Big Win For Truckers!

When they ban books for no substantial reason and don’t allow the Bible to be included in reading material, I really question our society.

I'll do you one better, some schools won't allow the pledge of allegiance because of "one nation under God". I believe that furthers the division we see today.

I'd have no problem with the Bible being in school, just like I'd have no problem with a Quran, Torah or the writings of L Ron Hubbard. They're all pieces of literature at the end of the day.

When I was in school, if I made a point the response was always "defend it". Today, kids are told what to think in some schools (to avoid generalizing). That's a huge problem.

I don't agree with anything you said in your posts before this one. I don't agree, mostly because your restating of my statements illustrated that you were not getting the point I was trying to make. Or, you did get the point but you were obfuscating. At any rate, we really aren't going to agree on those things because we both have deep rooted personal opinions that are not going to be swayed.

As for this post, I think you establish something that is quite important. You mention having religious texts coming from various religions available to children. Absolutely. No matter what each person believes, my personal belief being Christianity as expressed through the Bible, but I think it's important that children be able to seek out knowledge and understanding for themselves. That's the purpose of school. This isn't to say that religious rearing doesn't have a proper place. In the aspect of education, exposure to many perspectives is good. That's what I am talking about with book banning. It really doesn't matter who wants to ban a book and from which political ideology the person may come. Books that are appropriately written for a designated age range should be available for kids to read in that age range.

If a parent doesn't like certain books that may be available, then that parent can set rules for their children on what they can and can't read. But, one parent making a decision for all the other kids at a school? No dice.

This boils down to a very simple principle: If a person doesn't like something, they don't have to participate.

As far as the Pledge of Allegiance, I have a history lesson for you:

"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance, as written in 1892. In 1954, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the phrase "under God," for the purpose of distinguishing the US from the communist Soviet Union. Is it wrong to have that phrase included? No. What is wrong is to compel children who may live in homes where God is not worshipped to say that phrase. This goes to personal liberty. Each family has the right to choose whom they worship, if they worship at all. We have civic duty to respect each person to live their own lives.

Getting worked up about a phrase in a poem written 100 years after the birth of this nation -- 100 years no said the Pledge of Allegiance and the country survived -- is straining out a gnat to swallow a camel. I say that because there are much more serious issues than whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance is recited in schools, things like an opioid epidemic, school shootings, and a juvenile obesity problem. All of these things are threatening the lives of children. The Pledge of Allegiance is simply an issue some people latch onto in order to ignore problems that of a fatal type.

But, one parent making a decision for all the other kids at a school? No dice.

It's not one person making decisions. It's a school board of elected board members listening to their constituents. That's how it works. Anybody can make their opinion known, but that doesn't mean they'll have ultimate say or that the board will vote in favor of what that person says. It's very likely that she went up, stated her opinion and left, with nothing of consequence happening. But, of course it has to go viral and made into an unnecessary political point that nobody cares about.

As far as the Pledge of Allegiance, I have a history lesson for you:

Doubt it.

"Under God" was not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance, as written in 1892.

Known fact that it's been changed a few times. "Under God" happens to be the reason they're not saying it.

What is wrong is to compel children who may live in homes where God is not worshipped to say that phrase.

Three sentences ago you said

This boils down to a very simple principle: If a person doesn't like something, they don't have to participate.

Which one is it? It seems like you only want to respect the beliefs of a select few.

What is wrong is to compel children who may live in homes where God is not worshipped to say that phrase.

They can easily change the Pledge of Allegiance to remove "Under God", but they won't because unity is a problem for the elites. It's becoming very clear as the rich and powerful become more rich and powerful and the Middle class is disappearing.

Getting worked up about a phrase in a poem written 100 years after the birth of this nation -- 100 years no said the Pledge of Allegiance and the country survived -- is straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.

The country can survive without the pledge of allegiance, but it's nice to have people standing together in unison instead of at each other's throats.

Nobody's getting worked up over it and it's disingenuous to say that.

I say that because

You like to virtue signal and sit on your high horse. We know.

The Pledge of Allegiance is simply an issue some people latch onto in order to ignore problems that of a fatal type.

Yes because I clearly said that's the most pressing issue in this nation right now. I'm ok with people overdosing and homelessness as long as they say the pledge of allegiance.

Weak arguments all the way around.

I’m enjoying this discussion even as I have to admit I don’t understand all the arguments put forth. Way above my pay grade and intelligence level.

The one thing that seems to be missing is the “money” aspect involved in all this. Follow the money, right. Brett recently layed out a great example of how the JP Morgan’s, etc., collude to manipulate vast amounts of money and wealth.

Davy contends that the “right” has a different agenda. They are supposedly all about “individual freedoms and accountability “ Really? My belief is that they are all about accumulating as much wealth for themselves and their cronies as possible and keeping their economic and political power.

And as far as Marxist agenda being used to eliminate the internal combustion engine, I expect the internal combustion engine to always be in use as it’s one of the greatest inventions in history. And I think there are plenty of leftists with Marxist leanings who drive gas guzzlers. Mao founded modern day China on Marxist philosophy, but they have an abundance of internal combustion engines in use. How is that to be explained?

