Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do agree small businesses are over-regulated in this country, but your insistence we vote red not blue doesn't make sense. We already have a Republican state House, Senate and Governor, and so far they've put economics on the back-burner in favor of ideological issues such as guns, abortion and unions.
When you fail your ideology and abandon your moral foundation, everything else falls apart. So, I support this order of things. Let's get the morals straight first... then the economy will be easier to fix. When the economy is commerce between people who are not required to live decent moral lives, there's no way that it will be any more moral or decent than anything else.
When you fail your ideology and abandon your moral foundation, everything else falls apart. So, I support this order of things. Let's get the morals straight first... then the economy will be easier to fix. When the economy is commerce between people who are not required to live decent moral lives, there's no way that it will be any more moral or decent than anything else.
Legislating subjective morality has never worked and never will work and goes against our very principles. Anti-abortion, union, gays, etc laws are never going to create jobs.
Legislating subjective morality has never worked and never will work and goes against our very principles. Anti-abortion, union, gays, etc laws are never going to create jobs.
This country was founded upon morality. Do you honestly think that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. had even the slightest intention to create a country where people could marry people of their same gender, where fetuses could be killed with reckless abandon after people who didn't want babies had sex anyway, where people had to belong to organized labor groups that were more like political action committees rather than the collective voice of the workers?
Such morality will not directly create jobs but as a small business owner myself, I can tell you I'd be much more likely to hire someone if I could trust people. Anyone I've ever had work for me, save for perhaps one person, has flaked out on me in short order. With morality comes trustworthiness.
I'll tell you why we've been having all of these earthquakes lately. It's all of the founders of America, and all of the Revolutionary soldiers who died for the cause of what became America, tossing and turning in their graves at the same time.
This country was founded upon morality. Do you honestly think that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. had even the slightest intention to create a country where people could marry people of their same gender, where fetuses could be killed with reckless abandon after people who didn't want babies had sex anyway, where people had to belong to organized labor groups that were more like political action committees rather than the collective voice of the workers?
Such morality will not directly create jobs but as a small business owner myself, I can tell you I'd be much more likely to hire someone if I could trust people. Anyone I've ever had work for me, save for perhaps one person, has flaked out on me in short order. With morality comes trustworthiness.
I'll tell you why we've been having all of these earthquakes lately. It's all of the founders of America, and all of the Revolutionary soldiers who died for the cause of what became America, tossing and turning in their graves at the same time.
Your morality and my morality are not the same, hence the reason legislating morality has never worked in this country. And where do you base any of your suppositions regarding the Founding Fathers? They created a document which is consistently applied by the Supreme Court to modern-day issues; if we were to live by an 18th-century vision, the Constitution would've burned out a long time ago.
I don't know, this is pretty subjective. Poverty can be good too. It keeps people in line.
Translation:
"Oh no, I got proven wrong in another thread and completely missed the point, I'm mad so let me to go other threads in this forum and say that things seen as negative can be positive and make a fool out of myself" - jbcmh81
Even worse you didn't even include poverty in that list of things that you made up and I quoted, so now you're just making things up. And before you picked out crime and population loss, when you missed the other 90% of your list that was more or less completely subjective
This country was founded upon morality. Do you honestly think that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al. had even the slightest intention to create a country where people could marry people of their same gender, where fetuses could be killed with reckless abandon after people who didn't want babies had sex anyway, where people had to belong to organized labor groups that were more like political action committees rather than the collective voice of the workers?
Such morality will not directly create jobs but as a small business owner myself, I can tell you I'd be much more likely to hire someone if I could trust people. Anyone I've ever had work for me, save for perhaps one person, has flaked out on me in short order. With morality comes trustworthiness.
I'll tell you why we've been having all of these earthquakes lately. It's all of the founders of America, and all of the Revolutionary soldiers who died for the cause of what became America, tossing and turning in their graves at the same time.
It really doesn't matter what Washington, etc. believed. It matters what they actually left us with: the Constitution, which is NOT a religious document. Frankly, many of the issues facing current society could not have even been fathomed by the those living in the 18th and early 19th centuries, and they were smart enough to understand that their personal morality should not be enshrined in our most important code of laws. Many people still don't understand that wisdom. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation, and who exactly gets to decide what should and should not be moral?
