JGusty,
Some people honestly don’t find the phrase “growing the Federal Government” to be the boogieman that some conservatives find it to be. As a country we have experienced both ups and downs during periods of balanced budgets as well as periods of deficit spending. For me personally, it’s not the size of the government that is most important but rather the issues targeted by the government. Personally, when I hear Obama say that he is going to have to make some tough decisions, like raising taxes and cutting some things out of the budget in order to pay for his programs, that makes sense. McCain saying that he isn’t going to raise any taxes doesn’t make sense. I again think this word “socialized” and all of its variants is being misused by many in this campaign season. How is giving people the option to buy into a health plan if they aren’t happy with their own plan socialized medicine? How is paying taxes, or “spreading the wealth”, really socialism? Taxes are supposed to spread the wealth, that’s their function. And I definitely think raising the rate 3% on the top 5% of income earners so that they are paying what they did under Clinton is neither socialism nor unreasonable. Yes, I’m not in the top 5% bracket myself. But if I get there I know I won’t have a problem paying a little more. Of course there is a lot of optimism associated with his campaign, many people are sick and tired of the path that Bush put us on. I think McCain could have generated similar enthusiasm if he had shown us the old McCain and not the new McCain-Palin version. People really are ready for a change. Obama exploited that vibe, and then McCain tried to copy him. Now of course the message Obama has been sending is vague when it comes to details. But that’s part of the political game in this country–FDR simply promised a New Deal for the American people at his acceptance speech, he didn’t say how he was going to do it. For what it’s worth, I think serious minded people are looking at Obama and the list of experts who are supporting him–Warren Buffett and Colin Powell, just to name two–and see that he will be surrounded by people who know what they are doing. And better than that, he seems willing to actually listen to others instead of playing out some messianic vision quest and alienating experts on his staff. Anyway, that’s my take.

Bill,

You wrote: “How is giving people the option to buy into a health plan if they aren’t happy with their own plan socialized medicine?”

My reply: Never said it was. What is implied is that ANY socialized aspect of healthcare (or anything else for that matter) requires money. And that money can only come from one pleace. Taxes.

You wrote: “Taxes are supposed to spread the wealth, that’s their function. ”

My reply: Really? Wow. All this time I thought the purpose of taxes was to support necessary infastructure.

You wrote: “And better than that, he (Obama) seems willing to actually listen to others instead of playing out some messianic vision quest”

My reply: Again… really? Obama isn’t also playing out some messianic vision. With all due respect Bill, that observation is simply stunning to me.

“My reply: Never said it was. What is implied is that ANY socialized aspect of healthcare (or anything else for that matter) requires money. And that money can only come from one pleace. Taxes.”

Or, and I think this is the idea behind his health plan, rates will go down because you will have more people buying into the same health-care plan. For those who don’t buy in, I think the ideas is that their providers will also be forced to adjust rates in order to compete with the temptation to join the less expensive plan. So, if costs go down, why do taxes have to go up?

“My reply: Really? Wow. All this time I thought the purpose of taxes was to support necessary infastructure.”

Exactly. And paying taxes to support people who have fallen through the cracks is part of this infrastructure–in my opinion. But that’s different than the spread the wealth argument of conservatives who seem to be using it more as a robbing the rich to feed the poor scenario.

“My reply: Again… really? Obama isn’t also playing out some messianic vision. With all due respect Bill, that observation is simply stunning to me.”

“Messianic vision” was a direct (if poorly worded) reference to leaders like Bush who seem unconcerned and uninterested in the views of people who don’t share their particular worldview. Since day one (and I’m paraphrasing here), Bush has said that he doesn’t care what historians write about him because he knows he’s right–his faith tells him so. That’s scary, and that’s not at all what Obama is doing–in my opinion. He seems to be perfectly secure intellectually which, theoretically, should allow him to surround himself with the “best and the brightest”, and to listen to and weigh fairly opposing views.

Just thought I’d add this bit of information related to the “messianic” comment above since it just now popped up on Yahoo.

The headline “Obama says would include Republicans in cabinet”
The link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081030/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_obama_transition

Aside from whether or not you (and I mean anyone here) believes that Obama would do this (I believe it), this is what I mean by Obama not being afraid to surround himself with people who don’t necessarily share his exact worldview (and yes, I’m assuming that the Republicans he would select don’t share his worldview which might not be true).

Let me pose this question on healthcare. Since my wife is in that industry, I hear her complain about how the amounts some state-run insurance plans pay providers barely covers the cost of providing that care, and in some cases, the office loses money.

So, if costs of premiums go down, the revenue for the healthcare companies goes down, meaning they have fill that gap somehow, by either passing it on to the consumer, or to adjust what they are willing to pay for. So, they either raise the co-pays and jack up the deductibles, or tell the providers that the amount they will reimburse for a certain procedure is going down. This will cause lower revenues for the offices, forcing them to cut back on staff, and in some cases, those offices will just not take that insurance. Or will they say, “Your insurance will only cover 60% of the cost of this procedure, will that be cash, check, or charge?”

What have we gained? We are either going to pay it on the front side or the back side. I would rather pay more on the front side so I don’t have to mortgage the house to pay on the back side.

And, don’t flame me for this, this is just something I read today. The comment was “If you want to know about socialized medicine, ask a Russian. Or a Canadian.” I know, from taking to some canadians (my family is from there), it’s not exactly “quality care”. True? False? Victim of bad publicity?

Rob,

“I hear her complain about how the amounts some state-run insurance plans pay providers barely covers the cost of providing that care, and in some cases, the office loses money.”

Good point, and that scenario obviously doesn’t work well. But, and I may be wrong about this, it is my understanding that what Obama is talking about is a not state-run insurance plan as we know it today. I think he’s talking about giving people who want out of their current plan, or who don’t have plans at all, the opportunity to buy into a government-run marketplace of private insurance companies. That would theoretically raise the pool of individuals in the plan which would lower the costs. Again, I may be wrong on this, and Obama really hasn’t spelled out the specifics as far as I have read, but I think that’s the idea behind the plan, and to me it doesn’t sound like the current state-run fiasco you described.

Rob,
I am with you on your healthcare points. As a person that went sometime in my life with no healthcare at all, I am still concerned about Obama’s plan for the same points that you made. See Rob we can agree!!!

CARRY ON.
T

When my wife was a stay at home mommy and me being self employed we paid for our own health insurance. The only insurance that we could afford was major medical. I got an ear infection of all things and just about had a heart attack (until I realized that I couldn’t afford it) when I went to get the prescription filled. $85 for 5 pills! That’s $17 per pill!!!!!!!

In my younger days I’ve had dealings with the “underground” pharmaceudical world and let me tell you …….any drug dealer in town would be left holding his stock because the “market” wouldn’t allow that type of gouging! Sooooooooo maybe if the government TRULY let the market work in the “legal” drug world, healthcare wouldn’t be such a ginormously huge expensive issue

Even if Obama’s plan is merely to pool together large groups of people so they can catch a discount all the gov is still doing is subsidizing VERY lucrative drug companies that don’t need subsidizing. But on the other hand that would cutback on the amount of lobbyists so there would be some jobs lost.

Just a thought

JohnG

I’ll keep it short:

Redistribution of wealth is communistic….period.

Obama is a commie. McCain is a lesser commie.

Vote against Obama.

Yeah and “trickle down economics” worked well too (ultra-sarcasm). The rich get loopholes and the poor don’t pay taxes. Isn’t being middle class just great when it comes to the tax structure?!

Is Obama really intending to redistribute or is he just going to close loopholes that only the rich with fancy accountants take advantage of? It’s not that I support Obama but I think that it’s a fair question to ask

For all of his craziness Jerry Brown’s (among others) suggestion of a flat tax was the best idea I’ve heard yet.

Matt, I understand your feverish dislike of Obama and I can relate to a point. I had the same feelings toward Bush/Cheney. Maybe that’s why I really feel no passion for either of the two major party clowns. Because either one is better then the King of Clowns we’ve got running the country now. It’s just sad that we have to settle on one of the two.

Hey John

Obama has identified his ‘change’ as ‘redistributive change’. He is promising to tax productive [wealthy] citizens more and give non productive citizens free money.

Sounds like communism to me.

But in Obama’s favor is the fact that he [as well as most politicians] is a liar, so I don’t believe a word he says. I believe that Obama will tax the middle class as well as the wealthy. One example is how he has changed his definition of wealthy from $300,000 a year, to $250,000 a year, to $200,000 a year and now Joe Biden has lowered the thresh hold to a mere $150,000 a year.

I don’t know anybody in those income levels who think of themselves as anything more than Middle class, yet Obama is bent on raising their taxes.

But hey, if you sit around the house all day doing drugs and making babies, you’ll get some free money!!!!

Bill,

The “purpose-of-taxes-is-to-spread-the-wealth” thing has stuck with me all day. It’s super-significant because I think you put into words a HUGE fundamental stumbling block between left and right.

This is a good thing for both sides to recognize and understand.

People sharing a belief system similar to yours have absolutely no problem utilizing public funds for (let’s call them) “public non-necessities.” (please note I’m making the distinction between public & private) People to the right of your belief feel passionately towards not enabling private dependency of the economic responsibility-kind.

Is that a fair way to put it? It get’s spun beyond belief from there (by both sides) but that appears to be the core of it as I see it.

You wrote: “And paying taxes to support people who have fallen through the cracks is part of this infrastructure–in my opinion.”

So a fair question back to you is the following:
You don’t seem to have a problem putting health care costs into the definition of “infrastructure” – would you have an issue with food, shelter, clothing and transportation costs?

If no… Then where is the line drawn and parameters defined?
If you would have an issue with any of those “cost categories” – please explain.

If we get that far, it might be a good idea to prioritize health care, food, shelter, clothing and transportation in order of 1 to 5 with 1 being the most absolute necessity.

Bill… I’m sincerely not meaning any of this in an obnoxious way. I really want to completely understand exactly where you are coming from.

Bill,
One more thing. You wrote to Rob the following in regards to what you perceive to be Obama’s health care plan. You wrote:

“I think he’s talking about giving people who want out of their current plan, or who don’t have plans at all, the opportunity to buy into a government-run marketplace of private insurance companies.”

I missed that sentence during my first read through.

“Government-run marketplace of private insurance companies” – is that possible?

Isn’t that like a “tall refreshing glass of wet, dry water” ?

I believe that the government can play a role that’s actually healthy to the system at times. The fed government is pretty much the only entity that could pool together large diverse groups of consumers to get them breaks on their insurance and act as somewhat of a referee to keep companies “honest” with those consumers if they are going to participate in tapping into that pool of consumers.

In theory I think the idea itself is not a bad idea. However we all know that when the government runs ANYTHING it becomes fat, bloated and eventually becomes altogether broken. That of course is the catch.

What bothers me most isn’t that Obama is pitching the idea (I’m not even sure if that’s actually the idea that he’s pitching but I think that it was something to the effect of the consumer pool). It’s that he’s pitching an idea to throw on top of a broken corrupt system instead of fixing the system first.

If the gov doesn’t ignore the lobbyists and make brand name drug companies HAVE to compete with generics then nothings really getting “fixed”. The “consumer pool” would just be a more convenient way to feed into a corrupt system that fills the pockets of drug company execs.

JGUSTY,

I enjoyed reading the “Help a Brotha Out” piece. My two cents are as follows:

“help me understand how further bloating the size of Federal Government became cool and hip?”

JGUSTY I’m surprised at you. Didn’t you write a piece regarding the lemmings? You were surrounded by lemmings dude!!

That doesn’t make them bad people. Politics just doesn’t move them. I’d be shocked if any of them participate in a forum like babyReagan (still having a hard time with the name. I KNOW you just wanted to mess with me when you thought it up. Because, after all, it’s all about me).

They were at this event because it was the thing to do. The same thing happened last election with Bush.

Jack’s (my son) teacher asked the class who their parents were voting for. He was the ONLY one in class who’s parents weren’t voting for Bush! (Of course that has earned me soooooo much credibility in his eyes at this point it’s not even funny.)

This week his teacher held a mock election and when Jack told he wanted to vote for Bob Barr she asked “who?” and told him that he has to pick between McCain or Obama. Ahhhhh public education. Of course she’ll be hearing from me.

I can imagine that the crowd that you were hanging with sees this election as ANOTHER old white guy that doesn’t look or sound much different then the other old white guys that have been running the show VS a young black guy that used the word “change”. To them that’s GAME OVER. Everything else is blah, blah, blah. In those peoples worlds that’s all they needed to see and hear. Same old same old vs something new. Don’t really have time for the boring details “Socialized health care. Re-distribution. Higher taxes” BORING!

Again that doesn’t make them bad people. They just choose not to focus on the details. The same EXACT thing happened in the last pres. election. The only difference was which group of lemmings was drinking the kool-aid.

Could this election be anymore the mirror opposite of the last? Except EXACTLY the same. You had a dynamic candidate (Karl Rove) that moved people to love or hate him VS a (yawn) VERY not dynamic candidate that ZZZZzzzzzzzzz ……..

JGusty,
“public non-necessities.”? You’ll have to define those for me (unless you mean the healthcare, food, shelter, etc. you listed later) before I can respond.

” would you have an issue with food, shelter, clothing and transportation costs? If no… Then where is the line drawn and parameters defined?” No, I wouldn’t have a problem with those. If a family can’t get any of those on their own then we need to help. Of course defining the line you mention is really difficult, and your option of prioritizing make sense at first blush. The welfare system as it exists today is certainly broken–too much money is being spent doing too little good. But that doesn’t mean, to my mind at least, that welfare as a concept is broken. I honestly have no idea how to improve the system, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t scrap it all together and rally around some Horatio Alger vision of life in the United States. There simply hasn’t been a time in U.S. history, at least since the 19th century, when the federal government hasn’t played an active role in giving citizens a helping hand–whether through military protection, land grants or direct aid. Yet some people (and I don’t necessarily mean you) seem to believe that all it takes to succeed in this country is hard work. To my mind, hard work is necessary but not always sufficient.

““Government-run marketplace of private insurance companies” – is that possible?” Again, I don’t know if it’s possible. I do know, however, that healthcare, like welfare, is broken in this country. I’ve read enough quantitative, qualitative and anecdotal evidence to support this conclusion, and my family and I experienced some serious deficiencies in the system after our son was born. Luckily we had the means to bypass our insurance company, but not everyone does, and we wouldn’t have either if anything really bad happened. If we take out humanitarian reasons, from a basic cost perspective I think we could save more if everyone had affordable preventative care. How exactly we get there I don’t know. But personally I’m not cynical enough yet (and I can be pretty cynical) to assume that we can’t. Like JohnG and others here, I too dislike the fact that Obama’s plan ultimately works within the existing private health insurance and drug company cartels. Hopefully, though, a nudge in a different direction will get this ball going.

Help me out here. I REALLY don’t understand something. I’ve heard this about a dozen times over the past 2 days, “I don’t like either one so I’m not voting” or “I don’t like either one so I’m voting for Barr/Nader/whoever”. I’m not slamming anyone who is voting for a third-party candidate (John G), I’m just curious as to why. What purpose does their vote serve? Is it that they just like standing in line for hours so they can punch a couple buttons? I’m not saying that you shouldn’t vote, but since there are really only 2 candidtates, why not pick the better of those 2?

Like I said, I’m not slamming anyone, I would just like somebody to explain the reasoning behind it. I remember from the Bush/Gore race, everybody was saying that had Nader not been running, Gore would have been elected, but I’m not saying that would have been better or worse.

Rob,
I’m with you on that. I’ve never fully understood why one would vote for somebody who literally has no chance of winning (and no, I don’t mean that everyone should just vote for the person who appears in the lead so that they can feel good about voting for the winner). I’ve posed your same question here a couple of times, and while I’ll let the third party people speak for themselves, what I’ve learned is that they are exercising their right to vote for whomever they feel best represents their views, regardless of if that person has no chance of winning. I’m interested to hear if my summary is correct. To me, I see such clear differences between the two candidates that I would never risk voting for somebody who couldn’t win since that could in theory hand the victory to the candidate who I really think would take our country in the wrong direction. Others here don’t seem to see any meaningful differences.

Just for fun, and because it’s the weekend, here’s what David Sedaris had to say about undecided voters (and I’m not equating undecided voters with people voting for third party candidates) in this week’s New Yorker:

..”To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

“To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.”

…”I wonder if, in the end, the undecideds aren’t the biggest pessimists of all. Here they could order the airline chicken, but, then again, hmm. “Isn’t that adding an extra step?” they ask themselves. “If it’s all going to be chewed up and swallowed, why not cut to the chase, and go with the platter of shit?”

Ah, though, that’s where the broken glass comes in.”

Rob,
If your party loses does your vote “not serve a purpose” ?
I vote 3rd party when that view aligns the most with mine.
I vote dem or pub, when that pre-requisite is met by either.

Carry on.
T

Tony,

That doesn’t really answer my question. If your third party candidate has no chance of winning, why not pick the one, of the one’s who can win, who most closely aligns with your views? Are their views THAT far away from yours? I’ve said before to pick your canidate based on the issues, and I respect anybody who does, no matter who they vote for. I’m just curious as to what the people who vote for Barr or Nader are actually thinking. I know that didn’t come out right, but I hope you understand what I meant. I gotta run so I can’t re-phrase it right now.

I realized that I haven’t fully explained something about my take on the elections. Basically, I think Obama would be better for our country than McCain. What I sincerely hopes happens is that Obama wins AND the Republican machine responsible for the last 8 years and the McCain-Palin ticket are thoroughly discredited for their efforts to play on populist, anti-intellectual sentiments and fears in this country. This started with Bush (look at me, I’m a Texas cowboy and one of y’all, not a blue-blood from Connecticut), and continues in the rhetoric of the McCain campaign. Personally I think the Republicans need to get back to the time when they used ideas instead of playing on fears and insecurities to win. I myself was a registered independent until 2000, and my wife has accused me often of being a Republican (I think of myself as left of center). So, if a Republican emerged who was more progressive than those offered to us today, I would take their candidacy seriously since you don’t have to be a registered independent to vote independently.

Matt,
I have a quick question. So when you read, “Obama is proposing tax increases on FAMILIES making over $250,000 and INDIVIDUALS making over $200,000 and TAX CUTS for the 95 percent of workers making less than $200,000″ [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_145] does that clear up the issue of 250k vs. 200k? Are you saying that he won’t cut taxes for that 95% of workers? Or are you just saying that you don’t trust him to keep his word at all and therefore anyone making any amount of money is likely to experience higher taxes? Thanks.

Ummmm, Bill, according to the IRS, Obama’s numbers are a lie. Oh, sorry, Obama would NEVER lie.

According to the IRS, a mere 2% make over $250,000. And, those 2% pay 43.6% of the taxes in this country. In order to get the percentage to 5%, you have to go down to below $150,000, i think I saw where it was actually closer to $100, 000.

Rob,
So the lying is the “only taxing the top 5%” argument? As for the unreferenced IRS stats. you provide, are those numbers for individuals or for households? So is the question whether he is going to focus on the top 5% or on the incomes you listed? Is it is connecting “$250,000″ and “top 5%” that is the deception?

