All innovation is profit driven?

 

Mankind is greedy and does nothing out of vain conceit?

 

People will not help other people unless there is something in it for them?

 

Governments are instituted solely to protect the rights of people to pursue profits and individual gain regardless of the costs to society.

 

All individual rights should be protected, unless they fly in the face of conservative Christianity.

 

I can pursue my greed, but I cannot marry who I want.

 

The government should stay out of my pocketbook, but not my doctors office if I am a female.

 

Spending on war is good for society, while taxes to give people access to better health care is bad.

 

Banks are the same as individuals so they should have their rights protected and have little restraint on how they do business. (inlcuding AIG which is not a bank.)

 

The free market is a better protector of the general welfare than the government is.

 

Wealth inequality is a good thing.

 

Is that it?

All innovation is profit driven?

 

Mankind is greedy and does nothing out of vain conceit?

 

People will not help other people unless there is something in it for them?

 

Governments are instituted solely to protect the rights of people to pursue profits and individual gain regardless of the costs to society.

 

All individual rights should be protected, unless they fly in the face of conservative Christianity.

 

I can pursue my greed, but I cannot marry who I want.

 

The government should stay out of my pocketbook, but not my doctors office if I am a female.

 

Spending on war is good for society, while taxes to give people access to better health care is bad.

 

Banks are the same as individuals so they should have their rights protected and have little restraint on how they do business. (inlcuding AIG which is not a bank.)

 

The free market is a better protector of the general welfare than the government is.

 

Wealth inequality is a good thing.

 

Is that it?

 

I think you have greed confused with success. It's obvious you suffer from wealth envy. Nothing you say will change my mind about that.

 

"Wealth inequality" is inevitable. To think otherwise is simply not thinking.

 

This country was formed so we could be in control of our own "general welfare" and our military protect our borders.

 

If banks were left to fail, as most businesses are, there would need NO regulation. Capitalism and the free market would allow the best to rise.

 

If we had not spent any money on wars up to this point, we'd be history.

 

I don't give a rats rump who or what you marry. Have at it!

 

If you have a problem with Conservative Christianity, have at it! You're welcome to debate.

 

I help others without expecting anything in return. Don't you? That's one you should speak for yourself on.

 

Some men are greedy. I don't think mankind is though. I'd be very unhappy if I had such a negative view of mankind and innovative people with money. It must suck feeling that way. Does it?

 

I bet you are bewildered...No doubt.

I think you have greed confused with success. It's obvious you suffer from wealth envy. Nothing you say will change my mind about that.

 

I can't let this pitch in the dirt slide by. Acemona certainly does NOT suffer from wealth envy. I know him personally.

 

He has asked honest questions in a attempt to understand what those on the "other side" believe. Ace, like myself, feel that very few are outright evil, bad people that don't care about others. Certainly, ultra conservative BGP posters (IMO) don't fit in that category. This is an attempt to promote discussion that bridges an understanding gap. However, in post #2, it's already veered off course.

I think you have greed confused with success. It's obvious you suffer from wealth envy. Nothing you say will change my mind about that.

 

"Wealth inequality" is inevitable. To think otherwise is simply not thinking.

 

This country was formed so we could be in control of our own "general welfare" and our military protect our borders.

We set up our government to promote the general welfare.

If banks were left to fail, as most businesses are, there would need NO regulation. Capitalism and the free market would allow the best to rise.

When banks fail, innnocent people lose their money. It is not a harmless event with no victims

If we had not spent any money on wars up to this point, we'd be history.

I was speaking of IRAQ and how much it costs our country, yet we complain about taxes for health care

I don't give a rats rump who or what you marry. Have at it!

Our gov't has made laws preventing same sex marriages - do you want to gov't to interfere in your life or not

If you have a problem with Conservative Christianity, have at it! You're welcome to debate.

I am a christian myself, but why is it that Christian morals are okay for gov't intrusion - oh wait, only sexual christian morals, b/c helping the poor should not be a part of the gov't role but it is one of the reasons Jesus came.

I help others without expecting anything in return. Don't you? That's one you should speak for yourself on.

 

Some men are greedy. I don't think mankind is though. I'd be very unhappy if I had such a negative view of mankind and innovative people with money. It must suck feeling that way. Does it?

 

I bet you are bewildered...No doubt.