Translation:
"Oh no, I got proven wrong in another thread and completely missed the point, I'm mad so let me to go other threads in this forum and say that things seen as negative can be positive and make a fool out of myself" - jbcmh81
Even worse you didn't even include poverty in that list of things that you made up and I quoted, so now you're just making things up. And before you picked out crime and population loss, when you missed the other 90% of your list that was more or less completely subjective
Actually, if you read the original couple of posts, % of poverty was one of the catergories. I, of course, rated lower poverty as the better, but since you said everything is subjective, including things like murder, well... I guess you reap what you sow, right. If everything is subjective, then that means there is not truth, no reality, just interpretation and there is never any right or wrong. If something like high crime can be a good thing for some people, then why have laws? Why bother building a society at all if people like yourself believe that even the worst things have a silver lining that is just as important? So I guess you didn't prove me wrong, after all, because there is no wrong. Everyone is right about everything. And if you didn't like how I rated things, you had the ability to take the list (or make your own) and come up with something different. I guess it's much easier to criticize the work of someone else than to come up with something of your own.
Actually, if you read the original couple of posts, % of poverty was one of the catergories. I, of course, rated lower poverty as the better, but since you said everything is subjective, including things like murder, well... I guess you reap what you sow, right. If everything is subjective, then that means there is not truth, no reality, just interpretation and there is never any right or wrong. If something like high crime can be a good thing for some people, then why have laws? Why bother building a society at all if people like yourself believe that even the worst things have a silver lining that is just as important? So I guess you didn't prove me wrong, after all, because there is no wrong. Everyone is right about everything. And if you didn't like how I rated things, you had the ability to take the list (or make your own) and come up with something different. I guess it's much easier to criticize the work of someone else than to come up with something of your own.
You still don't get it? Okay, let me spell it out for you.
You made a large list of categories which you attempted to give a point system, that is + or - for each one, to compare/rank Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Columbus. The problem is that the majority of categories you chose are very subjective, all of them to some extent. Just some of the things on your list: Population, Demographics, City Size, Weather, City age, # of 10-story buildings, elevation, Metro size in sq miles - all very subjective. How can you give these a + and - going one way? Each individual person would have to go through that list and choose which way they liked (or no preference) in every one of those.
You pointing out crime and the "negatives" is just nitpicking because I said all of them were subjective, you didn't realize that's true. That's another part that you don't get, the point is about all the other very subjective categories, but even those "negatives" being subjective to some extent, is true. You got mad because you got proven wrong and went to like 4 or 5 different random threads (including this one) to sarcastically say negatives can be subjective, incredibly immature. There shouldn't even be an argument here, apparently you just can't accept that you were wrong and want to get the last word.
Do you understand now? If you don't get it now maybe you never will.
You still don't get it? Okay, let me spell it out for you.
You made a large list of categories which you attempted to give a point system, that is + or - for each one, to compare/rank Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Columbus. The problem is that the majority of categories you chose are very subjective, all of them to some extent. Just some of the things on your list: Population, Demographics, City Size, Weather, City age, # of 10-story buildings, elevation, Metro size in sq miles - all very subjective. How can you give these a + and - going one way? Each individual person would have to go through that list and choose which way they liked (or no preference) in every one of those.
You pointing out crime and the "negatives" is just nitpicking because I said all of them were subjective, you didn't realize that's true. That's another part that you don't get, the point is about all the other very subjective categories, but even those "negatives" being subjective to some extent, is true. You got mad because you got proven wrong and went to like 4 or 5 different random threads (including this one) to sarcastically say negatives can be subjective, incredibly immature. There shouldn't even be an argument here, apparently you just can't accept that you were wrong and want to get the last word.
Do you understand now? If you don't get it now maybe you never will.
No, because even if you think everything is subjective, so what? I'm constantly told here that subjective opinions are valid even if I disagree with them. Some catergories are subjective, some I don't think really are, but judging them in a particular way and scoring them in a particular way, especially if you believe they are all subjective, is okay to do. As I said, you had the ability to take the list and make your own opinions known and judge it in your own way. That also would've been fine. I even asked for people to do that because I figured people would disagree on certain catergories. No one did, and regardless, you can't prove someone wrong if you believe that their opinions are subjective. You can prove someone wrong with fact-based claims, but not a ranking system based on opinion. You yourself made that very point just now. Honestly, I was and still am very interested in seeing how other people view those particular catergories and what they come up with as far as their own rankings. Care to share how you would rank them? I mean, I get it, everyone thinks I'm wrong. Okay, so how would you do it differently?
It really doesn't matter what Washington, etc. believed. It matters what they actually left us with: the Constitution, which is NOT a religious document. Frankly, many of the issues facing current society could not have even been fathomed by the those living in the 18th and early 19th centuries, and they were smart enough to understand that their personal morality should not be enshrined in our most important code of laws. Many people still don't understand that wisdom. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation, and who exactly gets to decide what should and should not be moral?
One of your most balanced and best posts, jbcmh81-- and I mean it!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
