Taking our country back? I dont get it. Please explain

Start reading a thread here, any thread, and it's 50/50 that a home grown terrorist shows up.

 

Having grown up in the 1960's I would note that the "drug usage" was predominately by anti-establishment individuals that wanted the government out of our lives. Overwhelmingly they believed that our government was too big and too intrusive. They were "liberals" because they believed that the government should not be infringing upon the liberty of the People and shouldn't be dictating what a person should or should not do so long as the person was a non-aggressive peace loving person. The drug using "liberals" of the 1960's were actually very "conservative" in calling for a very small government that wouldn't be intrusive on the lives of the People.

It is funny that today the "social conservatives" advocate "big government" that engages in social engineering which is antithetical to the "conservative" position for small government that doesn't intrude on the liberty of the individual. Today's social conservatives want a huge US military to engage in wars around the world and a big criminal justice system to impose social engineering based upon "Christian theological beliefs" on all Americans. This is juxtaposed to what "conservatives" of earlier generations endorsed.

How about ending the War on Drugs which violates the liberty of the individual?
How about downsizing the US military so it doesn't engage in non-stop wars?
How about endorsing same-gender marriage where the prohibitions violate the liberty and Rights of those prohibited from marrying?
How about ending the discrimination in our immigration laws?
How about treating every dollar of income identically regardless of source under our tax codes?

 

I wonder what the foundation for this statement is because when I look at the "wrong road" it appears that Democrats and Republicans seem to share the wrong road. For example Social Security and Medicare both had bipartisan support but they addressed the symptom of a problem as opposed to addressing the problem. The problem was identified in the 1930's that about 1/2 of the people didn't invest in their future so that they would have the personal wealth (assets) to provide an income when they were too old to work. Instead of addressing the lack of wealth accumulation (i.e. the problem) a bipartisan Congress addressed the lack of income during retirement (i.e. the symptom of the problem). In the 1960's the same problem still existed because 1/2 of retirees didn't have the personal wealth to be able to afford private health insurance. Once agian a bipartisan Congress created Medicare that provided the insurance (i.e. the symptom) as opposed to addressing the lack of wealth accumulation (i.e. the problem).

Today "liberals" address the problem of poverty with "welfare" that mitigates the effects of poverty but does nothing end it. Both Republicans and Democrats have ignored the problem of poverty which is overwhelmingly caused by discrimination (racial and gender) that denies equality of opportunity (violating the inalienable Rights of the Person) as well as the poverty level benefits of Social Security (that didn't address the problem of a lack of personal wealth at retirement in the first place). Both liberals and conservatives would like to end or reduce welfare but the only reasonable way to accomplish this is by reducing or eliminating poverty. The Republicans that simply want to ignore poverty are on the "wrong road" but both parties are wrong in not addressing the primary cause which is discrimination (racial and gender) that denies equality of opportunity that results in poverty.

Both liberals and conservatives on on the wrong road related to world peace because peace cannot be obtained by war. Peace is obtained by diplomacy and not by war.

I'm left to wonder if our schools have stopped teaching that the United States was founded upon secularism as opposed to sectarianism. The founders of America knew that any nation based upon religion/race/ethnic heritage or any other invidious criteria was inherently tyrannical so they rejected any criteria other than the protections of our inalienable Rights (as expressed in the Declaration of Independence) as the only rational basis for our government. The inalienable Rights of the Individual are not established by any religious belief. We can also reaffirm that our government is NOT to create laws based upon religious opinion (beliefs) as established by the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v United States. The founders of America rejected Christianity as the basis for government but apparently that historical fact has been lost.

 

Sure it can be. Just like survival can be attained by suicide.

 

Violence always works best.

That's why when two students aren't getting along, the principal, rather than having the two students talk out their differences in the counselor's office, instead pits the two students against each other in the gymnasium for a winner takes all battle to the death.