As for, “Oh, sorry, Obama would NEVER lie.” I never said that. I simply have much more faith in his judgment and choices to date than I do in McCain’s. I don’t know for a fact that he will be better, or that he will do everything he says he will. I do believe, however, that a McCain victory will glorify some of the baser elements in our society in ways that will make any real, meaningful progress or dialogue difficult.

Rob,
The problem with your choice of just Dem/Pub goes directly to why I vote Libertarian for POTUS.
Neither practice small Gov’t. (Pubs are supposed to be that stance but are not).
Parts of each are close and parts of each are miles away.
The issues such as abortion, state’s rights, approach to education, gun laws, etc.. are a split between DEM/PUB…

But more importantly to me are issues barely touched by either major party because of compromise within the party.

Victim’s rights (full restitution paid by the criminal) , ending drug prohibition (which will end prison over crowding thus eliminating early release for violent crime convicts) , Low cost private schooling, ending foreign aid, removal of barriers of drug treatment for health issues, ending welfare and having alternate plans, private charity promotion through tax breaks, never cover losses through taxes for private business (NO BAILOUTS PERIOD!) , Alternatives to social security (choice of personal retirement funds not paid into Gov’t.), and No INCOME TAX … notice it says ‘income’ other taxes stay put and are adjusted. (See USA pre-1913)
This list goes on…

Keep in mind … I was asked why 3rd party for ME … as an individual. Bill E has asked several times also. I hope this clears up WHY FOR ME a little more. I am not asking you to agree with the points. Just showing major differences… why?… the 3rd party compromises less, because of not having years of deals brokered in-party. It would one day be as stagnate as the 2 majors possibly….. but not by this Tuesday.
So my heart and views align the most with Libertarian for POTUS.

I am not all for Libertarian issues either … immigration being at the top and internet censorship a close 2nd.

CARRY ON.
T

Bill E,
You said..
” a McCain victory will glorify some of the baser elements in our society in ways that will make any real, meaningful progress or dialogue difficult.”

That goes both ways … have you discussed why Obama, with anyone under 30? Which is why he is gonna win… “because he seems cool?” … “He is all about change”… “he is gonna spread the wealth, maybe I’ll get some… ” … both sides have their base elements that is why it is the base…

Hey will Obama pay my mortgage if I get poorer? I mean most the kids voting for him don’t have a home, so can their taxes spread to me? I’ll record their band for free….(MAJOR SARCASM…maybe)

Any VICTORY glorifies the Base element that is why they win.

CARRY ON.
T

I neglected to add that reaching your base element is the goal … and Obama’s campaign did so… very well.
I am not a sore loser … I guess the secret is widening your base …
I feel the base element leans towards Obama right now … I know there is still the Guns and God stereotype for the Pubs, but as we have seen here , there are those who truly care on both sides as well.
Carry on.
T

Tony,
“That goes both ways … have you discussed why Obama, with anyone under 30? Which is why he is gonna win… “because he seems cool?” … “He is all about change”… “he is gonna spread the wealth, maybe I’ll get some… ” … both sides have their base elements that is why it is the base…”

Yes, I have talked about it with plenty of people over the age of 30. My stepfather, for example, is 70. He was an executive at At&T and Anderson Consulting. He is also a registered Democrat who is on the board of elections for his township (an historically Republican suburb of Philadelphia) and an active campaigner. Put simply, any tax increase on the top 5% of the country will affect him, still he supports Obama for many of the reasons I have mentioned here in other posts. In addition, when Bush passed his first tax rebate, my stepfather wrote an op-ed for the local paper urging people who didn’t really need the rebate to donate the funds to charity. He also, as a shareholder in a number of companies, consistently votes no to CEO raises. But he is only one example of someone who is well over 30 who I know who isn’t voting for Obama because he is a rockstar, or against him because they want to protect their bank account. This rockstar charge isn’t necessarily a myth, but there are plenty of people out there who will vote for Obama on Tuesday for reasons more complex than his image.

And I still think McCain is preaching to the baser elements in our society much more so than Obama. I am particularly offended by his constant charges of “socialism” and “terrorism” which are both simply b.s. used to try and scare voters into voting for him (in my humble opinion).

Tony,
I think maybe we’re using “baser elements” differently. I mean appealing to peoples’ fears and insecurities by telling them how bad things would be if the other guy won, without necessarily providing any real evidence to support those accusations. You could certainly say that Obama is doing something similar by saying that a McCain Admin. would continue Bush policies, and before McCain actually won the nomination, I was one who didn’t think this would be true. Now, however, I’m not so sure and I don’t know that Obama is that far off the mark. But this William Ayers charge is crap as are the ones concerning Obama’s birth certificate, asserting that he is a Muslim and the reckless use of “socialism.” All of those are simply tactics designed to distract voters from any serious discussions of the issue. And yes, I can’t guarantee that we would ever have had those serious discussions if those accusations weren’t made. But the fact that they have been made and repeated over and over to me signals an effort to reach what I’m calling the baser elements.

Bill E,
I was making a point that both sides need to and do cater to the base element. Please don’t assume that I am a moron and that I think only the 30 and under voters will lean to Obama. You go on a tangent about over 30’s like I should be impressed by the liberals that have gray hair…. that wasn’t even my point.
Maybe I am not posting clearly, if I am not, sorry …

I am willing to bet the farm that the PERCENTAGE increase in black voters will rise from the last Presidential election more so than the Christian percentage. Any takers? Base level supporters?
BillE, are you ,by saying base level meaning what you deem unintelligent/less educated?

The top 5% tax increase is something that I haven’t posted on because I think both sides will increase it, no matter what is said.

Obama has socialist policies. What he does and how they work … we will get to see, I’m guessing.
I’m no McCain advocate and I said it. Am I BS? (Not meant in an antagonistic way.) I am just trying to find out just where you stand. Which, BTW thanks for not being as coy… it makes understanding your views easier and less agreeable (to me alone).
CARRY ON.
T

Bill E,
You posted while I was typing and on a phone call…I’ll read yours and maybe it will negate my last post.
CARRY ON.
T

Tony,
“Please don’t assume that I am a moron and that I think only the 30 and under voters will lean to Obama.” I definitely don’t assume that, but I also hope that people (not you per se) don’t assume that there aren’t real, legitimate reasons why someone would vote for Obama. Personally I am impressed by my stepfather and other liberals I have met who give lie to the old saying, “you’re a Democrat until you buy your first house.” I think it’s great that they stick to their principles even if it might limit their wealth. It shows me that people aren’t all as inherently greedy as people often charge. And it’s my belief that he and others like him act the way they do because they recognize that we all have a responsibility to give back to society. Very few of us made it where we are 100% on our own. Anyway, I was just throwing a personal example out there to help explain where I’m coming from.

BillE,
Well, hell if Obama keeps up his antics, I’ll be a democrat BECAUSE I have a house… I’ll spend less wisely and he can give me some of the wealth from the top 5% to pay my mortgage!!!
(OBVIOUSLY SAID IN HUMOR! )

As a personal example … My Dad carried a 4.0 in Sociology and Psychology and stayed a minister in a rural hillbilly town instead of pursuing a career that would make him far more comfortable. That is also sticking to principles at the risk of limited wealth. So in comparison … to a liberal in the top 5% (not your step-father, he seems very honorable and I mean NO slight) that is a far greater sacrifice than a few tax dollars. I don’t know for sure but I would imagine he will vote McCain…
Point is we ALL must step back and recognize that there are many good people on both sides, in varying degrees.
But…
I still think that we are just animals, some more noble than others, and maybe we ( BillE, and myself) are lucky to have had some very noble one’s in our lives
Carry On.
T

Here’s a clip that is being talked about today on a few channels. It’s a portion of an interview from an Obama rally after watching his infomercial.

VOICE: It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment.

VOICE: Why?

VOICE: Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to work on putting gas on my car, I won’t have to work on paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he’s going to help me.

I think Obama should change his theme song to “Free Ride”. That’s what a lot of his supports think they are going to get.

Bill, you said “But this William Ayers charge is crap as are the ones concerning Obama’s birth certificate, asserting that he is a Muslim and the reckless use of “socialism.” All of those are simply tactics designed to distract voters from any serious discussions of the issue.” Those, along with his ties to ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, Farakhan, and Rashid Khalidi are valid points to MANY Americans. It goes to credibility. Ayers, Wright, Farakhan, and Khalidi are very vocal about their anti-American views. Those are very valid points. Especially when Obama himself, when asked about them, puts on his tap shoes and does the Politician-Two-Step. And, if the charges are crap, PROVE IT (not you, him). And, let’s face, Obama’s camp has done an equal share of kicking up dust (attacks on Palin) to distract voters.

I totally respect your opinion. I enjoy these conversations as it opens my eyes to other points of view.

Rob,
Where can that be found?

Rob,
“Those, along with his ties to ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, Farakhan, and Rashid Khalidi are valid points to MANY Americans. It goes to credibility. Ayers, Wright, Farakhan, and Khalidi are very vocal about their anti-American views. Those are very valid points.”

But I think we have to ask WHY people believe that these are valid points. To my mind, it’s because they have been told repeatedly by McCain and others that they are valid points (the old, if you say it enough times then it must be true tactic.) There is no reason that anyone should be worried about Ayers. I mean the man was awarded Chicago’s citizen of the year in 1997, but yet the McCain campaign spins this story as if what Ayers did as a member of the Weather Underground somehow is connected to the present. As if Obama and Osama are spending their weekends together camping in the mountains of Pakistan. That connection is spurious and used, in my mind, to simply scare people. And that is irresponsible.

“And, if the charges are crap, PROVE IT (not you, him)”
Personally I don’t think he has to prove anything because the claims are so fantastic that they don’t deserve any serious consideration.

“I think Obama should change his theme song to “Free Ride”. That’s what a lot of his supports think they are going to get.”
And I’m sure you didn’t mean it this way, but I won’t assume that “lots of his supporters” feel the same as that person interviewed. I’m sure that plenty of them were able to see the holes in the argument presented to us that night. For me at least, those holes aren’t significant enough for me to change my vote. But hey, at least the Phillies won!!!

Bill,
I’m defining a “public non-necessity” as things that society as a whole have to be self-responsible for. Like food. (the government can’t feed everybody, nor should they) Or clothing. Again… a personal responsibility.

For laughs… think about the upheaval around school uniforms whenever it’s mentioned. Imagine the government picking out high-school kids wardrobes! Talk about riots…

On the flip side… a “public necessity” would be something like roads. A police force. Fire Departments. And the argument could be made for or against schools. (although I think most people would want to see schools run completely by local government. The State at the most. No Feds.)

So I asked that since you already stated that you have no problem with health care falling under the term “infrastructure” and funded (partially or whole) by tax dollars, would you have a problem doing the same with food, shelter, clothing and transportation. And your reply was:

“No, I wouldn’t have a problem with those. If a family can’t get any of those on their own then we need to help.”

I appreciate your answer, so now I can better understand and try to relate to what you believe to be right and just. So I noticed that you specifically pointed out that “WE” need to help.

I agree. And “WE” almost ALWAYS rise to the occasion and beyond in just about every case. I guess where I lose your sentiment is that I view “WE” as the private sector. You are viewing “WE” as the government if I’m understanding you.

And in theory… that SHOULD be the case since we live in a “Representative Republic.” (or used to anyway)

But unfortunately it’s hardly the case.

In the “WE-equals-government “scenario… “WE” aren’t doing efficient, productive, well thought out & strategized initiatives on ANY level. Certainly nowhere CLOSE to what would be necessary to provide the cradle-to-grave support system that some see as necessary.

My humble opinion of course.

And I’m willing to admit defeat and change my opinion if someone can point to some (more than one please) solid examples of the Federal Government executing an initiative flawlessly and efficiently in the last 20 years.

But I would really like to play this out a little more.

One question though… why would asking you to prioritize the necessities I listed be anything but logical? I seriously and sincerely would be interested in how you and others would rank those 5 necessities.

But let’s start with food. (which would be my #1)

Let’s keep this simple. Roughly map out for me who would be qualified to receive food from the government. Some basic parameters we’d have to establish would be:
- What income level would qualify?
- How long would the aid be administered?
- How much would each individual get?
- What food groups would be administered?
- What about special dietary needs?
- Who would supply the food?
- How would the suppliers be compensated?
- What sort of infrastructure would need to be built and staffed to track and distribute?

Is it asking too much to take a stab at these questions? I’m hoping not. Perhaps we’ll both learn something.

J Gusty,
“Like food. (the government can’t feed everybody, nor should they) Or clothing. Again… a personal responsibility. ” Nobody ever said the government should feed everybody. So for those people who can’t provide themselves with these things? Is the idea that private charity should take over? If so, as with aid from the government, I think the historical record in the United States contains mixed results concerning the ability of private organizations to provide sufficient aid–especially during economic downturns. And once you have enough people eating either not enough or the wrong kind of food, to my mind addressing those issues becomes a public necessity as they overwhelm our healthcare system and deplete our labor force.

“(although I think most people would want to see schools run completely by local government. The State at the most. No Feds.)” Agreed, and that is the way public schools have always been run in this country. No Child Left Behind was an attempt to change this, or at the least to work around the system (and in particular teacher’s unions), but ultimately as I understand it the consequences of schools failing to make the grade under this policy have been left to local governments to work out just as they always have. (I’m thinking here in particular of schools in Baltimore that have consistently failed but remain open as neither the federal government, nor the local government really knows what to do with all of those students.)

“And “WE” almost ALWAYS rise to the occasion and beyond in just about every case.” Here you and I disagree, but it could be simply by a matter of degrees. I don’t think our country always rises to the occasion. In particular right now I see a rising gap between rich and poor, an increasing number of people unable to afford healthcare (and many of those who still can afford it are finding that the healthcare they are paying for won’t actually cover the expenses if they get seriously ill), and I think we will see more and more people losing jobs and having their wages cut if this recession sticks. How we (public or private) choose to respond to these situations remains to be seen, but there are certainly enough problems in our society (particularly concerning socioeconomic status and race) that I think it’s too early to pat our selves on the back for rising to the occasion. We have certainly done a lot, and in my opinion more than any other country with a similar mix of people and history, but we’re not there yet.

“point to some (more than one please) solid examples of the Federal Government executing an initiative flawlessly and efficiently in the last 20 years.” Of course I can’t point to any examples, not from within the past 20 years, and maybe not from our entire history. The societal issues we are talking about are just too complex to expect flawless executions of initiatives. And, to flip your question, can anyone point to examples of this flawless execution from the private sector when it attempts to address the social issues we are discussing?

“One question though… why would asking you to prioritize the necessities I listed be anything but logical?” I did say it was logical. (I said, “and your option of prioritizing make sense at first blush.”)

As for your “basic parameters,” with all due respect those, except for the first one, are rather absurd. I think the first one, “What income level would qualify?” is a good starting point. But my answer is likely less precise than you would like: I think we need to start by honestly calculating what constitutes a living wage in this country. Of course this would be difficult because of regional and local differences in terms of the cost of living, but just saying here’s our minimum wage and expecting people to live on that wage isn’t working either. So, I think if we could specify what amount equals a living wage, then we could get to the specifics that you mentioned, but I don’t think deciding things like “- What food groups would be administered?” are so serious that they couldn’t be overcome after we first set our living wage.

Rob,

It’s been more then a few posts back but you asked in regards to third parties and Bill E has asked as well.”What purpose does their vote serve? Is it that they just like standing in line for hours so they can punch a couple buttons? I’m not saying that you shouldn’t vote, but since there are really only 2 candidtates, why not pick the better of those 2?”

Tony hit it all right on the head with his response in soooo many ways.

I’d also add this. To stand in line and hold my nose and vote for Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, Clinton/Dole, Clinton/Bush/Perot ………………..oh hang on a second. Perot ……now HE was interesting. I’m not saying that the eccentric old guy was THE answer but he sure did force a serious debate in that election. Instead of the attack ads or “feel good because the govs here to help and I have checks for everybody” type of campaigns.

Who holds the power in this broken down corrupt government? the Repubs and dems alternate and it’s just as broken and corrupt over and over and over and ……………

My question would be …………why would anybody vote FOR either of these two parties? I don’t know if anybody can say it better then Thomas Jefferson did

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.” (in regards to the French Revolution which “spun off” of our own)

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?”

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

When I pull that lever I feel as if I’m speaking what I TRULY believe and doing my very small part in participating in the revolution. We are fortunate so far that we don’t have to spill blood but I woud spill mine without a second thought.

It’s kind of like term limits. I never understood them. Congressman, senators and presidents all have term limits. “We the people” just for some reason don’t “vote the rascals out of office”.

JohnG

Bill E.
I want to be respectful but at the same time honest.
Why is it that when a conservative asks a question we never get a point blank answer … it is always a plan in progress… ( I understand that we have all asked some that require conjecture.)
But when asked we try answer to a point that people drop the subject or just ask again?
I can’t stand Rob’s biblical belief affecting his politics but he answered knowing that I would think that he is wrong. Conservative.
Rob in turn asked me what I am thinking to vote Libertarian, I answered with issues.Conservative.
Matt thinks Obama is a commie, and has no problem communicating this to us. Conservative.
3 different styles but all direct answers.

Since you, Bill E, manned up and stood for Obama as your guy. Today I listed several responses to why 3rd party and specifically Libertarian. No response back from any Liberal positive or negative…
Obama supporters point out McCain’s weak campaign ploys as a reason to vote Democratic…and change.

Finally JGUSTY asks legit questions and 1 is answered?
Why? …
Going into a plan that doesn’t have the issues worked out with our complex gov’t…. really? Take a look at our plan for Iraq.
I would wager my life that liberals would raise questions of nutritional values… see ketchup being ruled a school lunch vegetable.
Ration size… absurd?(sarcasm)
Who would supply the food? I am sure that with the Gov’t in control … someone’s family would get the contract … how would they be paid … our taxes.
Who is paying for the fuel for the delivery trucks? Maybe…. the top 5% are and we all know how well the Gov’t performed with FEMA during the hurricanes… deliveries of spoiled food solves nothing and costs much. It was the private sector that came through…

Just saying WE need to do this, is not enough … money and planning are essential and the Gov’t fails regularly at this. (REPUBS AND DEMOCRATS)
I invite you to check out the Libertarian idea of dollar for dollar tax breaks on charity … the wealthy liberals and conservatives can donate money for these programs… run them and get a tax break…
You (those that want this) take the responsibility and people like myself can discern for ourselves where to donate time and money, which my wife and I do… she more than me… admittedly.
It is irresponsible to create a social service and then, when asked the nuts and bolts way to get it done, answer with … well the Gov’t will take care of that. Next comes “we will solve this side issue once we start the process” … see Iraq again…

I am addressing you, Bill E, with this question because you seem to have a more concise plan than most liberals that I run across … but still only an answer to JGUSTY’s first question… we started with food.. what is next? ….shelter….clothing …healthcare… that is one BIG GOVERNMENT… for the top 5% to shoulder…
At least it seems that way to me…
I am willing to listen to your responses anytime, and I invite anyone to try to explain a sound plan.
Please take this as it is, an honest attempt to understand a foreign way of thinking… to me.
Carry On.
T

Honestly Bill… I’m trying to have a mature, adult conversation with you. And I sincerely asked some very legit questions about parameters that would absolutely have to be answered in order to launch a government-run food distribution plan.

