Letters to the Editor - Letters

Full story: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

A picture really does tell a thousand words. I didn't really understand why an elevated rail would work in Honolulu until I saw the photo of the Phoenix rail in last Sunday's paper.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 54 of54
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Liberal Delusions

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Sep 28, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>So now it appears that the killing of innocent women and children is acceptable for conservatives, as long as it fits into the political agenda of the right. Interesting how it now becomes justified as a true choice by government, who by virtue of your position has the only legal authority to kill them. And while we're at it, let's include the old, the sick, and anyone else who happens to be in your way.
It's rather funny how you talk about “ill conceived plans” while at the same time condoning the killing of innocent people in place we chose to invade. I'm glad you're happy to be alive. Too bad we don't give others the same choice (gee, that sure sounds like Nazis with Jews, doesn't it?) It's also funny how you feel non-conservatives need to get their way. Sure seems to me that's exactly what you're complaining about....not getting what you want. If you think I'm unhappy, fine. But if I were you I'd quit your whining because it's sending conflicting messages about you (well, maybe not so conflicting.)
You're conveniently putting words in my mouth, and not coincidentally, ones that work against me. I never said that I "accept" or "condone" the deaths of innocent non-combatants in war. What I did suggest is that I accept *the reality* that death or harm to innocent non-combatants is virtually unavoidable if any war is to be waged with any reasonable expectation of effectiveness or success. War is inherently "dirty" and "ugly"... but very unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

I think this highlights a core difference between Conservatives and Liberals, and one which is used unfairly by the latter to attack the former. Specifically - Liberals like to spout platitudes along the lines of "Make love, not war!", or "Feed the hungry!" In a perfect world, Conservatives would like those things too... BUT they realize and accept that this is NOT a perfect world. Therefore, there are times when "necessary evils," for lack of a better term, are unfortunately called for. It is not about what we *want*. It's about what is *necessary*. Yet this is unfairly painted by the Left as somehow being an endorsement or preference by the Right for those "necessary evils."

One wages war, therefore they "hate peace and love war!" One realizes that it's not possible, nor always desirable, to feed all of the hungry (e.g., "teach a man to fish.."), therefore they "don't care for the hungry," or "have no compassion." Wrong, and unfair.

Liberals believe that a perfect world can be achieved, and furthermore that everything is "black or white," "all or nothing." They fail to see the real-world implications of their actions, and their unintended consequences. That type of idealistic thinking may be sincere in intention, but impractical in reality. And reality is unfortunately what we must deal with, in all of its shades.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Sep 28, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>The ties between religiosity, Conservatives, and the charity they exhibit are worth noting, however the inferences that can be drawn are unclear - there are too many unknowns. What percentage of church donations goes to "church building," versus more secular but altruistic causes such as feeding the hungry, etc.? What percentage of both Conservative and Liberal charity, respectively, go to more "purely" altruistic causes - such as feeding the hungry - versus, say, art museums, private universities, etc.?
As far as the Catholic church hush money - it is outrageous if true, but I don't think you can fairly implicate or discredit Conservative donations to the church based on that. My guess is that I don't think many donors would be very happy about their money being used in that fashion, if they had any direct say in the matter.
Well that's fine. But what you considered altruistic at the beginning seems to have lost its luster once you start looking harder under the hood.

I don't mind, but if you're going to use Churches as a way of showing conservatives give more to "charities," don't start back peddling and inserting what you think they will feel, or how the money is being spent.

And if you don't believe the hush money being spent by the church, then you truly are in denial. That alone would make one wonder what kind of "charity" conservatives donate to.
Liberal Delusions

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Sep 28, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's fine. But what you considered altruistic at the beginning seems to have lost its luster once you start looking harder under the hood.
I don't mind, but if you're going to use Churches as a way of showing conservatives give more to "charities," don't start back peddling and inserting what you think they will feel, or how the money is being spent.
And if you don't believe the hush money being spent by the church, then you truly are in denial. That alone would make one wonder what kind of "charity" conservatives donate to.
The fact that Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals hasn't "lost its luster" at all. In terms of monetary contributions, parsing which specific causes donors give to would apply equally to Liberals as it would to Conservatives. And if you look at the other evidence - that Conservatives families give a higher percentage to charity relative to their incomes, and even more telling - that they donate more volunteer time and give more blood than Liberals - it all only points consistently in one direction.

