This morning I have been putting together the discussion topic for a small group of church members that I have been meeting with monthly for more than 10 years.
My topic relates to a couple of comments I have recently made here, so rather than link to a news article I am providing a link to a blog post by a Budhhist monk:
Towards a Caring Economy
My topic for the church group is Altruism based on a book written by Ricard.
My main question is can society become more altruistic in a relatively short time frame - my main concern is for the environment.
"My thing is that for decades someone says: "Let's do something liberal" and Democrats reply: "No, if we do that we'll lose elections". I mean at some point you just have to admit your're not dealing with liberals. Maybe in theory they could be liberals, but we don't need theoretical liberalism.
Meanwhile Republicans aren't defeating liberals at the ballot box, they're defeating Democrats. Democrats always try to blame their losses on excessive liberalism but THAT'S a conservative mentality in-and-of itself, so we're back to an absence of liberalism. The more they move the the "middle" i.e. moderate republicanism, the more Democrats lose, yet they keep blaming liberals. Who does that? Conservatives do that, that;s who does that.
The problem is we desperately need a liberal political Party in the United States because liberal initiatives are the only workable solutions to our most serious issues ranging from energy to education. Since we're stuck with a two party system that means we need the Democrats to a liberal party. THAT'S not going to happen until Democrats who think they're already liberal realize they're not, decide if they want to be, and act accordingly one way or the other." Paul
"Seems to me that your Progressive / True Liberal is what many call a Democratic Socialist. I mean that is what Bernie calls himself. Is this correct? http://www.dsausa.org/" G2A
"Yes and No. Sanders's calls himself a Democratic Socialist, but really he's just a "New Deal" Democrat. The distinction isn't really relevant, a liberal, simply put, is someone who supports liberal agendas and initiatives. Liberals can disagree regarding those initiatives but anyone who simply rejects them out of hand because they're liberal initiatives, isn't a liberal. So in theory liberals could disagree whether or not Obamacare or Medicare for All is the best health care system from a technical perspective, but anyone who rejects either proposal on the grounds that it's "too" liberal simply isn't a liberal.
For decades whenever we say: "Let's do something liberal" Democrats respond:"No, that will cost us the election". And then they go out and lose elections trying to be something other than liberal. I'm not saying that no Democrats anywhere are liberal, but clearly the Party elite and too many primary voters are something other than liberal... I'd say they look like moderate conservatives who can be socially liberal, but politically and economically conservative. Whatever, I'm not actually interested in classifying them, people can be whatever they are, I don't care. I just want people to know what they are and act accordingly. Don't tell me you're a liberal but you don't believe liberals can win elections in a liberal democracy. Ether sign on to some other perspective or get liberal but don't act and vote like a moderate Republican and tell us you're a liberal Democrat." Paul
"However the reality is that Bernie is the Far Left and Hillary is the Middle Left. Look at the graphs in these govtrack links for their scores.And though not directly related, I feel for Hiram's comment left at the end of that old piece... Kind of like a tree falling in the woods.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
As I often say, I hope you do succeed in convincing the Democratic party to go even further Left." G2A
"Democrats HAD a candidate that knew how to connect to rural voters and address the economic concerns that Mr. Foster claims to be so difficult.
"Who was that? There is a lot of finger pointing going around. A recent book places just about all of the blame on Hillary. No doubt a lot of mistakes were made by a lot of people, but the real problem is that we didn't have the choice of candidates we needed, Hillary, with all her faults and with all her many virtues, was our party's version of Jeb Bush, a dynastic candidate, running when the era of dynasties is long past. Had Hillary been running in a more filled out field for the nomination, I doubt if she would have made it to the first primary. But the fact was, because of our failures in local election after local election, we simply did not have a viable alternative to Hillary in 2016, and that's why Trump's re-election, despite his extraordinary level of incompetence, is as much of a sure thing there can be in American politics." Hiram
"If you believe in the "Prime Directive", then you let the Syrian civil war play out, don't you? The reality is that all Donald Trump accomplished with his missile strike was winning a news cycle. The airfield that he struck was operational the next day. Bombing the Assad government went against his pre-existing policy of backing the Assad government as the most effective partner there to fight ISIS. And let's not also forget that while the pictures of the gassed Syrian children were awful, the pictures we don't see from Syria are far worse. The networks can't show us the pictures of the children who have limbs blown off due to mortar fire and other conventional weapons. "Putting a Boot Up Their Ass" may feel good for a moment, but it isn't a strategy."
