why should the government pay for them?
What else did you have in mind?
The government doesn't pay for them. Get your facts first. The government isn't ALLOWED to pay for abortions.
As for what I had in mind-- gay marriage.
Marriage (gay or otherwise) is not your private life, but your public life. You can have sex with anyone (unless you pay for it) without the government interfering.
The government gives money to Planned Parenthood for different services that have to do with womens' health. Like breast cancer screenings, prevention of cervical cancer, Pap and HIV tests, urinary tract and vaginal infections... that's where all the money's going.
They're not allowed to pay a single cent for abortions (which come from private donations).
Marriage is your private life. It affects your ability to have, raise, and care for a family. It's not just about sex, it's about a person's ability to make a personal and private choice with their partner, and being told they can't because other people don't like the idea. It's the government interfering by enacting laws against certain people.
But sure, have it your way-- let's assume you're right. But it is a PERSONAL thing, and the government still feels the need to interfere in peoples' PERSONAL lives.
Why do I get the feeling that everything would be a personal thing if you could have it that way?
After all, I highly doubt the majority of people who get married merely do it so that if someone looks them up on public record, their name is neatly slotted with everyone else's.
-shrugs- I think that what people choose to do with their lives is a very personal decision for them. Because that's simply what it is. Do you deny that?
Gay sex is against God's laws, yet it is allowed in most places anyway, but it should not be legalized.