Maybe it’s because my occupation requires me to be “planning” at all times that I operate in this mindset. But for you to call my questions “absurd” without any explanation of the absurdity doesn’t advance the discussion.

One of the core character traits of the “intelligentsia” or intellectual crowd that absolutely frustrates me, is the narrow-minded & shallow depth of their thinking in general coupled with a built-in smugness and pompous tone of delivery. They make vague, sweeping statements as if their accuracy is assumed by all.

I’m not accusing you of being one of those Bill, because we’ve yet to talk fine wine & literature. I’d know instantly by your choice of Shiraz. But seriously… you do take that “tone” often. And calling my questions “absurd” in one sweeping statement, without explanation, is an example of what I’m talking about.

I’m endlessly glad you are here Bill. Heartfelt and sincere. I hope to sit at a table someday soon alongside John G, Rob, Yourself and Tony (and Matt can come too as long as we keep it hetro. Just kidding buddy!) and be able to do some of this over some drinks.

But with all due respect, those were not absurd questions Bill. They would all have to answered if such a program was initiated. Because each and every one of those issues would come up within the first hour of the food distribution programs existence. Do you honestly think that simple questions such as supply, cost and inventory are absurd?

Let’s be fair, reasonable and try and use common sense whenever possible. I promise I will do the same.

You wrote: “can anyone point to examples of this flawless execution from the private sector when it attempts to address the social issues we are discussing?”

Now I’m not sure where you reside, but on the odd chance that you are a resident of the Nashville or surrounding area, I invite you to check out The Nashville Rescue Mission. http://www.nashvillerescuemission.org/

The organization prides itself on NOT depending on any Federal funds whatsoever.

These people not only feed, clothe and house the truly needy, they provide these services under a system that requires the recipients to contribute to the mission and themselves by putting them through a program that helps put people back on the right path (and back to in some cases) to becoming a productive & positive contributor to our society. They “graduate” the vast majority of the people who pass thru the program. The work these people do defines what we are capable of as a society.

Americares is another excellent example. http://www.americares.org/

My very church is part of a coalition of churches that are single-handedly keeping a village, mission and orphanage thriving in Haiti.

All of these are flawlessly doing amazing work without ANY governmental involvement or oversight.

And I believe in my heart that the reason is because the effort is coming from the passion of individuals who get love, joy and energy from serving and helping others. It’s true and sincere and contagious.

Government as it exists today is self-preservating. By its very nature and make-up, it’s not even possible for its effort to be coming from the right place. No matter what the original intent might be.

Term limits would be a great place to start if government is ever going to regain it’s heart and soul.

Tony, et al,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

Tony,

You mentioned Iraq a few times in your latest response. Wasn’t Iraq the brainchild of conservatives? or neo-cons as they are often refered to?

And I consider myself to be more liberal then conservative and just said that your points as to why a third party should be a viable option were very good and agreed with each one of them?

labels

John G,

With all due respect… Iraq was a pure geographical tactical play for positioning. That move was made far above any political party. Republicans and Democrats had little to do with the decision. It was total military strategy to position our side into Iraq BEFORE Iran pulled the same move twice. Had the US completed the job years before during the Kuwait initiative… move #2 (Iraq) might not be necessary.

The problem is no one ever looked into the camera and explained this clearly to the American people. Why? Likely because the reasoning behind it included aspects of one religion’s aggressive initiatives and nobody (Reps or Dems) was willing to take the PR hit associated with trampling on, and defeating an aggressive religion and it’s people.

But with respect to the military strategist who make these tough calls, I doubt they could have looked into the future and predicted exactly how the Hussein/ Amadidajad dynamic would eventually play out.

And then there is Syria.

I think we all need to be careful in playing armchair quarterback in the military realm. The people who process the intel and options have to weigh and consider factors and details that none of us ever get access to in advance… if at all.

Regardless of the rhetoric… NO administration single-handedly makes these types of decisions. All they do is get advised and act as the publicity face for what has been decided. And even THAT involves more briefing, planning and data consumption on a daily basis than any of us deal with in an entire year.

The US would’ve initiated the same Iraq/Afghanistan initiatives if Spongebob Squarepants was president at the time. (insert Bush joke here)

JGusty and Tony,
I see that my “absurd” comment didn’t come of as intended. I didn’t mean literally that those questions aren’t important. Of course they are, and they would have to be answered. I simply meant that in my mind, priority number one if we were to implement the plan Gusty laid out would be to set the income level below which people would qualify for services. I think the rest would fall in place (with a lot of hard work, but I think it could happen). By saying those questions are absurd, I also meant that it is absurd to expect that I could answer any of those questions with any level of specificity. I couldn’t literally, for example, tell you where the food would come from or what dietary restrictions would have to be honored. Those issues are well beyond my narrow field of expertise, but does that mean then that such a program couldn’t work? I agree that we would have to prioritize issues. To my mind healthcare is number 1. I think we start with providing and promoting better preventative care and then move on to make sure that people are covered when things go wrong. I don’t know what would come after that, but food or shelter would probably be second. And I think transportation is important, especially since many people in this country live in areas and towns without extensive and reliable public transportation. So you’ve written a lot about the questions I didn’t answer, any response to the one that I did? What do you think about having a living wage in this country instead of a minimum wage?

Gusty,
“One of the core character traits of the “intelligentsia” or intellectual crowd that absolutely frustrates me, is the narrow-minded & shallow depth of their thinking in general coupled with a built-in smugness and pompous tone of delivery. They make vague, sweeping statements as if their accuracy is assumed by all.” That’s interesting because from the first day I arrived here I noticed many such sweeping statements coming from you. (The first of these that has stuck with me ever since reading it was from the 2party post when you said: “It’s hard to distinguish the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. McCain wants to buy bad debt. Obama looked straight into the camera and said that healthcare is a right.” as if that last bit about healthcare was supposed mean something to us. Just what are you saying about it being a right?) Anyway, I’m not saying this to be combative, I was just interested to see that my comment to you sparked a similar reaction in you as some of the things that you have posted have in me.

Those examples you gave of private organizations are great, and I am aware of others across the country that do similar good work. I don’t know how to rectify their good deeds with the continued existence of many serious societal ills in our country (I’m thinking for example of the issues of poverty and race that were more fully exposed for a moment at least when Katrina hit LA and MS.) My instinct is to say that private organizations can’t do it on their own, that we can’t simply rely on the willingness of people to donate time and money.

“And I believe in my heart that the reason is because the effort is coming from the passion of individuals who get love, joy and energy from serving and helping others. It’s true and sincere and contagious.” This description reminds me of several social workers I know, and I think you could continue to have that passion even if funding was coming from the government.

Ok, I think I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability. What’s next?

Tony,
Forgot one thing:
“we started with food.. what is next? ….shelter….clothing …healthcare… that is one BIG GOVERNMENT… for the top 5% to shoulder…
At least it seems that way to me…”
I don’t think the top 5% would shoulder this responsibility, rather all of us who pay income tax would. Yes, the top 5% would pay more, in real dollars and in terms of percentage points, but to my mind that’s reasonable.

JohnG,
Are you not reading my posts or am I not being clear?
The Iraq war mentioned twice in my last post was an example of “Government” making unplanned decisions. My point was mentioned BOTH times in the context of poor “GOVERNMENT” planning. The text even says clearly (REPUBS AND DEMOCRATS) which at this point is our Gov’t…
That is why I made the reference to both sides and poor planning because in my estimation NEITHER DEMS or PUBS are conservative at this point.
To make my post even more clear. You can consider your self a NEPTUNIAN if you please but voting LIBERTARIAN is a vote for small Gov’t and thus Politically conservative… I am Politically Conservative but socially a liberal … 2 different things completely, if you have my way ‘o’ thinking.

Carry On.
T

Bill E,
1st of all, no problem we have all been mis-read here so “absurd” is forgotten. You have my respect for sharing opinions here.

You replied:
I don’t think the top 5% would shoulder this responsibility, rather all of us who pay income tax would. Yes, the top 5% would pay more, in real dollars and in terms of percentage points, but to my mind that’s reasonable.

You are making my point for me.
Now you have us ALL paying more taxes. Does anyone not see this?

Over and over I keep saying Obama has socialist policies…(Not that he is a card carrying SOCIALIST.) So are you trying to tell me that with Gov’t helping with, FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHING and HEALTHCARE that my middle class income tax won’t go up?(You just posted **all of us who pay income tax would**)
Next if lower middle class has to help also by paying more taxes SOME of them WILL have to resort to using these programs they are subsidizing. Thus giving the Gov’t even more control. What you want feeds into itself in a downward spiral.
Before long the Gov’t asks for more of your wage to help pay for YOU.
THAT is where SOCIALISM glides in and we are back to few elite with financial self reliance and thus all of the power.

Carry On.
T

So here’s another thought. When I talk about the need for government programs I’m not talking about an either-or scenario–either private charity or government programs. My wife and I argue about this all the time because she (and she certainly isn’t alone in this) sees conservatives as not caring for the welfare of people, while I argue that there are definitely conservatives that care, but they would rather private organizations address those issues, not the federal government. I’m a progressive, and I think a combination of the federal government and private organizations often works best in our country. With the environment, and specifically car emissions, for example, to me it makes the most sense for the government to set strict standards that industry must meet by a certain date or pay a fine. Then, as that date approaches, we raise those standards. This approach doesn’t always work perfectly, especially when the interest groups get involved, but for some specific problems I think this partnership can work well because it harnesses and guides the ingenuity of our country without creating simply another arm of the federal bureaucracy.

So, when it comes to welfare, I don’t think the government alone needs to be responsible for housing, feeding, etc. those who are less fortunate in this country. I think that government funding can help, but then we run into the problem that funding for social concerns is always the first to get cut when times are tight–the interest rate on federal student loans, for example, has tripled in the last 8 years. To me, and here my wife and I agree, these cuts reflect a basic selfishness as people focus solely on providing for themselves and their families without acknowledging that we live in a society and, in my mind, are responsible for making sure that everyone in our society has some basic living requirements guaranteed regardless of whether or not they are in a financial position to pay for those. Coming back to student loans, one thing that drives me crazy is when politicians tell working Americans who have lost their jobs overseas that they will just have to be trained and educated in something else while simultaneously making it harder for people to afford that education.

Tony,
“Now you have us ALL paying more taxes. Does anyone not see this?” No, I don’t see that. I’m not convinced that there aren’t current programs that our taxes are already paying for that are broken and that could either be refashioned or replaced. I’m talking about reforming the system, not simply expanding it. I just don’t assume that such reforms would necessarily require more money, but rather a redirecting of funds already coming in. I may be naive in this, but that’s the scenario I’m trying to describe here.

I’ll stop there since I think this post and my previous ones touch on the socialist issue that you raise. I’d be happy to return to answer your question, though, if my posts don’t answer your question….

BillE,
Reform I am all for. I can pretty confidently say however, if I am understanding your proposals correctly that it WILL cost us more in taxes. Naive, may be a possibilty on everyone’s plate here, so that is OK.

Reform once again, raises the ugly head of a stagnate 2 party system, to me.

I am not debating for arguments sake here … if you can back your proposal with facts, I will scoff less, I promise. But you admit that this is conjecture … just as my hopes of a 3rd party gaining more strength.

Carry On.
T

Bill E.
Thanks … you are making my points from weeks ago, (that you and others argued with), seem more valid.

I said people are basically animals and for the most part run on instinct. Some argued fervently… I can go back and get the posts if need be… but I am sure we all remember them.

Now you post:
To me, and here my wife and I agree, these cuts reflect a basic selfishness as people focus solely on providing for themselves and their families without acknowledging that we live in a society and, in my mind, are responsible for making sure that everyone in our society has some basic living requirements guaranteed regardless of whether or not they are in a financial position to pay for those.

Which is it ?

Animals I tell you, it is all instinct … some feel the urge to strike out on their own and others feel safer in the pack… ( I recall saying this …)

Carry on.
T

Tony,
“Which is it ?”
Animals who live in a connected society. Personally I assume that it is in my interest that my neighbor has healthcare, enough food to eat and the ability to send his/her child[ren] to good schools, but others in our society don’t seem to agree with that idea. So, to me a simple ["simple" as in, duh, of course we should do that, not "simple" in actual execution] is to direct tax dollars towards these services.

“Reform once again, raises the ugly head of a stagnate 2 party system, to me. I am not debating for arguments sake here … if you can back your proposal with facts,” I’m not sure exactly what kind of facts you are looking for, but, as with many of my other answers here, my ideas of reform come from my understanding of U.S. history. On a general level, I think that this history has been marked by cycles of reform and retrenchment from reform. I, and other historians I know, see some significant parallels between the present, and the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. Like many do now, there were plenty of people then who argued that the two party system was broken and that a third party was what was needed to fix things. Who knows what would have happened if free silver won out, but it didn’t, and our country continued on. So, it makes perfect sense to me that people now are arguing that we need a third party, we have experienced a tremendous amount of changes in the last decade or so that have completely altered the ways in which we now live and our government has had a hard time keeping up, but I can’t help but interpret these arguments historically. In doing so, and playing the predictive social scientist instead of the historian, I see our country coming out of this era doing exactly what we have done before–compromising between the left and the right and reforming what needs reforming. Exactly how that is going to happen, I don’t know. But the historical record tells me that it will happen if we act prudently.

JGusty,
Although I can’t disagree with you saying:
With all due respect… Iraq was a pure geographical tactical play for positioning. That move was made far above any political party. Republicans and Democrats had little to do with the decision. It was total military strategy to position our side into Iraq BEFORE Iran pulled the same move twice. Had the US completed the job years before during the Kuwait initiative… move #2 (Iraq) might not be necessary.

You have to admit that has never been nor never will be confirmed … (At least in our lifetime.)
So I am forced to take the vote to enter the war as proof that it WAS a DEM/PUB, sanctioned move.
The way you state it comes across like they let you in on the secret… to me. (If they did and you are not sharing with me, I’m gonna unleash the snapper on you!)

I do agree that there is info granted to the powers that be that we are not exposed to… but stating it as a fact , when we don’t know …comes off as ” conspiracy theorist” friendly and that is a door that I do not want to open here…. that is why I posted as I did.

Carry On.
T

BillE.
I am no historian, (but I did sleep at a Holiday Express last night.)but hailing from Kentucky I am informed about Henry Clay. Since you are a historian I am sure that you hold much knowledge of the WHIG party … (See Presidents, Harrison, Taylor, Tyler and Fillmore and their intertwining … for us non-historians.) Add a young Lincoln to that list.

Harrison claimed victory in 1840, over Martin Van Buren (incumbent) and most HISTORIAN’s agree it was because of “The Panic of 1837″ which was followed by a depression. So that is MY UNDERSTANDING of US history … Bill E. correct me if I am wrong, please. My understanding of this is a “duh”, because of the panic now is being repeated by the Dems/Pubs… to get power.

It makes perfect sense to me that people who keep claiming hope for the future are looking to the past.
(SARCASM)
I know we must know the past to keep from ……..
Look it up everyone. You don’t have to be a historian to observe history.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
“Harrison claimed victory in 1840, over Martin Van Buren (incumbent) and most HISTORIAN’s agree it was because of “The Panic of 1837″ which was followed by a depression. So that is MY UNDERSTANDING of US history … Bill E. correct me if I am wrong, please. My understanding of this is a “duh”, because of the panic now is being repeated by the Dems/Pubs… to get power.”

You’re not wrong, but I’m thinking more broadly than that. I’m thinking about the general argument presented here that the government is broken and that the only way to fix it is to elect a third-party candidate. I’m trying to say that I understand the current frustration as people look around and see the chaos that has developed since the Cold War ended, but I think of that frustration historically. And historically speaking, we have pulled through these eras (I like the concept of creative destruction to understand our present world) without experiencing what I feel would be unnecessary shocks that would likely come if a third-party candidate actually made it to Washington. But this is all my opinion, (and it’s driven by the unanswerable question I have posed here several times, namely, how exactly would a third party candidate be able to get anything done once in Washington) and my opinion is informed by history.

Bill E,
Then I guess the importance of 3rd parties bringing to the table, say….. a young Abraham Lincoln, has no purpose? (Not a direct question to you on that one…)
There seems to be a flaw in your logic (possibly to me only)… but if the 3rd parties WERE a part of the history that you observe… then …we pulled through that era WITH A 3RD PARTY…. why no validity now?
It is a part of history … I never used it because I don’t think it applies to today but since you do… fair game now.

Why is it that you are always thinking broader or more socially concious?
Instead of just saying valid point…
I am pretty sure that I have conceded several of your valid points, including ‘reform’ from today’s exchanges….
I just want to keep this on a cordial level, so I will try to come off less combative.. especially to you Rob…

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Feels cordial to me, but I admit that I didn’t exactly understand what you were trying to say in your earlier post. Anyway,

“Why is it that you are always thinking broader or more socially concious?
Instead of just saying valid point…”

I am confused by this statement because I think my analysis is valid. I think understanding that we have experienced similar (I’m not saying that today’s situation is exactly the same as the one I described from the Gilded Age) moments of uncertainty in the past helps us to understand in general some of the different responses to those moments that we are experiencing now. And this, for me, is why I have faith that we can pull through today’s mess even if we stick with the 2-party system. But a lot of my perspective has to do with the history that interests me the most, namely the global exchange of ideas. While some of my colleagues spend their time tracing the minutia of particular moments from social history, I am more interested in tracing and connecting the “big ideas” of those moments. So yes, Abraham Lincoln as a third-party candidate is certainly a valid and important point.

Bill E,
Cool ..I just don’t want to come off too combative which I can be naturally.
Just to re-iterate thanks for coming strong with a different perspective.

Gotta mix…
Carry On.
T

Is there anyone here who disagrees with any of the following three statements? I would like to know before getting bogged down in further bickering over this:

(Tony… follow me on this)

1. Under no circumstances is it in our (meaning the US and its allies) best interest to lose control of Kuwait and access to the Persian Gulf

2. The two dominant religions in the world are Christianity and Islam

3. The events of 9-11 and beyond triggered an answer to a fundamental question for the US and its allies: “Do we or do we not seriously address the issue of the advancing, growing and anti-West agenda of Islam?” – We obviously committed to a “Yes” on that one.

And Bill, you did it AGAIN.

You responded to my snipe at “intelligentsia” by saying that I do it too. Then not giving me too much to go on as an example except offering up my observation of Obama stating that he believes health care should be a right – as a similar tactic?

I realize that moment in debate history probably did not move you like it did others, because you already believe that way in the first place. But for the rest of us… that was a HUGE moment. Because healthcare is currently NOT a right. And there are a significant number of Americans who are staunchly against the thought of it becoming a right, and by default… a Federal Government-controlled entity.

And there are not many examples of the Federal Government being able to efficiently handle and execute such a massive responsibility.

My observation (and I can’t even claim ownership as there were millions of others who saw & heard it too) hardly qualifies as some sweeping generalization to-be-accepted-as-fact.