"Of course the Liberal view seems to be that we should let all refugees come to the USA so they can be cared for here with tax payer dollars. Instead of helping them to stabilize and improve their own country." G2A
"Let that straw man burn, baby, burn!" Sean
"As for my view regarding refugees and Liberals... After listening to Liberals for the last year stomp, accuse people of xenophobia and gnash their teeth in opposition to:
I think my man is pretty solid. Liberals definitely want to help the world's down trodden by inviting them to come to the USA." G2A
- reducing the number of refugees allowed
- improving border security
- deporting illegal workers
- etc
"Which explains why, under the Obama Administration, we accepted fewer Syrian refugees than Canada? Come off your ideological mountain and join us in the real world." Sean
“It’s important that the US maintain its seat at the table,” Tillerson told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations during his confirmation hearing on 11 January. The threat of global warming is real and “requires a global response”, he added. “No one country is going to solve this on its own.”I mean ExxonMobil certainly seems to believe.
When asked whether greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities cause climate change, Tillerson said that “the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere [is] having effect”. But, he added, “our ability to predict that effect is very limited”.
"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.It often amazes me how many people want to deny the potential catastrophic risks, defund the research and stop the measured improvements. The good news is that apparently the big business are driving change at the request of their customers. I just heard that report yesterday and found it interesting.
"Sean points out that "something" is rarely if ever a single action, and still more rarely the perfect solution to the problem. If Obamacare has taught us anything, it is that "doing something" that complex is highly unlikely to be the right thing.." JerryMy view is that "doing nothing" or "doing ACA" would have both had consequences... Both good and bad.
"Whereas doing nothing was demonstrably worse." Anonymoose
"On Fox and Friends this morning, this happened:My responses were like this...
I'm interested in knowing if this is a common sentiment on the right, and why...any thoughts?" Shawn
- Fox host: Dropping MOAB is "what freedom looks like, that's the red, white, and blue."
- Geraldo: It's one of my favorite things to watch. (TP Link has actual video)
" I am curious what peace loving liberals would choose to do differently? The same people who march because male female equality is not perfect in America seem to have no problem turning a blind eye to the women of Afghanistan who were kept out of school, sold as child brides, killed, etc. It seems liberals would prefer that we pull all of our troops back to US and let others fend for themselves. I believe differently. (see link) And ever since lit my first firecracker... I have loved blowing things up. Especially if it helps protect powerless people from bullies. :-) G2A Protector of the Small" G2A
"When Dennis Quaid blew up the alien space ship in Independence Day, Did you cheer or ponder stoically the loss of the alien lives? When your team makes a good play, do you cheer or ponder the hurt feelings of the other players / fans? In this case the USA used a new tool effectively to end the lives of violent snakes who lived in the tunnels and came out to harm innocent people. I think some cheering is okay..." G2A
"In the category “You don’t miss the water till the well runs dry,” a pretty solid majority of Americans tell Gallup they approve of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). As recently as Election Day, disapprovers of the ACA outnumbered approvers by 53-42 percent, according the Gallup organization. The act has not improved in any way since then, nor have Republicans stopped calling it a disaster that is imploding or exploding or reploding. But this week, in the latest Gallup measure of the exact same question, approval of the act is up an impressive 13 points to 55 percent, the highest the ACA has ever scored, while disapproval fell 12 points to 41 percent, a new low. "I was wondering what it would take to get the majority behind it? I mean it raised taxes and costs significantly on many, but then it sprinkled that money around like pixie dust on the lower income folks... What is not to like for many people? It will be interesting if the GOP will see the change and adapt their plan or if they will keep fighting the ever warming water...
"John your points are useless because you don't offer any solutions, you just poke holes in others' ideas. If you're going to whine and complain about the cost of maintaining quality of life, then offer something up. Otherwise the discussion is pointless." Sean S.
"Well, until you have some actual numbers to talk about, maybe you should stop throwing shade at the numbers that do exist. Your vapid complaints about everyone else's ideas are meaningless because you have no ideas of your own to offer. Let's see if you'll actually take a stand on something. How about ..." Sean O.
"I'm not interested in going round after round where you repeat the same nonsense that you believe is so brilliant but is really only a way for you to explain how much better you think you are than 'those' people who've not lived up to your standards. You are bad at this in that you always come back to the same talking points. Instead of these conversations and arguments leading you to a new thought, you somehow lead yourself right back around to where you've always been. And you ask other people to change and grow so they can be 'deserving' of living in the greatest country on the planet, all while not changing a single thing about your own ideas. So instead of those other people changing in order to please your sense of fairness, perhaps it's time to reevaluate your own personal sense of what's fair. In other words: start with yourself." Anonymoose"