Banks, I appreciate that you have been respectful in this engagement, however you have not argued in good faith. You have taken statements out of context and misrepresented what I have tried to say at various points. I don't have the time nor the energy to point by point correct you where you are incorrect in how you are taking something that I have said. For that reason, I will be ending my portion of this discussion. Take care.

Banks, I appreciate that you have been respectful in this engagement, however you have not argued in good faith. You have taken statements out of context and misrepresented what I have tried to say at various points. I don't have the time nor the energy to point by point correct you where you are incorrect in how you are taking something that I have said. For that reason, I will be ending my portion of this discussion. Take care.

That's totally your right, however I have not taken anything out of context. I am quoting your words as you said them. I'm not moving them around nor am I making them out to be what they aren't, the way you continuously do. I just point out where you're being hypocritical because you do it a lot, just like the way you need to be right.

Instead of trying to correct others, work on the way you write and try to make more sense.

Take care and be safe.

He was speaking in general terms

That was deliberate in order to make a point.

Please note that the phrasing and contents of the statements, if they were posted by someone else (who actually believed it to be true), I would consider it nothing but nonsense. Just to be clear.

That doesn't mean that everybody on the right is big on gun rights like it doesn't mean that everybody on the left is big on green energy

Bingo! Personally I don't have much of an opinion on either topic.

And since it was brought up in recent comments...for the record, even though I'm 100% atheist, I couldn't care any less about the words, "Under God" being in the pledge or being displayed in front of state or federal government buildings.

Davy contends that the “right” has a different agenda. They are supposedly all about “individual freedoms and accountability “ Really? My belief is that they are all about accumulating as much wealth for themselves and their cronies as possible and keeping their economic and political power.

BK, you're implying that only the elite 1% of wealthy people make up the entire right side of the political spectrum. That's obviously not true. The other 99% of the right has no real wealth to protect, but they do stand for principles in their lives, which center on family, faith, individual rights, self-defense, personal responsibility, and self-determination.

I'll tell you why you associate people on the Right as being rich and people on the Left as being poor. I asked AI to explain the basic difference between right and left.

Read the statement below and ask yourself two questions:

1) Which is these views will likely create strong individuals interested in building personal wealth?

2) Which one of these views will likely create weak individuals with a victim's mentality who will never build any personal wealth?

On the left, there is a broader emphasis on addressing economic inequality, supporting social safety nets, and advocating for progressive taxation. Many left-leaning individuals prioritize government intervention and redistribution of wealth to promote greater economic equity. This often leads to support for policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy, increased social welfare programs, and more regulations on businesses. Consequently, some on the left may have lower income levels but support policies that aim to redistribute wealth or provide financial assistance to those in need.

On the right, there tends to be a stronger belief in limited government intervention and free-market principles. Right-leaning individuals generally advocate for lower taxes, less regulation, and personal responsibility. They often emphasize individual liberties, economic freedom, and the belief that allowing the market to function with minimal interference will lead to prosperity and economic growth. Consequently, some on the right may have higher income levels, but this is not universally applicable, and there is diversity within this political group in terms of financial situations.

We are blessed to live in a society of abundance, where anyone can become wealthy if they're willing to take some risk and put in the hard work. It's ideal for those who are doing well to give a hand to those who are not, but there's a fine line between asking for a little help and being a socialist.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

- Margaret Thatcher

Brett, I see your point and don’t disagree with it. My thought was that the discussion was referencing the top minority of both the righties and the lefties. The top 1% on each side of most issues.

I think that I am representative of most people who tire of the left/right fight. Pragmatism is what is needed, not endless debates that accomplish nothing.

Pragmatism is what is needed, not endless debates that accomplish nothing.

Well, I think the debates are an important part of the process, though. I believe in putting all ideas on the table and working through it. Consider the full spectrum, consider all arguments across the spectrum, then narrow it down to what seems to work best for most people.

The more centrist policies work best for most people, but you can learn a lot from the people closer to the edges of the spectrum. They will have insights that most people in the middle will miss. That doesn't mean you let the people on the edges implement their policies and create an extreme society. But you should hear them out. They've likely thought an awful lot about their position on things, which is probably how they wound up at the extreme in the first place.

Keep in mind, also, that the quality of any debate will depend on the quality of the people in the debate.

Taking someone's words out of context has nothing to do with changing the words that were said. It's out of context when a meaning is applied that wasn't intended.

Brett, you are correct that the majority of people who lean right politically are not wealthy. You know that it's a very small number of people in any group who actually have the power. The 99.9% of people who lean right politically are pawns. All of these issues are used by elites to divide the people who really just want to survive. Many of these issues are used to stoke emotions and sentiments. The wealthiest people in the US and throughout the world don't care about the issues used to have all of us arguing amongst ourselves. We are greater in number, meaning the average people just looking to get by and raise families, than those who sit at the top. We are kept divided on these issues because history has shown that when working people are united, the elites are forced to acquiesce to the sheer weight of numbers. Divide and conquer, one of the principles discussed in Sun Tzu's Art of War.