It was what a guy said in a nationally televised debate.

Gusty,
I’m just saying that if you want people who aren’t already on the third-party bandwagon to be able to discuss these things intelligently with you, sometimes the statements you make also seem to be based on assumptions about your audience. Let me clarify, what I heard Obama saying was that healthcare SHOULD BE a right. I know it isn’t a right at this point, and Obama knows this too, but there are plenty of people who think it should be. So, when you used that as an example of how there was no difference between McCain and Obama, I wanted a fuller explanation. In my head you were saying that healthcare shouldn’t be a right, and that maybe Obama was crazy to think that it should, but now I think that perhaps you were just saying something more literal–it isn’t a right and Obama is a lier for saying that it is, and therefore he is just like McCain. Is that what you were trying to say? Surely we can agree that all of us here at times make generalizations. I was just raising the issue because I really have had similar reactions to things that you post. I still have some very basic questions hanging out there, for example, that haven’t ever been answered by you or others here. Two of the main ones are:

1) Why would you grant a fetus (again, let’s just say in the first trimester) the same rights as you would a full grown woman?

2) What is wrong with allowing gay marriage so that homosexual couples can enjoy the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples?

And some minor questions that I’m still waiting to hear back on is whether or not my living wage idea holds any merit with folks here, and what about my comments about combining government and private industry instead of an either-or scenario.

AS for the three questions you just posed. I’m agree with you on the first two, but need further clarification concerning the third. Are you saying that a, “growing and anti-West agenda of Islam?” exists, or that some policymakers believe this to be true?

JGusty,
Excluding atheism and philosophies yes… and I THINK I know where you are going…
But it still takes belief in an unconfirmed (but real in my eyes) strategy.
Is that fair enough to say?

Carry On.
T

Bill E, I think I was one the one’s that did answer so I’ll gloss over…
1. fetus rights …Abortion will never be an issue with me so at the risk of sounding callous … Morally (for me only) it is wrong but I am not gonna tell anybody else how to feel about it.
(If I were passionate about it I would point out that the only way to be a FULL GROWN woman is to be a GROWING fetus…)
2. Call it civil union and make the rights equal and I am in. (Religious debate and individual rights aside.)

Minor question 1. Could you explain to me Living Wage vs. Minimum Wage in your scenario … before I comment either way. Thanks.
Minor question 2. Taken on an individual basis combo’s can work, obviously with my politics some would be too much Gov’t for me, but not all.

Ps. I am dealing with bad tempo here while I am posting so forgive the spelling and typos…
This is a good break from musicians that can’t count to 4…

Carry On.
T

Tony,
There are few things worse than bad tempo…Thanks for your abortion answer, though I would disagree with your point about the fetus and the woman. Not that what you said isn’t scientifically and biologically correct, but rather it still takes a leap in logic (in my opinion) to get from granting the same rights to women as to fetuses simply because the woman is the end product of the fetus. Anyway….

“Minor question 1. Could you explain to me Living Wage vs. Minimum Wage in your scenario … before I comment either way. Thanks.”
This was raised in an attempt to answer Gusty’s question about income level when deciding who would get benefits. Personally I believe that the minimum wage and the federal poverty line are too low and don’t actually represent the real cost of living for many Americans. So, I thought that first if we could agree on a standard living wage, so that people who are working can actually pay rent, buy food, take their kids to daycare so that they can work, etc., then we could move on to determining a new poverty level. From there we could decide what services would be provided to people living below this line. Anyway, that’s the thought process behind my question.

Bill E.
I think that I will let you and Gusty set the parameters and then join the discussion.
But I see a fundamental difference in our approach just in your description living wage. If they are at the poverty level… then don’t have kids … I know this seems harsh and callous to your beliefs, but I am fine with you thinking that.

I am not one of the selfish conservatives that you and your wife think exist. The people that breed when they can not afford children are the selfish ones. Selfish towards You, Me and their offspring.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Remember, I’m the one telling my wife that all conservatives aren’t selfish. But, as you have reminded us, people are animals. Animals breed. We can’t stop that, but personally I think we are better off if their children receive adequate healthcare, nutrition and education rather than letting them simply suffer for their parents’ bad judgment. That’s not a good cycle. And, we can’t forget about people who had kids when they were employed, then lost their jobs, got sick, or for whatever reason wound up below the poverty level. If we aren’t going to simply take their children away and assign them to more fortunate parents, then I think it’s in our interest to provide these children with the basics I mentioned. But that’s just me.

Bill E,
I am with you on that, I am not void of compassion.
My wife works in head hunting / staffing . I see the good and bad of job prospects and the major difference between jobs being lost due to downsizing / economic problems and poor performance, attendance, work ethics, etc…
Keep in mind some of the so called poverty level parents have money for cell phones, alcohol, cable TV, etc,etc..I grew up in Appalachia and saw this over and over again … leeches exist just as much as legit cases.

I am, of course, for assisting children and have chosen to contribute to the charities that I see as reputable.
I hope I didn’t imply otherwise.

Carry On
T

Tony,
Looks like we’re playing chess again. All that you said is good to hear, except for the bit about the leeches. You happened to raise my least favorite argument against helping the needy–it’s one my brother is always lobbing at me. Namely, the idea that people are buying luxury items like Iphones, cable tv, alcohol etc. when they are supposedly poor and in need of our assistance. It’s the whole notion of a deserving poor vs. an undeserving poor. Now I understand the sentiment behind this line of reasoning 100%. I saw a lot of what you described when I lived in Maine (Appalachia for the northeast). I understand the frustration of looking at someone spending your (and I’m speaking generally, not at you here) tax dollars on an Iphone. In my mind, though, those things are largely unavoidable, just as the bailout is going to be (or already has been) misused by some greedy executives to line their wallets. I think the greater good of providing people with healthcare, education, etc. outweighs those individual cases. So let me ask you this, and this time I am asking you, though I welcome anyone to respond, what if those same people who were poor, on welfare, food stamps, whatever, who we all see buying things that we think they shouldn’t, were also getting a good education and had healthcare. Would that be any better? I realize that I’m sounding awfully idealistic in a lot of my posts, but as I said early on here, I believe that humans are inherently good, and I don’t think the bad qualities that sometime surface should dissuade us from trying to bring out the good. (That’s also why, by the way, I support foreign aid, though I think it should be used differently than it has been over the past few decades or so.)

Bill E,
I have to post and run (music business saturday night) …
Chess is a perfect metaphor … some people use their pawns more and some break the queen out early. I am the latter, pawns are just that, pawns… but both can be used effectively. I win more than I lose by taking that risk. I go it alone. Some win by using pawns as a methodical attack. We are just different.

I do think that you are idealistic, (not an insult) I find (and have no basis to project onto you personally) that the idealistic liberal (generalization) was more privileged in youth than say a person like myself. I did see leeches and more leeches … mean while I got good at a chosen craft and “got out”.

True story… A high school friend moved across the river into Ohio because they paid higher yield per child than Kentucky in welfare … he had six.
We will just have to fight over these issues until the class war starts I guess. (humor)

I believe we are animals (not good or bad) and do everything, even helping others, for self gratification, which is a new can of worms….

It boils down to this … if you want to follow your heart and be the charity guy, do it with my blessings.
But I will fight to the death to not be Gov’t, Socially or Religiously forced to do things that way.
You want to do it fine, but leave me and mine out of the mix.
I’ll pay for the infrastructure of the court system and roads. Neither own Iphones or breed after a night of crack smoking.

Bill E, It has been stimulating … now I party. Still bet I don’t make a kid tonight!

Carry On.
T

You guys have been busy! Haven’t had time to read everything but I’ll catch up at some point

Here’s a virtual tour of the house that I just rehabbed in this crappy economy.

http://www.visualtour.com/show.asp?T=1721992&prt=10003

Tony,

You and I seem to be having real bad E-MAIL mis-communications. And I’m confused and maybe JGUSTY can help on this too. When you brought up Iraq Tony you refered to it as the Govs war. To me I’ve always more saw it as a right wing conservative war then our governments war.

Our mis-communication is on me because I’ve remained confused about something. I always was under the impression that the people that pushed for the war in Iraq were conservatives. Are they not conservatives anymore? You call it the governments war. I call it the “government while under control of the conservatives”war. And maybe I’ve been wrong. I’m not trying to be a smart ass or dig up an Iraq discussion or anything like that. I guess that I’m just confused.

At what specific moment did the conservative brand not apply to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc ……..?

When I read in your post “The Iraq war mentioned twice in my last post was an example of “Government” making unplanned decisions”. MY brain processes “Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc making unplanned decisions”. And my brain processes these people as conservatives. You and JGusty have shed some light on your versions of conservatism. But in these discussions via E-MAIL those definitions remain different between you and I.

So I can define conservatism in my head for future reference. Who is a conservative if it’s not the group(s) that I keep refering to?

JohnG,
I can’t speak for Gusty, but there is a belief out there that the war was just a military maneuver to have a presence in the middle east, slowing several countries from their various agendas. That is as far as I will go there. I will hand this topic over to Gusty as I think he has stronger feelings about it than I do.(Gusty, sorry if I am mis-speaking for you.)

The Iraq war as I mentioned it, was voted for by both sides of the congressional isle. Obama and McCain to name a couple.
Dems / Pubs voted overwhelmingly for the initial involvement post 9/11. My point was more towards the poor planning. The planning of the start without the end results being thought out was my point. I could have used FEMA and New Orleans and gone even further by pointing out, state and local planning was a failure as well. Point was Gov’t failed because of lack of plans.
The private sector did a great job in relief after Katrina… in most people’s eyes.

To repeat what I think conservative is …. politically small government, less spending, a protective military, see my post about Libertarian and why for more. Where we differ on the view of Libertarian, is you see yourself as liberal because of their social issues, I see myself as conservative because of their political issues, to subscribe to both is why a person is Libertarian and not Dem/Pub…
Where the obvious confusion comes in is that I think Republican platforms no longer are completely politically conservative.

Hope that helps.

Carry On.
T

Just to jump in uninvited to this Iraq discussion,
“The Iraq war as I mentioned it, was voted for by both sides of the congressional isle.”
True, but the manipulation of the documents concerning WMDs, the goals and abilities of Saddam, and the erroneous connection to the events of 9/11 was done by a specific group of conservatives. Yes, it is a travesty that more Senators didn’t read the report themselves and do some more digging about the supposed facts presented, but the creation of that report and the argument for going in, both of which relied on highly selective readings of past intelligence reports and then the manipulation of specific phrases from those reports, had to do with particular, and in my mind, misguided views of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this makes Iraq a Conservative’s war, but these particular conservatives certainly were the architects.

Bill E,
You can stop at true.

After that you go into Pubs/Dems on a different level.
Some manipulate, some are so jaded they don’t read… my original post was to a make point of our Gov’t being full of failures … by you saying some manipulate and some didn’t bother to educate themselves before sending bombs and killing innocents pretty much makes both parties look like failures to me.

You guys fight amongst yourselves over the details, innocent kids died on both sides.
Militaries postured, some feel safer … some feel more threatened…

Some will take the opposite view that you do and say… You are not privy to all info so Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are heroes taking the heat …(Gusty please post your belief here.)

Some believe that this a complete military decision and thus rendering all partisanship pointless, unless you think our Commander in Chief masterminded everything ….

Carry On.
T

Bill,

Although I feel like I’ve addressed the questions you’ve posed, (some to the point of ad-nauseam) I’ll gladly wrap them up again in a series of small replies as to not let the direct points get lost in mammoth & epic “War & Peace”reply.

First off… I never claimed to be a “Third-Party” guy or expressed any desire to get people to jump on the Third-Party bandwagon. One of the core principals of my belief system is that (and please follow me here) we, the American People, can only choose from one of two options under the same basic liberal platform.

I want to be able to not only have the choice of a non-liberal option, but I want that choice to actually be part of the same process & game… therefore standing an actual chance of victory.

So if you must throw a label on me, let’s call me a “Wanna Change the Game” kind of guy.

I’d like to actually see Bob Barr take on Obama and McCain in a real, unscripted debate. I’d like to actually see real people (not lottery or contest winners) actually get regular chances to question and vet-out the candidates. On a daily basis. (Isn’t that what the campaign trail used-to-be about? )Right up to Election Day.

Look at the Joe-the-Plumber phenomenon. Am I the only one who found it INSANE that an everyday guy actually got a chance to pose a real un-scripted question to a presidential candidate and it created a national news story?

Certainly not. I KNOW I’m not the only one.

So to be clear: I admire the passion of, and respect the Third-Party plight… but I personally am coming at the topic from a completely different angle. It doesn’t matter if there are 87 parties… if the only actual options come from the same basic platform and ideology… what’s the point. Let’s change the actual process and game itself. I’ll also acknowledge that a significant chunk of the Third-Part crowd feels the same way.

I guess on this topic I’m more of a “dismantle-first” guy than a “build-from-the-ground-up-and-take-on-the-goliath” guy.

Tony,
OK, and I agree with you completely about Katrina revealing a total failure of government on all levels, but just to briefly explain, I am coming at the Iraq issue based on what I have read concerning the formulation of the argument for going to war in the first place. As I understand it, the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush machine relied on passages from intelligence data that were presented in the original reports (many of which were hastily written due to time pressures, and particularly the pressure that Cheney put on their Pentagon authors) as being simply guesses that needed further analysis. Some in the administration then presented these guesses as proven pieces of intelligence to say , aha, look, Saddam has WMDs and there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. So, while I agree that all who voted for the war are complicit, I still think the justification for going in was the creation of a specific group of people with specific aims who manipulated the evidence to support those aims.

Gusty,
“First off… I never claimed to be a “Third-Party” guy or expressed any desire to get people to jump on the Third-Party bandwagon. One of the core principals of my belief system is that (and please follow me here) we, the American People, can only choose from one of two options under the same basic liberal platform.”

I never meant to imply that. I just used the label third party bandwagon as shorthand for people here who don’t identify with either Republicans or Democrats, and who want to have a different, or several different, options. As I said in one of my earliest posts, I’m not interested in labels either, I’m interested in the meanings behind them.

“Although I feel like I’ve addressed the questions you’ve posed, (some to the point of ad-nauseam)”

No you haven’t, but I sincerely look forward to your responses.

Bill E.
Will you acknowledge that there is a chance that those in classified positions know much more than we will ever know?

Carry on.
T

Tony,
Thanks for your tact and concern in regards to speaking for me. You are a class act. And I trust that you know me well enough to be pretty much on-mark with where I would end up in most scenarios. So to clarify for you all…

Tony, you wrote:
“Some will take the opposite view that you do and say… You are not privy to all info so Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are heroes taking the heat … (Gusty please post your belief here.)

Some believe that this a complete military decision and thus rendering all partisanship pointless, unless you think our Commander in Chief masterminded everything.”

I would beyond all doubt put myself in the second category. While I think that there is an enormous amount of truth to the first category, if I may make a corporate analogy:

At the table of actual military planning & discussion… Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are at best “Junior VP’s.”

Now certainly their input carries some weight, but (and this is fundamental) all of their input is based on intel and briefings FROM the military itself.

If those three (or anyone playing those roles) can be considered “heroes” for taking heat… in my opinion it’s ONLY on the PR-front. And that’s part of their job.

Tony,
Yes, I will most definitely acknowledge that. In fact, to expose myself a little more here, I am a diplomatic historian and have spent more than enough time wading through State Department documents to agree with you on this point. So, if you are saying that these manipulations were done because the administration had some real, actionable intelligence that we don’t yet know about–something that is possible–and that we may never know about–something which is likely given what Bush et al. have done to the declassification of documents process in this country–then I’m with you. But still, it is my understanding that the manipulations I mentioned did occur, and that they seem to be one of the primary ways in which the war was sold to congress and the people.

Bill E,
It seems to me each time that you play less coy … we agree on facts more often. I am glad that you feel comfortable enough to do so.

JGUSTY,
How can I not want to take on Goliath, it is in my DNA… I got moist when you painted a Barr infused debate!

Carry On.
T

Bill, (hopefully this will clear my balance with you – if not… I’ll keep clarifying)

Your question: “Why would you grant a fetus (again, let’s just say in the first trimester) the same rights as you would a full grown woman?”

As stated before, as my own life and other lives around me has proven to me… once a woman becomes pregnant, there are two lives involved. Since one of the two lives isn’t able to represent themselves due to age (and currently this is true up to the age of 18) rights are the only mechanism in place to protect them.

To be clear, this would hold true at the age of 3 weeks, 3 months, or 3 years of age. (Again… all the way up to the age of 18)

I used my own children as an example. My son’s were just as loved, just as relevant and just as “alive” in their first trimester as they are today.

Your question: “What is wrong with allowing gay marriage so that homosexual couples can enjoy the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples?”

Once again, I don’t care whatsoever if two men or two women decide to devote the rest of their lives to each other. And if they want to get married… there are numerous options in every state for them to do so. Where the rub lays with me is in the following two scenarios:

1. I generally have a problem with ANYONE who is seeking the State or Federal validation of their marriage. That is NOT what marriage is about and (in my opinion) is counter-productive and insulting to those who DO take the concept of marriage seriously. Marriage (in my opinion) should exist in the personal realm only. When it gets placed in the legal realm, it is cheapened and reduced (in my opinion) to the status of a hunting or fishing license. If legal maneuvering is really what you seek… draft a living will or similar legal document.
2. If we ARE going to get into the changing of definitions, then (in my opinion) the highest this should go is the State level. I believe this to be true with just about anything. Abortion or Gay Marriage. And as I stated before… the issue of Gay Marriage is the Roe vs. Wade of this generation. It’s strictly a power-grab at the Federal level wrapped in a heartstring issue. (I know I wrote about this. Am I going senile?)

On your “living wage idea” :

Personally… the concept of a living wage flies in the face of what free market capitalism is built on. Once the Federal Government (there they are again!) starts setting benchmarks such as a living wage, where would it end?

What is “enough”? – Isn’t that relative to whom you are asking it of?

How would “enough” be measured and what entity has the authority to declare what “enough” is?

I applaud the good-natured sentiment behind your concept. I just don’t want the Federal Government messing with the market. The market will decide what “enough” is.

Ask a stripper.

Concerning your “government and private industry instead of an either-or scenario” :

I’ll refer you to my “tall, cool refreshing glass of wet, dry water” comment. I simply can’t wrap my head around how government involvement could efficiently co-exist alongside private industry. I’ll guess I’ll have to throw this one back in your court and ask you to provide me with an example of where such a scenario is working.

If you’ve already provided one… I apologize. Just refresh my memory.

GUSTY,
Tread carefully …
I know the patron saint of strippers….

Carry On…
T

Gusty,
Thank you. So, am I right in this, and I’m just clarifying here not arguing, for you rights should be extended to the unborn, but not to homosexuals who marry? I still insist that marriage already exists in the legalized realm that you describe, and that those of us who are heterosexual and married should count ourselves lucky to be included in the legal definition. Inclusion grants us specific rights that gays don’t have. I think that’s wrong.

