The conflict in the US over policy goes far, far beyond Democrat or Republican. In all actuality, those two surface divisions are far more alike than they are different. No, it goes far deeper and far more fundamental than political party affiliation.
Where we fundamentally agree is on “what’s best for America and her citizens.” Where we fundamentally disagree is on what exactly that “best” consists of.
To me, it boils down to two camps which are not necessarily identified by party affiliation, and this describes the two and the primary difference between them.
The difference, as I see it, is between those who want people to stand on their own two feet, to be responsible and mature, and to provide for themselves and the progeny they produce: in effect, a limited government. This refers to the vast majority of able-bodied citizens, not those honestly and deservedly unable to care for themselves through advanced or young age, physical or in limited cases, mental defect. I get it, some people need AND DESERVE help. Unfortunately, there are far too many getting help currently who do not deserve help – they are where they are because of choices they themselves have made, and this camp believes that bad choices should have consequences.
The other camp believes that people actually born and breathing deserve all their needs, nay even their wants and desires (apparently irregardless of practicality or worth) met by a government that cares and provides for them from cradle to grave, in every aspect of life, economy, personal responsibility, decision making and bad choices totally irrelevant. Cost apparently irrelevant as well.
That appears to be where the division of the house occurs. I guess you can tell on which side of that fence I pitch my tent.
I love you.
I do not want to continue seriously rethinking that statement.
I empathize with your frustration when I challenge your belief statements. Making personal attacks against me does, at least temporarily, achieve your objective: I lose interest in the intellectual debate and focus on the hurt instead, and you are no longer intellectually uncomfortable since I am no longer challenging you, and indeed, I usually withdraw to lick my wounds.
This is infantile behavior on your part, and it is beneath you. I would like to believe it is beneath you. It has happened often enough that I am seriously rethinking that statement, as well. I do not deserve personal attacks from you, I do not accept them from you, I will not continue to receive them from you. If you are incapable of indulging in intellectual debate without resorting to such remarks when the water begins to heat, that is your own personal failing, and not mine.
After reflection, your choices are two. You can stop engaging in intellectual debate with me, and enjoy the fact that I love you, with all that entails. Or you can choose door number two. When it comes to personal attacks, I do have, unfortunately, some small experience upon which to draw.
I do not need you. I love you, and that is another kettle of fish entirely. At the moment, these fish are smelling pretty rank. I am, as yet, unwilling to scuttle the kettle, but it is always an option. I am not threatening you, I am merely stating some facts for your consideration.
I am ashamed that I have not cheered you on as I should have done when you were awarded an honor (and I was not).
I admit, my first thought was how will this work, when you are, and I am not? How will it fit, and how will we fit with it?
I did not demonstrate to you (like I think I should have) that I was proud of you for being wanted, at least not as much as I think it deserved, because I was thinking about me, us, and how it all would work out.
I apologize, and please know that I am cheering for you. Congratulations! You deserve it!
You know that old axiom about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? That is what has happened to the US, Great Britain, Holland and a few other countries I can’t name right now. We noble-ed ourselves into ruin.
Unfortunately, human nature is not particularly noble. A lot of bleeding hearts want to think that humans ARE inherently noble, but history and practical experience proves them wrong every time. OK, NEARLY every time. You cannot give something to someone that they need to get for themselves without harming them. No, I am not talking about Christmas and birthday presents, I am talking about daily necessities. People must work for their daily necessities, and FAR more people can work than government programs think can work. Giving someone something they should be earning for themselves is what creates an entitlement mind: I am entitled to my food, my housing, my healthcare, and my entertainment (phone included), and my fill-in-the-blank-here. NO, YOU ARE NOT. Just because you are breathing does not entitle you to anything other than air.
You must exchange labor of some sort for your necessities. You can grow your own food, and produce enough beyond what you require to trade or sell extras to others, so you can purchase other things you need besides food. The world, the government, the rich, the Christians, your family, WHO THE HECK EVER, does NOT owe you a thing just because you were born. Giving you something cripples you, and people in America a generation or so ago understood that truth. People used to be ashamed to need public assistance, and they worked awfully hard to support themselves and get off the dole as quickly as they could. Not any more. Shame is a forgotten emotion, unknown to countless thousands receiving handouts they could legitimately work for themselves instead.
You think people are whining now? Wait until it is no longer possible for the government to meet the payroll for being lazy. You will hear a whine loud enough to overturn the government, and it could happen, too, don’t you think it can’t. People have been standing in line with their hand out for so long now, they actually believe they DESERVE it.