Forward

[Dick]

Coop, I wanted you to receive this, but I don't have an email address, so I'll include all who read, to enjoy!


Father & Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college.
Like so many others her age, she
considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal
ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more
government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures
that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a
professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil,
selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to
be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by
asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA,
and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she
was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying,
which left her no time to go out and party like other people she
knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really
have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, �How is your friend Audrey
doing?�
She replied, �Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy
classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so
popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited
to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for
classes because she's too hung over.�
Her wise father asked his daughter, �Why don't you go to the
Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to
your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0
GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of
GPA.�
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily
fired back, �That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've
worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a
lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.
She played while I worked my tail off!�
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, �Welcome to the
conservative side of the fence.�
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a
great test!
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches
channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
if a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about
shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.


If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can
have a good laugh.


A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".


WELL, I FORWARDED IT TO YOU.

[smed]

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ken]

How true Dick

[eagames]

Good one Dick.

Some peoples idea of "what should be done" is endless when they aren't directly paying for it.

[CoinboyJay]

Right on Dick !!!!

I am amazed at the folks who think more government and wealth distribution is THE WAY.
The entitlement lifestyle will destroy this country, if we let them.

Keep up the good fight my friend.

JAY

[wavysteps2003]

As the list of entitlements grows, so does the liberal empowerment. Give something to someone for free, whether deserving or not and that person shall be aligned with your thought process no matter what the cost.

If there is one thing the liberals in this country are doing right, it is swaying people to vote for them and their liberal agenda by showering the masses with undeserved benefits.

In the same context, the ACLU, which is as liberal as liberal can get, now wants to have all the cross shaped military head pieces taken off the graves of those who have fallen in protection of our country. Maybe an effigy of Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton in the guise of an angel of liberalism will suffice as a marker.

I am glad that my older for I will not have to see the mess that this country is heading for. How soon will the wealth re-distribution be accomplished? How soon will there be no work in this country because it has all been outsourced? How soon will the willingness to work fade from life because the government gives everything to you for free?

Can you all feel it coming?


BJ Neff

[mikediamond]

BJ, the business about the ACLU advocating removal of the cross from military headstones is an urban legend.

[wavysteps2003]

Mike, you are right, it is a myth concerning the ACLU trying to remove the cross shaped head stones. Thanks for pointing that out.

BJ Neff

[mikediamond]

In fact, the ACLU vigorously (and successfully) pressed the Defense Department to allow veterans and their families to choose any religious symbol they want to appear on a headstone. Wiccans can now identify themselves as belonging to that religious tradition, as can followers of the Norse gods. Atheists and secular humanists can also have their own symbols atop their headstones.

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/veterans-win-right-post-religious-symbol-headstones

I think this honors the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which enshrines freedom of religious expression and does not allow the government to favor any one religion or group of religions.

[smed]

Every now and then the ACLU does something that makes sense. Not often...

Just a bit of related history -- the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads:

[mikediamond]

This amounts to revisionist history. While the first amendment does not have the exact words, "separation of church and state", that was the common understanding of the first amendment when it was written. The horrors of religious wars in Europe, and the abuses of religious minorities in colonies that did have an official religion, led our founding fathers to leave as much space between government and religion as possible. They recognized that in order for religion to thrive, government must steer clear of it. And in order for religion not to be corrupted by government, it must avoid insinuating itself in the latter. This has worked for over 230 years, although there are still folks who desire to establish some sort of Christian hegemony.

[Dick]

The obvious result of having the church directly involved with the government, which ever type it happens to be, is very evident, all over the world, where the "cleric", either "runs" the government, and the country, or seems to be apart, but does run, from safe haven. That is what makes our country, so mich of a target. The envy of our freedoms, and the fact that the Church is NOT a part of our government.
I like it that way, and Gave 20 years of my life to ensure it would prevail. I would have given more, but that was not to be.

The same thing can't be said, today, about our country, because there are forces within, doing it's utmost to change our country, and way of life. Keep your eyes open, and watch what is going on! IMHO.

[smed]

If I made it sound as if I were in favor of a government-run church, or a church-run government, I apologize. I am highly opposed to any form of religion or government that even hints at that.

My only point was that the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state" as many people mistakenly believe it does. What the founding fathers understood it to mean is moot -- it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide what it means today.

I am quite interesting in knowing how my last post amounts to revisionist history.

[mikediamond]

Many legal scholars would say that the first clause of the 1st Amendment does mandate a separation of church and state, although it obviously does not use the catch phrase "separation of church and state". Other individuals have a different interpretation, and that's fine. As you say, it's for the court to decide each time the issue comes up.

By saying, "you know better", you implied that a particular interpretation is obvious -- that the 1st Amendment does not mandate such a separation. This is hardly an obvious conclusion. Many would say it's rather a stretch to interpret it as anything other than a mandate for separation.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

[smed]