On a related side note, personally I have a problem with the state’s rights argument in general. I don’t mean that states shouldn’t have the right to determine some things on their own separate from the federal government. But, I think we have to be careful when deciding just which issues should be dealt with at the state level, and which should be handled by the federal government. (I assume that people here agree with me on this.) The argument of state’s rights has been used to justify some of the most shameful episodes from our national history–slavery and Jim Crow come to mind. If we consider those episodes to represent at some basic level the infringement on peoples’ pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, it always makes me twinge a little when people use the state’s rights argument to discuss either abortion or gay marriage because I think both get at similar issues. For me, women and men should have the choice to decide if a baby is going to seriously impact these pursuits, just as gays should be able to enjoy the legal definitions of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy.

“I simply can’t wrap my head around how government involvement could efficiently co-exist alongside private industry. I’ll guess I’ll have to throw this one back in your court and ask you to provide me with an example of where such a scenario is working.”
As for this question, I mentioned auto mileage and the protection of the environment. I was thinking here about what they did in Texas while Bush was Governor. It is my understanding that the state government set a level concerning the amount of alternative energy that energy companies had to provide. This government mandate encouraged innovation as companies had to reach the stated level within a certain number of years. This innovation resulted in the reaching of the stated goals earlier than originally mandated. The government then stepped in and raised the level which in turn encouraged greater innovation. So in my reading, the only manipulation by the government is in setting mandates, the market then takes over as companies race to achieve those mandates. I may not have explained that perfectly, but that was what I was thinking.

Bill E.
Once again I’ll venture into your field of expertise, so if I am wrong let me know.
States Rights… see the 10th Amendment.

… the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government… Thomas Jefferson , The Kentucky Resolutions. (… gimme a break I know KY. history better than most other history, unless we go to music ..)

The Supreme Court came to the decision in 2000 that limited the ability of rape victims to sue their attackers in Federal Court. Rehnquist explained that “States historically have been sovereign” in the area of law enforcement.
What is your position there… this is RAPE. (just want a stance between Fed/State here.)
More fodder for my Libertarian stance (victim’s rights and restitution) and support of states’ rights.

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
Looks like I missed one of your answers:
“Once the Federal Government (there they are again!) starts setting benchmarks such as a living wage, where would it end?”

I would argue that the federal government already does this by setting a minimum wage. What I think should happen is that people acknowledge that the minimum wage is not enough to live on.

“What is “enough”?”

Enough equals the amount in real dollars for an individual or a family to be able to afford food, shelter and healthcare. For families it would include daycare unless we would simply expect parents to be able to rely either on one salary or on members of their extended family to take care of the children.

Ultimately, I think we are a couple of idealists here. (Please correct me if I’m wrong). I think that the government can work better and that it can involve itself in some areas of life without destroying the fabric of our nation. You and others seem to think that a marketplace without government involvement is actually possible.

Tony,
As I said, we need to choose the line between state and federal power carefully. I think making abortion illegal, either on a state or federal level, infringes on the parents’ own rights that I mentioned, and that the same goes for denying gays the right to enjoy the same legal protections afforded to heterosexuals who are married. I think the state’s rights argument has been used in the past, and recently, to push agendas that are fundamentally wrong.

As for your specific example, I’m afraid I need more information. Was the issue that rape victims were thwarted from suing victims by the state where the rape occurred, and therefore hoped to take their suits to federal court?

Bill E.
Who chooses Fed or states… and the quagmire grows….

You said: “to push agendas that are fundamentally wrong.”
I say fundamentally wrong TO YOU.

Details on supreme court to follow … and then football.

carry on.
T

Tony,
“Who chooses Fed or states… and the quagmire grows….”
But thankfully it’s OUR quagmire and we can sort it out as we see fit.

“You said: “to push agendas that are fundamentally wrong.””
Maybe had I said agendas that restrict fundamental and basic human (though we have to use the concept of human rights carefully) and civil rights. Slavery and Jim Crow, in my mind, were fundamentally wrong regardless of one’s religion, and to me, denying gays the right to marry is similarly wrong.

Enjoy the game.

Bill E.
United States v. Morrison
This was a VA. TECH rape trial.
To sum it up and I am paraphrasing what I have read…

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, was rendered invalid. Although the funding remains unaffected ( more Fed. failures) …

carry on.
T

Bill,

You wrote:
“So, am I right in this, and I’m just clarifying here not arguing, for you rights should be extended to the unborn, but not to homosexuals who marry?”

I don’t think ANY one person or court can legislate sexual preferences or fetishes.

It’s far to relative and intangible. I could be straight on a Monday, drink too much pink champagne with Tony on the following Wednesday night. (hehe!) Whisk off to the Bahamas with my long-haired cabin boy for a few months. Start missing my wife & kids and come back after 4 months and be straight again.

When would my straight rights expire and my gay rights kick in? Would I be able to get my straight rights back?

I’ve asked this before and have yet to get an answer:
If there was a right granted to ANY individual under the guise of a sexual preference (I already see the “straight-as-example” argument coming) how would one identify themselves as being qualified for the benefit or right.

Would there be a test? An ID card?

I simply ask you how the program (and distribution thereof) would work.

Bill E,
I don’t think slavery and Jim Crowe … would be supported by any of us here that believe in states’ rights.
It is kind of on the absurd (sorry I used THAT word) side to use those examples, I can list several mistakes that the Feds have made, that doesn’t render all that they do pointless. Let’s let that part go… deal… or should I start the litany of Fed gaffs?

J Gusty, would you be wearing vinyl and bleeding?

carry on.
T

Gusty,
“I’ve asked this before and have yet to get an answer:
If there was a right granted to ANY individual under the guise of a sexual preference (I already see the “straight-as-example” argument coming) how would one identify themselves as being qualified for the benefit or right.”

So are you saying that married heterosexual couples aren’t awarded specific rights that are denied to gay couples? The ID card we already have is our marriage license. You don’t, of course, typically have to show this license to receive benefits, but that’s because heterosexual marriage is firmly accepted and entrenched in our society.

“I don’t think ANY one person or court can legislate sexual preferences or fetishes.”

I think you grossly misunderstand homosexuality if you think it is either a preference or a fetish, and your vignette supports my belief in this. If I am misreading, please let me know. But your comments bring us back to the homosexuality as a choice position that I have been arguing against.

“I don’t think slavery and Jim Crowe … would be supported by any of us here that believe in states’ rights.”

Come on now. I never said that.

“It is kind of on the absurd (sorry I used THAT word) side to use those examples, I can list several mistakes that the Feds have made, that doesn’t render all that they do pointless. Let’s let that part go… deal… or should I start the litany of Fed gaffs?”

Personally I don’t think it’s absurd to point out that the state’s rights argument has been used to justify some terrible moments from our history, and that these justifications are more sinister than simple “mistakes”. But I agree, the Federal Government has also made some horrible decisions so no, I don’t need a list. As for rendering things pointless, if you look back at what I said, you’ll see that I do support the awarding of specific rights to state governments and others to the federal government.

Bill E.
just clarifying … it (slavery) is the most common thing I hear when I make state’s rights/Libertarian comments.
You have proven to be more “broad thinking” than the typical “what about slavery” person.
You never said that…true…but you keep using the examples.I expect more my man!
What if I scream WACO, Ruby Ridge, every time you espouse a Fed sentiment… (I would never do that nor do I totally see Gov’t fault in these examples… these are just for a point.)

You catch my drift I hope.
Gusty , I can’t stop thinking about pink champagne, vinyl, and maybe a tourniquet or two.

carry on.
T

Tony,
Drift caught. I still think the examples apply directly to gay marriage especially because they relate to the denial of specific rights to people based simply on how these people are viewed by society. As we all know, there was a time when blacks were considered less than human, and state’s rights was used as an argument to support the continuation of legal systems based on this belief. (My Mississippi in-laws insist that integration in the South would have gone a lot better if the federal government hadn’t stepped in, as if the 100 years or so of waiting that had already occurred hadn’t been enough to work things out). Similarly, some continue to see homosexuality as a choice rather than accepting it as simply being a part of who someone is. (As I said, I think that belief will fade as our generation ages). This continues to affect how gays are viewed by society. To my mind, the argument that we should let states decide whether or not gays can marry rests on the assumption that it is a choice–what other reason could there be for denying them the same rights as heterosexuals? I strongly disagree with that position..

“If there was a right granted to ANY individual under the guise of a sexual preference ”

are they asking for special rights? or is it that they are asking that their basic rights not be denied?

John G,
“are they asking for special rights? or is it that they are asking that their basic rights not be denied?”
I, of course, believe that it is the latter.

Bill E.
You said: To my mind, the argument that we should let states decide whether or not gays can marry rests on the assumption that it is a choice–what other reason could there be for denying them the same rights as heterosexuals?

I say: I’ll be the limb tester ….. ANSWER: RELIGION!!!! SURVEY SAYS: DING DING DING!!!
For the record I think pre-disposition AND choice enter in.

You said: As we all know, there was a time when blacks were considered less than human, and state’s rights was used as an argument to support the continuation of legal systems based on this belief.

I say: The Bible was used to make women property, by Jewish law of the old testament… Now here is the quandary. Are you going to say that the Bible is no good because of one archaic law and render it invalid as well? Then debate with the Christians here… I’ll watch…

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Yes, of course it’s religion, and since you and I agree on the separation of church and state, my question, obviously poorly worded yet again, was not directed at you.

Yes, the bible, or any other religious text, is no good when it comes to legislating human behavior on a societal level. (basically my same response to you as the one above).

Bill E

I had a feeling as to what your response to the question. “are they asking for special rights? or is it that they are asking that their basic rights not be denied?”

Haven’t heard from the conservative side though.

And Bill E. I’m very glad that you’re here!

John G, ( and this is for Bill E also)
To answer your question from my perspective. I am probably exposed to and around gay culture on a social level more than most here, if not all. I have spent a lot of time in gay clubs and fetish clubs, for background info, my friends and I attended drag shows regularly when we had time in a town and were not gigging. We love watching them!
I have played in bands with gay men.
Truth is you are both posting in a very politically correct manner, (no insult just fact) I will give several gay testimonies that run the spectrum on “your born that way/ choice” theories.
Bill E some examples that disprove and prove your choice question.
Unwanted SSA (Same Sex Attraction) is a documented and treated SITUATION (I won’t say problem because I do not think homosexuality is a problem). If you need proof I can give website addy’s to you if you need to educate yourself. Just the fact that there are testimonials, proves some believe they were making a choice that didn’t work and changed it.
A former band member of mine who was what is called a ‘bear’ once told me that he was with women 1st and decided to try men because he found them attractive ALSO. ALSO means attracted to both, he CHOSE to live a homosexual lifestyle because he enjoyed it MORE…. not only.
I am friends with someone that told me at 5 years old he knew he liked men better… before sex was a drive. He watched ‘Flipper’ for the dad… he is older and is gay in his late 50’s and never questioned.
There is also a female friend that, point blank, was molested by a male when she was young…QUOTE: ” I just can’t feel comfortable sexually with men as a result.”
THAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT.

So please understand that it varies.
I choose my lifestyle that is considered “not the norm” , but I am pre-disposed to these CHOICES. That is what a fetish is… a combination of pre-disposition, choice and environmental stimulus..
Just as some Christians CHOOSE to think marriage is between a man and a woman with the mandate to pro-create by their CHOSEN DEITY.
John G…
I am just tired of everyone speaking for the gay lifestyle as if they all think 1 way … who is REALLY being close minded here?
you wrote:
“are they asking for special rights? or is it that they are asking that their basic rights not be denied?”

They ask for different things even on the marriage/civil union issue and it depends on who is answering when it comes to basic rights being denied.
I am for civil union AND for Christians keeping marriage a bond from their God. EQUAL RIGHTS …no denials…

As a side note…I find it funny that atheists haven’t purposely railed against “Marriage” as a religious term and demanded civil unions for the heterosexual non believers… Just a thought, we debate gay marriage religiously but not non religious ceremonies… HHHMMMM…

Carry On.
T

As for the “basic rights being denied” question/argument/comment:

What basic right is being denied here? Unless I’m mistaken… (If we are talking about marriage) all men & women in the US have the exact same basic rights to marriage. Any man can marry any woman they want. And vice versa.

If you are going to come back and say that Stefan (who is gay) can’t marry Lance (who is also gay) – and they have their “basic rights” being denied… I’d have say that ALSO applies to me and all straight men as well. I can’t marry Tony (don’t think I haven’t daydreamed though) and I can’t marry my Dad. I also can’t marry my dog or my refrigerator.

However… if I feel strongly enough about marrying my refrigerator… I could organize and maybe eventually get my State to allow it. And I’m all for that.

Man “A” can’t marry Man “B” and have it be recognized by all the states. But that applies to ALL men. Gay or straight. The issue is wanting to change the definition & legislation and base it on sexual preference and fetishes.

Now I know that this upsets some of you. But it’s not meant as combative whatsoever. It’s back to the “is-a-fetus-alive-or-not” silly style of arguing. Some of us attach a lot more emotion to topics to the point where the simplicity of the subject matter just gets lost in the weeds.

Bill, you wrote to me:
“I think you grossly misunderstand homosexuality if you think it is either a preference or a fetish, and your vignette supports my belief in this. If I am misreading, please let me know. But your comments bring us back to the homosexuality as a choice position that I have been arguing against.”

How about backing up a bit from the “choice” argument (because personally I think that’s a mute point) and help me out with understanding something.

If Man (or woman) “A” is gay – And man (or woman) “B” is not – what is the differentiating factor that is exclusive to one and not the other?

Tony,

I appreciate your response. Maybe I haven’t been posting clearly enough but I actually have been debating civil ceremony as opposed to religious ceremony. The theory of the “courthouse belongs to every taxpayer that foots the bill for that courthouse”.

Actually I was being too damn vague when I posted to Bill E “Haven’t heard from the conservative side though.”

I should’ve posted “Haven’t heard from the Gusty though.”

Tony you are a very different type of conservative (I hope that your taking that comment as the compliment that it’s meant to be). I think that’s where some mis-communication has occured. Labels do suck because the broad terms that those labels carry don’t have any individual qualities tied to them.

When I think conservative I think Falwell, Cheney, Focus on the family, etc …………….

You’ve broadened my definition of “conservative” which is good. But it also makes it harder for me to have a clear definition in my mind. Which of course makes debate just a bit more confusing.

Appreciate your insight though. Your experiences provide a great angle to consider.

Gusty,
“What basic right is being denied here? Unless I’m mistaken… (If we are talking about marriage) all men & women in the US have the exact same basic rights to marriage. Any man can marry any woman they want. And vice versa.”

All of the rights I have been discussing–visitations in hospitals, inheriting property from each other, etc. These are restricted to family members and heterosectual couples. But also, no, in this country any man can’t marry any man he chooses, not legally anyway. So there’s a more fundamental right being denied here.

“I also can’t marry my dog or my refrigerator. However… if I feel strongly enough about marrying my refrigerator… I could organize and maybe eventually get my State to allow it.”

For what it’s worth, as soon as you, or anyone, starts raising examples like this, I think you cheapen the discussion at hand.

“If Man (or woman) “A” is gay – And man (or woman) “B” is not – what is the differentiating factor that is exclusive to one and not the other?”

I am no biologist, but the more I read about, and talk to people who are gay, there is something biologically different about them. No, we don’t know exactly what that difference is yet. But the idea that a 5 year old, for example, can identify his or herself as gay suggests to me that there is more involved here than just socialization.

Tony,
I’m sure you’re right and there are people who have chosen a gay lifestyle. But that doesn’t mean that plenty of others don’t identify themselves as gay long before society has affected their minds. The worse scenario to me is someone who has denied all his life that he felt gay, and then married a woman and started a family only to break up that family when he can no longer deny being gay. To me that is society forcing him to choose to not act the way that feels most natural to him.

And you and I have agreed before on the civil union concept as long as both marriage and civil unions are treated 100% legally under the law. I personally am skeptical, though, because I think there are plenty in the religious right who would find loopholes to somehow privilege marriage over civil unions. So here’s hoping the religious right is losing whatever grip it has had on this country for the last 8 years.

JGUSTY,

For arguments sake lets say that your daydreaming had a chance to become a reality and you found out after all that you CAN marry Tony because you found out that Tony feels the same way.

Fast forward and now you both have gone through the considerable pain of dealing with your current spouses but eventually everybody involves agree that you shouldn’t be in your current marriage if that’s how you felt towards each other. I’m sure that we can all imagine the whole ordeal would be quite an emotionally draining mess. Dealing with your current spouse, children (in Johns case), parents, friends, blah, blah blah,. And through endless discussion with the people who matter to you in your life things become reconciled and your ready to move on with your lives.

But wait. The government steps into your private life and tells you that you can’t marry Tony after all. THE GOVERNMENT. Isn’t the issue of government intrusion into personal matters the core philosophy of conservatives (on all sides of the conservative spectrum)? Does that philosophy only apply to Hetrosexual Americans?

OK, I realized that I should explain myself a bit here.
First, Gusty, my reaction to your refrigerator comment. Can we please just agree that what we are talking about is two adult human beings who love each other and decide that they want to commit to each other for life. And they want that commitment recognized and honored by the state just as if they were a heterosexual couple. If we can agree on this, then I think we can proceed more calmly.

As for the identity vs. choice argument, here’s why I think it is important. If you agree to my above statement, then what rational reason (i.e. non-religious) can you give me to deny the right to homosexuals who want to get legally married? To me, comments about refrigerators, fetishes, etc. reflect a belief that gay people are choosing to live an alternative lifestyle for whatever reason. Here’s why I don’t think that is generally the case.

First up, history. Homosexuality has never been accepted by our society. I’ll give you two recent examples because I just finished lecturing on these last week. During the 1950 Lavender Scare of the early Cold War, 91 State Department employees who were suspected of being gay were fired. The thought process was this, homosexuals suffer from a mental illness, therefore they are more susceptible to Soviet propaganda, and also, because relatively few people were openly gay during the 50s, maybe the Soviets would be able to blackmail these employees into giving up state secrets in exchange for not outing them. These rationales were actually supported by the psychiatric community here in the United States. In fact, the DSM (guide to diagnosing mental illness) listed homosexuality as a mental illness until 1986. To me, both of these examples, and there are plenty more I could list, suggest that there has always been a basic intolerance (there are certainly notable exceptions to this rule) of homosexuality in this country. I see granting gays the right to marriage as another step in ending this intolerance.

Now a personal story. Recently a friend of mine came out to me. This had never happened to me before, and it was a profound experience. After talking with him a while about this, I realized just how frustrating it is to me that a 35 year old man only now had the courage to tell me something that he has known since high school, and that he still can’t bring himself to tell his Catholic parents for fear of what they might say. To me, the very fact that it took any courage at all is disgraceful as it represents to my mind the intolerance that I have been talking about.

So, those are my stories. I hope they explained my views a little more.