 

 

My thoughts were a reflection of what I read on BGP. I don't agree with any of them, but that is what is implied by 90% of the posts on here.

I can't let this pitch in the dirt slide by. Acemona certainly does NOT suffer from wealth envy. I know him personally.

 

He has asked honest questions in a attempt to understand what those on the "other side" believe. Ace, like myself, feel that very few are outright evil, bad people that don't care about others. Certainly, ultra conservative BGP posters (IMO) don't fit in that category. This is an attempt to promote discussion that bridges an understanding gap. However, in post #2, it's already veered off course.

 

The "honest questions" seemed a little sarcastic to me. Off course or not, it's my take. His post looked like he was insinuating that conservatives are greedy, self serving people. Wrong or not, that's how I read into it.

 

Conservative & Liberal views are too far apart to argue about IMO. What's the point? Who's going to change their mind, ACE, Me? I don't think so. I was just defending MY conservative beliefs. Whether or not you, ACE or anyone else believes the way I do makes no difference to me what so ever.

My thoughts were a reflection of what I read on BGP. I don't agree with any of them, but that is what is implied by 90% of the posts on here.

 

If I misunderstood your post then so be it. You must agree that your post had implications of it's own.

Please make reference to ANY SERIOUS post where a conservative said that the poor shouldn't be helped by the government.

Conservative & Liberal views are too far apart to argue about IMO. What's the point? Who's going to change their mind, ACE, Me? I don't think so. I was just defending MY conservative beliefs. Whether or not you, ACE or anyone else believes the way I do makes no difference to me what so ever.

 

I appreciate this stance and agree with you, even though our beliefs differ. The problem that happens too often is one person disagrees with another, and then makes it a point to tell the other why the opposition view is wrong and only their own personal view is correct. If there was a chance for any middle ground it's then immediately taken away.

 

What pains me is we fail to even attempt to acknowledge that there are good ideas on the other side. Why can't Party A and Party B come together to compromise some type of middle ground on legislation? Does it always have to be "all-or-nothing?" Is it immediately a horrible plan or idea, that absolutely cannot be salvaged, and agreeing with it only makes it worse? Because if so, then there is little chance of anything all-inclusive that works for everybody ever getting done.

All innovation is profit driven?

 

Not necessarily profit driven, compensation driven. The compensation need not be monetary. It could be an individual's drive to succeed and the success itself is compensation. It could be driven by a desire to help others and the good feeling it gives oneself is compensation. It could be driven by knowing that your faith calls you to improve things, knowing that you are doing God's work is compensation enough. We think of compensation as profit only, that is not what I mean when I say altruism does not exist. People help others because there is something in it for them be it a psychological, emotional, religious, spiritual or monetary.

 

Governments are instituted solely to protect the rights of people to pursue profits and individual gain regardless of the costs to society.

 

The government exists to protect rights to pursue profit and individual gain, but it also allows an individual to work for the betterment of others if they so choose. Just mandating others to do the same by law as citizens is extreme and infringing on individual liberties, even if it helps others.

 

Who determines "costs" to society? Is there a collective group that says "this isn't good fr society, thus it must go?"

 

All individual rights should be protected, unless they fly in the face of conservative Christianity.

 

I think "conservative" and "liberal" Christianity have their place as long as they aren't legislated in some overt or backdoor manner.

 

I can pursue my greed, but I cannot marry who I want.

 

I don't see why you shouldn't. What say do/should I have in who/what you marry and how many?

 

The government should stay out of my pocketbook, but not my doctors office if I am a female.

 

No, it really out to keep its ugly head out of both.

 

Spending on war is good for society, while taxes to give people access to better health care is bad.

 

One is essential, the other is not. Conflict is part of human nature, as your studies of history should have clearly illustrated to you. Nothing will ever remove that from our nature. Being prepared to defend ourselves in the event someone else decides to give in to that aspect of their nature is prudent.

 

Health care is a perk, not a necessity. Why does sales tax include soda but not milk? One is considered a necessity the other is not. National survival trumps national comfort.

 

The free market is a better protector of the general welfare than the government is.

 

The free market cannot abridge our rights without us allowing them to. A government can easily grow to monolithic proportions and restrict freedom. I would rather sacrifice a little comfort for all then lack of opportunity for all.

 

Wealth inequality is a good thing.