There's no point in arguing if you want to continue denying the evidence. That's your choice, but then please understand if down the line I'm reluctant to provide the proof for my arguments that you often demand. It's a waste of my time if your mind has already been made up and is closed to new information.

Since: Nov 08

Eagle River, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Sep 28, 2009
 
Pau wrote:
<quoted text>
So much concern from the fanatical right is startling. I always thought they were impassive...
The the weaning off from torture and anti-intellectual buffoonery of the previous administration looks to have had a positive impact.
Yes, you can tell by counting the number of missiles launched by North Korea and Iran while at the same time they expand their nuclear facilities.
Liberal Delusions

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Sep 28, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Well that's fine. But what you considered altruistic at the beginning seems to have lost its luster once you start looking harder under the hood.
I don't mind, but if you're going to use Churches as a way of showing conservatives give more to "charities," don't start back peddling and inserting what you think they will feel, or how the money is being spent.
And if you don't believe the hush money being spent by the church, then you truly are in denial. That alone would make one wonder what kind of "charity" conservatives donate to.
BTW, I didn't say that I "don't believe" the Catholic church hush money allegations. I honestly don't know enough about it to have formed a definite opinion, and you've already stated that you don't want to provide the proof for me because you already did so. Apparently, I missed seeing it. But regardless, my point is that what the church does with its money shouldn't be used to cast a negative spin on the altruistic intentions of those who donate to the church.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Sep 28, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, I didn't say that I "don't believe" the Catholic church hush money allegations. I honestly don't know enough about it to have formed a definite opinion, and you've already stated that you don't want to provide the proof for me because you already did so. Apparently, I missed seeing it. But regardless, my point is that what the church does with its money shouldn't be used to cast a negative spin on the altruistic intentions of those who donate to the church.
If that's the case, then you should apply that same thought to institutions such as the Red Cross or ACS. But their people have to do things a bit differently. Which is why they disclose things such as how much their president earns, or what percentage of donations actually go to the work they claim it goes to. It's simply due diligence.

But from a political perspective, if you're going to use the church to show how good conservatives are, you can't then take it away when people attempt to show anything not to your liking. Once you put it in play, it's in play for everyone to use... not just you.
Pau

Pasadena, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Sep 28, 2009
 
HayninAk wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you can tell by counting the number of missiles launched by North Korea and Iran while at the same time they expand their nuclear facilities.
The North Koreans accumulated more nuclear bombs under the Bush administration than they had previously.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Sep 28, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals hasn't "lost its luster" at all. In terms of monetary contributions, parsing which specific causes donors give to would apply equally to Liberals as it would to Conservatives. And if you look at the other evidence - that Conservatives families give a higher percentage to charity relative to their incomes, and even more telling - that they donate more volunteer time and give more blood than Liberals - it all only points consistently in one direction.
There's no point in arguing if you want to continue denying the evidence. That's your choice, but then please understand if down the line I'm reluctant to provide the proof for my arguments that you often demand. It's a waste of my time if your mind has already been made up and is closed to new information.
If you're talking about "facts" that come from people like George Will who helped Reagan prepare for his debate with Carter and had a personal like for him, that can hardly be call "balanced" at all. I would say you are the one who has a problem with having an open mind.

But that's ok. Carry on with your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.
Liberal Delusions

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Sep 28, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>If that's the case, then you should apply that same thought to institutions such as the Red Cross or ACS. But their people have to do things a bit differently. Which is why they disclose things such as how much their president earns, or what percentage of donations actually go to the work they claim it goes to. It's simply due diligence.
But from a political perspective, if you're going to use the church to show how good conservatives are, you can't then take it away when people attempt to show anything not to your liking. Once you put it in play, it's in play for everyone to use... not just you.
Straw man again. I'm NOT "taking away" the church from the evidence that I provided. I've continued to say that when people donate to the church, they are doing so for altruistic reasons. I think it's very far-fetched to characterize their giving as an endorsement of illegal or immoral activities perpetrated by a certain group of people within the church. If one of the church's core beliefs revolved around promoting pedophilia, and people knowingly donated with the specific intention of supporting that "cause," then you might have a point. That is obviously not the case.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Sep 28, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>Straw man again. I'm NOT "taking away" the church from the evidence that I provided. I've continued to say that when people donate to the church, they are doing so for altruistic reasons. I think it's very far-fetched to characterize their giving as an endorsement of illegal or immoral activities perpetrated by a certain group of people within the church. If one of the church's core beliefs revolved around promoting pedophilia, and people knowingly donated with the specific intention of supporting that "cause," then you might have a point. That is obviously not the case.
I’ve never characterized that giving to churches “…as an endorsement of illegal or immoral activities…” But I can see where it might be construed as such. But following your line of thinking, just because the US gives money to Israel or India doesn’t mean we like them either, right?