Here’s a bit of election controversy for everyone concerning Republican actions against people voting Democrat. I’m personally not too concerned as I believe this race won’t be close enough for such things to have an affect, but I know some here have accused the Democrats of rigging elections so here’s a bit from the other side. (make of it what you will)

• In Florida, Republican operatives visited Democratic voters and promised to “deliver their absentee ballots to the polling place” and then promptly threw them in the trash. [Miami Herald, October 25, 2008. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/740834.html

• In California, they used phony petitions to trick voters into registering Republican.
[Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fraud20-2008oct20,0,3842357.story

• In Virginia, they even sent out phony flyers telling Democratic voters to show up on the wrong day. [UPI, Oct. 28, 2008. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/28/Phony_flier_advises_Dems_to_vote_Nov_5/UPI-99161225226657/

If anyone wants to take this discussion into the realm of foreign policy, specifically what the next president should do regarding our position in the world, here’s an op-ed Nicholas Kristof that might serve as a useful jumping off point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/opinion/02kristof.html?em

So obviously I have some time now to do some reading on the net. Gusty, here’s a list from Wikipedia of federal laws that apply only to heterosexual married couples and that are denied to samesex couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

I honestly had no idea that there were over 1,000 of these, but hopefully this list helps explain what I am talking about.

John G,
I see it as simple, I am politically conservative , socially liberal and one fascinating dude!

Bill E,
Thanks for the experiences.
We do agree on civil union. For total disclosure my parents are what I call a true Christian couple. They walk the walk and are the most loving people that I know, bar none (even you Gusty… still thinking about the Bahamas…) As long as there is a recognizable distinction between Religious ceremony and equal rights civil ceremonies there would be far less upheaval from the over 50 and fundamental Christians. Some , yes but far less.

You post:
“The worse scenario to me is someone who has denied all his life that he felt gay, and then married a woman and started a family only to break up that family when he can no longer deny being gay. To me that is society forcing him to choose to not act the way that feels most natural to him.”

I say: That is making excuses for a weak and… if he promised to love forever and had kids … spineless person. Stop making excuses for people with poor character…gay or straight. If a straight guy leaves and wrecks a family he is an a$$#*?@ …. so is this person, to me.

You post:
I personally am skeptical, though, because I think there are plenty in the religious right who would find loopholes to somehow privilege marriage over civil unions.

I say: (Biting tongue with GREAT loophole joke…) The ACLU has it’s own loophole experts.

You Post:
In fact, the DSM (guide to diagnosing mental illness) listed homosexuality as a mental illness until 1986.

I say: .. and still does list paraphilias (sexual fetishes) and female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low female sex drive). Maybe I am just adventurous and maybe hubby doesn’t take out the trash…

We all know this is from a much maligned guide.. (that means we agree again but there are always gonna be different views)… If you research further the Dr. that got it entered as such went on to write papers negating his own theory and surmised environment and choice play a major factor.

Bill E… one last point… you seem to be using the logic that the MAJORITY of gay people are that way because of pre-disposition. I will not argue that in fact … so the basis of your stance is taken from the MAJORITY rules view, correct?
Then with a vote the MAJORITY do not want gay marriage across this great nation… you can’t have it both ways… don’t use majority rules for one faction and not all…

Carry On.
T

Tony,
“That is making excuses for a weak and… if he promised to love forever and had kids … spineless person. Stop making excuses for people with poor character…gay or straight.”

Sure, that person has poor character, but to my mind that does not automatically negate the affect of entrenched intolerance in society. As you have suggested, I am not the garden variety knee-jerk liberal. Here’s an example. I live in Austin. It’s hot here. We also have a lot of people who stand on corners begging for money. One woman who I pass every day on my way to work at 7:45am and home from work at 5:30pm is pregnant. So, here she is, a pregnant woman standing in the Texas sun and heat for hours on end every day. Now, some might look at her and say, what’s wrong with this country? Why isn’t someone taking care of her? I look at her and say, what’s wrong with this woman? If there is anyone who has access to social services in this country it is a pregnant woman. Why is she ignoring these services and choosing to risk her health and her baby’s health by standing on a corner all day? I only bring this up because I think there is room to say that both personal choice and society play a role.

“In fact, the DSM (guide to diagnosing mental illness) listed homosexuality as a mental illness until 1986. I say: .. and still does list paraphilias (sexual fetishes) and female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low female sex drive). Maybe I am just adventurous and maybe hubby doesn’t take out the trash We all know this is from a much maligned guide.. (that means we agree again but there are always gonna be different views)… If you research further the Dr. that got it entered as such went on to write papers negating his own theory and surmised environment and choice play a major factor.”

Fair enough, but to me the precedent setting aspect of the DSM listing is still significant. As you and I seem to agree, sexuality is a complex thing and we are constantly learning more about it. That does not mean, though, that I would categorize homosexuality and fetishes together (not saying you would either, but some here seem to) regardless of what the DSM says. And even if the DSM were changed concerning those other “illnesses,” and samexex marriages were made legal, personally I don’t think it would lead to people seeking protection for their marriage to a sheep. (Again, I’m not saying you think this, but others here seem to make this leap in logic.) If that did happen, then I would be against it (people marrying sheep).

“you seem to be using the logic that the MAJORITY of gay people are that way because of pre-disposition. I will not argue that in fact … so the basis of your stance is taken from the MAJORITY rules view, correct?”

Personally I don’t think my view is that complicated. I simply think that gays are people to and they should have the exact same legal rights granted to them as heterosexual couples.

“so the basis of your stance is taken from the MAJORITY rules view, correct?
Then with a vote the MAJORITY do not want gay marriage across this great nation”

Not if that vote denying gay marriage was based on any religious dogma. I have heard rational arguments for preventing gay marriage (not here at this site, but elsewhere). If one pops up here I would be happy to discuss it. But if the majority is voting on religious conviction then no, I don’t support their right to block samesex marriages.

Bill E.
I think we have some common ground again.
Looks like we agree on everything except the description of valid arguments.

It doesn’t negate … you are correct. I just have no mercy for weak character. To be clear… “character” … not weaker due to physical or mental health issues…. had to say that because I come off a little harsh in posts sometimes.

As we have agreed upon before, religion will always be an issue at least in our lifetimes.

Sheep never …. Now goats on the other hand…I Am from Kentucky! (Humor, or at least attempted.)

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Right on. And I want to echo your comment about mental or physical health issues as I think my scenario regarding the pregnant woman could be misread. From my experience talking with professionals here, the majority of the people on the streets here in Austin have either mental problems, drug addictions or a combination of both. As for the goats, that’s all you. I’ve tried to think of a Pennsylvania, or Philly, equivalent, but can’t….

I’m not sure where my overall stance got completely lost in the mix, but…

I once again declare: I don’t CARE WHATSOEVER if two men or two women get married. I simply am voicing an OPINION based solely on the fact that if two people are seeking GOVERNMENT validation of the union/promise/vow, then they are approaching the entire subject from a very shallow (again OPINION) starting point. And again… OPINION: Missing the intent and point of marriage entirely.

And if government validation HAS TO BE an issue… then let it come via the people. And by that I mean at the State level. The Federal Government has no right meddling in the personal affairs that they currently do… so please let it not extend to our sex lives.

And whether it’s choice, biological issue… WHATEVER, homosexuality still CENTERS AROUND whom people are having sex with.

And one more point that I want to be clearly understood:

The reason why homosexuality will not ever be completely embraced by society is because (as I’ve stated before) it’s just generally pompous and presumptuous to want the majority of people around you to not be affected by the fact that you choose to either LEAD with your sexuality (which is tacky regardless of preference or pre-decided biological situation) or make it a public topic that others around are fortunately or unfortunately put in the position that now it’s THEIR business too.

Whether I was married to Tony, or my wife… that relationship & it’s intimate details are no more anybody else’s business (from a personal angle & OPINION) that I would expect anyone to WANT it inflicted on them and MADE their business (from a general-respect angle)

I think that we can all agree that there are (and will always be) a significant number of people in society that just value privacy and respectful general subject matter. And sex will never be a generally respectful subject to bring up in any and all situations.

That’s asking alot of human nature.

Gusty,
I agree that it should be a state issue, preach on!
It is a private situation. I am with you.
I have had this same debate with a gay friend that made it an issue to inject into all things, even where to eat etc…

Does that mean I should not say publicly I like it when you wear the pink leotards and ski mask?

Carry On.
T

Bill E,
I am glad that we have , cracked skulls and found common ground.
BUT….

You said:
I have heard rational arguments for preventing gay marriage (not here at this site, but elsewhere).

I say: Remember, we agreed that civil union was cool not gay marriage, please be clear (as I hope I have) or we have lost our common ground…

You said:
“the majority of the people on the streets here in Austin have either mental problems, drug addictions or a combination of both”

I say:
The majority of the people here, (in my STUDIO) , have either mental problems, drug addictions or a combination of both … we call them musicians!!!

Rob, Matt, Taylor, Jane, Mike … is there anybody out there?
Thanks to those watching….
I would love to hear how ridiculous my thoughts are to you…

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
And I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall trying to discuss this issue with you.

“if two people are seeking GOVERNMENT validation of the union/promise/vow, then they are approaching the entire subject from a very shallow (again OPINION) starting point.”

So am I to assume that you and your wife don’t have a marriage license? If not, then bravo. But if so, as I pointed out, you are entitled to over 1,000 protections under federal law that are denied to samesex couples. Now if you want to scrap that entire system, that’s a different discussion.

“it’s just generally pompous and presumptuous to want the majority of people around you to not be affected by the fact that you choose to either LEAD with your sexuality (which is tacky regardless of preference or pre-decided biological situation) or make it a public topic that others around are fortunately or unfortunately put in the position that now it’s THEIR business too.”

To me your response sounds equally pompous and presumptuous because you already enjoy the benefits that I am talking about. If samesex couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, how exactly are they supposed to go about securing those rights in a country where people have an obvious aversion to their choice of mate?

“so please let it not extend to our sex lives.”

You are reducing the complex issue of samexex marriage down to sex lives which is missing the point entirely.

“I think that we can all agree that there are (and will always be) a significant number of people in society that just value privacy and respectful general subject matter.”

I think you’re ducking the issue.

“And sex will never be a generally respectful subject to bring up in any and all situations.”

Or, maybe one day we won’t all be so repressed (and I’m including myself in this category) when it comes to discussing something that is completely natural. This is what I think is happening with the younger generations that I have mentioned before.

Tony,
You and I are still on the same page. As I have said, I have trouble believing that in this country civil unions would be treated equally. But that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. And some of your musicians here in Austin live on the street….

Gusy,
One other thought. When you see a man and a woman getting married in your church (or your courthouse to keep Tony happy), do you take time to think about their sex lives? Do you wonder if they prefer leather and chains? If not, then why would the sight of two men or two women getting married be an example of them making their sex lives public, or leading with their sexuality? Why isn’t it instead an example of them committing to each other for life?

Because traditional marriage, outside the legal realm, does not lead with sexuality. I have never once been asked, or had to prove with whom I have sex with.

By redefining it to include same sex marriages… you HAVE to lead with sexuality.

And to FURTHER drive my original stance & point home… I DON’T CARE if two people of the same sex enter into a legal agreement that is recognized by the governmemnt. Just make it a State issue.

Where am I losing you Bill? Are you incapable of seperating opinion from actual legislation?

And with all due respect to your 1,000 examples… I don’t see one of those that could not be addressed by a living will or similar legal document.

If a government-recognized contract/agreement is what same sex couples seek… so be it. I have never stated ANY opposition to that whatsoever. I only pointed out the shallowness in that plight with respect to the original intent of what marriage actually is. Which is NOT a legal issue… but a personal and moral one.

You keep pushing marriage into the legal realm. I’m trying to keep the legal and the personal elements separate. Because once it gets into the legal realm… it’s no longer marriage. It’s a fishing license or car title.

Rights and documents don’t mean ANYTHING to people who are actually married in the traditional sense. (same sex or otherwise)

To further drive this point home to you Bill, I’m going to steal an excellent example from a discussion I had with Tony last night. It’s just as ridiculous to have an atheist couple married in a church, as it is for a homosexual couple to be married in the eyes of a God who thinks of them as an abomination.

So is it the actual “prize” of a certificate, government recognition and all the rights and goodies that you are fighting so passionately for? Because if it is… then so be it. Just let all the governmental rights & goodies come from the State level.

I don’t care WHAT happens in the legal realm. But don’t take away the rights of those who think of marriage in the traditional sense, as a promise between themselves and before their God.

I think Tony has already made this argument. And you’ve agreed. I don’t see where the snag is Bill.

“Where am I losing you Bill? Are you incapable of seperating opinion from actual legislation?”

You are losing me when you seem to be suggesting that you, as 1/2 of a heterosexual, married couple is not entitled to the over 1,000 FEDERAL protections that I listed. Fine, you want it only to be a state issue, but when it comes to heterosexual marriage it is already a federal issue. So why a different approach for samexes marriage?

“By redefining it to include same sex marriages… you HAVE to lead with sexuality.”

Referring back to my short vignette above, I don’t think samesex marriage leads with sexuality any more than heterosexual marriage. We just don’t think about marriage now as “heterosexual”, thus removing the sexuality as you say, because it is entrenched in our society that marriage equals the partnership between a man and a woman. Thus, when people talk about getting married, it is assumed that it is a heterosexual union and the issue of sexuality is left alone. If people just got over themselves and accepted that two men, or two women, can love each other and stay committed to each other in marriage just as a man and a woman can, then, as with heterosexual marriage, the issue of sexuality would disappear. All we would see is two people getting married.

“And with all due respect to your 1,000 examples… I don’t see one of those that could not be addressed by a living will or similar legal document.”

Sure, but wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just grant samesex couples the same right to a legal marriage?

“You keep pushing marriage into the legal realm. I’m trying to keep the legal and the personal elements separate. Because once it gets into the legal realm… it’s no longer marriage. It’s a fishing license or car title.”

Again, does this mean that you don’t have a marriage license?

“I don’t care WHAT happens in the legal realm. But don’t take away the rights of those who think of marriage in the traditional sense, as a promise between themselves and before their God.”

You certainly have the right to think that, and I would never dream of taking that away. But please keep your church out of my state. And, why can’t gay Christians make a promise between themselves and before their God? Actually, this is the response I have been waiting for. This is the first time that I have heard you actually admit that what you are arguing is based on your religious beliefs. It’s been most frustrating to me because you seem to be trying to make a rational argument when in fact what you are arguing is a personal religious belief.

My personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with any of this. You have absolutely NO idea what my personal religious beliefs are.

Damn, I thought we were finally getting somewhere….

Actually… we ARE.

Gusty,
That’s truly good to hear. Now let me throw one more thought out here. I think that the right to marriage is a civil right. That’s why I support, with reservations already noted, the concept of civil unions, and why I keep returning to the legal issues involved. This then gets me to the state’s rights argument. I think that historically state’s have a poor record when it comes to protecting peoples’ civil rights. I think federal initiatives to end slavery and segregation, and to grant women and blacks the right to vote, for example, were all necessary to produce those needed changes, and to enforce the protections of these important rights. Now I’m not saying that government intervention always works, plenty of people think that forced integration, for example, ruined the cities of the deep South. But to my mind, it wasn’t integration per se that was the culprit, but rather the reaction to integration by those with the means and desires to flee those cities. (I apologize for a return to the subject of race, but I just showed a section of Eyes on the Prize in class yesterday so the issue is fresh on my mind.) So, for me, I think the simplest solution is to grant samesex couples the same federal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy–even if we don’t exercise these protections on a daily basis. To me this is simple because I believe that our government was set up to protect the separation of church and state, and I still have yet to hear a non-religious argument that holds much water as to why samesex couples should not have these rights. So while I respect the rights of people to disagree with the union of two men or two women on religious grounds, I don’t respect their right to deny samesex couples equal protection under the law.

Bill E.
You post:
When you see a man and a woman getting married in your church (or your courthouse to keep Tony happy), do you take time to think about their sex lives?

YES… as long as she is hot!

Do you wonder if they prefer leather and chains?

Not WONDER….. HOPE!

Hey Bill E and Gusty…

Since I am in between sessions I thought I’d do some research.
I made a couple ‘o’ calls and tried this scenario out.
I spoke with a couple of over 55 Christians. I placed allowing a man and a woman, both devout outspoken atheists, to have a marriage ceremony in the sanctuary and a gay couple of either sex the same privilege.
Both agree that to grant civil union elsewhere and to keep religious marriage a separate but equal institution, would be their preference. Regardless of the sexual preference of the couples.

One said:
Paraphrased: It is not my place to question if they love each other or not. I would be more worried about the straight atheists.
These are hard core “God fearing” types, where tolerance for homosexuality is very low especially in that age group.

Doesn’t that seem a simple solution?

Gusty… one had your opinion that the commitment can’t be touched by paper or law.
QUOTE: So let them do whatever as long as it allows our church to determine who gets married within it’s own confines.

Great debate …
Carry On.
T

Tony,
Good story. I think your solution is simple, but I think that for some of us the struggle would continue as we pushed for fuller separation of church and state and to ensure that those united under civil unions received equal protection under the law. So when they say, “So let them do whatever as long as it allows our church to determine who gets married within it’s own confines.” I say fine, but lets make sure that wherever people get married, they get to have a marriage license entitling them to all of the federal protections I have been harping on, whether they are gay or hetero. My wife and I got married in front of 6 people in a field near a river, we didn’t need a church or a courthouse, but we did get a marriage license which is now registered with the city of Austin, and our rights as a married couple are thus protected.

Bill E,
The “confines” comment shows me the opposite of your view, and I find it very important for a non-Christian yet conservative person like myself.

You are concerned that civil unions would not be granted equal rights due to “loopholes” found by the religious right.

The religious right worries about loopholes in a separate but equal Marriage/Civil Union where loopholes found by liberal agendas would make the churches have to marry gays in their sanctuaries…

Mistrust is a 2 way street … and causes ridiculous issues like this to become HUGE.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Fair point. I guess both sides would then have to continue their own struggle to close any loopholes.

On a different topic (one that will, I hope, be settled tonight) here’s a New Yorker article written by the editors about why Obama is the choice. I post this not in the hopes of swaying people to vote for Obama, but rather simply because I think it is a good read. I read it and found many of the arguments that I have been making–Obama isn’t a socialist, McCain is cynical and erratic, Palin was a horrible choice, etc.–reflected back at me. Some of you might think that this just means that I, being left of center, am only reading sources that reflect my views. I don’t think this is the case, the day I learned of the Palin selection I called it cynical just as the first utterances of Obama as socialist rang completely false to my ears. But I guess you will just have to take my word for that. Anyway, this article to me sums up the reasons why I think there are important distinctions between Obama and McCain, and why Obama is the right choice. Read it if you want.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors

Bill E
Read it … written well… that is about it for me.
Sway a vote here , don’t see it happening.
Already voted, 15 minutes in line as opposed to 2 1/2 hours last time.
Early voting in my area huge.
Just on a personal note … there is a 3 way race here for a Senate seat. No one has the majority in the polls, 3rd party raises it’s head in GA.

Palin, is a great choice (sarcasm) she is sending many PUBS in my direction… she is the Nader of Conservatives.

Carry On.
T

Bill,

Glad you “leveled-out & landed in a safe place” – But one more time to make certain you completely understand where I’m coming from.

You wrote:
“and I still have yet to hear a non-religious argument that holds much water as to why samesex couples should not have these rights.”