 

It can be, yes. It can drive individuals to succeed. Not everyone makes it but not everyone should. Life is hard and success should not be a guarantee. If you work hard and improve your situation then more power to you. If you are born into wealth and your situation is already great, then you are a lucky individual (note I didn't say "blessed" as that would be idiotic).

 

Frankly I don't want wealth equality. Should someone who has worked years to get their M.D., D.V.M, Pharm D., D.M.D or PhD make the same as the guy who sweeps the streets? I think not and that is one of the reasons I do not like the idea of wealth redistribution.

 

If we could come to a common ground and find better ways to improve access to education so that the paths are more open to all to improve their situations I would be willing to discuss that. However anything like that should be paid back eventually in full. No handouts, just help in the expectation of eventual recompense.

 

Even so, that is a bit much in my opinion.

 

 

Is that it?

 

I think so.

What we must determine is the difference between making a profit and greed. If we look at the profit margin of major companies you will see their profits are not obsence. They do make a lot of money because they have large sums of money invested and to some their profits look unfair. If a just one economic factor turned against them they could see all their profits wiped out.

Our Founding Fathers believed profit was good as they included in the Constitution protections of product developement. Money and fear are most likely the biggest motivators in the world. Our government protects us from fear of invasion and having our intellectual properties stolen. If people felt their hard work in developing products would not result in them profitting, they would not bother, unless it was fear that was driving them.

All innovation is profit driven? Not always, but quite often it is.

 

Mankind is greedy and does nothing out of vain conceit? Not all of mankind is greedy and some do things out of vain conceit

 

People will not help other people unless there is something in it for them? No

 

Governments are instituted solely to protect the rights of people to pursue profits and individual gain regardless of the costs to society. Yes and no. Government is to protect the well being of the people but costs to society must be consindered

 

All individual rights should be protected, unless they fly in the face of conservative Christianity. Yes the should be protected unless they fly in face of what is right and decent

 

I can pursue my greed, but I cannot marry who I want. I am iffy on this one

 

The government should stay out of my pocketbook, but not my doctors office if I am a female. Yes and what about the rights of the unborn baby

 

Spending on war is good for society, while taxes to give people access to better health care is bad. No but I haven't seen anything to convince me that putting more mandates on the states without funding is a good thing

 

Banks are the same as individuals so they should have their rights protected and have little restraint on how they do business. (inlcuding AIG which is not a bank.) No, Barney Franks telling everyone years ago that Fannie & Freddy were fine and needed no intervention should dispel that notion

 

The free market is a better protector of the general welfare than the government is. Yes

 

Wealth inequality is a good thing. Wealth inequality is often (not always) created due to the lack of efforts of some. If there is no reward for working hard, how many people do you really think would work hard?

I appreciate this stance and agree with you, even though our beliefs differ. The problem that happens too often is one person disagrees with another, and then makes it a point to tell the other why the opposition view is wrong and only their own personal view is correct. If there was a chance for any middle ground it's then immediately taken away.

 

What pains me is we fail to even attempt to acknowledge that there are good ideas on the other side. Why can't Party A and Party B come together to compromise some type of middle ground on legislation? Does it always have to be "all-or-nothing?" Is it immediately a horrible plan or idea, that absolutely cannot be salvaged, and agreeing with it only makes it worse? Because if so, then there is little chance of anything all-inclusive that works for everybody ever getting done.

 

I'm sure there are a few things in the bill for the common good. I just struggle mightily when the government gives us ultimatums or forces/fines us into something. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean I agreed with it then. Another right to choose has been taken away from us and it's hard for me to swallow. All I can do is vote my beliefs and live with whatever comes from it.

I'm sure there are a few things in the bill for the common good. I just struggle mightily when the government gives us ultimatums or forces/fines us into something. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't mean I agreed with it then. Another right to choose has been taken away from us and it's hard for me to swallow. All I can do is vote my beliefs and live with whatever comes from it.

 

And at what cost. The spending is going well beyond our means at this point.

And at what cost. The spending is going well beyond our means at this point.

 

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around the cost of this bill. Something tells me it will not be worth it at all though.

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around the cost of this bill. Something tells me it will not be worth it at all though.

 

The chickens will come home to roost at some point. I just hope I have made the appropriate currency play when it happens. They maybe I can use my influence for good instead of how Mr. Soros used his currency play money grab. ;-)