But we do give money to Pakistan. And they do harbor the Taliban. So what does that mean?

Regardless of what the churches core beliefs are, is your position then that how they act with their public face has no bearing or relevance on those values? That’s rather funny. But then again, that would explain why people like Craig, Ensign and Sanford feel they still have their same values after being found out.

I wonder what messages they’re sending?
Liberal Delusions

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Sep 28, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>If you're talking about "facts" that come from people like George Will who helped Reagan prepare for his debate with Carter and had a personal like for him, that can hardly be call "balanced" at all. I would say you are the one who has a problem with having an open mind.
But that's ok. Carry on with your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.
You know I'm not.(Straw man again.) The main source that I've pointed to, as you well know, has been Arthur Brooks' study. It has been subject to critical review from both sides, and so far, I've yet to see anyone contradict the statistics that he's using as the basis for his conclusions/findings. If you have something along those lines, I'd like to see it. George Will was never part of my argument, and you know it.
Liberal Delusions

Kalaheo, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Sep 28, 2009
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I’ve never characterized that giving to churches “…as an endorsement of illegal or immoral activities…” But I can see where it might be construed as such. But following your line of thinking, just because the US gives money to Israel or India doesn’t mean we like them either, right?
But we do give money to Pakistan. And they do harbor the Taliban. So what does that mean?
Regardless of what the churches core beliefs are, is your position then that how they act with their public face has no bearing or relevance on those values? That’s rather funny. But then again, that would explain why people like Craig, Ensign and Sanford feel they still have their same values after being found out.
I wonder what messages they’re sending?
If you want to apply the standard of absolute proof - particularly when the subject has to do with people's intentions - you'll obviously never get that. So be it.

I continue to stand by the facts that have been presented, and the conclusions that have been drawn.

The facts: Conservative families give a greater percentage of their income to charity, even despite the fact that Liberal families earned more on average. Conservatives volunteer more time to charity than Liberals. Conservatives give more blood than Liberals.

The conclusion: The facts show that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals, despite the latter's contentions to the contrary.

My opinion: Yet another example of Lib hypocrisy, of not putting their actions behind their words, and of their "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Sep 28, 2009
 
Liberal Delusions wrote:
<quoted text>If you want to apply the standard of absolute proof - particularly when the subject has to do with people's intentions - you'll obviously never get that. So be it.
I continue to stand by the facts that have been presented, and the conclusions that have been drawn.
The facts: Conservative families give a greater percentage of their income to charity, even despite the fact that Liberal families earned more on average. Conservatives volunteer more time to charity than Liberals. Conservatives give more blood than Liberals.
The conclusion: The facts show that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals, despite the latter's contentions to the contrary.
My opinion: Yet another example of Lib hypocrisy, of not putting their actions behind their words, and of their "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.
lol! Let's be clear. You are standing by the facts as created, researched and published by a conservative.

And if I'm not mistaken, the article is an opinion so it supports the position of an opinion of an opinion.

Since: Nov 08

Eagle River, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Sep 28, 2009
 
Pau wrote:
<quoted text>
The North Koreans accumulated more nuclear bombs under the Bush administration than they had previously.
Where can i verify that?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 54 of54
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Kahului Discussions

Search the Kahului Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Pukalani Music Selection (Sep '12) Apr 16 Musikologist 8
Review: All Stars Garage Mar 27 Roger 1
Thank you Mar '14 Judy and Art 1
Rudeness Mar '14 Pattie 1
Ululani's keeps growIng Feb '14 Betty 1
Ranchers welcome rain Feb '14 tongangodz 2
Kihei stay this weekend is the costliest in U.S. Feb '14 Stranger in Town 2
•••
•••
•••
Kahului Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Kahului Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Kahului People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••