With the exception of Matt (that’s an assumption… likely a safe one) you DO realize that denying same sex couples legal rights and benefits was never an issue with me correct? My point is broader and more focused on the ideology of marriage than the shallow & materialistic (in my opinion) plight of the legal “prize” – thus rendering the concept of marriage to that of a car title.

Conserves keep an eye on Kentucky House race…. if Obama wins which is probable … McConnell will be the most powerful Repub in Washington… as the house minority leader and he is in a dogfight.

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
No, your position got lost on me when you started talking about refrigerators (ok, maybe a little before then.) I’m glad, though, that you agree that samesex couples should enjoy all of the same rights that heterosexual couples do. See, you and Obama do have something in common! Though I still insist that the “legal prize” is neither shallow nor materialistic, and that (and I don’t mean this as a personal attack) people who already enjoy that prize shouldn’t be the ones applying those labels. I just don’t see how samesex couples will ever enjoy the benefits of legal marriage if we don’t talk about the rights involved and the denial of those rights to people based on their sexual identity. Clearly, though, that’s my fight.

Tony,
I’ve been paying attention to Kentucky all night….

Tony,
I’ve got my eye on Georgia too….

And frankly Bill… you’ll likely NEVER find a non-religious argument that holds water to the same sex debate you champion. Because people who staunchly support the traditional meaning of marriage likely will ALWAYS approach the topic the way that they do BECAUSE marriage itself is a religious/spiritual/private vow between two people and their God.

And most of those people could give a flyin’ crap about the legal aspect of it… as that is not where their focus or value is whatsoever.

Marriage, pushed into the legal realm, is an entirely different thing to an entirely different demographic and mind-set. And there is an entirely different focus. (i.e: the “prize & goodies”) It’s this realm that the intelligentsia-crowd love to play in and pat themselves on the back for being so progressive, tolerant (selectively) and enlightened.

And the previous crowd could really give a damn about the second frankly. They just find the whole discussion as cheapening the value of marriage itself.

Hence the breakdown.

But seeking a non-religious argument about a very religious topic seems like a very silly and non-fulfilling chase to me.

Each to his own.

Gusty,
Thankfully , as 1/2 of a heterosexual married couple, I get to enjoy all of the rights that you still describe as “prizes and goodies.” I personally could give a flying crap about what the religious folks believe–remember the son of Ham argument anyone? I’m purely interested in peoples’ rights being protected.

“Marriage, pushed into the legal realm, is an entirely different thing to an entirely different demographic and mind-set. And there is an entirely different focus.”

Again, you are avoiding one of my central questions. So, for the third time, do you and your wife have a marriage license? No matter how much you want to wish this away, marriage already exists in the legal realm. But telling me that my request for a rational argument about marriage is silly is to me absurd. I could care less what God thinks of my marriage, but I’m glad to have the protection of the government.

Bottom line. Are you saying that marriage is a civil right, yes or no? If yes, then we can discuss the state’s rights issue.

Bill E & Gusty,
You guys are fun!
Boy do I have a cool marriage religion/ legal story…
But right now I am tracking …

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
I feel like I need to explain myself again. Any anger you noticed in that last email is because this is a very personal issue for me. I have friends and family members who have not been able to “come out” because of all of the intolerance in our society. I fully understand the religious argument. I think it is misguided, but I understand it. So, just as you and others don’t care what the state thinks of their marriage, I really don’t care what God, Allah, whomever, thinks about mine. But please, don’t belittle my efforts to address this issue on a rational ground. As I said, I have heard rational arguments against samesex marriages, but I haven’t heard any of them here. As a person who firmly believes in the separation of church and state, I am less swayed by religious arguments on matters such as this. Personally I don’t think raising the legal issues does any more damage to the sanctity of marriage than the divorce rate in this country does. I propose we leave this at the point where I thought we were–we both agree that samesex couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

Tony,
Glad I could be 1/2 of your enjoyment. I hope you now see why I was “coy” in my earliest posts….

Bill E
Just glad to be involved in this… that comment was in good spirit.

LIBERALS… Congrats…
I hope you understand what it means to have the victories that you have in the house and senate…THAT is change ………… good luck…
PROVE MY RESERVATIONS WRONG… (reservations…… a little Cherokee humor. I kill me.)

I’ll be here to keep you in check.

Carry On.

T

My session is over … and so is this election. Truth is, I have posted for weeks that it was over.
I got up before 9 am to go vote (go to bed at 4-5 am)… I stood in line with others knowing that their vote was not in agreement with mine. Georgia went McCain. I watched people assume from my appearance I was one of “those” liberals voting for “that” socialist. I wasn’t.
I called my Christian parents in KY early… they were surprised by the hour of my call. ( I call them daily, even if just for 2 minutes of weather talk.) Today however was my favorite kind of talk, a 40 minute discussion with my 2 favorite people, who do not agree with my religious views, political stances or my choice to turn down the free education offered to me, the same ones that bought my 1st, 2nd & 3rd guitars and watched me sell-out a 2,000 seat hall at 17 but told me to get to bed that night because I had school the next day.
Our conversation was between 3 adults that have very different experiences. They know SOME of what I have seen and MOST of what I have done.
They had not voted yet.
Because of their religion and old school values, 2 McCain votes were assured. But the conversation was one of questions to me and not at me. One of hope for the future… not stereotypes from the past. These 2 people that taught me no skin color, creed, thought process or religion is to be feared or hated …. they were voting their stereotype.
But after a call back to Kentucky, the 1st state to be projected to McCain… in a landslide…. I learned from one parent that a vote for Libertarian was cast… not for the party or Bob Barr, but for the fact that my words of hope for a future with unlimited options may happen…

CHANGE has happened in the USA today … and this one means the world … to me.

Carry On.
T

Bill,

To answer your question about a marriage license… yes… my wife and I do have one. And to honest, the process of getting one was the catalyst for my stance on this very subject. It was ridiculous. LITERALLY the same line to get a hunting license.

But my reasons for doing so WERE COMPLETELY in the legal realm… and both my wife and I understood that going into the process. You see… I am one of the few men in this country who was granted custody of my biological son after a divorce. Which is (Divorce I mean) an entire OTHER legal realm to be discussed. Imagine having to wrap your head around the concept of watching someone get out of an “eternal” vow via a legal maneuver. Mind-blowing, and again… another example of when something personal, religious or spiritual is pushed into the legal realm, it is stripped of any and all of its original intent and meaning.

So… knowing that there would be future legal battles, and to ensure my awarded custody remained intact, I simply had to have that legal document of a marriage license for required ammunition. Otherwise… I’d be an irresponsible father with a live-in girlfriend in the eyes of a court that historically been arguably sexist against men in general.

But having lived through that experienced helped me to understand that when people discuss “marriage” – there are definitely two camps. The problem is that there are people on both sides that do not (or will not) acknowledge that. And then silly arguments (some might cite the one between you & me as an example of this) erupt because one person is talking “legal” while the other is talking “traditional.”

The same is true when people discuss politics. You simply CAN NOT lump someone’s political and social views together in the same discussion. Two different realms. Two different landscapes. Two different sets of reasoning with VERY different personal elements powering both.

I think Tony and I are examples of that dynamic. Both of us have social tendencies that lean liberal (the caveat here is that we ALSO have the open-mindedness & tolerance to accept and respect those who value a more traditional/conservative view of society) and our political tendencies definitely lean conservative.

It’s the ability to recognize these two worlds that seem to be the problem for a lot of people.

Chalk it up to the convenience of generalizations.

Gusty,
I couldn’t agree with you more. Luckily in my world I have encountered more people who are able to see, think and speak beyond those generalizations that you describe than I have the opposite, but I also recognize that I have been fortunate in this. I know that there are plenty of people out there who can only see things in black or white. As an optimist, I think that can change, that people can change, and so I will keep pushing for what I believe and I know that you will too.

The morning after……

I was flipping between CNN, MSNBC, and Fox this morning. I got stuck on MSNBC, as they were talking to a Democratic analyst. I was floored. He was talking about how, now that the election is over, they can talk about this. He said that assuming Obama can even get the $500 stimulus checks approved, he can’t pay for it. And if he does figure out a way to pay for it, then he can’t afford the tax cuts for the 95% of Americans as he promised. He went further to say that there is really no way he can afford to keep either of these promises, but if he does, how interesting it will be to see the aftermath.

After picking my jaw up off the floor, I’m shouting at the TV, “WHERE WAS THIS INFO BEFORE THE ELECTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?”

Is this just some guy gloating and grandstanding? Is this a case of the liberal media now fairly reporting the issues? Other than to infuriate republicans, what purpose does it serve?

Rob,
After picking my jaw up off the floor, I’m shouting at the TV, “WHERE WAS THIS INFO BEFORE THE ELECTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?”

Answer: Here.

Given this is not an “open” forum where I can start my own threads, I’ll try to encapsulate my feelings and apply it here. Feel free to chew on my diatribe:

O ye who fear the different and grip thy things tightly on their approach, your age is at an end. It ain’t, nor ever was, just about you.

Take a look at whatever you care most about in life. This can be your family, your job, your hobby. Most would say they would do anything for the things they loved the most. People sacrifice for the things they care about.

Those who put family first sacrifice time, money, and energy to work two jobs, put food on the table, send kids to the doctor college, and invest in their extracurriculars. They spend of themselves for their benefit.

Those who put their job first often climb the ladder to management positions, happily putting well over 40 hours, waking early without a second thought. Spouses of these people happily sacrifice location and sometimes their own jobs for the opportunity of the bread-winner.

Musicians. You may not be able to indulge yourself in a solo all the time. While you are a capable individual musician, you have a part to play in the big picture of a band or album. Sometimes you must hold back. Sometimes, you simply strum a chord or hold some strings. Sometimes, you sit out.

People play roles in a collective. There is a big picture. We are more than just a bunch of egos, and I contend that the educated realize this.

When you apply this to political choice, it seems clear that one side cares for society where the other does not. The simple motivation behind left vs. right is apathy toward others. Do I dislike certain other people? Do I choose to allow gay marriage people others deserve the right, or disallow it because it doesn’t affect me and I think only of myself?

Some base their decisions because they recognize opportunity for others; others base their decisions to hoard more for themselves and deny opportunity to others. One is the side of greed. One is the side of ego and self. The selfish are waning. The remnants of the failed institution of segregation have lost. The last crumbs of Reaganomics have trickled clear off the table.

Because their narrow understanding of “other people” is limited to the kids they spit out, they naively and conveniently choose to ignore everyone else around them, falsely believing they are completely self-sufficient; failing to realize their place in a de facto interdependent community. Their only sense of “community” are the other closed-off nuclear tribes they see in Sunday School and at K-Mart.

‘Burbs go red ’cause no one’s around, and it’s easy to be selfish and hunt deer. Cities go blue because there is variety there; because there is community there; because there is education there.
Should it be any surprise that the tendency of universities—institutions of higher education—tend one way? Why do the educated, even knowing how much more of their “earnings” go toward this common cause, tend this way?

I propose maybe they just know better.

The ignorant among us divide and identify themselves by their occupation. The ignorant on one side refuse to get a job; those on the other side put all human value into slaving away at one. The educated recognize the role in a working society they must play.

So a call to you reactionaries.

Please spare the world any more miseducation. Please stop pretending to fear a socialist health care system out one side of your mouth while lavishing a need to save Social Security out the other.

Don’t act like the expense of another bunker-buster is nearly so worthwhile as a social program. Stop your crusade against Georgia Amendment 2 if you’re just going to turn around and call for vouchers or the abolition of the Education Department the next.

Please stop raising your children to be bigots in your ignorant likeness. Please stop leading young minds down the delusion that they deserve a house even half the size you pretend to afford.

“Taking responsibility” is more than simply earning a wage. Take the responsibility to prepare for sacrifice. Put the effort in and suck it up.

It ain’t about you.

Tony,

mumble, mumble (under my breath) smartass, mumble mumble

REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

The conservative misunderstanding that bona fide socialism looms is centered around a few faults in their value system:

1) A “chance” at life (liberty, pursuit of happiness) is only a right for those not yet born.

2) The medicine and technology to sustain that life, an inalienable God-given right, should only be available to those who can afford it.

3) The price for this access should be so outrageous that only the most well-funded large businesses can offer these benefits to full-time employees.

4) Intermediation between you and your doctor is okay so long as the bureaucratic bottleneck is a private entity we’ll call the “insurance company.”

5) Insurance companies have the right to deny access to medicine to people who even need it at all (pre-existing conditions).

6) Profit makes the determination who does and does not qualify for this access.

7) People have every right to be selfish as long as they’re enterprising about it.

People want more and more for themselves. Private institutions, driven by profit and greed, should NOT have any say in who deserves access to medical care.

Republicans, how can your candidate fly to Florida and stump on the state of socialized retirement, while at the same time stirring the paranoia of public health care in Obama’s plan? What about retiring comfortably makes for a more compelling federal social program than living long enough to see that day?

Conservatives call the graduated tax system “giving” money to the poor, when really the true fiscal conservative spirit of eliminating income taxes is “giving” ALL wage-earners more of their own money. Actually, if the government doesn’t take the money to begin with, there’s nothing to give back.

If there is continued conservative confusion about the state of social welfare in this country, please refer to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996—a tenet of Gingrich’s Contract with America signed by Clinton that effectively ended welfare as a limitless, unrequisite entitlement.

Federalists should celebrate that the act also relegated public

assistance programs to the states—that comfortable conservative cop-out somewhere in the purgatory between self-governance and Big Brother where it becomes convenient not to take a stance.

You pay for common items every day. How much of your taxes go to infrastructure improvements; to utilities that fuel the companies that provide the services you use daily; to subsidize the growth and transportation of the food you eat?

I really have a hard time believing that the care of the lives of others is less important to us as a society than a repaving project and some pomegranate you don’t need shipped in by train.

Bluntly: It all comes down to whether we give a crap about anyone but ourselves. Some don’t unapologetically and so it perfectly explains their politics. It explains the NASCAR generation. It explains evangelicals with dead faith (James 2:20) who belie the Golden Rule and believe they owe the world no effort because they have secured their reward.

Mike,

The America I grew up in taught me this, “Hard work breeds success” and “You are judged by those you you surround yourself with”. I also base my life on 12 rules, 10 were given to Moses by God, and Jesus gave us the other 2. As a teenager, I worked hard to acheive the rank of Eagle Scout. In college, I worked 2 jobs while carrying a full class load. After college, I took jobs I didn’t like, worked for people I despised, but all the time, working to better myself so as to get a better job. When the going got tough and money was tight, I got a second job, I even took a job delivering newspapers, at the same time working a full-time day job. I have busted my ass to get where I am today, and I thank God every night for the talents he has given me, and for Him treating me so much better than I deserve. I have good health, a good job, the pay isn’t great, but the people are, I drive a 15 year-old Accord, it looks like crap, but it runs great and still gets 30mpg. Sure, I’d love a new car, but I will never have another car payment, I don’t want it, I don’t need it. My TV is 16 years old, the screen is getting dim, but it still works. The most expensive tennis shoes I’ve erver worn cost $70, and they were a birthday gift. I buy the $25-$40 shoes, because if you judge me by what I wear, then you are less of a person for it. If you can’t afford food on your table, you don’t need a $100 pair of Nikes. If I really want something, I figure out a way to save my money so I can pay CASH for it. That’s a principle that seems to have been lost on the younger generation today.

As a TAX-PAYING AMERICAN, I’m sick of lazy people loafing around with their hand outstretched wanting me to pay their bills. Is that un-Christian? NO! Jesus even told a parable relating to that very issue. EVERYONE needs to pull their own weight, using the parable as an example, a farmer working his field, reaping his harvest, having food to last the winter, versus the lazy man who, once winter arrived, goes around begging for food to survive.

You said, ““Taking responsibility” is more than simply earning a wage. Take the responsibility to prepare for sacrifice. Put the effort in and suck it up.” I ABSOLUTELY AGREE, mostly. Take out the second sentence, and you have it, the answer to much of what plagues America.

I’ve said this here before. Until we get people in office who possess good Chrisitan values, greed and corruption will continue to run rampant through our government. These values include, honesty, trustworthiness, loyalty, thriftiness, and pride. Pride? Yes, pride, give me somebody who can do their job, and walk away, holding their head high, knowing they did their job to best of their ability, for the betterment of our country, NOT for the betterment of their bank account. Give me a politician who cares more about voting their conscience instead of how much companies are giving them to influence their vote.

I’d write more, but my lunch hour is over.

Mike,
I expected someone to be like this.
I also expected it to be a cowards poke at anything the post writer doesn’t like.
Thanks for proving my theory correct.
The educated here swing from both sides … I can hack pretty well and I can tell you that Bill E and Matt are both better educated (Academically) than you or me.
While you are dancing joyously, remember that while an election is over, the administration has not even begun.
The ignorant among us think that this was the goal … (winning an election)….
The ignorant among us feel warm and fuzzy…. because they have been outcast in social forums and now feel vindicated and spew the very hatred that turned them away.
The ignorant among us may have realized playing in the confines of the band is most important, but what the song actually says leaves a longer lasting mark… and everybody should know also that you still must play in time.

I for one posted congrats to the victors last night, and I hoped that they prove me wrong… I was gonna lose either way… Obama or McCain.
But YOU … while you are preaching the finer points of intelligence and not being selfish… come in and obviously spew poison and SELFISHLY even CHILDISHLY think this was YOUR victory…
it may be everyone’s or it may be no one’s.

A reaction like this comes from the same type of person that pouts when they do not get their way.
To state a belief again … the internet gives people much more bravery than they have in person.

CLASSLESS … I would expect more from you.

Carry On.
T

Thank you for your earnest response Rob. Regardless, posting here has proven next to impossible for me. These were very general statements on very general topics directed toward no individual and in response to nothing in particular. It wasn’t reveling. I was charged and compeled to be strengthened in my opinion, but not gloating. I don’t understand how it is that the conservatives here “welcome” the debate and opinions of others, and don’t “pull punches” thrown my way, but never fail to take offense at my strong stance. I’ll let this remain the staunch Baby Reagan, instead of the Baby Missouri I thought it could be, where critical people of all opinions can state, address, debate, and discuss issues instead of misunderstood or hurt feelings.

Mike,

You wrote:
“When you apply this to political choice, it seems clear that one side cares for society where the other does not. The simple motivation behind left vs. right is apathy toward others.”

I hate to stereotype… but WOW! You’ve GOTTA be a college kid.

Not sure where you came to that conclusion. And I have to say that your assessment could not be more fundamentally flawed.

I’ve made a sport of verbal sparring with left-leaning individuals, as well as enjoying smashing the stereotypes that have been placed on those who lean right.

And while I can cite HUNDREDS of differences in approach, philosophy and reasoning… I have to say that I’ve rarely met (or noticed a pattern) of “caring for society” or a lack thereof.

Even the WHACKIEST of the whack (left or right) seem to care about their fellow man.

I think your Che Guevara T-Shirt might be a little tight there buddy.

I’m sorry for deluding anyone that topical dialogue might be possible. I’m gone to post on Baby Calista Flockhart about how much I love food.

Mike,
As far as I am concerned, you can post here anytime that you please. But when you say what you believe and then get hammered back don’t play the victim.

1. You haven’t posted in weeks.
2. You return the day after the election saying and I quote.
“O ye who fear the different and grip thy things tightly on their approach, your age is at an end.”
How am I to debate that? By saying “No it isn’t?” C’mon… My response is called knocking one off of his high horse,… re-read that psuedo-intelligent rubbish you posted. You are smarter than that.
Next you say:
“It ain’t, nor ever was, just about you.”
How do I debate that? Yes it is doody head? Really?
You said:
“I don’t understand how it is that the conservatives here “welcome” the debate and opinions of others, and don’t “pull punches” thrown my way, but never fail to take offense at my strong stance.”
I say:
Punch away … you are welcome here,… and believe me I am pulling punches…offended no.. attacked yes.
I figured this would happen either way, if McCain would have won the same thing would have taken place… just not by you.

You came here to be an ass and had yours handed back to you, tough break.
(By the way for everyone else, Mike and I know each other and I think he is a good guy, but…)
Keep posting please, as we have several issues to talk about… just not like that.

But, you did come here and posted as you chose.
I invite anyone to read your 1st post (in weeks) and draw a conclusion of good debate spirit.

PS Tell Calista that I said hello… and have a cheeseburger…

Carry On.
T

Bill,

One final thought… and this one is really more of a genuine gesture between fellow men than a discussion-starter:

I have to say I admire the tenacity of which you cherish, embrace and champion the legal side of marriage. In the legal realm (as in any other realm) there has to be checks and balances to keep things from getting out of hand. And the the realm of legal marriage has a fine advocate in you sir.

I sincerely hope that someday, you also get to experience what it feels like to “care what God, Allah, whomever, thinks about” it as well. Much as you get value from the benefits and civil rights that marriage affords you, I hope that you also get to experience looking into the eyes of that beautiful wife of yours, the wonderful little boy you both created (as well as the other on the way soon I hear) and feel overwhelmed and humbled by your fortune… endlessly thankful to God for placing you where He has.

A little mushy and “religious” perhaps… but heartfelt. I watched you speak at your non-riverside wedding. And I saw a caring man with a big heart. May you find room in there sometime for The Big Guy.

Can you blame me for not wanting to be here in weeks? After being called a racist, I’m called a coward and immature—all because I stated my opinion which only Rob chose to address. The post was not meant to be an ass, but to state my position strongly. I do not really care so much about politics to be here multiple times daily, so I thought I’d sum up my stance strongly. This was a copy-and-paste from my post several other places, not just here. I’m sorry if my timing sours you. John illustrates the education stereotype I was trying to make—I must be a “college kid.” The whole point was to ask why institutions of education have a liberal reputation—why the educated tend to lean left.

I’m sure the tailor of my Che Guevara shirt can fashion an Adolf Hitler one for those who would presume to tell me my motives for posting here. There’s a fucking face you can brand.

Mike,
1st of all sorry for letting your posts piss me off so bad, but I still maintain it was a vengeful move.
That is no excuse for me to lash out with so much anger. My final post on the matter.

After being called a racist which you swear (and I believe you) that you are not. You disappear, should I have called that brave?

You claim that:
The whole point was to ask why institutions of education have a liberal reputation—why the educated tend to lean left.

Yet you never posed that question, instead you tell the conservatives here that we are invalid and insinuate our lack of intellect … sort of like a 12 year old screams at Mom and Dad while pouting because “they just don’t understand”. So I should applaud your maturity?

You said:
I do not really care so much about politics to be here multiple times daily…
I COUNT 5 POSTS TODAY. If you don’t care then you just want to argue.

To your alleged “only” reason for posting …….. 1 sentence in a 19 paragraph post …
I will try to discuss that with you.
Let’s do a search of the senate and house and see if there is a large difference in the number of college degrees from Dems and Pubs…. the large turn out of uneducated poor voters sure seemed to vote and lean to the left… Are you educated in theology, law enforcement, etc…I am willing to bet that these educated people lean right…
The theory that you presented so eloquently, is because education is geared to the youth, the teachers earnestly try to make a connection with the youth to engage growth and trust … so therefore catering to liberalism is natural because it is a youth oriented way of thinking in a very diverse atmosphere.
Bill E can help out here I think, but most Professors are idealists holding fast to what they believe and exposing the young to both sides of the coin … (which I applaud any teacher any where).

Track the graduates as they have families, jobs, house payments and more responsibility and see the educated and now more experienced ADULT go further right in their thinking. You won’t find as many conservatives go left with age and wisdom, I can assure you of that.

I will not back down on the stance that you came here with malicious intent and some gloating.
Just read the posts.
I have done the same before, caught myself and apologized.
I apologize if anyone including you feel that I was too harsh, but I rise and drop to the level of water that I am swimming in.

Gusty I guess you got your punk rock attitude today , but can I call it Goth/Industrial attitude?

Mike, for a person that ranted about how conservatives identify themselves by their jobs, you took a cheap shot at Gusty’s job with the “branding” thing at the end of your post and you know it.
Are you going to deny that also… or stand strong?

Hitler? c’mon …
Now can we get back to the discussions without name calling …. myself included.
Please feel welcome to remain here posting, even if you piss me off.

Carry On.
T

Mike,

Let’s start over fella. You have to understand that when you come at people with the kind of attitude you do… it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Hitler… come on. You have to admit the Che Guevara shirt was at least kinda funny in an “I’m cool. I work in a record store” kind of way. (actually I did work at several record stores…)

But Hitler? I think the Hitler-equals-right/conservative thing is as played out as the liberal-equals-commie thing.

Could we leave it at that and try to have some cooler conversation?

I’m pretty certain that you could contribute to the discussion.

Mike, I may be reading your position entirely wrong and correct me if that’s the case.

I can understand where Mike is coming from. Although the form in which he brought it could’ve been brought with a little more tact.

Personally I think what we saw the other night wasn’t just an Obama victory. It was an overwhelming backlash against Bush, his administration and their policies (and the way that they went about implementing them). They gave an Obama style campaign the perfect storm as far as I’m concerned.

What that has to do with this discussion is this.

JGusty and Tony would strongly disagree I’m sure but the Bush administration was viewed as a conservative administration. After all they were voted in by the conservatives. Sprinkle in terms like neo-conservative mix well with really bad policy and BAM! “liberals” (and everyone else it seems) come out voting in droves to “buck the system”. Right or wrong the election was a backlash against conservatism. Not for what it truly stands for (as illustrated by JGusty and Tony) but for what it became to the rest of us once they put somebody in office.

To me that’s why Obama’s pie in the sky campaign went so well. The particulars weren’t important to people. They just knew they didn’t like where the conservatives (or the perception thereof) have put this country.

To be fair. The term “liberal” is used in a very broad and sweeping manner in this forum and elsewhere in the conservative crowd. It’s US vs. EVERYBODY that’s not US (therefore “liberal”) and I believe the same thing happened with the term “conservative” in this last election.

Looks like Karl Rove fuc#&d both sides and is now getting paid well to be a political analyst. To analyze how both sides are going to get us out of the clusterfu&% that he’s very much a responsible part of.

Rob,

Thank you for your story. Perhaps I come off as anti-work in my hit-and-run bombings, but let me explain that I believe work is and will always be the cornerstone of a working society. Capitalism is at work even with the homeless, who work hard to convince you to give them pocket change—it’s no less salesmanship than a neon billboard.

I believe in hard work, but also that when more of us do work, we can afford to invest and offer assistance programs (not the wanty; not the lazy). I do not believe the PURPOSE of government is to provide a cradle-to-grave society, but I do believe the ability to sustain oneself is the hallmark of a mature civilization. We will all make missteps in life. To have the opportunity to earn limited unemployment benefits, first-time home loans (within reason), and small business start-up grants is a great opportunity we have to MAKE a new beginning.

I think I value the experience of what I do with my life as equally as you value work. There are investments and sacrifices of my time, money, and comfort to possibly experience something great every so often. Sure I never got an MBA, but what I have instead are fond memories of those years.

I can appreciate that you do with your life what conservatives insist we do with the government—cut expenses. I can’t say the same for most people in the suburban Atlanta county where I grew up. Perhaps they have soured my perception of a fiscal conservative.

I believe we can be judicious in our expenses, too. There are pet projects, misdirected military actions, and ineffective programs that can all be cut. I expect this so that more worthwhile investments can be made.

I would contend that the value of a dollar is lost on younger generations because of the way they were raised by previous generations. When your focus is only on the nuclear family, it’s easy to create an environment of being spoiled. When you are raised to expect that credit can fetch you 3 stories on 3 acres 3x what you can afford, 3x the cars you can drive at once, and an XBox 360. This is a generalization, but I think the onus of teaching the value of work rests with good parenting.

As for paying other people’s bills, you do this every time part of your wages go toward that monthly medical insurance payment. Insurance companies are private “taxation” institutions that hold money and dispense them when someone goes to the doctor. If you don’t go all year, you’ve just given your money away.

Let me ask, do you have 401(k) saved up? Does this mean you will not be drawing Social Security? Obama’s plan for public health care parallels this. People that can afford more, better health care probably will. There is this pervasive paranoia that we are on our way to a sort of police state approach to mandating the same health care for everyone. He has stated this is not the case, and I choose to trust him.

I also do not oppose welfare to subsidize someone’s laziness. I support unemployment programs for people without jobs because of the abandon of unregulated large businesses. I do not support subsidized living for able people not making the effort to be productive.

So we can be judicious. There are ways to offer safety nets not golden parachutes. I believe people are worth far more of our investment than unregulated investment firms on Wall Street (who got golden parachutes).

I don’t sympathize with the lazy man begging for food in the winter, but with the hard-working man whose crops were destroyed, or the farmer’s widow who finds herself plowing and caring for kids on her own. There are circumstances we can’t close ourselves off to. We are more civilized than this. God is in that spark between us, not in the secret rooms we lock ourselves in. Love each other.

Saying that you must omit the sentence about sacrifice speaks exactly to my whole point. Conservatism tends to be about serving self, even when we are already fat and happy. But there is sacrifice. I don’t see how the sacrifice of spilled blood overseas carries any more weight than a society that can’t take care of its own. That’s just how I think.

The last point is the most exclusive of all pathologies that must be dashed from our politics. Christian “values” are not the only litmus test for truth or right/wrong. Your opinion is that it is, but this is why there will never be anything more than a blind majority in the south. I have no faith in the people in this corner of the earth being able to make their own decisions or come to their own conclusions. I respect that people have personal beliefs, but when it dictates who will impose their rule over us, it becomes more than just arcane—it is the new oppression; it IS the opium for the masses, meant to numb us from effort.

I’m happy, though, to hear that James 2:20 has some weight over what you believe a good Christian to be—someone who works hard. I know too many who believe they don’t have to do anything at all.

Mike,

Would you mind clarifying what you said here:

“I also do not oppose welfare to subsidize someone’s laziness. I support unemployment programs for people without jobs because of the abandon of unregulated large businesses. I do not support subsidized living for able people not making the effort to be productive.”

You can’t have it both ways. I’m sure it’s a typo, but which is it?

Rob – Being laid off is not being lazy. I support LIMITED unemployment benefits for those between jobs seeking a new one. I do not support social welfare, public housing, or food stamps for able people who just don’t feel like working.

All:
Besides government’s role in abortion, what are the positions of Republicans and Democrats that you consider Christian/anti-Christian? i.e., what are the “values” you see in the way you vote?

Sorry Rob, that should have been “I DO oppose welfare to subsidize someone’s laziness.” A lot of typos when you’re in and out of the browser at work.

Mike,
You said:
I have no faith in the people in this corner of the earth being able to make their own decisions or come to their own conclusions.

Just as they feel about you.
So the realistic solution that you propose?

Carry On.
T

Solution? Is it realistic to disindoctrinate the millions of those who believe those who don’t believe as they do will burn in hell? Is it even possible to reverse the mindset that you must vote a certain way because of God’s will? If not, I don’t think there is a realistic solution (except to express my opinions where they are allowed).

I advocate openness to different backgrounds, people, and opinions; I don’t see how the closed people I’m talking about reciprocate my opinion. What I’m saying is that people in the South will always believe a certain way for whatever reason. I’m making it my crusade (the parlance of another time) to figure out the root of those reasons. Preaching to my own choir is no longer sufficient for me.

I’m not saying religion is bad or even that all religious people are closed-minded (I know many ecumenical Methodists, Episcopalians, and Catholics). But there is a sizeable Baptist/evangelical majority who are mired in misconceptions and exclusivity and vote faith alone.

I’m trying to figure out why the knee-jerk delusion is Republican = Christian.

Good, Mike then we agree 100% on that issue. You did say something that I want to address. None of this is directed at you, your beliefs, or your values. This is just my opinion. You quoted James 2:20. If you back up a few verses, it talks about clothing the naked, feeding hungry. I’m not a callous SOB, I donate to charities who support the down-trodden. I know you weren’t saying that I don’t care about farmers who lose thier crops or widows, but let me comment on that. I’ve given extra things I’ve had to people who have suffered physical losses of property and donated money to help those who lost a loved one. If I died tonight, my wife would be cared for through my life insurance. But that’s why I have it, in case something unexpected happens.

Now, on to the issue at hand. I’ve been laid off, I’ve been fired, I’ve been on un-employment and I believe that should remain. But it also should revert back to the old system. In order to recieve my check, I had to go to the office, look through job postings, I had to give them the names of places where I had interviews that week. And there was a limit on the number of weeks you could recieve benefits. Let me tell you, I was all over it, making calls, faxing resumes, filling out applications. Last time I was unemployed, I got a job working nights, making $8 and hour, so I go to interviews during the day. I even tried selling cars. I signed up with a dozen temp agencies. I took jobs that had me on the road 5 days per week. I even took a job as a janitor. But I did what I had to do to survive. That little extra was nice, when I actually qualified for it. But I heard so many say, “Well, why work to make $250 per week, when un-employment will give me that for doing nothing.” Too many look at it, and welfare, as a wheelchair. It should be more like a cane, there to provide TEMPORARY, minimal support, to HELP you get back on your feet, NOT A WAY OF LIFE. So yes, we should take care of our own, if our own do their part to take care of themselves. And if you (not YOU, but the collective you) think bagging groceries is below you, try cleaning up somebody elses shit (literally). Then, and only then, would I allow them to speak their cry-baby-bullshit about why they think they are entitled to handouts.

I’ll address your “Christian/anti-Christian question later.

Rob thank you. I can’t disagree with a thing you said. I agree that the scope ot unemployment is getting too wide, and can appreciate there are those of us who can step up and do what they have to to make it another day. There was a stretch only a few years ago where I held signs on the side of the road. I’ve had to make it on my own at (what I think is) a young age. I’m no stranger to both sides of the coin.

I support vocational training to this end. If you teach a man to fish, he has food for life. I think the government’s role in this can be to encourage businesses, NPOs, or private enterprises who provide it. I think this is a practical relationship between government and the market.

I do not believe in carrying people every step of the way, but in keeping the doors open. No one can argue with helping the needy. I think where I differ with some is my belief in the government’s role.

Rob, in what I’ve seen from you, you seem to represent the same working spirit I see in those closest to me. You have a faith in the philanthropy of the market I only wish I had. What baffles me about my family and some friends are other driving forces that decide THEIR politics—apathy for the lives of others, exclusivity, racism, classism, etc. I’m on a mission to understand what shapes people. Please don’t misbelieve that I think there is poison in every conservatives heart. I’ve only seen it in some.

I’ve never identified myself as left or right before, but this year I have a decided lean because of the nastiness I see in these family and friends. I want a better understanding of people’s motives and to be proven wrong when I make blanket assumptions.

Mike,
Why is it, that those of us with opposing views have poison in our hearts?
Are we not allowed to think that you are wrong?
For a person that doesn’t want religion as an issue you sure do a bunch of demonizing.

I have a question for the Libs…
Can you not see that you got out the poor black voter in Cali., to win an election for Obama… and in turn got an adverse effect on the Gay Marriage issue. Within your own rank there is no community. I don’t think it is poison, I see it as belief. That was in Cali. Where I have lived and I have to tell you, the people that you so strongly protest are everywhere.

Gusty if you consider that racist check the stats it is a fact.
I am not anti gay or black but this IS what happened.

Carry On.
T

:: “Why is it, that those of us with opposing views have poison in our hearts? Are we not allowed to think that you are wrong?”

You stay true to your tendency to misinfer. I told Rob not to think this is what I believed. People could mistakenly draw that conclusion when I say that apathy toward others is what dictates people’s politics.

I still say believing you have a common stake with your fellow man is the basis of most policy decisions. I will always oppose those who oppose; I will stay closed to the closed; I will not consider those who don’t consider others.

I “demonize” whoever declares demons await those who don’t agree.

Tony… why was the “racist” thing directed at me?

Gusty,
I didn’t want you thinking that I was bringing race in general to BR.C, because I know that is not what you want.
It was a respect thing. That is all, I try not to bring race in at all… but when it is a part of the stat….
I used your name as the creator of the site… nothing more.

Carry On.
T

Mike,

“I ‘demonize’ whoever declares demons await those who don’t agree.” sounds like something out of Lord of the Rings.

Do you really encounter many people that look you in the eye and tell you that demons await you if you don’t agree with them? (that’s a serious question!)

I’ve lived a pretty healthy rock-n-roll lifestyle. Seen a lot of things. Been a lot of places. But I’ve never once been threatened with demons.

Does that REALLY happen to you on a regular basis?

Tony… what the hell is in the Atlanta city water?

I guess no more indirect, clever metaphors for me. I demonize anyone who would presume to tell anyone else they’re destined for hell. The audacity!

Cool Tony. I was getting worried!

And for the record… bringing race into any conversation doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is being “racist” – which of course is the dislike for an entire race of people in general.

But I am not one of those who use that word as loosely as others.

If someone got truly racist on this site… every single person on here would slap their ass back into yesterday.

I’m totally cool talking about ethnics and pop culture. I’m Italian fer gas-sake ya frickin’ mooley!

Didn’t the original post have a racial flavor, anyway?

Mike,

Do you get told you are “destined to hell” on a regular basis?

Mike,
You didn’t answer my question.
Why is it, that those of us with opposing views have poison in our hearts? Are we not allowed to think that you are wrong?

Carry On.
T

OK guys we are all passionate…
But Mike .. What original post?

Carry On.
T

JG: Not daily, but I’ve been in and out of churches. I know the people and I know the doctrine. The other day a man in front of Philips Arena told it to be with a bullhorn. The audacity of the exclusion of truth is preposterous, especially for a theological concept less than 1000 years old.

T: Since your question is flawed and rooted in false presumption, it has no answer.

The origin of this thread titled “Help a BROTHA Out.” Are we serious?

Mike,
I can nullify almost every religious and conservative post you make, if false assumption is a reason to not DISCUSS at a DISCUSSION site!

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
You asked:
Tony… what the hell is in the Atlanta city water?

I don’t know I live in the suburbs that Mike hates.
(Humor)
Carry On.
T

I already explained that it’s not what I believe. Read what I said in response the first time, because it’s the same answer. We have two ears and one mouth. Half of discussion is listening.